Source: http://livrozilla.com/doc/1624498/normative-conflict-and-the-fuzziness-of-the-international.
Timestamp: 2020-01-21 22:56:51
Document Index: 675889463

Matched Legal Cases: ['de lege lata', 'Art. 53', 'Art. 26', '§ 520', '§ 53', 'Arti26', '§ 135', '§ 153', 'Art. 48', '§ 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 59', 'Art. 59', 'Art. 53', 'Art. 64']

Normative Conflict and the Fuzziness of the International ius cogens
Normative Conflict and the Fuzziness of the
International ius cogens Regime
Ulf Linderfalk*
The Concept of Normative Conflict
The Special Kind of Legal Relationship Created by First Order Rules of ius cogens
Second Order Rules of ius cogens Envisage Normative Conflict as Something that Occurs
5. The Fuzziness of ius cogens– Whether It Poses a Problem or Not
Over the last five to ten years, the resort to ius cogens arguments in international
legal discourse has increased profusely. Once regarded by international lawyers as
an idea of little more than academic interest, today “peremptory international
law” is part of the common rhetoric of the international legal profession. Academics, NGOs, governmental legal advisors and experts, domestic courts, and increasingly, international courts and tribunals – in modern international legal discourse,
they are all users of ius cogens. Scholars debate whether this proliferation of the ius
cogens argument is a sound development or not. This discussion is certainly very
Assistant Professor of International Law (with tenure) at the Faculty of Law, Lund University,
Compare the comment made by Ian Brownlie in 1985: “I think jus cogens has become part of lex
lata. At the same time, as has been pointed out, the vehicle does not often leave the garage. In other
words the concept does not seem to have a lot of obvious relevance”. (Brownlie, I., “Comment”,
Change and Stability in International Law-Making, eds. Cassese, A. and Weiler, J.H.H. (1988), 110.)
See also the remark by Czaplinski and Danilenko in 1990: “jus cogens … is, however, de lege lata more
a theoretical concept rather than a practical regulation”. (Czaplinski, W. and Danilenko, G., “Conflict
of Norms in International Law”, Netherlands International Law Review, Vol. 21 (1990), 3, at 42.)
See e.g. Paulus, A., “Jus Cogens in a Time of Hegemony and Fragmentation”, Nordic Journal of
International Law, Vol. 74 (2005), 297-334; Fischer-Lescano, A. and Teubner, G., “Regime Collision:
The Vain Search for Legal Unity in the Fragmentation of Global Law”, Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol. 25 (2004), 999-1046; Paulus, A., “Commentary to Andreas Fischer-Lescano & Gunther Teubner: The Legitimacy of International Law and the Role of the State”, Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol. 25 (2004), 1047-1058; Linderfalk, U., “The Effect of Jus Cogens Norms: Whoever Opened Pandora’s Box, Did You Ever Think About the Consequences”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 18 (2008), 853-871; Bianchi, A., “Human Rights and the Magic of Jus Cogens”,
European Journal of International Law, Vol. 19 (2008), 491-508; Weisburd, M., “The Emptiness of the
Concept of Jus Cogens, As Illustrated by the War in Bosnia-Herzegovina”, Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol. 17 (1995-1996), 1-51; Chinkin, C., “Jus Cogens, Article 103 of the UN Charter and
Other Hierarchical Techniques of Conflict Solution”, Finnish Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 17
(2008), 63-90; Kornicker Uhlman, E.M., “State Community Interests, Jus Cogens and Protection of
the Global Environment: Developing Criteria for Peremptory Norms”, Georgia International Environmental Law Review, Vol. 11 (1998-1999), 101-135; Koskenniemi, M., “Hierarchy in International
ZaöRV 69 (2009), 961-977
© 2009, Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht
interesting; depending on how it proceeds, it may have great influence on the creation and organization of the international legal system in the future. As it now
seems, however, the discussion leaves a great deal to be desired. More than anything else, it requires a better understanding of the way ius cogens arguments are
Generally speaking, a ius cogens argument is an argument drawing on the specific quality of ius cogens norms. It assumes that just because a rule classifies as
peremptory, different legal consequences should ensue from its application than
from the application of rules of international law in general. For example, although
extradition belongs to the domaine réservé of a state, commentators argue that because of ius cogens, states are prevented from extraditing a person to a country
where she runs the risk of being tortured. Although economic sanctions decided
by the UN Security Council must be accepted and carried out by all members of
the organization, commentators argue that because of ius cogens, such decisions
shall not be acted upon when they entail a breach of basic international human
rights law. Although a reservation to a treaty may be compatible with the provisions laid down in Article 19 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), commentators argue that because of ius cogens, it shall still be prohib5
ited if it is “contrary to an essential principle of the continental shelf institution”.
Although state recognition is a discretionary act, commentators argue that because
of ius cogens, recognition shall be withheld if it concerns a state of affairs created in
contravention of the principle of self-determination. Although sovereign immunity prevents a person from successfully bringing civil lawsuits for damages against
a state agency in the domestic court of another country, commentators argue that
because of ius cogens, such suits are possible when originating in a serious breach
Law: A Sketch”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 8 (1997), 566-582; Carillo Salcedo, J.A.,
“Reflections on the Existence of a Hierarchy of Norms in International Law”, European Journal of
International Law, Vol. 8 (1997), 583-595; Shelton, D., “Normative Hierarchy in International Law”,
American Journal of International Law, Vol. 100 (2006), 291-323; Tasioulas, J., “In Defence of Relative
Normativity: Communitarian Values and the Nicaragua Case”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol.
16 (1996), 85-128.
See e.g. de Wet, E., “The Prohibition of Torture as an International Norm of Jus Cogens and Its
Implications for National and Customary Law”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 15
(2004), 97, at 99.
Separate Opinion of Judge Lauterpacht, International Court of Justice, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Provisional Measures, Order of
13 September 1993, ICJ Reports 1993, 325, at. 440.
See e.g. Dissenting Opinion of Judge Tanaka, International Court of Justice, North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands),
Judgment of 20 February 1969, ICJ Reports 1969, 3, at 182.
See e.g. Hannikainen, L., “The Case of East Timor from the Perspective of Jus Cogens”, International Law and the Question of East Timor (1995), 103-117.
Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany, United States Court of Appeals, District of Colombia
Circuit, Judgment of 1 July 1994, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Ward, 26 F.3d 1166, at 1179-1185 (International Law Reports, Vol. 103, 604, at 615-621).
ZaöRV 69 (2009)
As can be seen from the examples, a ius cogens argument presupposes the existence of a particular international legal regime. The legal rules constituting this regime are of two kinds. For the purpose of this article, they will be referred to as
first and second order rules of ius cogens, respectively. The first order rules of ius
cogens provide the substantial contents of the regime. By international lawyers, ty8
pically, they are referred to as “peremptory norms of general international law”.
First order rules of ius cogens command or prohibit certain actions, such as, for instance, acts of genocide, aggressive warfare, and acts that deprive a people of its
right of self-determination. The second order rules of ius cogens provide the institutional framework, within which the first order rules of ius cogens are applied.
They address conflicts that occur in the application of international rights and obligations. For instance, second order rules of ius cogens apply when the performance of an international right or obligation entails a breach of a first order rule of
Although, lately, legal scientists have taken considerable interest in the international ius cogens regime, overall the requirements entailed by that regime have still
not been defined with any great certainty. Drawing on the terminology of the late
Professor Jerzy Wróblewski, I do not hesitate to describe the prevailing international ius cogens regime as exceptionally fuzzy. Traditionally, this fuzziness has
been thought by commentators to turn on the difficulty of identifying the specific
first order norms that classify as peremptory. Certainly, most international lawyers would probably agree to categorize as peremptory the principle on the nonuse of force, the law of genocide, the prohibition of racial discrimination, the right
of self-determination, and the rules prohibiting crimes against humanity, torture,
piracy and trades in slaves. But those remain examples. When international lawyers move beyond exemplification and try to make the list of ius cogens complete,
their various compilations of norms come out as widely disparate. They range
from extremely sweeping statements such as, for instance, “most norms of interna12
tional humanitarian law”, and “all rules of general international law created for a
VCLT, Art. 53 reads:
“Treaties conflicting with a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens)
A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a
norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm
of general international law having the same character.”
See eg. Wróblewski, J., “Legal Language and Legal Interpretation”, Law and Philosophy, Vol. 4
(1985), 239-255.
See e.g. Hannikainen, L., Peremptory Norms (Jus Cogens) In International Law (1988), 724.
See e.g. the Commentaries to the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally
Wrongful Acts, adopted by the International Law Commission in 2001, ILC, Report on the Work of
its 53 Session, 20, at 85 (Draft Art. 26).
See Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupreškić et al. (Case No. IT-95-16-T), ICTY, Trial Chamber, Judgment of 14 January 2000, 203, § 520, available through the webpage of the Tribunal: <http://www.icty.
humanitarian purpose”, to more concrete suggestions such as the principle of
non-refoulement, the right to legal personhood, the right to adequate food,
“the freedom of navigation on the high seas”, the international law prohibiting
massive pollution of the atmosphere or of the sea, and the principles of good faith
and pacta sunt servanda. As any systematic reading of such compilations shows,
in the end, very little agreement exists.
As I will argue in this article, the reason traditionally given to explain the fuzziness of the prevailing international ius cogens regime does not account for the full
scope of the problem. The fuzziness of the regime derives only partly from the difficulty of identifying the relevant first order rules. Partly, it derives also from the
fuzziness of the second order rules of the regime; and this is the proposition that I
intend this paper to establish. For reasons of space, I will confine treatment to the
resolution of such normative conflicts that occur in the context of international
treaty law.
2. The Concept of Normative Conflict
The second order rules of ius cogens that pertain to the application of international treaties can be stated as follows:
(1) If it can be shown that a treaty is in conflict with a first order rule of ius cogens cre20
ated prior to the conclusion of the treaty, then the treaty shall be considered void.
(2) If it can be shown that a treaty or a single treaty provision is in conflict with a first
order rule of ius cogens created subsequent to the conclusion of the treaty, then the treaty
or the single provision – if separable from the remainder of the treaty – shall be consid21
ered void.
Verdross, A., “Jus Dispositivum and Jus Cogens in International Law”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 60 (1966), 55, at. 59.
See Allain, J., “The Jus Cogens Nature of Non-Refoulement”, International Journal of Refugee
Law, Vol. 13 (2001), 533-558.
Forrest Martin, F., “Delineating a Hierarchical Outline of International Law Sources and
Norms”, Saskatchewan Law Review, Vol. 63 (2002), 333, at 347.
Forrest Martin (supra note 15), 350-351.
Roberto Ago, at the 684 meeting of the International Law Commission in 1963, Yearbook of
the International Law Commission, Vol. 1, 71, § 53.
See e.g. Frowein, J.A., “Jus Cogens”, Encyclopedia of Public International Law, 2 ed., Vol. 3
(1997), 65, at 67, referring to Article 19 of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility provisionally
adopted by the International Law Commission on first reading in 1996.
See e.g. Lukashuk, I.I., “The Principle Pacta Sunt Servanda and the Nature of Obligation under
International Law”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 83 (1989), 513-518.
Compare VCLT, Arts. 53 and 44.
Compare VCLT, Arts. 64 and 44.
(3) If it can be shown that the purport of a treaty reservation is in conflict with a first
order rule of ius cogens, then that reservation shall be considered void.
(4) If it can be shown that a treaty provision is in conflict with a first order rule of ius
cogens relative to some specific case or state of affairs, then the ius cogens rule shall pre23
As can be seen from the list, all four rules require the existence of a normative
conflict. By normative conflict we mean a genuine normative conflict. Consequently, we assume that there is a difference between normative conflicts and con24
flicts that hold only prima facie. In the final analysis, this difference is one between the mere perception by a person of the existence of a normative conflict and
the justified perception of the existence of such a conflict. When we read the text of
a treaty (T), at first appearance we might understand T to be in conflict with some
other rule of international law (R), as for instance a first order rule of ius cogens.
Obviously, this understanding entails an assumption about the normative content
of T. The assumption might be correct, or it might not, depending on whether or
not it can be justified by reference to the rules of interpretation laid down in Arti26
cles 31-33 of the 1969 VCLT. When our spontaneous reading of T can be confirmed by interpretation of the treaty in accordance with Articles 31-33, only then
will we be justified for saying that there is a conflict between T and R. Only then is
the conflict between T and R a genuine normative conflict. Stated differently,
whether a normative conflict holds in the relationship between T and R is a thing
Compare the Dissenting Opinion expressed by Judge Tanaka in the North Sea Continental Shelf
Cases (supra note 5), p. 182. In the same vein, Pellet, A., Special Rapporteur, Tenth Report on Reservath
tions to Treaties, submitted to the International Law Commission at the occasion of its 57 session
(UN Doc. A/CN.4/588/Add.1), 34-35, §§ 135-137. For a further discussion on this rule, see Linderfalk, U., “Reservations to Treaties and Norms of Jus Cogens – A Comment on Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 24”, Reservations to Human Rights Treaties and the Vienna Convention Regime, ed. Ziemele, I. (2004), 213-234.
See e.g. Karl, W., “Treaties, Conflict Between”, Encyclopedia of Public International Law, 2
ed., Vol. 4 (2000), 935, at 936-937, 938; Pauwelyn, J., Conflict of Norms in Public International Law
(2003), 98; Prosecutor v. Furundžija (Case No. IT-95-17/1-T), ICTY, Trial Chamber, Judgment of 10
December 1998, 58-59, § 153; Orakelashvili, A., Peremptory Norms in International Law (2006), 9;
Matz, N., Wege zur Koordinierung völkerrechtlicher Verträge (2005), 3; Meron, T., “On a Hierarchy
of International Human Rights”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 80 (1986), 1, at 18 and
16; de Wet (supra note 3), 99; Akehurst, M., “The Hierarchy of the Sources of International Law”,
British Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 47 (1974-1975), 273, at 281 and 275. See also “Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising From the Diversification and Expansion of International Law”, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, Chaired by Martti
Koskenniemi, Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its 58 session, 1 May-9
June and 3 July-11 August 2006, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682, 176. (Henceforth, this report will be referred to as the “ILC Study on Fragmentation of International Law”.)
For this terminology, see Pauwelyn (supra note 23), 6
Of course, the understanding entails an assumption also about the normative content of R.
According to what is today generally assumed, Arts. 31-33 of the Vienna Convention are reflective of customary international law. For a detailed list of references, see Linderfalk, U., On the Interpretation of Treaties (2007), 7.
that can only be determined after T has been interpreted. This role of treaty interpretation for the avoidance of normative conflict has been highlighted by several
commentators, notably the International Law Commission. However, considering the specific context of this paper, it should be added that, typically, there is less
possibility of harmonizing two rules through a process of interpretation when
only one of them finds the expression of a treaty. Since by very definition a first
order ius cogens rule is always a rule of general customary international law, this
is the case that we are here concerned with.
By tradition, the concept of normative conflict has long been associated with logical inconsistency in the sense of two mutually exclusive legal obligations. According to an often quoted article by Professor Wilfred Jenks, for instance, “[a]
conflict in the strict sense of direct incompatibility arises only where a party to the
two treaties cannot simultaneously comply with its obligations under both trea29
ties”. According to Professor Wolfram Karl, “there is a conflict between treaties
when two (or more) treaty instruments contain obligations which cannot be com30
plied with simultaneously”. According to Sadat-Akhavi, “[a] conflict of norms
arises when it is impossible to comply with all requirements of two norms”. According to the view expressed by Czaplinski and Danilenko, “[o]ne can speak of
the conflict of treaties when one of the treaties binding on the parties obliges party
A to take action X, while another stipulates that A should take action Y, and X is
incompatible with Y”. Stated differently, according to the definition assumed by
Professors Jenks, Karl, and others, if someone argues that two rules (R1 and R2) are
in conflict, this is tantamount to saying that, according to R1, a legal subject S shall
act in a certain way φ, whereas according to R2, S shall act in the exact opposite
way –φ.
In the more recent international legal literature, this definition has drawn criti33
cism. First, as noted by several commentators, by the mere reason of how we define the concept of normative conflict, we will automatically give preference to
commands and prohibitions over permissions. To illustrate this, let us take the
example of Norway and Russia. The relations between Norway and Russia with
See ILC Study on Fragmentation of International Law (supra note 23), 206-244.
For the sake of clarity it should be added that by “general customary international law” I mean
law applicable between at least all states of the world (and in some instances between other international legal subjects as well). Naturally, for the very same reason as a treaty or a treaty provision can
be reflective of general customary international law, it can be reflective of ius cogens.
Jenks, W., “The Conflict of Law-Making Treaties”, British Yearbook of International Law, Vol.
30 (1953), 401, at 426.
Karl (supra note 23), 936.
Sadat-Akhavi, S.A., Methods of Resolving Conflicts between Treaties (2003), 5.
Czaplinski and Danilenko (supra note 1), 12.
Pauwelyn (supra note 23), 169 ff.; Matz (supra note 23), 1-24; Vranes, “The Definition of ‘Norm
Conflict’ in International Law and Legal Theory”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 17
(2006), 395, at 403-405.
See e.g. Pauwelyn (supra note 23), 166 ff.
respect to fishing in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) are governed by customary international law. Each of the two states has established an EEZ in the Barents
Sea. That would prohibit Norway from conferring on Norwegian fishing vessels a
license to fish in the Russian EEZ. It would similarly prohibit Russia from conferring on Russian fishing vessels a license to fish in the Norwegian EEZ. Now, let us
assume that the two countries conclude a bilateral fishing agreement permitting
each state to confer on its own nationals a license to fish in the EEZ of the other
state up to some certain quota (Q). The registered owner (O) of a Norwegian fishing vessel applies to Norwegian authorities for a license to fish in the Russian EEZ.
An approval of the application will not encroach upon the yearly limit of Q. From
the point of view of Norway, legally the situation can be described as follows:
Customary int’l law: Norway shall not confer on O a license to fish in the Russian
Fishing Agreement: Norway may confer on O a license to fish in the Russian EEZ.
According to traditional analysis, the relevant legal rules are not in conflict with
each other, because Norway is only permitted but not obliged to confer on O a license to fish in the EEZ of Russia, and because Norway can always abstain from
doing what it is permitted to do. Hence, in this case, the definition of normative
conflict would seem to give implicit preference to customary international law.
Secondly, as critics further observe, the traditionally given definition of normative conflict tends to overlook that a legal obligation on the part of one legal subject typically corresponds to a right on the part of some other legal subject or sub36
jects. This means that very often, when analyzing legal rules, and asking whether
they express prohibitions or commands or permissions, we will have to accept that,
depending on which one of the several legal subjects’ point of view we are taking,
the answer will be different. When we take the perspective of the obligated subject,
the answer will be one; when we take perspective of the holder of the corresponding right, the answer will be another. For instance, in the example used earlier, the
legal relations between Norway and Russia may also be stated as follows:
Customary int’l law: Russia may freely ignore the license conferred by Norway on O
with respect to fishing in the Russian EEZ.
Fishing Agreement: Russia shall acknowledge the license conferred by Norway on O
According to the analysis performed by Joost Pauwelyn, “the alleged conflict is then not solved
by a rule on how to solve conflict but by the very definition of conflict”; “one essentially solves part of
the problem by ignoring it”. (Pauwelyn (supra note 23), p. 171.) Expressed in this way, his argument is
a petitio principii. It assumes what remains to be established, namely the proper definition of normative conflict.
In this case, our definition of normative conflict would seem to give implicit
preference to the bilateral fishing agreement. Considering how the two rules were
earlier constructed from the perspective of Norway, this does not make sense. Although in the one case we are concerned with the rights and obligations of Norway, whereas in the other focus is upon the rights and obligations of Russia, we are
speaking about the same legal relationship established under the very same legal
Briefly, those are the objections to definition of normative conflict as tantamount to logical inconsistency in the sense of mutually exclusive legal obligations.
The objections certainly invite further consideration. As should be realized, however, the problems revealed by the examples given in this section do not turn on
the equation of normative conflict with logical inconsistency. Problems arise because of the way legal rules are constructed. Problems can be avoided if we can
find ways to construct rules in terms other than prohibitions, commands, and
permissions, taking into account also that legal obligations are always owed to
somebody. Several modes of construction would seem to satisfy this need. In the
earlier example concerning fishing in the Russian EEZ, for instance, the relevant
legal rules may be constructed as follows:
Customary int’l law: If Norway confers on O a license to fish in the Russian EEZ,
then Norway shall be considered to have breached an international obligation owed to
Fishing Agreement: If Norway confers on O a license to fish in the Russian EEZ, then
Norway shall be considered not to have breached an international obligation owed to
In the alternative, the two rules may be constructed in Hohfeldian terms as be37
Customary int’l law: As against Russia, Norway does not have the power to confer on
O a license to fish in the Russian EEZ.
Fishing Agreement: As against Russia, Norway has the power to confer on O a license
to fish in the Russian EEZ.
Whether we prefer the former mode of construction or the latter, it is plain that
in our example, international customary law and the bilateral fishing agreement are
in conflict. That would seem to take care of the difficulties inherent in the equation
of normative conflict with logical inconsistency in the sense of mutually exclusive
legal obligations. At the same time, it forces us to make an adjustment of the definition assumed by Professors Jenks, Karl, and others. Arguably, the more proper
definition of the concept of normative conflict would read something along the
See Hohfeld, W., Fundamental Legal Conceptions As Applied in Judicial Reasoning and Other
Legal Essays (1923).
following lines: if someone argues that two rules (R1 and R2) are in conflict, this is
tantamount to saying that, according to R1, some certain legal relationship (SS)
shall be organized in such a way that φ, whereas according to R2, that same legal relationship SS shall be organized in such a way that –φ.
We are now equipped to return to the particular legal rules that this article is all
about: the second order rules of ius cogens. According to the proposition I aim to
establish, the second order rules of ius cogens remain exceptionally fuzzy. This
fuzziness does not owe to some general difficulty of defining the concept of normative conflict as such; I think this much has been shown already. As I will argue
in the following, fuzziness is caused by factors of a more particular nature. First,
fuzziness is caused by the very special kind of legal relationship created by the first
order rules of ius cogens. This proposition will be argued in section 3. Secondly,
fuzziness is caused by the concern of the second order rules of ius cogens with
normative conflict as something that occurs in the abstract. This proposition will
be argued in section 4.
3. The Special Kind of Legal Relationship Created by First
Order Rules of ius cogens
A legal relationship holds between an obligated party and a right-holder. This
relationship can be organized according to different models. In a bilateral legal relationship, obligations are owed by one legal subject (S1) to another (S2). Following
the terminology used by most international legal scholars today, henceforth we
will refer to such obligations as bilateral in character. A bilateral obligation is held
on a basis of reciprocity: the obligation held by S1 to S2 corresponds to an obligation held by S2 to S1, and the performance of the obligation held by S1 is a necessary
condition for the performance of the equivalent obligation owed by S2 to S1. Hence, if S1 breaches its obligation it will affect the future scope of the obligation owed
by S2 to S1. It will not affect the scope of any other obligations, however, such as
for instance those held by S1 or S2 to other legal subjects.
In a universal legal relationship, obligations are owed by one legal subject S1 to
“the international community as a whole”. In the language of international law,
such obligations are referred to as obligations erga omnes. Unlike bilateral obligations, an obligation erga omnes is not held on a basis of reciprocity: the obligation
held by S1 to the international community does not correspond to an obligation
held by the international community to S1. For the very same reason, the performance of the obligation held by S1 is not a necessary condition for the performance
See e.g. Sicilianos, L.A., “The Classification of Obligations and the Multilateral Dimension of
the Relations of International Responsibility”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 13 (2002),
1127-1145.
Compare the wording of Art. 48, § 1(b) of the 2001 Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts.
of the equivalent obligations held by other legal subjects. Hence, if S1 breaches its
obligation it will not affects the future scope of those other obligations.
In a multilateral legal relationship, obligations are owed by one legal subject S1
to a group of other legal subjects {S2, S3, S4}. Obligations classify either as obligations erga omnes partes or as interdependent obligations. Neither the obligation
erga omnes partes nor the interdependent obligation is held on a basis of reciprocity – the obligation held by S1 to {S2, S3, S4} does not correspond to an obligation
held by {S2, S3, S4} to S1. In the case of the interdependent obligation, the performance of the obligation held by S1 is a necessary condition for the performance of
the equivalent obligations held by S2, S3, and S4. If S1 breaches its obligation it will
affect the future scope of those other obligations. In the case of the obligation erga
omnes partes, the exact opposite holds. The performance of the obligation held by
S1 is not a necessary condition for the performance of the equivalent obligations
held by S2, S3, and S4. If S1 breaches its obligation it will not affects the future scope
of those other obligations.
For an analysis of the concept of normative conflict, these are crucial distinctions. To explain why, I will have to draw on some example. Consequently, let us
assume that Indonesia is illegally occupying the Non-Self Governing Territory of
East Timor. Indonesia has an obligation under customary international law not to
deprive the people of East Timor of its right of self-determination, including the
right of the East Timorese to freely dispose of their natural resources. This obligation follows from a first order rule of ius cogens, and hence, it is an obligation erga
omnes – by very definition, first order rules of ius cogens always express such obli40
gations. However, Indonesia has also concluded a bilateral treaty with Australia
(the Timor Gap Treaty). According to this treaty, the exploration and exploitation
of petroleum resources in an area designed as “Area C” shall be under the control
of Indonesia. Now, let us assume that a company B turns to Indonesian authorities
asking for a concession that will allow it to explore and produce oil in Area C.
From the point of view of Indonesia, the prevailing legal state of affairs can be described as follows:
Ius cogens: If Indonesia grants a concession to B allowing the exploration and production of oil in Area C, then Indonesia shall be considered to have breached an international obligation owed to the international community as a whole.
Timor Gap Treaty: If Indonesia grants a concession to B allowing the exploration and
production of oil in Area C, then Indonesia shall be considered not to have breached an
international obligation owed to Australia.
See e.g. Kadelbach, S., “Jus Cogens, Obligations Erga Omnes and other Rules: The Identification
of Fundamental Norms”, The Fundamental Rules of International Legal Order, eds. Tomuschat, C.
and Thouvenin, J.-M. (2006), 21, at 25; Byers, M., “Conceptualising the Relationship Between Jus Cogens and Erga Omnes Rules”, Nordic Journal of International Law, Vol. 66 (1997), 211-239; Sicilianos
(supra note 38), 1137.
We may compare this situation with the earlier example of O and his application
to Norwegian authorities for a license to fish in the Russian EEZ:
Most international lawyers, I think, would categorize both examples as cases of
normative conflict. Given that lawyers speak about normative conflict in the traditional sense of logical inconsistency, this categorization is only partly correct. Analytically, the two examples remain very different. In the example concerning fishing in the Russian EEZ, clearly, the legal relationships that we compare are identical. Rights and obligations are consistently held by Norway and Russia; no other
legal subjects are involved. In the example concerning the exploitation of the East
Timor Gap, the compared legal relationships are different. The obligation created
by the first order rule of ius cogens applies erga omnes – it is owed by Indonesia to
the international community as a whole. The obligation created by the Timor Gap
Treaty, on the other hand, applies bilaterally – it is owed by Indonesia not to the
international community as a whole, but to Australia. Consequently, according to
the analysis, only in the example concerning fishing in the Russian EEZ, but not in
the example concerning the exploitation of the East Timor Gap, would we be excused for saying that a normative conflict exists.
There seems to be no way to get around this conclusion. Some lawyers might
argue that in fact obligations erga omnes are an illusion, since a collective right held
by a group of subjects can always be analyzed as amounting to a series of rights
held individually by each and every one of those subjects. This argument does not
hold, however, for the simple reason that a collective right cannot be subdivided in
this way. One plain example will suffice to show this. Let us assume that I have
made a promise to the other three individuals that are part of my family: for the
sake of simplicity, I will call them Mary, Mike, and Milly. I have promised Mary,
Mike, and Milly to always drive my car carefully. Based on this promise we may
say that I have an obligation to always drive my car carefully. The corresponding
right is held by Mary, Mike, and Milly. Obviously, this is a collective right held
jointly by the three family members. It simply does not make sense to say that Mary, Mike, and Milly each has a claim that I always drive my car carefully, because if
they had, and I was to perform the obligation hypothetically owed to one of them,
I would simultaneously bring about the state of affairs claimed by the others. Stated differently, because of the very nature of the interest protected, logically I cannot possibly satisfy the right belonging to either one of the three family members,
and at the same time act in violation of the right belonging to one of the others.
Let us return to the example concerning the exploitation of the East Timor Gap.
As we concluded, in this example, because identical legal relationships are not involved, a normative conflict does not hold. This conclusion has general consequences. As earlier stated, the obligation created by a first order rule of ius cogens
always applies erga omnes. By very definition, the obligation created by a treaty
never does. It is owed either bilaterally or to a limited group of legal subjects. As a
result, the obligation created by a first order rule of ius cogens and the obligation
created by a treaty will never be owed to the same legal subject or subjects. Stated
differently, according to the analysis, a first order rule of ius cogens will never be in
conflict with a treaty or a treaty provision, or the purport of a treaty reservation.
This would seem to leave the four second order rules of ius cogens stated in part 2
of this article without all practical meaning. Of course, this is not a very satisfying
conclusion, which is part of the reason for why I refer to the second order rules of
ius cogens as fuzzy.
4. Second Order Rules of ius cogens Envisage Normative
Conflict as Something that Occurs in the Abstract
Commentators argue that in the context of some international rules for the resolution of normative conflict, possibly, “conflict” might not stand for logical inconsistency at all. They suggest that, instead, it might stand for something like teleo41
logical frustration. If we apply this suggestion to the four second order rules of
ius cogens stated in section 2, in the sense of those rules, a conflict exists when a
treaty or a treaty provision prevents the realization of the telos of a first order rule
of ius cogens. At first sight, this may look like an attractive solution. Obviously,
by the understanding of “conflict” as tantamount to teleological frustration, we
avoid all the problems laid out in part 3 of this article. For the assessment of
whether or not the realization of the telos of a first order rule of ius cogens is prevented by a treaty or a treaty provision, or a treaty in the modified form implied
by a reservation, the legal relationships created by those norms are of no crucial
importance. So, we need not be disturbed by the fact that an obligation created by
a first order rule of ius cogens and the obligations created by a treaty are never
See e.g. ILC Study on Fragmentation of International Law (supra note 23), 19.
Note that it is not a requirement that a treaty or a treaty provision be an immediate means for
the obstruction of the telos of a first order rule of ius cogens. It seems that, according to the suggestion,
obstruction can also be effected intermediately. Hence, if I understand the suggestion correctly, a conflict would exist not only in cases where a treaty or a treaty provision itself obstructs the realization of
the telos of a first order rule of ius cogens. It would also exist in cases where the treaty or treaty provision contributes to a state of affairs, which, in combination with other factors, prevents the realization
of the telos of a first order rule of ius cogens.
Of course, this understanding would have the rather odd effect that of the three rules that exist
in customary international law for the resolution of normative conflict – lex superior, lex specialis, and
lex posterior – only two would build upon the concept of logical inconsistency. Obviously, Rule No. 4
(the lex superior) would not.
owed to the same legal subjects. On further analysis, however, I find reason to be
more skeptical. As I will argue in the following, by the equation of “conflict” with
teleological frustration, only Rule No. 4 will make sense. Rules Nos. 1-3, depending on how they are interpreted, will either be non-sensical, or they will assume
Typically, when international lawyers determine the instrumental relationship
holding between a treaty or a treaty clause and its telos, they do it relative to some
specific case or some specific state of affairs. Assume, for instance, that one state
(A) accuses another (B) of having acted in violation of some specific treaty in force
for those two states, and that state B objects to the accusation. Assume, furthermore, that the dispute can be explained by the fact that the two states are interpreting the treaty differently. The ordinary meaning of the treaty is ambiguous, and
depending on which one of the two possible ordinary meanings is adopted, different conclusions ensue with respect to the assessment of the behavior of state B. In
such a situation, according to an established rule of interpretation, if it can be
shown that, depending on whether we apply the treaty in the one ordinary meaning or the other, the treaty will work more or less efficiently as a means for the re44
alization of its telos, then the former meaning shall be adopted. To be able to apply this rule of interpretation, we need to make an assumption about the instrumental relationship holding between, on the one hand, the interpreted treaty in
each one of its two ordinary meanings, and, on the other hand, the telos of the treaty relative to the specific case at hand. The question that we need to answer is this:
when we apply the interpreted treaty to the specific behavior of state B, depending
on whether we adopt the one ordinary meaning or the other, to what extent will
the treaty be working as a means for realization of its telos?
Because of the way this line of reasoning relates to the application of law, it cannot easily be translated to the context of the second order rules of ius cogens stated
in section 2 of this article. Certainly, international legal doctrine works on the assumption that normally normative conflicts occur relative to a specific case or a
specific state of affairs, just like cases of teleological interpretation. This can be seen
from the statements by Professors Jenks, Karl, and others quoted in section 2 of
this article. It can be seen also from Articles 30 and 59 of the 1969 VCLT. The
situation envisaged is this: two or more legal subjects are in dispute with respect to
some specific behavior on the part of one of those subjects, or with respect to some
specific state of affairs; two rules can be applied to settle the situation, but the con44
Compare VCLT, Art. 31, para. 1: “A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with
the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty … in the light of its object and purpose.”
Compare Linderfalk (supra note 26), 205-206.
Article 30 applies in cases of conflict between an earlier and a later treaty. In the sense of this
provision, no doubt, normative conflicts occur in the application of law, relative to some specific case
or state of affairs. The same goes for Art. 59, which provides for the termination and suspension of a
treaty implied by the conclusion of a later treaty. According to Art. 59, all parties to the earlier treaty
must be parties also to the later, and the provisions of the two treaties must be incapable of being applied at the same time.
clusions that ensue from the applications of the two rules are logically inconsistent.
In such situations it makes good sense to say that, according to international law,
one of the two conflicting rules shall be given priority, and that, consequently, the
one rule shall be applied but not the other. It makes sense, because next time the
two rules apply, due to their general scope of application and the rich variation of
brute facts, there is a good chance conflict will not arise.
The second order rules of ius cogens call for a different understanding. Only Rule No. 4 envisages normative conflict as something that occurs in the application of
law. The others do not. Rule No. 1, in a very general sense, requires the existence
of a conflict between a first order rule of ius cogens and an entire treaty:
If it can be shown that a treaty is in conflict with a first order rule of ius cogens cre47
The same applies to Rules Nos. 2 and 3. Rule No. 2 requires the existence of a
conflict between a first order rule of ius cogens and either an entire treaty or a single treaty clause.
If it can be shown that a treaty or a single treaty provision is in conflict with a first order rule of ius cogens created subsequent to the conclusion of the treaty, then the treaty
or the single provision – if separable from the remainder of the treaty – shall be consid48
Rule No. 3 requires the existence of a conflict between a first order rule of ius
cogens and the entire purport of a treaty reservation.
If it can be shown that the purport of a treaty reservation is in conflict with a first or49
der rule of ius cogens, then that reservation shall be considered void.
From the point-of-view of Rules Nos. 1-3, obviously, normative conflict is something that occurs in the abstract. This renders Rules Nos. 1-3 ambiguous. Depending on how we conceive the normative content of a legal norm, Rules Nos. 13 can be read in two different ways.
See supra, section 2. Compare the wording of VCLT, Art. 53: “A treaty is void if, at the time of
its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law.”
See supra, section 2. Compare the wording of VCLT, Art. 64: “If a new peremptory norm of general international law emerges, any existing treaty which is in conflict with that norm becomes void
and terminates.”
See supra, section 2. Compare the Dissenting Opinion expressed by Judge Tanaka in the North
Sea Continental Shelf Cases (supra note 5). The relevant passage reads: “[I]f a reservation were concerned with the equidistance principle, it would not necessarily have a negative effect upon the formation of customary international law, because in this case the reservation would in itself be null and
void as contrary to an essential principle of the continental shelf institution which must be recognized
as jus cogens.” (182).
One possible approach to the normative content of a legal rule is to think of it as
the equivalent of the definite or indefinite group of cases or states of affairs, to
which the rule can be applied. Applied to the context of the second order rules of
ius cogens, this approach provides a first alternative reading of those rules. According to this reading, in the sense of Rule No. 1, a conflict exists when it can be said
for good reasons that, regardless of what specific case or state of affairs a treaty is
applied to, the application of that treaty will prevent the realization of the telos of a
first order rule of ius cogens. In the sense of Rule No. 2, a conflict exists when it
can be said for good reasons that, regardless of what specific case or state of affairs
a treaty clause is applied to, the application of that clause will prevent the realization of the telos of a first order rule of ius cogens. In the sense of Rule No. 3, a conflict exists when it can be said for good reasons that, regardless of what specific
case or state of affairs a treaty is applied to, in the modified form implied by a reservation to that treaty, the treaty will prevent the realization of the telos of a first
order rule of ius cogens.
Another approach to the normative content of a legal rule is to think of it in generic terms, as the equivalent of an imaginary typical case or state of affairs. This
approach provides a second alternative reading of Rules Nos. 1-3. According to
this reading, in the sense of Rule No. 1, a conflict exists when it can be said for
good reasons about the imaginary case or state of affairs thought of as typically
coming within the scope of application of a treaty, that it prevents the realization
of the telos of a first order rule of ius cogens. In the sense of Rule No. 2, a conflict
exists when it can be said for good reasons about the imaginary case or state of affairs thought of as typically coming within the scope of application of a treaty
clause, that it prevents the realization of the telos of a first order rule of ius cogens.
In the sense of Rule No. 3, a conflict exists when it can be said for good reasons
about the imaginary case or state of affairs thought of as typically coming within
the scope of application of a treaty in the modified form implied by a reservation
to that treaty, that it prevents the realization of the telos of a first order rule of ius
cogens. Whether we adopt the one alternative reading of Rules Nos. 1-3 or the
other, we run into trouble.
On the adoption of our first alternative reading, Rules Nos. 1-3 require an assumption about the instrumental relationship holding between the telos of a first
order rule of ius cogens – to facilitate reference, we will designate this telos as Z –
and either a treaty, a single treaty clause, or a treaty in the modified form implied
by a reservation – designated as T – relative to its full scope of application. The
relevant question that we need to answer is this: judged by the total number of
cases that come within its scope of application, to what extent will T work as a
means for the realization of Z? This is to require the impossible. We cannot ever
claim to know in advance each and every one of those cases or states of affairs, to
which a treaty or a treaty clause, or a treaty in the modified form implied by a reservation, can be applied.
With the adoption of our second alternative reading of Rules Nos. 1-3, obviously, we avoid this practical difficulty. Arguably, even if we cannot say exactly to
which concrete cases or states of affairs a rule can be applied, there is always a determinable core of clear meaning, which means an imaginary typical case can always be constructed. On the other hand, with this particular reading of Rules Nos.
1-3, our interest is not any more with the practical working of treaties and that
poses a problem. Rules Nos. 1-3 require an assumption about the instrumental relationship holding between the telos of a first order rule of ius cogens and either a
treaty or a single treaty clause, or a treaty in the modified form implied by a reservation, relative to the imaginary case or state of affairs thought of as typically coming within its scope of application. This requirement implies that something that
exists as part of a thought-process only can be a means for the realization of the telos of a first order rule of ius cogens. It cannot; for the simple reason that it does
not correspond to something that a treaty or a treaty clause or a treaty reservation
can be applied to. An imaginary typical case or state of affairs neither prevents nor
fosters the realization of a telos. This is why I conclude that, on the adoption of
this second alternative reading, Rules Nos. 1-3 are nonsensical.
5. The Fuzziness of ius cogens – Whether It Poses a Problem
I have written this article for a purpose. As I insist, it is important that ius cogens
arguments be correctly understood and assessed. Hence, when I discover that not
only the prevailing international ius cogens regime is exceptionally fuzzy, but also
international lawyers are largely inattentive to the true causes of this fuzziness, I
consider this problematic. The recent proliferation of the ius cogens argument in
international legal discourse, I think, gives me even more reason for this reaction. I
do realize that perhaps not all readers of this journal will share my concern. Considering the manifold role of the international lawyer, whether lawyers will consider the fuzziness of the international ius cogens problematic or not depends on
the perspective that he or she takes.
Some lawyers approach international law from the perspective of the practicing
international lawyer. Their commitment is to serve the particular interests of the
employer or client as effectively as possible. The better argument the practicing international lawyer can produce in support of the interests of the employer or client, the better it is. Considering this commitment, from the perspective of the
practicing international lawyer, the ius cogens concept attracts. This is so not only
because of the legal strength borne by ius cogens arguments. Also, and perhaps
even more importantly, the ius cogens concept attracts because of the strong pathos
that a ius cogens argument always expresses. According to the descriptions typically given, ius cogens safeguards “the overriding interest and values of the interna50
tional community”; it embodies “a transcendent common good of the interna50
See e.g. Hannikainen (supra note 10), 2.
tional community”; it protects the “basic values of the international legal order”.
Inevitably, such language makes the individual lawyer reluctant to criticize ius cogens arguments, whatever their merit, thus conferring on such arguments a rhetorical strength far beyond that of legal arguments in general. The fuzziness of the ius
cogens regime does not impair this conclusion – rather the opposite. Fuzziness
makes is even easier for a discussant to impose upon a reader or a listener the particular understanding of the ius cogens regime that she happens to find fitting at the
particular occasion. Considered from the perspective of the practicing international lawyer, then, the fuzziness of the international ius cogens regime would seem
to be a positive thing.
Personally, I approach international law from a different perspective. My perspective is that of the international legal scholar. The task that I have assumed is to
describe and assess international law and to convince other international lawyers
that my descriptions and assessments are correct. Correct, as far as I understand
this tricky word, means coherent. Hence, in my capacity as an international legal
scholar I am committed to the assumption that there is something like an interna54
tional legal system. As I perceive international law, legal decisions, norms, and
values are not randomly related to each other; and if I am not entirely mistaken, I
share this idea with most international legal scholars. Given this commitment, the
idea of an international ius cogens puts the international legal scholarship to a test.
As we all know, the concept of ius cogens introduces into the international legal
order two elements. First, it introduces a set of values said to be essential for the
international legal order; sometimes this set of values is referred to as the interna55
tional ordre public. Secondly, in order to protect and sustain the international
ordre public, ius cogens introduces into the international legal order the concept of
normative hierarchy: there is never a legitimate excuse for departing from a first
order rule of ius cogens, and consequently, normative conflicts involving such rules
should always be resolved in their favor. Obviously, the less the international ius
cogens regime is able to satisfy this criterion, the less the international legal scholar
will be able to reinforce the idea of international law as a normative system. This is
the reason for why, in my perspective, the fuzziness of the international ius cogens
regime poses a problem.
Brundner, “The Domestic Enforcement of the International Covenant on Human Rights”, University of Toronto Law Journal, Vol. 35 (1985), 219, at 249.
Frowein (supra note 18), 67.
See e.g. Alexy, R. and Peczenik, A., “The Concept of Coherence and its Significance for Discursive Rationality”, Ratio Juris, Vol. 3 (1990), 130-148.
This is an assumption that I share with most international legal scholars. See, for instance, the
Conclusions of the ILC Study Group on Fragmentation of International Law, which open with the
following blunt statement: “International law is a legal system.” (International Law Commission, Reth
port of the work of its 58 session (1 May to 9 June and 3 July to 11 August 2006), UN Doc. A/61/10,
See Orakelashvili (supra note 23), 7 ff.
Portugal-2013-FINAL
THE ARCHITECTURE OF `NR 18` (Regulatory Norm n° 18
Council decision 2012/245/EU of 26 April 2012 on a
LARISSA FRAMEWORK - Prof Mauro Oliveira
Part XIII of the Treaty - International Labour Organization
Vitor Blotta (NEV-USP) and Mariana Pimentel
Verbs Have to (obligation)