Persistent objector

Last updated

In international law, a persistent objector is a sovereign state which has consistently and clearly objected to a norm of customary international law since the norm's emergence, and considers itself not bound to observe the norm. The concept is an example of the positivist doctrine that a state can only be bound by norms to which it has consented. [1]

Objection to the emergence of a norm may come in the form of statements declaring a state's position on an existing right, or action in which a state exercises an existing right in the face of an emerging norm which would threaten that right. Statements made at the time of a rule's establishment, such as in a reservation to a treaty, offer the clearest expression of a state's objection, but objections might also be expressed during treaty negotiations and even in statements by domestic lawmakers accompanying purely municipal legislation. [2]

Judicial support for the persistent objector rule is weak. [3] The International Court of Justice has discussed the persistent objector rule in dicta in two cases: the Asylum case (Colombia v Peru, [1950] ICJ 6) and the Fisheries case (United Kingdom v Norway, [1951] ICJ 3). [4] The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights rejected an attempted assertion of the persistent objector defence in Domingues v United States (2002) on the ground that the prohibition against the juvenile death penalty to which the United States objected was not merely customary international law but jus cogens , a norm from which no derogation was permitted. However, this could also be read as confirming that a persistent objector defence may successfully overcome a norm of international human rights law which has not attained the status of jus cogens. [5]

Stronger support for the rule can be found in the writings of certain jurists. [6] The American Law Institute was historically a major contributor to developing a "comprehensive theory" of persistent objection through its 1987 Third Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, part of its Restatements of the Law series. [7]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Conscientious objector</span> Person refusing military service on moral grounds

A conscientious objector is an "individual who has claimed the right to refuse to perform military service" on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience, or religion. The term has also been extended to objecting to working for the military–industrial complex due to a crisis of conscience. In some countries, conscientious objectors are assigned to an alternative civilian service as a substitute for conscription or military service.

A legal custom is the established pattern of behavior that can be objectively verified within a particular social setting. A claim can be carried out in defense of "what has always been done and accepted by law".

A peremptory norm is a fundamental principle of international law that is accepted by the international community of states as a norm from which no derogation is permitted.

<i>Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons</i>

Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons[1996] ICJ 3 is a landmark international law case, where the International Court of Justice gave an advisory opinion stating that while the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to international humanitarian law, it cannot be concluded whether or not such a threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful in extreme circumstances where the very survival of a state would be at stake. The Court held that there is no source of international law that explicitly authorises or prohibits the threat or use of nuclear weapons but such threat or use must be in conformity with the UN Charter and principles of international humanitarian law. The Court also concluded that there was a general obligation to pursue nuclear disarmament.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Diplomatic recognition</span> Political act where a state acknowledges an act or status of another state/government

Diplomatic recognition in international law is a unilateral declarative political act of a state that acknowledges an act or status of another state or government in control of a state. Recognition can be accorded either on a de facto or de jure basis. Recognition can be a declaration to that effect by the recognizing government or may be implied from an act of recognition, such as entering into a treaty with the other state or making a state visit. Recognition may, but need not, have domestic and international legal consequences. If sufficient countries recognise a particular entity as a state, that state may have a right to membership in international organizations, while treaties may require all existing member countries unanimously agreeing to the admission of a new member.

Hugo Grotius, the 17th century jurist and father of public international law, stated in his 1625 magnum opus The Law of War and Peace that "Most Men assign three Just Causes of War, Defence, the Recovery of what's our own, and Punishment."

Customary international law is an aspect of international law involving the principle of custom. Along with general principles of law and treaties, custom is considered by the International Court of Justice, jurists, the United Nations, and its member states to be among the primary sources of international law.

Erga omnes is a Latin phrase which means "towards all" or "towards everyone". In legal terminology, erga omnes rights or obligations are owed toward all. For instance, a property right is an erga omnes entitlement, and therefore enforceable against anybody infringing that right. An erga omnes right can here be distinguished from a right based on contract, unenforceable except against the contracting party.

International law, also known as "law of nations", refers to the body of rules which regulate the conduct of sovereign states in their relations with one another. Sources of international law include treaties, international customs, general widely recognized principles of law, the decisions of national and lower courts, and scholarly writings. They are the materials and processes out of which the rules and principles regulating the international community are developed. They have been influenced by a range of political and legal theories.

Opinio juris sive necessitatis or simply opinio juris is the belief that an action was carried out as a legal obligation. This is in contrast to an action resulting from cognitive reaction or behaviors habitual to an individual. This term is frequently used in legal proceedings such as a defense for a case.

The doctrine and rules of state immunity concern the protection which a state is given from being sued in the courts of other states. The rules relate to legal proceedings in the courts of another state, not in a state's own courts. The rules developed at a time when it was thought to be an infringement of a state's sovereignty to bring proceedings against it or its officials in a foreign country.

Humanitarian intervention is the use or threat of military force by a state across borders with the intent of ending severe and widespread human rights violations in a state which has not given permission for the use of force. Humanitarian interventions are aimed at ending human rights violations of individuals other than the citizens of the intervening state. Humanitarian interventions are only intended to prevent human rights violations in extreme circumstances. Attempts to establish institutions and political systems to achieve positive outcomes in the medium- to long-run, such as peacekeeping, peace-building and development aid, do not fall under this definition of a humanitarian intervention.

Derogation is a legal term of art.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immunity from prosecution (international law)</span>

Immunity from prosecution is a doctrine of international law that allows an accused to avoid prosecution for criminal offences. Immunities are of two types. The first is functional immunity, or immunity ratione materiae. This is an immunity granted to people who perform certain functions of state. The second is personal immunity, or immunity ratione personae. This is an immunity granted to certain officials because of the office they hold, rather than in relation to the act they have committed.

International law is the set of rules, norms, and standards generally recognized as binding between states. It establishes normative guidelines and a common conceptual framework for states across a broad range of domains, including war, diplomacy, economic relations, and human rights. Scholars distinguish between international legal institutions on the basis of their obligations, precision, and delegation.

The terms monism and dualism are used to describe two different theories of the relationship between international law and colonies law. Many states, perhaps most, are partly monist and partly dualist in their actual application of international law in their national systems.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade</span> Brazilian judge (1947–2022)

Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade was a Brazilian jurist and international judge. He was appointed as judge of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) from 6 February 2009. He was reelected to the Court in December 2017, and took office for his second term on 6 February 2018, serving until his death in 2022.

Dire Tladi is a professor of international law at the Department of Public Law and the Institute for International and Comparative Law in Africa at the University of Pretoria. He is also extraordinary professor at the Public Law Department of the University of Stellenbosch. He has served as the Principal State Law Adviser for International Law for the South African Department of International Relations and Cooperation and Legal Counsellor to the South Africa Mission to the United Nations.

<i>Jurisdictional Immunities of the State</i> International Court of Justice decision

Jurisdictional Immunities of the State was a case concerning the extent of state immunity before the International Court of Justice. The case was brought by Germany after various decisions by Italian courts to ignore the state immunity of Germany when confronted with claims against Germany by victims of Nazi-era war crimes. The court found that Italy was wrong to ignore German immunity, and found that Italy was obligated to render the decisions of its courts against Germany without effect.

<i>Nevsun Resources Ltd v Araya</i> Canadian legal decision

Nevsun Resources Ltd v Araya, 2020 SCC 5 is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of Canada held, in a 5–4 decision, that a private corporation may be liable under Canadian law for breaches of customary international law committed in other countries.

References

  1. Green, James A. (2016). The Persistent Objector Rule in International Law. Oxford University Press. ISBN   9780198704218.
  2. Steinfeld, Adam (1996). "Nuclear Objections: The Persistent Objector and the Legality of the Use of Nuclear Weapons". Brooklyn Law Review. 62: 1635, 1647. Retrieved 19 April 2018.
  3. Dumberry, Patrick (2010). "Incoherent and Ineffective: The Concept of Persistent Objector Revisited". International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 59 (3): 779. doi:10.1017/S0020589310000308. S2CID   144857272. SSRN   1653351.
  4. Steinfeld 1996 , p. 1653
  5. Lau, Holning (2005). "Rethinking the Persistent Objector Doctrine in International Human Rights Law". Chicago Journal of International Law. 6: 495, 496. Retrieved 19 April 2018.
  6. Steinfeld 1996 , p. 1653
  7. Dumberry 2010 , p. 779

Further reading