All
 
|
 
 


Identification criteria for erga omnes obligations
 
PIIS0023529-1-1
DOI10.31857/S102694520023529-2
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Larisa V. Vereina 
Occupation: Associate Professor at the Department of International Law, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) MFA Russia
Affiliation: Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) MFA Russia
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Ivan Sinyakin
Occupation: Associate Professor at the Department of International Law, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) MFA Russia
Affiliation: Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) MFA Russia
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Aleksandra Skuratova
Occupation: Associate Professor at the Department of International Law, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) MFA Russia
Affiliation: Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) MFA Russia
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Journal nameGosudarstvo i pravo
EditionIssue 9
Pages180-188
Abstract

The judgement of ICJ of 1970 brought about the need for theoretical basis for erga omnes obligations in international legal science. The following state and ICJ practice failed to create any uniform solution for identification of these rules. Therefore, the international legal teachings became essential for developing individual criteria and approaches to separate erga omnes rules and other rules of International Law.

Keywordsprinciples of International Law, erga omnes, jus cogens, International Court of Justice
Received08.12.2022
Publication date29.09.2023
Number of characters30378
Cite  
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 156

Readers community rating: votes 0 

1. Abashidze А.H. Participation in Rome Statute of ICC – obligation erga omnes // International Law. 2007. No. 1. P. 139–145 (in Russ.).
2. Summaries of judgements, advisory opinions and orders of International Court of Justice (1948–1991). New York, 1993. P. 89 (in Russ.).
3. Leonov A.S., Sporshev А.М. Suppressing international terrorism as obligation erga omnes // Vestnik of Lobachevsky N. Novgorod University. Law. 2018. No. 2. P. 152, 153 (in Russ.).
4. Lukashuk I.I. Modern treaty law: in 2 vols. Vol.1: Conclusion of international agreements. М., 2004. P. 191, 280 (in Russ.).
5. Romanov V.А. Exception of war out of public life. M., 1961. P. 83 (in Russ.).
6. Sazonova K.L. Erga omnes obligations and jus cogens in International Law: the concept and compliance practices // State and Law. 2014. No. 11. P. 72–79 (in Russ.).
7. Chernichenko S.V. Interconnection of peremptory norms of international law and erga omnes obligations // Moscow journal of International Law. 2012. No. 3. P. 6 (in Russ.).
8. Arangio-Ruiz G. Fourth Report on State Responsibility Add. 1-3 // Yearbook of the ILC. 1992. Vol. II (Part One). P. 34.
9. Bassiouni M.C. Universal Jurisdiction for International Crimes: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Practice // Virginia Journal of International Law. 2001. Vol. 42 (1). P. 88.
10. Byers M. Conceptualising the relationship between jus cogens and erga omnes rules // Nordic Journal of International Law. 1997. Vol. 66. P. 233.
11. Christianti D.W. The “Modern” Concept of Erga Omnes to Establish the Obligation of Impunity Eradication: Towards the Primacy Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court // Padjadjaran Jurnal Ilmu Hukum. 2018. Vol. 5 (2). P. 215.
12. Christianti D.W. Why We Need Erga Omnes Character for Obligations to Combat Impunity for International Crimes // Padjadjaran Jurnal Ilmu Hukum. 2017. Vol. 4 (2). P. 365.
13. Criddle E.J. Standing for Human Rights Abroad // Cornell Law Review. 2015. Vol. 100 (1). P. 288, 289.
14. Palosaari Т. More than Just Wishful Thinking? Existence and Identification of Environmental Obligations Erga Omnes. University of Eastern Finland. 2018. P. 41, 53, 60 - 62.
15. Ragazzi M. The Concept of International Obligations Erga Omnes. Oxford, 1997. P. 17, 132–134.
16. Sicilianos L.-A. The Classification of Obligations and the Multilateral Dimension of the Relations of International Responsibility // European Journal of International Law. 2002. Vol. 13. P. 1135.
17. Tams C.J. Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law. Cambridge University Press. 2005. P. 4, 56, 57, 87, 88, 102, 109–114, 128–139, 157, 306, 307, 309, 310.
18. Teraya K. Emerging Hierarchy in International Human Rights and Beyond: From the Perspective of Non-derogable Rights // European Journal of International Law. 2001. Vol. 12. Issue 5. P. 934.
19. The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication / ed. by C.P. Romano, K.J. Alter, Y. Shany. Oxford University Press, 2015. P. 466, 470–473, 480, 481, 775.
20. Wet E. The International Constitutional Order // International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 2006. Vol. 55. P. 62, 63, 69.
21. Zemanek K. New Trends in the Enforcement of Erga Omnes Obligations // Max Plank UNYB. 2000. Vol. 4. P. 11, 12, 26, 27.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up