International Studies Journal (ISJ)

International Studies Journal (ISJ)

Analysis of "Structural" and "Material" Approaches Towards Identification of Erga Omnes Obligations

Document Type : Original Article from Result of Thesis

Authors
Mojtaba Sobhaninia 1
Mohsen Abdollahi 2
Abbas Poorhashemi 3
1 PhD. Student of Environmental Law at Department of Natural Resources and Environment,, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University. Tehran, Iran
3 Scientific Member and President of the Canadian Institute for International Law Expertise (CIFILE), Toronto, Canada
10.22034/isj.2022.338166.1812
Abstract
The concept of Erga Omnes obligations, because of protecting the fundamental values of the international community, are distinct from other obligations of their importance in general international law and contrary to bilateral and reciprocal obligations of classical international law, belong to all States and therefore all States have a legal interest in their protection. One of the key concepts that play an important role in the development of international law has been the concept of Erga Omnes obligations. These obligations are distinct from bilateral and reciprocal obligations of classical international law, and belong to all States and therefore all States have a legal interest in their protection. This article seeks to find answer to the following question: "What approaches can be applied to identify Erga Omnes obligations in the realm of international law?" The research explores two approaches to identifying Erga Omnes obligations in the realm of international law; first, according to the structural approach, non-bilateral obligations, the violation of which does not harm any particular stats, is considered Erga Omnes. Second, according to the material approach to identifying Erga Omnes obligations, an obligation will be considered an Erga Omnes when it has a material element, which is protecting the fundamental values of the international community. This approach can be find in the proceedings of the International Court of Justice. In material approach, Erga Omnes obligations can be identified through either Jus Cogens norms or dispositive norms (customary Erga Omnes obligations) of international law
Keywords
Erga Omnes Obligations
Responsibility of States
Structural Approach
Material Approach
Jus Cogens Norms of International Law
Customary Rule of International Law

Subjects

  1. Abdollahi, M., Behzadi, K. (2020). Impeding to Peremptory Status of Prohibitions on Use of Force. International Law Review, 37 (63), 171-198. (In Persian)
  2. Advisory Opinion on Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius. (2019). ICJ Reports.
  3. Allen, H. (2004). Globalization and Peremtory Norms in International Law; From Westphalia to Global Constitutionalism, International Politics, 14, 431-353.
  4. Annacker, C. (2004). The Legal Regime of Erga Omnes Obligations Under International Law. Austrian Journal of Public and International Law, 46, 127-158.
  5. Barcelona Traction. Light and Power Company. (Belgium v. Spain). Judgment. ICJ Rep. (1970).
  6. Bassiouni, C. (1996). International Crimes: Jus Cogens and Obligation Erga Omnes. Law and Contemporary Problems, vol. 59.
  7. Bills, A. (2020). The Relationship between Third-Party Countermeasures and the Security Council chapter VII Powers: Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law. Nordic Journal of International Law. 89. 117-11.
  8. Byers, M. (2001). Custom, Power, and the Power of Rules. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) ICJ Rep. (1984).
  10. Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua V. United States of America) ICJ Rep. (1948). Dissenting Opinion. Schwebel.
  11. Case Concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and Nuclear Disarmament. ICJ Rep. (2016).
  12. Case Concerning the Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), ICJ Rep. (2011).
  13. Christofolo, J. E. (2016). Solving Antinomies between Peremptory Norms in Public International Law. Schulthess.
  14. Commentary to the articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts. (2001).
  15. Coyle, S. (2006). Positivism, Idealism and the Rule of Law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 26 (2).257-288.
  16. Crawford, J. (2002). The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentaries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  17. Crawford, J. (2012). Responsibility for Breaches of Communitarian Norms: An Appraisal of Article 48 of the ILA Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. Ulrich Fastenrath, et al., eds., From Bilateralism to Community Interest. Essays in Honour of Judge Bruno Simma. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 362-392.
  18. Lepard, B. (2010). Customary international Law, A New Theory with Practical Applications. Cambridge University Press.
  19. Dickson, J. (2012). Legal Positivism; Contemporary Debates. Routledge.
  20. Dinstein, Y. (2011). The erga omnes Applicability of Human Rights. Archiv des Volkerrechts, 30(16), pp. 16-21.
  21. G. (2019). Unilateral Economic Sanctions Adopted to React to an Erga Omnes Obligations. Chinese Journal of International Law. Vol. 10.
  22. East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1995,
  23. Frieamann, W. (1967). Legal Theory. Columbia University Press.
  24. Gaja, G. (2010). The Concept of an Injured in The Law of International Responsibility, James Crawford, Alain Pellet and Simon Olleson, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  25. Gaja, G. (2010). States Having an Interest in Compliance with the Obligation in James Crawford, Alain Pellet and Simon Olleson, eds., The Law of International Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  26. General Assembly Resolution. (1974). 3314 XXIX.
  27. Ghanbari, S. (2019). The Concept of International Society and Attempt to link International Law and International Relations. International Studies Journal (ISJ), 16 (1), 7-30. Doi: 10.22034/isj.2019.93074. (In Persian)
  28. Glare, P. (1982). Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University
  29. Hosseini Azad, S., Ajjeli Lahiji, M., Zahmatkesh, M. (2021). From Idealism to Realism; A Survey in the Basis of International Law. Public Law Reasearch. 22 (69). 259-293. (In Persian)
  30. Johnstone, R. (2015). Invoking Responsibility for Environmental Injury in the Arctic Ocean. The Yearbook of Polar Law. 6. 3-35.
  31. Kane v. Winn, Judgment of 27 May 2004 of the United States Court for the District of Massachusetts, 31 F. Suppl 2d 161 (D Mass), para. 93.
  32. Knuchel, S. (2015). Jus Cogens: Identification and Enforcement of Peremptory Norms. Zurich: Schulthess.
  33. Kolb, R. (2015). Peremptory International Law: Jus Cogens. Hart Publishing.
  34. Lefeber, R. (2006). Transboundary Environmental Interference and the Origin of State Liability. Leiden Journal of international law, vol. 11.
  35. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Advisory Opinion. ICJ Rep. (2004).
  36. Linderfalk, U. (2011). International Legal Hierarchy Revisited- The Status of Obligations Erga Omes. Nordic Journal of International Law, 80, 1-23.
  37. Linderfalk, U. (2020). Understanding Jus Cogens in international law. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  38. Longobardo, M. (2018). The Contribution of International Humanitarian Law to the Development of the Law of International Responsibility regarding Obligations Erga Omnes and Erga Omnes Partes. Journal of Conflict and Security Law. Vol. 23.
  39. Mahmoudi, S.H., Bagheri, F. (2022). Dialectic of Theories and the Element of Peremptory Norms in International Law. Public Law Studies Quarterly, 52 (2), 687-708. (In Persian)
  40. McNair, A. (2005). The Law of Treaties. Oxford: Oxford University
  41. Meron, T. (2006). The Humanization of International Law. Brill Publication.
  42. Mirmohammadi, S., Haririan, L. (2022). Reflection on the Formalist and Critical Approaches to the Rules of International Law. International Law Review, 39 (66), 57-80. (In Persian)
  43. Mosavi, S.F., Khalaf Rezaee, H. (2015). Peremptory norms in international law. Comparative Law Review, 6 (1), 369-391. Doi: 10.22059/jcl.2015.54417. (In Persian)
  44. North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, ICJ Rep. (1969). 46-47. para 85.
  45. Nulyarimma and Others v. Thompson, Appeal Judgment of the Australian Federal Court. (1999).
  46. Oellers-Frahm, K. (1992). Comment: The erga omnes Applicability of Human Rights. AVR, 30, 28.
  47. Okowa, P. (1999). Defences in the Jurisprudence of International Tribunals. in The Reality of International Law. Essays in Honour of Ian Brownlie. 389.
  48. Orakhelashvili, A. (2006). Peremptory Norms in International Law. Oxford University Press.
  49. Pellet, A. (2006). Conclusions in The Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order. Leiden and Boston: Martin Nijhoff.
  50. Ragazzi, M. (2007). The Concept of International Obligations Erga Omnes. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  51. Razzaghi, A., Shaygan, F. (2021). The Concept of International Solidarity and its Impacts on the Structure of Modern International Law. Public Law Studies Quarterly, 50 (4), 1441-1461. (In Persian)
  52. Reparation for injuries incurred in the service of the United Nations Case. ICJ Rep. (1949).
  53. Report of the International Committee of Jurists Entrusted by the Council of the League of Nations with the Task of Giving an Advisory Opinion upon the Legal Aspects of the Aland Island Question. (1920). League of Nations Official Journal. No. 3.
  54. Reports of International Arbitral Awards. (1928). Island of Palmas case (Netherlands V. USA) Volume II pp. 829-871.
  55. Reservation to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Rep. (1951).
  56. Rosenne, S. (1998). The Law and Practice of the International Court. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  57. Rosenne, S. (2008). Some Reflections, Erga Omnes. in Legal Visions of the 21st Century, Essays in Honour of Judge Christopher Weeramantry. 509.
  58. Savari, H., Attar, M. (2015) . Typology of International Obligations. Public Law Research, 16 (44), 35-71. (In Persian)
  59. Seiderman, I. (2012). Hierarchy in International Law: The Human Rights Dimension. Intersentia Publisher.
  60. Shelton, (2006). Normative Hierarchy in International Law. American Journal of International Law, 100, 2.
  61. Shelton, D. (2021). Jus Cogens. Oxford University Press.
  62. Shirjian, J., Zargar, A., Keyhanlou, F., Mahmoody, A. (2021). The English School and the Potion of International Law in the International Society. International Studies Journal (ISJ), 17 (4), 87-116. Doi: 10.22034/isj.2020.118516. (In Persian)
  63. M., Abdollahi, M., Poorhashemi, S. (2021). Analysis of Normative Hierarchy in International Environmental Law, Sustainability, Development & E nvironment, 2 (4), 77-92. (In Persian)
  64. South West Africa Case. (Ethiopia v. South Africa), ICJ Rep. (1966).
  65. S. Wimbledon Case. PCIJ Rep. (1923). Series A, No. 1.
  66. Tams, C. (2005). Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  67. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Seabed Disputes Chamber, Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with respect to Activities in the Area. (2011). Advisory Opinion. ITLOS. p. 50. para. 145.
  68. Thirlway, H. (2009). The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice. British Yearbook of International Law. 60, 1.
  69. Thirlway, H. (2019). The Sources of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  70. Tladi, D. (2017). Second Report on Peremptory Norms of General International Law (Jus Cogens). International Law Commission. U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/106.
  71. Weatherall, T. (2015). Jus Cogens, International law and Social contract. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  72. Weib, N. (2015). The Influence of Human Rights on International Law. Springer.
  73. Weil, P. (2008). Towards Relative Normativity in International Law. The American Journal of International Law, 77, 413.
  74. Yearbook of the International Law Commission. (1998). 69. Para. 279.
  75. Zemanek, K. (2000). New Trends in the Enforcement of Obligations Erga Omnes. Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 4, 1.