Why the Prohibition of Enforced Disappearance Has Attained Jus Cogens Status in International Law
In: Nordic Journal of International LawSearch for other papers by Jeremy Sarkin in
Current site
Google Scholar
This article examines the question whether jus cogens includes the prohibition of enforced disappearances, and why this is important. It surveys the meaning, context, development, status and position of jus cogens as well as enforced disappearance in international law, including their relationship to each other. It surveys the status of enforced disappearance in international law in general, as well as in international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international criminal law. The article scans the historical developments of international law, including developments over the last few decades, to indicate that the prohibition against enforced disappearance has attained jus cogens status. The legal framework is examined, including the jurisprudence that has emanated from a variety of sources. Specific treaties that deal with enforced disappearance are reviewed including the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICED). What jus cogens is, what the controversies are that surround it, the different ways that it is understood within different schools of thought, and how these issues impact on whether the prohibition of enforced disappearance has attained jus cogens status are studied. The historical developments around enforced disappearances are examined in some detail to determine what its status is, particularly in relation to state practice, so as to determine whether it is jus cogens.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
46)
Roberts, supra note 44.
-
60)
Simma and Alston, supra note 56.
-
79)
Quoted in Andreu-Guzmán, supra note 77, p. 73.
-
81)
Quoted in Andreu-Guzmán, supra note 77, p. 73.
-
105)
Bassiouni, supra note 104 p. 270.
-
107)
Bassiouni, supra note 104, pp. 265 and 268.
-
108)
Janis, supra note 94, pp. 359 and 362. See further L. Hannikainen, Peremptory Norms (Jus Cogens) in International Law (Finnish Lawyers’ Publishing Company, 1988) p. 31.
-
125)
Bassiouni, supra note 104, p. 67.
-
126)
Weil, supra note 17 pp. 413–442. See also Weisburd, supra note 115, p. 1.
-
131)
Criddle and Fox-Decent, supra note 124, pp. 331 and 339.
-
133)
Parker, supra note 95, p. 414.
-
141)
Mcnair, supra note 92, p. 215.
-
146)
Verdross, supra note 101, pp. 53 and 59.
-
147)
Orakhelashvili, supra note 16.
-
148)
Orakhelashvili, supra note 35, pp. 955 and 970.
-
150)
U. Scheuner, ‘Conflict of Treaty Provisions with a Peremptory Norm of General International Law’, Zeitschrift fur auslandisches offentliches Recht und Volkerrecht (1967) p. 27.
-
153)
Parker and Neylon, supra note 95, pp. 411 and 441.
-
154)
Paulus, supra note 26, pp. 297 and 332.
-
155)
Parker and Neylon, supra note 95, pp. 411 and 442.
-
162)
Davidsson, supra note 99.
-
179)
Biersteker, supra note 177.
-
181)
G. Citroni, ‘Recent Developments in International Law to Combat Enforced Disappearances’, Revista Internacional de Direito e Cidadania (2009) pp. 89–111.
-
190)
Orakhelashvili, supra note 35, pp. 955 and 969.
-
200)
Higgins, supra note 158, p. 282.
-
212)
Shelton, supra note 121, pp. 302–304.
-
218)
Parker and Neylon, supra note 95, p. 411, n. 31.
-
223)
Bassiouni, supra note 215, p. 68.
-
227)
Hollyer and Rosendorff, supra note 68, pp. 275–327.
-
228)
Simma and Alston, supra note 56.
-
229)
M. Akehurst, ‘Custom as a Source of International Law’, British Yearbook of International Law (1974–1975).
-
235)
Ott, supra note 9.
-
237)
Solla and Fernanda, supra note 166, p. 30.
-
247)
Para. 30, A/CONF.157/23, 12 July 1993, World Conference on Human Rights Vienna, 14–25 June 1993, Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.
-
255)
Andreu-Guzmán, supra note 77, pp. 73 and 77.
-
261)
HRC, (View) 15 July 1994, Mojica v. Dominican Republic, Case No. 449/1991, para. 5(7).
-
263)
Solla and Fernanda, supra note 166, p. 200.
-
267)
Nowak, supra note 260, p. 151.
-
269)
Nowak, supra note 260, pp. 151 and 181.
-
299)
Solla and Fernanda, supra note 166, p. 10.
-
301)
Resolution 47/133 of 18 December 1992.
-
302)
Solla and Fernanda, supra note 166, p. 10.
-
306)
Davidsson, supra note 99.
-
307)
Stephens, supra note 22, pp. 245 and 252.
-
309)
Charlesworth and Chinkin, supra note 186, pp. 63–66.
-
313)
Nowak, supra note 288.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 1838 | 316 | 32 |
| Full Text Views | 518 | 31 | 1 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 387 | 67 | 3 |
Why the Prohibition of Enforced Disappearance Has Attained Jus Cogens Status in International Law
In: Nordic Journal of International LawSearch for other papers by Jeremy Sarkin in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
This article examines the question whether jus cogens includes the prohibition of enforced disappearances, and why this is important. It surveys the meaning, context, development, status and position of jus cogens as well as enforced disappearance in international law, including their relationship to each other. It surveys the status of enforced disappearance in international law in general, as well as in international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international criminal law. The article scans the historical developments of international law, including developments over the last few decades, to indicate that the prohibition against enforced disappearance has attained jus cogens status. The legal framework is examined, including the jurisprudence that has emanated from a variety of sources. Specific treaties that deal with enforced disappearance are reviewed including the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICED). What jus cogens is, what the controversies are that surround it, the different ways that it is understood within different schools of thought, and how these issues impact on whether the prohibition of enforced disappearance has attained jus cogens status are studied. The historical developments around enforced disappearances are examined in some detail to determine what its status is, particularly in relation to state practice, so as to determine whether it is jus cogens.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 1838 | 316 | 32 |
| Full Text Views | 518 | 31 | 1 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 387 | 67 | 3 |