Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T16:39:09.573Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legal Consequences of Peremptory Norms in International Law Daniel Costelloe Cambridge University Press, 2017, 289 pp, £85 ISBN 9781107145030

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2018

Alexander Orakhelashvili
Alexander Orakhelashvili*
Affiliation:
Birmingham Law [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Review
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , November 2018 , pp. 503 - 507
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 McNair, Lord, The Law of Treaties (Clarendon Press 1961) 215Google Scholar; Article 37 – Treaties Conflicting with a Peremptory Norm of General International Law (Jus Cogens), UN Doc A/CN.4/SER.A/1966/Add.1, 1966(II) Yearbook of the International Law Commission 20; Dugard, John, Recognition and the United Nations (Cambridge University Press 1987) 142Google Scholar; Meron, Theodor, Human Rights Law-Making in the United Nations (1986) 198CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Second Report on the Law of Treaties, by Sir Humphrey Waldock, Special Rapporteur, UN Doc A/CN.4/156 and Add.1-3, 1963(II) Yearbook of the International Law Commission 36, 52; Report on the Law of Treaties by Mr H Lauterpacht, Special Rapporteur, UN Doc A/CN.4/63, 1954(II) Yearbook of the International Law Commission 90, 154–55.

2 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy: Greece intervening), Judgment [2012] ICJ Rep 99.

3 Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v United Kingdom), Preliminary Objections, Judgment [1998] ICJ Rep 9, 30.

4 Charter of the United Nations (entered into force 24 October 1945) 1 UNTS XVI.

5 Admission of a State to the United Nations (Charter, Art. 4), Advisory Opinion [1948] ICJ Rep 57, 61.

6 Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion [1971] ICJ Rep 16.

7 Lockerbie (n 3) 110 (Judge ad hoc Sir Robert Jennings, dissenting).

8 ICTY, Prosecutor v Tadić, IT-94-1, Appeals Chamber, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995, [28].

9 Jones v Ministry of the Interior Al-Mamlaka Al-Arabiya AS Saudiya (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) [2006] UKHL 26, [44]; [2004] EWCA Civ 1934.

10 ECtHR, Al-Adsani v United Kingdom, App no 35763/97, 1 March 2000.

11 Pavoni, Riccardo, ‘An American Anomaly? On the ICJ's Selective Reading of United States Practice in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State’ (2011) 21 Italian Yearbook of International Law 143Google Scholar, 159; Esposito, Carlos, ‘Jus Cogens and Jurisdictional Immunities of States at the International Court of Justice: “A Conflict Does Exist”’ (2011) 21 Italian Yearbook of International Law 161, 173–74Google Scholar.

12 Cannizzaro, Enzo, ‘A Higher Law for Treaties?’ in Cannizzaro, Enzo (ed), The Law of Treaties Beyond the Vienna Convention (Oxford University Press 2011) 425Google Scholar, 439; Cassese, Antonio, International Law (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2005) 108Google Scholar; Hameed, Asif, ‘Unravelling the Mystery of Jus Cogens in International Law’ (2014) 84 British Yearbook of International Law 52CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Douglas, Zachary, ‘State Immunity for the Acts of State Officials’ (2012) 82 British Yearbook of International Law 281CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Siderman de Blake v Republic of Argentina 965 F 2d 699 (1992), para 69.

15 For an overview of pieces of US legislation and judicial practice see Bettauer, Ronald J, ‘Germany Sues Italy at the International Court of Justice on Foreign Sovereign Immunity – Legal Underpinnings and Implications for US Law’ (2009) 13 ASIL InsightsGoogle Scholar, https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/13/issue/22/germany-sues-italy-international-court-justice-foreign-sovereign; and Bankas, Ernest K, State Immunity Controversy in International Law (Springer 2005) 293Google Scholar ff. See the amendments to the Canadian State Immunity Act (RSC 1985, c S-18), 13 March 2012. Most recently, in 2016 the US Congress adopted the Justice Against Sponsoring Terrorism Act (JASTA) by overriding President Obama's veto: Daugirdas, Kristina and Mortenson, Julian Davis, ‘Contemporary Practice of the United States relating to International Law’ (2017) 111 American Journal of International Law 155, 156–62Google Scholar.

16 Jurisdictional Immunities (n 2).

17 A v Ministère public de la Confédération, Tribunal pénal fédéral, Numéro de dossier BB.2011.140,

Judgment of 25 July 2012, paras 5.3.5 and 5.4.3; Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Bashe Abdi Yousuf v Mohamed Ali Samantar, No. 11-1479, 2 November 2012, 23.