Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T08:22:55.884Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Challenging the Paris Peace Treaties, State Sovereignty, and Western-Dominated International Law – The Multifaceted Genesis of the Jus Cogens Doctrine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2018

FELIX LANGE
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The genesis of the jus cogens doctrine in international law has long been associated with a turn to a more value-laden international law after the Second World War promoted by British rapporteurs in the International Law Commission. This article builds on this narrative but adds two seemingly contradictory story lines. In the 1920s and 1930s German-speaking international legal scholars like Alfred Verdross developed the concept as a tool to renounce the disliked Paris Peace Treaties in the context of increasingly aggressive German revision policies. Furthermore, after 1945 Soviet thinkers of the Khrushchev era used jus cogens to criticize Western economic and military integration, while newly independent states regarded the concept as a promising vehicle for distancing themselves from the traditional Western international legal notions in the era of decolonization. Hence, instead of embracing a progress narrative, a dark side account, or a contributionist reading of the history of international law, this article highlights the multifaceted origins of the jus cogens doctrine.

Keywords

decolonizationhistoryjus cogensNational SocialismSoviet Union
Type
INTERNATIONAL LEGAL THEORY: Symposium on the ‘Trajectories of International Legal Histories’
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , December 2018 , pp. 821 - 839
Copyright
© Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 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.)

Footnotes

*

PhD, LL.M. (NYU), M.A., Post-Doc at Berlin Potsdam Research Group ‘International Rule of Law – Rise or Decline?’ [[email protected]].

References

1 For a similar, but also somewhat different historical recollection of the narratives in international law see Lorca, A. Becker, ‘Eurocentrism in the History of International Law’, in Fassbender, B. and Peters, A. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law (2012), 1034Google Scholar.

2 In detail on the codification see Kadelbach, S., Zwingendes Völkerrecht (1992), 36–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hannikainen, L., Preemptory Norms (Jus Cogens) in International Law. Historical Development, Criteria, Present Status (1988), 145–80Google Scholar.

3 Nys, E., Les origines du droit international (1894), 10–12, 164, 404–5Google Scholar; on this see M. Koskenniemi, ‘A History of International Law Histories’, in Fassbender and Peters, supra note 1, at 943; Koskenniemi, M., ‘Histories of International Law: Dealing with Eurocentrism’, (2011) 19 Rechtsgeschichte 152CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Nussbaum, A., A Concise History of the Law of Nations (1954), ixGoogle Scholar.

5 Friedmann, W., The Changing Structure of International Law (1964)Google Scholar.

6 See Steiger, H., ‘From the International Law of Christianity to the International Law of the World Citizen – Reflections on the Formation of Epochs of the History of International Law’, (2001) 3 Journal of the History of International Law 180CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 See Verzijl, J.H.W., International Law in Historical Perspective (1968), Vol. 1, 435–6, 446Google Scholar.

8 Allain, J., ‘Decolonisation as the Source of the Concepts of Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes’, (2016) 1 Ethiopian Yearbook of International Law 35Google Scholar.

9 Ibid., at 36.

10 See Elias, T.O., Africa and the Development of International Law (1972), 3–15Google Scholar; see also Mensah-Brown, A.K. (ed.), African International Legal History (1975)Google Scholar; Anand, R.P., ‘The Influence of History on the Literature of International Law’, in Macdonald, R. St. J. and Johnston, D.M. (eds.), The Structure and Process of International Law: Essays in Legal Philosophy, Doctrine and Theory (1983), 341, 342Google Scholar; Hamidulla, M., Muslim Conduct of State (1945), Vol. XIIIGoogle Scholar; also pointing to the need for paying attention to the Islamic tradition of international law, Khadduri, Majid (ed.), The Islamic Law of Nations of Shaybani’s Siyar (1966), Vol. xi–xiiiGoogle Scholar.

11 Lorca, A. Becker, ‘Universal International law: Nineteenth-Century Histories of Imposition and Appropriation’, (2010) 51 Harvard International Law Journal 475Google Scholar; Lorca, A. Becker, Mestizo International Law. A Global Intellectual History 1842-1933 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 See Grewe, W.G., Epochen der Völkerrechtsgeschichte (1984)Google Scholar; Grewe, W.G., The Epochs of International Law (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 See Anghie, A., Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law (2004)Google Scholar.

14 See Klabbers, J., ‘The emergence of functionalism in international institutional law: colonial inspirations’, (2014) 25 European Journal of International Law 645–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 See Mazower, M., No Enchanted Palace. The End of Empire and the Ideological Origins of the United Nations (2010)Google Scholar.

16 See already Fisch, J., Die europäische Expansion und das Völkerrecht. Die Auseinandersetzungen um den Status der überseeischen Gebiete vom 15. Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart (1984)Google Scholar; for another important work Gong, G., The Standard of ‘Civilization’ in International Society (1984)Google Scholar.

17 See von Arnauld, A. (ed.), Völkerrechtsgeschichte(n), Historische Narrative und Konzepte im Wandel (2017), 9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 See A. Kemmerer, ‘Völkerrechtsgeschichten’, Völkerrechsblog, 3 September 2014, available at voelkerrechtsblog.org/volkerrechtsgeschichten/.

19 See Ranke, L., Geschichte der germanischen und romanischen Völker von 1494-1514 (1884), Vol. VII, Vorrede zur ersten Ausgabe – Oktober 1824Google Scholar.

20 See White, H., Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth Century Europe (1973)Google Scholar.

21 See A. Gómez Robledo, ‘Le ius cogens international: sa génèse, sa nature, ses fonctions’, (1981) 172 (III) Recueil des Cours 9, at 23–32.

22 See instead (of many) Bluntschli, J., Das moderne Völkerrecht der civilisierten Staaten als Rechtsbuch dargestellt (1872), para. 410 et seqGoogle Scholar.

23 See Suy, E., ‘The Concept of Jus Cogens in Public International Law’, in Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (European Centre) (ed.), Papers and Proceedings II, The Concept of Ius Cogens (1967), 17, at 26–33Google Scholar; Stephan, P.B., The Political Economy of Jus Cogens, (2011) 44 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 1073, at 1081Google Scholar.

24 Fröhlich, M., Die Sittlichkeit in völkerrechtlichen Verträgen (1924)Google Scholar.

25 Jurt, J., Zwingendes Völkerrecht. Ein Beitrag zur Lehre vom objektiven Völkerrecht (1933)Google Scholar.

26 See Verdross, A., ‘Règles générales du droit de la paix’, (1929) 30 (V) RdC 271, at 304Google Scholar.

27 After 1945 von der Heydte was involved in right-wing conservative catholic circles as a German professor, see Stolleis, M., Geschichte des öffentlichen Rechts in Deutschland, Vierter Band, Staats- und Verwaltungsrechtswissenschaft in West und Ost 1945-1990 (2012), 71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 See von der Heydte, F., ‘Die Erscheinungsformen des zwischenstaatlichen Rechts. Ius Cogens und ius dispositivum im Völkerrecht’, (1932) 16 Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht 461Google Scholar.

29 See Verdross, A., ‘Heilige und unsittliche Staatsverträge’, (1935/1936) 2 Völkerbund und Völkerrecht 164Google Scholar; ibid., ‘Anfechtbare und nichtige Staatsverträge’, (1935) 15 Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht 289; on the influence of Verdross on the concept of jus cogens see Simma, B., ‘The Contribution of Alfred Verdross to the Theory of International Law’, (1995) 6 EJIL 33, at 50–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 On the reaction of German international legal scholarship to the Treaty of Versailles, see Stolleis, M., Geschichte des öffentlichen Rechts in Deutschland, Dritter Band, Staats- und Verwaltungsrechtswissenschaft in Republik und Diktatur 1914-1945 (1999), 86–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 See Triepel, , ‘Eröffnungsansprache’, (1924) 1 Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer (VVDS) 5, at 6Google Scholar.

32 See Kaufmann, , ‘Die Gleichheit vor dem Gesetz im Sinne des Art. 109 der Reichsverfassung’, (1927) 3 VVDS 2, at 14Google Scholar.

33 Wehberg, H., ‘Die Revision des Versailler Vertrages’, (1925) 25 Die-Friedenswarte 150Google Scholar.

34 Schücking, W., Die nationale Aufgabe unserer Politik (1926), 8, 12Google Scholar.

35 On Verdross political convictions see Busch, J., ‘Alfred Verdross – Ein Mann des Widerspruchs? Teil 1, Verdross im Gefüge der Wiener Völkerrechtswissenschaft vor und nach 1938’, in Olechowski, T. and Reiter, I. (eds.), Vertriebenes Recht – Vertreibendes Recht. Die Wiener Rechtswissenschaftliche Fakultät zwischen 1938 und 1945 (2010), 139Google Scholar; Carty, A., ‘Alfred Verdross and Othmar Spann: German Romantic Nationalism, National Socialism and International Law’, (1995) 6 EJIL 78CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Verdross, A., Völkerrecht (1937), 62Google Scholar.

37 Fröhlich’s 1924 book had taken the Versailles Treaty as a key example of an immoral treaty, Fröhlich, supra note 24, at 84.

38 Verdross, supra note 26, at 430–1.

39 See Verdross, A., ‘Der Zusammenschluss im Lichte des Völkerrechts’, in Kleinwächter, F. and von Paller, H (eds.), Die Anschlussfrage in ihrer kulturellen, politischen und wirtschaftlichen Bedeutung (1930), 548Google Scholar.

40 See ‘Dokumente zu den europäischen Paktverhandlungen und zur Wiederherstellung der deutschen Wehrfreiheit’, (1935) 5 ZaöRV 354.

41 Verdross, Anfechtbare, supra note 29, at 289, fn. 1.

42 See the many references ibid., at 291, fn. 3.

43 See Ibid., at 291, fn. 3.

44 Ibid., at 289, fn. 1, 291–4.

45 See Schmitt, C., ‘Der Führer schützt das Recht’, (1934) Deutsche Juristenzeitung 945Google Scholar.

46 See Schmitt, C., Nationalsozialismus und Völkerrecht (1934), 10–11Google Scholar.

47 See Verdross, A., Verfassung der Völkerrechtsgemeinschaft (1926), 32–3Google Scholar.

48 Verdross, Anfechtbare, supra note 29, at 292, fn. 4.

49 On this see Hannikainen, supra note 2, at 124–32.

50 Brierly, J.L., ‘Règles générales du droit de la paix’, (1936) 58 RdC 3, at 219Google Scholar.

51 Separate Opinion Judge Schücking, The Oscar Chinn Case (Britain v. Belgium), 12 December 1934, PCIJ Rep. Series A/B No. 63, at 149.

52 Verdross, A., ‘Forbidden Treaties in International Law’, (1937) 31 AJIL 571CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 See ‘Law of Treaties, Reporter James W. Garner’, (1935) 29 AJIL Documents 655.

54 Verdross, supra note 52, at 571–7.

55 See the reference to Kunz, J., Die Revision der Pariser Friedensverträge (1932)Google Scholar.

56 Lauterpacht, H., ‘Règles générales du droit de la paix’, (1937) 62 Recueil de Cours 96, at 306Google Scholar.

57 Kolb, R., Théorie du ius cogens international: essai de relecture du concept (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58 Orakhelashvili, A., Peremptory Norms in International Law (2006)Google Scholar.

59 For a long list of names see Garner, J.W., ‘Le développement et les tendances récentes du droit international’, (1931) 35 (I) RdC 609, at 699–702Google Scholar.

60 On the writings of Hans Kelsen, Walther Schücking and Hans Wehberg see, for instance, von Bernstorff, J., The Public International Law Theory of Hans Kelsen. Believing in Universal Law (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61 See Garner, supra note 59, at 694.

62 Request for advisory opinion concerning the Status of Eastern Carelia, 23 June 1923, PCIJ Rep. Series B No. 5, at 27.

63 See Bruns, V., ‘Völkerrecht als Rechtsordnung I’, (1929) 1 ZaöRV 8, at 9, 12Google Scholar.

64 Verdross, supra note 47, Preface.

65 See Verdross, A., Die Einheit des rechtlichen Weltbildes auf der Grundlage der Völkerrechtsverfassung (1923), 120–6Google Scholar.

66 Verdross, A., ‘Die sittlichen Grundlagen des modernen Völkerrechts’ (1930/1931), in Klecatsky, H., Marcic, R. and Schambeck, H. (eds.), Die Wiener rechtstheoretische Schule. Ausgewählte Schriften von Hans Kelsen, Adolf Julius Merkl und Alfred Verdross (1968), 2121, at 2121–2Google Scholar.

67 See Verdross, supra note 36, at V, 36.

68 Verdross, Anfechtbare, supra note 29, at 295.

69 Verdross, supra note 52, at 574–6.

70 See Scheuner, U., ‘Naturrechtliche Strömungen im heutigen Völkerrecht’, (1950) 13 ZaöRV 556Google Scholar.

71 UN Doc. GA/RES/174 /II, 21 November 1947.

72 On this see Kadelbach, supra note 2, at 36–7.

73 1953 United Nations Yearbook of the International Law Commission (YILC), Vol. II, at 154–5.

74 On this Kadelbach, supra note 2, at 37.

75 1958 YILC, Vol. II, at 26.

76 Ibid., at 40–1.

77 See ibid., at 52.

78 See Virally, M., ‘Réflexions sur le “jus cogens”’, (1966) 12 Annuaire français de droit international 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Scheuner, U., ‘Conflict of Treaty Provisions with a Peremptory Norm of General International Law and its Consequences’, (1967) 27 ZaöRV 520Google Scholar; Schwelb, E., ‘Some Aspects of International Jus Cogens as Formulated by the International Law Commission’, (1967) 61 AJIL 946CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

79 See Suy, supra note 23, at 17.

80 See Allain, supra note 8, at 35–6.

81 See Schwarzenberger, G., ‘Ius Cogens in International Law?’, (1965) 43 Texas Law Review 455, at 477–8Google Scholar.

82 For the citation see United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties, Second Session, 19th plenary meeting, UN Doc. A/CONF.39/SR.19, at 93-5.

83 1967 YILC, at 765.

84 United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties, First Session, 53rd meeting of the Committee of the Whole, 6 May 1968, UN Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/SR.53, at 305.

85 1966 YILC, Vol. II, 20.

86 See on this Kadelbach, supra note 2, 41–6; Villiger, M.E., Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (2009), Art. 53, paras. 2–4Google Scholar.

87 See on this Kadelbach, supra note 2, at 45.

88 See Schweisfurth, T., Der internationale Vertrag in der modernen sowjetischen Völkerrechtstheorie (1968), 211Google Scholar.

89 See German translation of the Conferences of the Society of International Law, Die Jahrestagungen der Sowjetischen Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht (1964), Vol. I, at 66–7.

90 Ibid., at 108–11.

91 See Tunkin, G., Das Völkerrecht der Gegenwart. Theorie und Praxis (1963), 95Google Scholar; see also Tunkin, G., ‘Ius Cogens in International Law’, (1971) 3 University of Toledo Law Review 107Google Scholar.

92 See 1963 YILC, Vol. I, at 69; on this also Schweisfurth, T., ‘Die Völkerrechtswissenschaft in der Sowjetunion’, (1974) 34 ZaöRV 1, at 42–5Google Scholar.

93 See Arzinger, R., ‘Vertragstreue und völkerrechtswidrige Verträge’, in Festschrift Erwin Jacobi (1957), 238Google Scholar.

94 1963 YILC, Vol. I, at 63, 65

95 Ibid., at 65, 74.

96 See on this Kadelbach, supra note 2, at 40, fn. 45.

97 On this see Sinha, S. Prakash, ‘Perspectives of the Newly Independent States on the Binding Quality of International Law’, (1965) 14 ICLQ 121CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

98 Guggenheim, P., in Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (ed.), The Process of Change in International Law (1965), 22Google Scholar; on this see Allain, supra note 8, at 50–2.

99 Saab, G. Abi, ‘Introduction’, in Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (ed.), The Concept of Jus Cogens in Public International Law: Papers and Proceedings (1967), 7 at 14Google Scholar.

100 International Status of South-West Africa, Advisory Opinion of 11 July 1950, [1950] ICJ Rep. 128, at 144.

101 On the background see Allain, supra note 8, 39–41.

102 See ICJ Pleadings, South West Africa Cases, Vol. IX (Statements by E.A. Gross), at 304, cited after Danilenko, G.M., ‘International Jus Cogens: Issues of Law-Making’, (1991) 2 EJIL 42, at 50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

103 South West Africa Cases (Ethopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), Second Phase, Judgment of 18 July 1966, [1966] ICJ Rep. 6.

104 See, for instance, South West Africa Cases (Ethopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), Second Phase, Judgment of 18 July 1966, [1966] ICJ Rep. 6, at 216 (Wellington Koo, Dissenting Opinion).

105 South West Africa Cases (Ethopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), Second Phase, Judgment of 18 July 1966, [1966] ICJ Rep. 6, at 298 (Judge Tanaka, Dissenting Opinion).

106 See Danilenko, supra note 102, at 57.

107 Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Second Phase, Judgment of 5 February 1970, [1970] ICJ Rep 3, para. 33; on this see A. Bianchi, ‘Human Rights and the Magic of Jus Cogens’, (2008) 19 EJIL 491.

108 Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Rwanda), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment of 3 February 2006, [2006] ICJ Rep. 6, paras. 64, 125.

109 ICTY, Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija, IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Chamber II, Judgment of 10 December 1998, paras. 155–6.

110 Second report on jus cogens by Dire Tladi, Special Rapporteur, UN GA, International Law Commission, Sixty-ninth session Geneva, 1 May–2 June and 3 July–4 August 2017, UN Doc. A/CN.4/706.