Public Law Studies Quarterly

Iran’s Approach to Jus cogens

Document Type : Article

Authors

Abdollah Abedini 1
Mohammad Reza Mohammadi 2

1 Faculty Member of the Institution for Research and Development in the Humanities (SAMT)

2 L.L.M in International Law, School of International Relations of Ministry of Foreign Affairs

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2021.327049.2829
Abstract
Peremptory norms in any legal system lead to the formation of a hierarchy among norms and their regulation. Until recent decades, international law had not formally recognized this fundamental concept. Indeed, there were few references to this concept in case law and legal teachings and theories. The existence of peremptory norms (jus cogens) in international law requires its acceptance and recognition by states. Therefore, the practice of states in this regard is of particular importance. Certain states, such as France, have never agreed with such a concept, and others like Iran, have had their own special views on the compulsory dispute settlement procedures regarding  jus cogens and listing of jus cogens examples. The examination of Iran's approach to the identification of jus cogens and related issues, particularly in the recent study of the International Law Commission on jus cogens, is the subject of this article. Iran’s practice in this regard, demonstrates its adherence to the values of the international community and ways of interacting with it.

Keywords

1969 Convention on the Law of Treaties
jus cogens
International Law Commission
international adjudications
Iran
  1. A) Books
  2. Falsafi, Hedayatollah (2004), International Law of Treaties, Tehran: Farhang Nashr No (In Persian).
  3. Momtaz, Djamichid (2016), Statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, jus cogens, Farideh Shayegan (Trans.), at: https://unstudies.ir (In Persian).
  4. Shayegan, Farideh (2021), Iran and UN Security Council: From Evacuation of Azerbayjan to Iran-Iraq War, Tehran: Smat (In Persian).

 

  1. B) Articles
  2. Ebrahimgol A, attar M S. (2019), “The Theoretical Foundations of jus cogens in International Law”, Judicial Law Views Quarterly, Vol. 24, pp. 1-28 (In Persian).
  3. Glennon, Micheal (2009), “Absurdity of jus cogens in International Law”, Legal Research Quarterly, Vol. 12, pp. 555-572 (In Persian).
  4. Momtaz, Djamichid; Alizadeh, Masoud & Zarneshan, Shahram (2018), “The Obligation to not Render Aid or Assistance so as to Maintain a Situation Created by the Breach of a Peremptory Norm of General International Law”, Comparative Law Researches, Vol. 22, pp. 135-154 (In Persian).
  5. Orakhelashvili, Alexander (2005), “The Impact of Peremptory Norms on the Interpretation and Application of United Nations Security Council Resolutions, S. Ghasem Zamani (Trans.)”, Journal of Legal Research, Vol. 4, pp. 55-98 (In Persian).
  6. Petsche, Markus (2010), “Jus Cogens as a Vision of the International Legal Order” Penn State International Law Review, Vol. 29, No. 2, Article 2, pp. 233-273.
  7. Shaygan, Farideh & Abdollahi, Mojtaba (2021), “The Function of jus cogens in the Field of Unilateral Acts of States”, Public Law Studies Quarterly, Vol. 51, pp. 695-714 (In Persian).
  8. Von Verdross, Alfred (1937), “Forbidden Treaties in International Law: Comments on Professor Garner's Report on The Law of Treaties”, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 571-577.
  9. Zamani, S. Ghasem (1998), “The Status of Peremptory norm among the sources of international law”, International Law Review, Vol. 16, 1998, pp. 317-344 (In Persian).

 

  1. C) Cases
  2. ICJ, Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence, Written Statement of Iran, 17 April 2009.
  3. ICJ, Case Concerning Certain Iranian Assets (Iran v. Unites States of America), Memorial of Iran, 1 February 2017.
  4. ICJ, Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Iran v. United States of America), Judgment of November 2003, ICJ, Reports 2003.
  5. ICJ, Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Iran v. United States of America), Judgment of November 2003, Separate Opinion of Judge Rigaux.
  6. ICJ, Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Iran v. United States of America), Judgment of November 2003, Separate Opinion of Judge Simma.
  7. ICJ, Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Iran v. United States of America), Memorial Submitted by Islamic Republic of Iran, Vol. I, 8 June 1993.
  8. ICJ, Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Iran v. United States of America), Reply and Defense to Counter-claim Submitted by Islamic Republic of Iran, Vol. I, 10 March 1999.
  9. ICJ, Case Concerning the Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Iran v. United States of America), Observation and Submissions of Iran on the Preliminary Objections, 9 September 1992.
  10. ICJ, Case Concerning the Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988, (Iran v. United States of America), Memorial Submitted by the Islamic Republic of Iran, Vol. I, 24 July 1990.
  11. ICJ, Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening) Judgment of 3 February 2012.
  12. ICJ, Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971.
  13. ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of the Wall in Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004
  14. ICJ, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996.
  15. IUSCT, Amoco International Finance Corporation v. Iran, National Iranian Oil Company, National Petrochemical Company and Kharg Chemical Company Limited, Case. No. 56, Chamber. 3, (Award No. 310-56-3), 14 July 1987.
  16. PCIJ, The Oscar Chinn Case, (Britain v. Belgium). 12 December 1934. Separate Opinion of M. Schucking.
  17. Reports of International Arbitral Awards, French-Mexican Claims Commission (France, United Mexican States) (13 April 1928- 24 June 1929), Volume. V, pp. 307-560. UN (2006).

 

  1. D) Documents
  2. Effects of Armed Conflicts on Treaties, A/C.4/622 and Add. 1, Comments and Information Received from Governments, 15 March and 11 May 2010.
  3. Fourth Report on Peremptory Norms of General International Law (jus cogens) by Dire Tladi, Special Rapporteur, 2019.
  4. Note Verbal Dated 19 June 1995 from the Embassy of Iran, together with Statement of the Government of Islamic Republic of Iran.
  5. Report of the International Law Commission, Seventieth Session, (30 April-1 June and 2 July-10 August 2018), Supplement No. 10 (A/73/10).
  6. Report of the International Law Commission, Seventy-first Session, 2019, (A/74/10).
  7. Report on the Law of Treaties by Mr. H. Lauterpacht, Special Rapporteur, A/CN.4/63.
  8. Second Report on jus cogens by Dire Tladi, Special Rapporteur, 16 March 2017, A/CN.4/706.
  9. Second Report on the Law of Treaties, by Sir Humphrey Waldock, Special Rapporteur, A/CN.4/156 and Add.1-3.
  10. Statement of Iran before the Sixth Committee of the UN, the Sixth Committee of the 74th Session of the UNGA on Report of the International Law Commission, 2019.
  11. Statement of Iran before the Sixth Committee of the UNGA on Report of the International Law Commission on the Work, 25 October 2017.
  12. Statement of Iran before the Sixth Committee of the UNGA on Report of the International Law Commission on the Work, 1 November 2017.
  13. Statement of Iran before the Sixth Committee of the UNGA on Report of the International Law Commission on the Work, 30 October 2018.
  14. Statement of Iran to the United Nations, the Sixth Committee of the 73th Session of the UN General Assembly on Report of the International Law Commission, 2018.
  15. Third Report on Peremptory Norms of General International Law (jus cogens) by Dire Tladi, Special Rapporteur, 12 February 2018.
  16. Third Report on the Law of Treaties by Mr. G.G. Fitzmaurice, Special Rapporteur, A/CN.4/115 and Corr.1.
  17. Treaty of Amity Economic Relations and Consular Rights between the United States and Iran, 15 August 1955, 284 U.N.T.S. 93.
  18. UN Conference on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations, (Vienna, 18 February — 21 March 1986), Vol. I.
  19. UN Conference on the Law of Treaties, 26 March-24 May 1968 and 9 April-22 May 1969, (A/CONF.39/C.1/L.302).
  20. UN Conference on the Law of Treaties, 26 March-24 May 1968.
  21. UN Conference on the Law of Treaties, 9 April-22 May 1969, (A/CONF.39/L.47 and Rev.l).
  22. UN, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969.
  23. UNGA, 18 November 2013, A/C.6/68/SR.26.
  24. UNGA, 5 December 2016, A/C.6/71/SR.26.
  25. UNGA, 5 December 2017, A/C.6/72/SR.26.
  26. UNSC, 9 December 1991, S/23273.
  27. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1963.
  28. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1966.

 

  1. E) Website
  2. https://legal.un.org/ilc/guide/1_14.shtml
  3. https://treaties.un.org
Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 52, Issue 1
Spring 2022
Spring 2022
Pages 249-273

  • Receive Date 12 July 2021
  • Revise Date 25 August 2021
  • Accept Date 08 November 2021

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us