Document Type : Article


1 PhD Researcher in Public International Law, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Prof., School of International Relations of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tehran, Iran


The International Law Commission (ILC) which itself codified and developed peremptory norms, has adopted a flexible approach in its recent reports to the doctrine developed by legal scholars and judicial bodies over the years. On the one hand, under Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the Commission has based jus cogens on the acceptance and recognition of the international community of states as a whole and the will of States. On the other hand, the Commission has recognized peremptory norms the have features such as universality, superiority, and protection of fundamental values of the international community which can impose restrictions on the will of States. This paper will analyze the ILC and its special rapporteur’s report in 2016 addressing this important question: on which theoretical foundations are jus cogens based and what are the core elements of these rules? The difference between this article and other papers published in Persian is analyzing and critiquing the latest ILC report from a new perspective considering theoretical evolutions on the topic since 1969.


  1. فارسی

الف) کتاب‌ها

  1. ذوالعین، پرویز (1383)، مبانی حقوق بین‌الملل عمومی، تهران: وزارت امور خارجه.
  2. فلسفی، هدایت‌الله (1395)، حقوق بین‌الملل معاهدات، تهران: نو.
  3. کاسسه، آنتونیو (1391)، حقوق بین‌الملل، ترجمة حسین شریفی طرازکوهی، تهران: میزان.
  4. کلسن، هانس (1387)، نظریة حقوقی ناب، ترجمة اسماعیل نعمت‌اللهی، تهران: سمت
  5. موسی‌زاده، رضا (1395)، حقوق معاهدات بین‌المللی، تهران: میزان.


ب) مقالات

  1. زمانی، قاسم (1377)، «جایگاه قاعدة آمره در میان منابع حقوق بین‌الملل»، مجلة حقوقی بین‌المللی، ش 22، ص 363-317.
  2. گلنون، مایکل (1388)، «پوچی قاعدة آمره در حقوق بین‌الملل»، ترجمة صابر نیاورانی، فصلنامة تحقیقات حقوقی، ش 49، ص 5717-557.


ج) پایان‌نامه‌ها

  1. گلچین، سهیل (1397)، «تحولات قواعد آمره در حقوق بین‌الملل؛ رویکرد کمیسیون حقوق بین‌الملل و رویة دولت‌ها»، پایان‌نامة کارشناسی‌ارشد، استاد راهنما رضا موسی‌زاده، استاد مشاور حسین سادات میدانی، ص 1-242.


  1. انگلیسی


  1. A) Books
  2. Alexidze, Levan (1981), Legal nature of jus cogens in contemporary international law, Recueil des cours 172(3).
  3. Cassese, Antonio (2012), Realizing utopia: the future of international law: For an enhanced role of jus cogens, Oxford University Press.
  4. Falsafi, Hedayatollah (2016), International Treaty Law, Tehran: Farhang Nashre Now Publication.
  5. Jacovides, Andrew (2011), International Law and Diplomacy: Selected Writings by Ambassador Andrew Jacovides, Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff.
  6. Jorgensen, Nina (2000), The responsibility of states for international crimes, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  7. Kolb, Robert (2015), Peremptory International Law-Jus Cogens: A General Inventory, Oxford: Bloomsbury Publishing.
  8. Koskenniemi, Martti (2006), From apology to utopia: the structure of international legal argument, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Koskenniemi, Martti (2011), The politics of international law, Oxford: Bloomsbury Publishing.
  10. Nematollahi, Esmail (2008), Pure Theory of Law, Hans Kelsen, Tehran: SAMT Publication.
  11. Orakhelashvili, Alexander (2006), Peremptory Norms in International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  12. Reza, Mousazadeh (2016), International Law of Treaties, Tehran: Mizan Legal Foundation Publication.
  13. Sharifi Tarazkouhi, Hossein (2012), International Law, Antonio Cassese, Tehran, Mizan Legal Foundation Publication.
  14. Zoleyn, Parviz (2003), The Bases of International Law, Tehran: IPIS Publication.


  1. B) Articles
  2. Criddle, Evan J., & Evan Fox-Decent (2009), “A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens.”, The Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 34, pp. 331.
  3. Hameed, Asif (2013), “Unravelling the Mystery of Jus cogens in International Law.”, The British Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 84, No.1, pp. 52-102.
  4. Kadelbach, Stefan (2006), “Chapter II. Jus Cogens, Obligations Erga Omnes and Other Rules - the Identification of Fundamental Norms” In: Tomuschat, C. and Thouvenin, J.M. eds, The Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order, Berlin Workshop, Brill Publishers, pp. 21-40.
  5. Kritsiotis, Dino (2010), “On the Possibilities of and for Persistent Objection.” The Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, Vol. 21, No.1, pp. 121-142.
  6. Nahlik, S (1990), “Peremptory Norms (jus cogens) in International Law: HistoricalDevelopment, Criteria, Present Status”, By Lauri Hannikainen, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 84, pp. 779-782.
  7. Niavarani, Saber (2009), "Peremptory Nonesense, Michael J. Glennon", Law Research Magazine, Vol. 12, Issue 49.
  8. Tladi, Dire, & Dlagnekova, Polina (2006), “The Will of the State, Consent and International Law: Piercing the Veil of Positivism.”, SA Publiekreg=SA Public Law (Sabinet), Vol. 21, No.1, pp. 111-122.
  9. Tunkin, Grigory (1971), “Jus Cogens in Contemporary International Law.”, University of Toledo Law Review, Vol. 3, pp. 107-112.
  10. Verdross, Alfred (1937), “Forbidden Treaties in International Law”, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 31, pp. 571.
  11. Zamani, Ghasem (1998), "The Status of Peremptory norm among the sources of international law", International Law Review Journal, Vol. 16, Issue 22, pp. 317-344.


  1. C) Dissertations
  2. Golchin, Soheil (2018), "The Evolution of Peremptory Norms in International Law: the approach of International Law Commission and States Practice", M.A Thesis at the School of International Relations, pp. 1-242.


  1. C) Awards
  2. International Court of Justice (1951), Advisory Opinion on Reservations to the Convention on Genocide.
  3. International Court of Justice (1996), Advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons.
  4. International Court of Justice (2007), Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro).
  5. International Court of Justice (2012), Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening).
  6. International Court of Justice (2012), Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v Senegal). Judgment.
  7. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (1998). Prosecutor v. Furundžija, Judgment.
  8. European Court of Human Rights, (2001), Al-Adsani v the United Kingdom.
  9. European Court of Justice (2005), Yassin Abdullah Kadi v. Council of the EU & Commission of the European Communities.
  10. Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2003), Advisory Opinion on Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants.
  11. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (2002), Michael Domingues v. United States, Report No. 62/02, Merits.
  12. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (2008), Belhas v. Ya'Alon.
  13. United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (2005), In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation.
  14. United States District Court for the District of Columbia (2009), Sabbithi v. Al Saleh.
  15. United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (1996), Smith v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
  16. United States Courts of Appeals, 9th Cir (1992), Siderman de Blake v. Republic of Argentina.
  17. Supreme Court of Canada (2014), Kazemi Estate v. Islamic Republic of Iran.
  18. Supreme Court of the Philippines (2012), Bayan Muna Case.
  19. High Court of Zimbabwe (2008), Mann v Republic of Equatorial Guinea.
  20. Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland, (2007), Nada (Youssef) v State Secretariat for Economic Affairs and Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Administrative appeal judgment.


  1. D) Documents
  2. International Law Commission (1966), “Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with commentaries.”
  3. International Law Commission (2006), “Fragmentation of international law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law.”, A/CN.4/L.682, Geneva, Report of the Study Group.
  4. International Law Commission (2006), “Guiding Principles Applicable to Unilateral Declarations of States Capable of Creating Legal Obligations, with commentaries thereto.”, Vol. II, Part 2.
  5. International Law Commission (2016), “Report of the International Law Commission.” 66th Session, A/69/10, Geneva, pp. 274-286.
  6. International Law Commission (2014), “Report of the International Law Commission on the Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice in Relation.”, A/69/10, No. 10.
  7. International Law Commission (2001), “The Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts with Commentaries.”
  8. International Law Commission (1958), “Documents of the tenth session including the report of the Commission to the General Assembly”, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, A/CN.4/115, Vol. II.
  9. International Law Commission (2016), “First Report of the Special Rapporteur on Jus cogens by Tladi, Dire, A/CN.4/693, Geneva.
  10. International Law Commission (2017), “Second Report of the Special Rapporteur on Jus cogens by Tladi, Dire, A/CN.4/706, Geneva.