Scribd
Upload
27 views

PIL Presentation

The document discusses several concepts in international law including obligations erga omnes which are owed to the international community as a whole, ex aequo et bono which refers to decisions made based on justice rather than codified law, jus cogens which are peremptory norms that cannot be violated, and political commitments in soft law.

Uploaded by

Medj Broke Law Student
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
27 views

PIL Presentation

The document discusses several concepts in international law including obligations erga omnes which are owed to the international community as a whole, ex aequo et bono which refers to decisions made based on justice rather than codified law, jus cogens which are peremptory norms that cannot be violated, and political commitments in soft law.

Uploaded by

Medj Broke Law Student
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Obligations erga omnes - obligation owed to the international community as a whole.

This concept is relevant to the topic of state responsibility. The primary


consequence of a breach of an obligation erga omnes is that all states, even those
which did not suffer any material damages or materially injured by the breach, have
a legal standing to invoke the responsibility of the state that violated the
obligation. For example, if a State commits genocide in a neighboring country, all
of the States (even those who are not affected) may legally invoke the
responsibility of the State which committed the genocide.

Ex aequo et bono
Ex aequo et bono translates as “what is just and good.” equity, as a general
accepted principle of IL can also be a source of obligation (Art. 38(1), ICJ
Statute). In legal use, it refers to a type of case that is decided based on
justice in the given circumstances, rather according the codified law or precedent.
Ex aequo et bono is sometimes used in matters of arbitration or in international
law where legal codes may be vague, ambiguous, or contradictory. then judges who
are appointed to rule based on justice are empowered
but not all legal systems allow this practice so this is rarely used.

Jus Cogens - Art. 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties defines such a
norm as "a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as
a whole from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a
subsequent norm of general international law having the same character".

For example, fundamental norms for protection of human dignity such as prohibition
on genocide or fundamental norms for peaceful relations such as prohibition on
aggression are considered as peremptory norms. The first implication is indicated
in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: any treaty contrary to a
peremptory norm is void or must be terminated if a contrary peremptory norm emerges
after it. One of such circumstances is for example the state of necessity. However,
these circumstances cannot be used to justify a violation of a peremptory norm nor
can it be set aside by mutual agreement.

Case law (Belgium v. Senegal) - Jus cogens norms are a special category of norms
within CIL because of the specific opinio juris that is required for their
formation. there's no official list but jus cogens can be gathered from case law.

POLITICAL COMMITMENT
state practice in recent years,
inside and outside international organizations, increasingly has placed normative
statements in
non-binding political instruments such as declarations, resolutions, and programs
of action, and
has signaled that compliance is expected with the norms that these texts contain.
Commentators
refer to these instruments as “soft law” and debate whether the practice of
adopting them
constitutes evidence of new modes of international law-making. States, however,
appear clearly
to understand that such “soft law” texts are political commitments that can lead to
law, but they
are not law, and thus give rise only to political consequences (Raustiala 2005:
587).

evolution of the notion of instant custom.

US v. Yunis
Some acts are considered to be so heinous and contrary to civilization that any
court may assert jurisdiction. The acts that fall within this category are mainly
defined by international convention. The universal principle applies because
numerous conventions condemn hijacking and hostage taking.

The “passive personal principle†is also relevant, which applies to offenses


against a nation’s citizens abroad.

There are three other existing bases for jurisdiction that are generally accepted.
These are territorial (jurisdiction over territory), national (jurisdiction over a
person) and protective (jurisdiction necessary to protect a state.) Of the five
generally recognized jurisdictional grounds, the passive personal principle has
been met with the most resistance by U.S. courts and officials.

You might also like