Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T03:27:15.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Jus Cogens after Germany v. Italy: Substantive and Procedural Rules Distinguished

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2012

Abstract

In the case concerning Jurisdictional Immunities of the State, the ICJ held that rules of jus cogens did not automatically displace hierarchically lower rules of state immunity. The Court's decision was based on the rationale that there was no conflict between these rules as the former were substantive rules while the latter were procedural in character. The ‘substantive–procedural’ distinction has been heavily criticized in the literature. Much of the criticism seems to be motivated by the unwanted result of the distinction, namely de facto impunity for the most serious human rights violations. This paper takes a step back from the alleged antinomy of human rights and state immunity and broadens the picture by looking at the relationship between substantive and procedural rules more generally. It is shown that substantive rules of a jus cogens character generally leave procedural rules unaffected and, in particular, do not automatically override such rules. Substantive rules may, however, have a limited effect upon the interpretation and application of procedural rules. It is argued that the ‘substantive–procedural’ distinction is well established in international law and makes eminent sense even when substantive rules of jus cogens and procedural rules of immunity are involved.

Type
HAGUE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS: International Court of Justice
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening), Judgment of 3 February 2012 (hereinafter Jurisdictional Immunities of the State case). The judgment and all other materials related to the ICJ are available on the Court's website at www.icj-cij.org.

2 See Jurisdictional Immunities of the State case, supra note 1, para. 92. See also ibid., CR 2011/18, 13 September 2011, at 47–9, paras. 23–28 (Italy); ibid., CR 2011/19, 14 September 2011, at 36–8, paras. 97–106 (Greece).

3 On norm conflicts in general, see H. Kelsen, Allgemeine Theorie der Normen (1979), 86 and 99–102.

4 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State case, supra note 1, paras. 92–97.

5 See Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), Judgment of 14 February 2002, [2002] ICJ Rep. 3, at 25, para. 60 (hereinafter Arrest Warrant case). See also Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment of 3 February 2006, [2006] ICJ Rep., 6 at 24, para. 34 (hereinafter Armed Activities case), where the Court referred to ‘provisions relating to the jurisdiction of the Court’ as ‘procedural provisions’.

6 See, e.g., Jones v. Ministry of Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, [2007] 1 AC 270, paras. 44–45 (per Lord Hoffmann).

7 See Al Adsani v. United Kingdom, App. No. 35763/97, Merits, 21 November 2001, paras. 47–48; Fogarty v. United Kingdom, App. No. 37112/97, Merits, 21 November 2001, paras. 25–26; McElhinney v. Ireland, App. No. 31253/96, Merits, 21 November 2011, paras. 24–25.

8 H. Fox, The Law of State Immunity (2002), 525. This passage is also repeated in the 2nd edn. (2008), 151. See also Caplan, L. M., ‘State Immunity, Human Rights, and Jus Cogens: A Critique of the Normative Hierarchy Theory’, (2003) 97 AJIL 741CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 771–2.

9 McGregor, L., ‘Torture and State Immunity: Deflecting Impunity, Distorting Sovereignty’, (2007) 18 EJIL 903CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 911.

10 Pavoni, R., ‘Human Rights and the Immunities of Foreign States and International Organizations’, in de Wet, E. and Vidma, J. (eds.), Hierarchy in International Law: The Place of Human Rights (2012), 71CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 75. See also ibid., at 84 (‘alluring legal formalism’).

11 Orakhelashvili, A., ‘Peremptory Norms as an Aspect of Constitutionalisation in the International Legal System’, in Frishman, M. and Muller, S. (eds.), The Dynamics of Constitutionalism in the Age of Globalisation (2010), 153CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 165.

12 Arrest Warrant case, supra note 5, at 155, para. 28, and at 159, para. 33 (Judge Van den Wyngaert, Dissenting Opinion).

13 Wardle, P., ‘Zhang v Zemin (2008) 251 ALR 707’, (2009) 15 Australian International Law Journal 277Google Scholar, at 279–80.

14 Besner, J. and Attaran, A., ‘Civil Liability in Canada's Courts for Torture Committed Abroad: The Unsatisfactory Interpretation of the State Immunity Act 1985 (Can)’, (2008) 16 Tort Law Review 150Google Scholar, at 164. See also ‘On Certainty’, Comment by L. Bogliolo, 18 February 2012 (‘illusionary’), available online at www.ejiltalk.org/on-certainty.

15 Di Ciaccio, P., ‘A Torturers Manifesto? Impunity through Immunity in Jones v. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’, (2008) 30 Syd. LR 551Google Scholar, at 557.

16 P. Webb, ‘Human Rights and the Immunities of State Officials’, in de Wet and Vidma, supra note 10, 114 at 147; and E. de Wet and J. Vidma, ‘Conclusions’, ibid., 300, at 308.

17 See Jurisdictional Immunities of the State case, supra note 1, paras. 294–296 (Judge Cançado Trindade, Dissenting Opinion).

18 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State case, supra note 1, paras. 58, 95, 100.

19 Ibid., paras. 58, 93. For use of the same terminology, see Arrest Warrant case, supra note 5, at 25, para. 60.

20 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State case, supra note 1, para. 58.

21 Cf. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State case, supra note 1, paras. 58, 93, 95.

22 Cf. Risinger, D. M., ‘Substance and Procedure Revisited with Some Afterthoughts on the Constitutional Problems of Irrebuttable Presumptions’, (1982) 30 UCLA Law Review 189Google Scholar, at 197.

23 As to the distinction between ‘substantive obligations’ and ‘procedural obligations’, see Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment of 20 April 2011, [2011] ICJ Rep. 14, at 47, paras. 67–158.

24 Cf. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State case, supra note 1, para. 93.

25 See International Law Commission, Report on the Work of its 53rd Session, UN Doc. A/56/10, (2001), at 31.

26 Habré, Senegal, Court of Appeal of Dakar, 20 July 2000, 125 ILR 569, at 573.

27 Contra G. Schwarzenberger, International Law, Vol. 1 (1957), 584, 611.

28 Orakhelashvili, A., ‘State Immunity and Hierarchy of Norms: Why the House of Lords Got It Wrong’, (2007) 18 EJIL 955CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 968; Orakhelashvili, , ‘State Immunity and International Public Order Revisited’, (2006) 49 GYIL 327Google Scholar, at 360; Orakhelashvili, Peremptory Norms in International Law (2006), 341. But see Orakhelashvili, , ‘Review of “Jurisdiction of International Tribunals” by C. E. Amerasinghe’, (2003) 74 BYBIL 431Google Scholar, at 431, where he writes that ‘jus cogens . . . consists more probably of substantive norms’.

29 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State case, supra note 1, paras. 294–297 (Cançado Trindade, Dissenting Opinion).

30 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State case, supra note 1, Written Statement of the Hellenic Republic, 3 August 2011, para. 54; ibid., CR 2011/19, 14 September 2011, 37, para. 102.

31 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State case, supra note 1, Counter memorial of Italy, 22 December 2009, 54, para. 4.44; ibid., Reply of the Federal Republic of Germany, 5 October 2010, 21, para. 37.

32 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State case, supra note 1, Germany's Comments on the Greek Declaration of 3 August 2011, 26 August 2011, 10, para. 14.

33 Cowles, W. B., ‘The Impact of International Law on the Individual’, (1952) 46 ASIL Proceedings 71Google Scholar, at 78–9.

34 Cassese, A., ‘When May Senior State Officials Be Tried for International Crimes? Some Comments on The Congo v. Belgium Case’, (2002) 13 EJIL 853CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 867.

35 See Schwarzenberger, supra, note 27, 52–4.

36 Cf. Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, Order of 13 July 2006, [2006] ICJ Rep. 113, at 120, para. 32; ibid., Judgment of 20 April 2010, paras. 186–187.

37 See Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Judgment of 5 February 1970, [1970] ICJ Rep. 3, at 32, para. 33.

38 Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 at 91 (1938).

39 See Crawford, J. R. and Grant, T. D., ‘Local Remedies, Exhaustion of’, in Wolfrum, R. (ed.), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. 6 (2012), 895Google Scholar, at 903–4.

40 See R. Dolzer and C. Schreuer, Principles of International Investment Law (2008), 253–6. See also the concurring and dissenting opinion of B. Stern in Impregilo S.p.A. v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/17, 21 June 2011, paras. 25–38.

41 See, e.g., Brown, C., ‘A Comparative and Critical Assessment of Estoppel in International Law’, (1996) 50 University of Miami Law Review 369Google Scholar, at 403–4.

42 See Schwarzenberger, supra note 35, at 611.

43 Cf. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State case, supra note 1, paras. 136, 137.

44 See International Law Commission, ‘Second Report on Diplomatic Protection by Mr. J. Dugard, Special Rapporteur’, UN Doc. A/CN.4/514, 28 February 2001, 16, para. 33.

45 ECJ, Case C-17/10, Toshiba Corporation and Others, Opinion of Advocate-General Kokott, delivered on 8 September 2011, para. 42, with further references to the ECJ's case law.

46 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State case, supra note 1, para. 93.

47 Cf. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State case, supra note 1, Counter memorial of Italy, 22 December 2009, paras. 1.16 and 6.10; ibid., Rejoinder of Italy, para. 4.2. See also ibid., CR 2011/17, 12 September 2011, 34, para. 28 (C. Tomuschat for Germany).

48 Cf. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State case, supra note 1, Reply of the Federal Republic of Germany, 5 October 2010, para. 37.

49 Supreme Court of Poland, Natoniewski v. Federal Republic of Germany, Decision of 29 October 2010, (2010) 30 Polish Yearbook of International Law 299, at 301. See also the decision of Jerusalem District Court in Palestinian National Authority v. Dayan, Civil Case (Jerusalem) 2538/00, 30 March 2003, referred to in Palestinian National Authority v. Dayan, Appeal decision, PLA 4060/03, 17 July 2007; ILDC 784 (IL 2007), F3.

50 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State case, supra note 1, para. 93.

51 Cf. also Zimmermann, A., ‘Sovereign Immunity and Violations of International Jus Cogens – Some Critical Remarks’, (1995) 16 Mich. JIL 433Google Scholar, at 438 (considering that the prohibition of torture and immunity involve ‘two different sets of rules which do not interact with each other’).

52 Cannizzaro, E., ‘A Higher Law for Treaties?’, in Cannizzaro, (ed.), The Law of Treaties Beyond the Vienna Convention (2011), 425Google Scholar, at 434, 439.

53 Cf. 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 UNTS 331, 8 I.L.M. 679, Art. 53.

54 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State case, supra note 1, para. 93. See also Jones v. Ministry of Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, [2007] 1 AC 270, para. 44 (per Lord Hoffmann). Contra Orakhelashvili, A., ‘State Immunity and International Public Order Revisited’, (2006) 49 GYIL 327Google Scholar, at 362.

55 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State case, supra note 1, para. 95.

56 Armed Activities case, supra note 5, at 33, para. 69.

57 Jones v. Ministry of Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, [2007] 1 AC 270, paras. 45 et seq. (per Lord Hoffmann). See also R. (on the application of Mohamed) v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, [2008] EWHC 2048 (Admin), para. 171. Critical of such ancillary peremptory procedural rules is also Knuchel, S., ‘State Immunity and the Promise of Jus Cogens’, (2011) 9 Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights Law 149Google Scholar, at 160–2. Contra Bartsch, K. and Elberling, B., ‘Jus Cogens v. State Immunity, Round Two: The Decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Kalogeropoulou et al. v. Greece and Germany Decision’, (2003) 4 German Law Journal 477Google Scholar, at 485–9.

58 See Special Tribunal for Lebanon, In the Matter of El Sayed, Case No. CH/PRES/2010/01, Order of the President Assigning Matter to Pre-Trial Judge, 15 April 2012, paras. 28–29, where President Cassese considered the right of access to justice as having jus cogens character. Contra de Wet and Vidma, ‘Conclusions’, supra note 16, 300 at 308 (right to access to court not having jus cogens status).

59 Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania (Second Phase), Advisory Opinion of 18 July 1950 [1950] ICJ Rep. 221, at 229.

60 See Statute of the International Court of Justice, Art. 25(1) and (3), Art. 41; ICJ Rules of Court, Art. 74(2) and (3).

61 Palchetti, P., ‘Article 25’, in Zimmermann, A.et al. (eds.), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary (2006), 429Google Scholar, at 436 MN 18.

62 ICJ Rules of Court, Art. 74(4).

63 See Armed Activities case, supra note 5, at 24, para. 34; Jurisdictional Immunities of the State case, supra note 1, para. 95.

64 See, e.g., Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Germany), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 15 December 2004, [2004] ICJ Rep. 720, at 754 para. 89, where the Court determined the question whether it was open to Serbia and Montenegro independently of any consideration of the jus cogens norm allegedly violated.

65 ICTY, Prosecutor v. Furundzija, Judgement, Case No. IT-95–17/1-T, T. Ch., 10 December 1998, para. 155. For locus standi being a question of jurisdiction, see East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment of 30 June 1995, [1995] ICJ Rep. 90, at 107 (Judge Oda, Separate Opinion).

66 Armed Activities case, supra note 5, at 52, para. 125. See also ibid., at 32, para. 64.

67 Douglas, Z., ‘The MFN Clause in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Treaty Interpretation off the Rails’, (2011) 2 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 97CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 103.

68 See 1998 Rome Statute of the ICC, 2187 UNTS 90, Arts. 11–13. See also the new Art 15bis concerning the exercise of jurisdiction over the jus cogens crime of aggression.

69 See Rome Statute of the ICC, supra note 68, Art. 26. See also Happold, M., ‘The Age of Criminal Responsibility for International Crimes under International Law’, in Arts, K. and Popovski, V. (eds.), International Criminal Accountability and the Rights of Children (2006), 69CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 77, who considers the age-exclusion provision in Art. 26 to be ‘procedural rather than substantive in nature’. Contra S. C. Grover, Child Soldier Victims of Genocidal Forcible Transfer (2012), 76–9, who considers it a substantive rule of international criminal law.

70 Armed Activities case, supra note 5, at 32, para. 67.

71 See ‘Multilateral Treaties Deposited with the Secretary General’, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Status as of 19 May 2012, available online at www.treaties.un.org.

72 Cf. also Gaja, G., ‘Jus Cogens Beyond the Vienna Convention’, (1981-III) 172 RdC 271Google Scholar, at 284.

73 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State case, supra note 1, para. 58; ibid., Counter-memorial of Italy, 22 December 2009, paras. 1.16, 4.44 and 6.10; ibid., Rejoinder of Italy, para. 4.2. See also Arrest Warrant case, supra note 5, at 25, para. 60. Germany, probably for tactical reasons, argued that rules governing immunity ‘have the nature of substantive rules of international law’ so that the Court would have had to apply the immunity rules in force at the time of events in 1943–45 (Jurisdictional Immunities of the State case, supra note 1, Memorial of the Federal Republic of Germany, 12 June 2009, para. 92). For immunity as a procedural rule, see also ‘Preliminary Report on Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction by Roman Anatolevich Kolodkin, Special Rapporteur’, UN Doc. A/CN.4/601, 29 May 2008, 32, para. 66; 38, n. 157; 52, para. 102.

74 Prosecutor v. Charles Ghankay Taylor, Decision on Immunity from Jurisdiction, SCSL-03–01-I-059, Appeals Chamber, 31 May 2004, para. 27.

75 Arrest Warrant case, supra note 5, at 24, para. 58. See also Jurisdictional Immunities of the State case, supra note 1, at 38, para. 95.

76 Emphasis added.

77 Contra the widely criticized Decisions of the ICC's Pre-Trial Chamber I Pursuant to Article 87(7) of the Rome Statute on the Failure by the Republic of Malawi and the Republic of Chad to Comply with the Cooperation Requests Issued by the Court with Respect to the Arrest and Surrender of Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, ICC-02/05-01/09-139, 12 December 2011 and ICC-02/05-01/09-140, 13 December 2011, respectively. For a critique of the decisions, see D. Akande, ‘ICC Issues Detailed Decision on Bashir's Immunity (. . .At long Last . . .) But Gets the Law Wrong’, EJIL Talk!, 15 December 2011, available online at www.ejiltalk.org.

78 See Zaman, R., ‘Playing the Ace? Jus Cogens Crimes and Functional Immunity in National Courts’, (2010) 17 Australian International Law Journal, 53Google Scholar, at 70.

79 ICSID, Phoenix Action, Ltd. v. The Czech Republic, Case No. ARB/06/5, Award of 15 April 2009, para. 78.

80 Cf. William, D., ‘Jurisdiction and Admissibility’, in Muchlinksi, P., Ortino, F., and Schreuer, C. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Investment Law (2008), 868Google Scholar, at 870–918.

81 On the exhaustion of local remedies as a procedural rule, see International Law Commission, supra note 44, at 32–3, para. 66. See also Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited case, supra note 37, at 143–4, 149 (Judge Tanaka, Separate Opinion).

82 See, e.g., ICTY, Prosecutor v. Furundzija, supra note 65, paras. 153–157, with further references.

83 See Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 213 UNTS 221, Art. 35(1).

84 Contra ICTY, Prosecutor v. Furundzija, supra note 65, para. 157.

85 See ILC Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection, Arts. 3, 14, 15. For the text of the Articles, see UNGA Resolution 62/67, 6 December 2007, annex (UN Doc. A/RES/62/67, 8 January 2008). See also section 2.e, infra.

86 See Rome Statue of the ICC, Preamble, para. 10; Art. 1.

87 See Rome Statute of the ICC, Arts. 17 and 20(3). On complementarity as a condition of admissibility, see, e.g., J. Kleffner, Complementarity in the Rome Statute and National Criminal Jurisdictions (2008), 102–58.

88 See Rome Statute of the ICC, Art. 18(2).

89 East Timor case, supra note 65, at 102, para. 28.

90 Ibid., 92, para. 1.

91 See, e.g., 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 [1971] ICJ Rep., 16, at 89–90 (Judge Ammoun, Separate Opinion); Armed Activities case, supra note 5, at 89, para. 10 (Judge ad hoc Dugard, Separate Opinion). See also Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004, [2004] ICJ Rep., 136, at 200, para. 159, where the Court attached consequences to the violation of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination that are usually reserved for serious breaches of obligations under peremptory norms of general international law.

92 Armed Activities case, supra note 5, at 32, para. 64.

93 See ILC, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (hereinafter ARSIWA), Commentary on Art. 44, UN Doc. A/56/10, 2001, 305, para. 1.

94 There is no indication either in the ILC's Articles or in its Commentary that these requirements were to be limited to cases of diplomatic protection.

95 See also Milano, E., ‘Diplomatic Protection and Human Rights before the International Court of Justice: Re-Fashioning Tradition?’, (2004) 35 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 85CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 103–8; Scobbie, I., ‘The Invocation of Responsibility for the Breach of “Obligations under Peremptory Norms of General International Law”’, (2002) 13 EJIL 1201CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 1215–17. Contra A. Orakhelashvili, Peremptory Norms in International Law (2006), 518.

96 Cf. ILC Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection, Art. 17. See also ‘Seventh Report on Diplomatic Protection by John Dugard, Special Rapporteur’, UN Doc. A/CN.4/567, 7 March 2006, 34–6.

97 Hillgruber, C., ‘The Right of Third States to Take Countermeasures’, in Tomuschat, C. and Thouvenin, J.-M. (eds.), The Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order (2006), 265Google Scholar, at 293

98 Cf. ‘Third Report on State Responsibility by Mr. James Crawford, Special Rapporteur, Addendum’, UN Doc. A/CN.4/507/Add.2, 10 July 2000, 10, para. 245.

99 Contra A. Orakhelashvili, ‘Review of “Jurisdiction of International Tribunals”’, supra note 28, at 432.

100 Arrest Warrant case, supra note 5, 19, para. 43; and ibid., 66–67 (Judges Higgins, Kooijmans, and Buergenthal, Joint Separate Opinion).

101 See the Separate Opinion of Judge Schücking in the Oscar Chinn case: ‘It is an essential principle of any court, whether national or international, that the judges may only recognize legal rules which they hold to be valid’, Oscar Chinn case, Judgment of 12 December 1934, PCIJ Rep Series [A/B], No. 63, 64 at 149. See also Verdross, A., ‘Forbidden Treaties in International Law’, (1937) 31 AJIL 571CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 577; Verzjil, J., ‘La validité et la nullité des actes juridiques internationaux’, (1935) 15 RDI 284Google Scholar, at 321–2.

102 Contra Orakhelashvili, A., ‘The International Court and Its “Freedom to Select the Ground upon Which It Will Base Its Judgment”’, (2007) 56 ICLQ 171CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 179, n. 26.

103 For the procedural nature of these rules, see L. S. Sunga, The Emerging System of International Criminal Law (1997), 258.

104 See Dinstein, Y., ‘Some Reflections on Extradition’, (1993) 36 GYIL 46Google Scholar, at 54.

105 See ICJ Rules of Court, Art. 75(1). See also ITLOS, M/V ‘Saiga’ (No. 2) (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea), Provisional Measures, ITLOS Reports 1998, 24 at 61 (Judge Laing, Separate Opinion), who suggested as one of the criteria to be taken into account when deciding on the prescription of provisional measures ‘the magnitude of the underlying global public order value, e.g., such possibly jus cogens values as global peace and security or environmental protection’.

106 See South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 21 December 1962, [1962] ICJ Rep. 319, at 455 (Judge Winiarski, Dissenting Opinion).

107 For an overview of the Court's jurisprudence, see, e.g., A. Paulus, Die internationale Gemeinschaft im Völkerrecht (2001), 364–79; C. Tams, Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law (2005), 162–92; M. Payandeh, Internationales Gemeinschaftsrecht (2010), 395–9.

108 See, e.g., Simma, B., ‘From Bilateralism to Community Interest in International Law’, (1994-VI) 250 RdC 217Google Scholar, at 296–7; Tomuschat, C., ‘International Law: Ensuring the Survival of Mankind on the Eve of a New Century’, (1999) 281 RdC 1Google Scholar, at 82–3; Payandeh (n. 105), 401, with further references.

109 ‘Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law’, Report of the Study Group of the ILC, UN Doc. A/CN.4/682, 13 April 2006, 204, para. 404. See also Bundesverfassungsgericht, Decision of the 4th Chamber of the Second Senate of 12 December 2000, 2 BvR 1290/99, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2001, 1848, at 1849.

110 Bundesverfassungsgericht, Decision of the Second Senate of 26 October 2004, 2 BvR 955/00, 1038/01, BVerfGE 112, 1 at 27 (translation by the author).

111 Cf. Tams, C., ‘Waiver, Acquiescence and Extinctive Prescription’, in Crawford, J.et al. (eds.), The Law of International Responsibility (2010), 1035Google Scholar at 1042.

112 ILC ARSIWA, supra note 93, Art 48(1)(b).

113 The waiver of a claim against the wrongdoing state must be distinguished from the waiver of a right.

114 ILC ARSIWA, supra note 93, Arts. 48(3), 45(a).

115 In case of implicit waiver there may be an overlap with the concept of acquiescence.

116 Cf. ‘State Responsibility: Comments and Observations Received from Governments’, UN Doc. A/CN.4/515, 19 March 2001, 72 (United Kingdom).

117 ILC ARSIWA, supra note 93, Commentary on Art, 45, UN Doc. A/56/10, 2001, 307, para. 2.

118 Cf. Bundesverfassungsgericht, Decision of the Second Senate of 26 October 2004, 2 BvR 955/00, 1038/01, BVerfGE 112, 1 at 35 (translation by the author).

119 The loss of right by way of express agreement or acquiescence only occurs with regard to Arts. 46–50 and Arts. 60–2 but not with regard to Arts. 53 and 64, which deal with treaties conflicting with jus cogens. See also 1966 YILC Vol. 2, 240, para. 5.

120 See ILC ARSIWA, supra note 93, Arts. 42, 48(1). In this context, it is of interest to note that the proposed Draft Article 4 of the ILC Articles on Diplomatic Protection, which, in case of an injury resulting from a grave breach of a jus cogens norm, provided for a duty of the state of nationality to grant diplomatic protection, was dropped from the final Articles on Diplomatic Protection; see 2000 YILC Vol. 2/2, 77–9.

121 Bundesverfassungsgericht, Decision of the Second Senate of 26 October 2004, 2 BvR 955/00, 1038/01, BVerfGE 112, 1 at 32 (translation by the author).

122 Cf. ILC ARSIWA, Commentary on Art. 45, UN Doc. A/56/10, 2001, 308, para. 4.

123 See ILC ARSIWA, Commentary on Art. 48, UN Doc. A/56/10, 2001, 323, para. 12. See also ‘Third Report on State Responsibility by Mr. James Crawford, Special Rapporteur, Addendum’, UN Doc. A/CN.4/507/Add.2, 10 July 2000, 13, para. 251.

124 See ILC ARSIWA, Commentary on Art. 45, UN Doc. A/56/10, 2001, 307, para. 1.

125 Cf. Bundesverfassungsgericht, Decision of the Second Senate of 26 October 2004, 2 BvR 955/00, 1038/01, BVerfGE 112, 1 at 36 (translation by the author).

126 Cf. Feichtner, I., ‘Waiver’, in Wolfrum, R. (ed.), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. 10 (2012), 747Google Scholar, at 749 MN 14.

127 See also the Definition of Aggression, Art. 5(3) of which provides that ‘no territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognized as lawful’ (UN Doc. A/RES/3314 (XXIX), 14 December 1974), and Principle 1, para. 10 of the Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-Operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (UN Doc. A/RES/2625 (XXV), 24 October 1970).

128 ILC ARSIWA, supra note 93, Arts. 48(3), 45(b). For the meaning of recognition ‘as lawful’, see text at note 142infra.

129 Schwarzenberger, supra note 27 565–70. See also Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad), CR 93/29, 8 July 1993, 48 (D. W. Bowett for Libya).

130 Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 26 June 1992, [1992] ICJ Rep. 1992, 240 at 253–4, para. 32.

131 Ibid., paras. 31, 36.

132 See Oppenheim, L., International Law, Vol. 1 (ed. Lauterpacht, H., 1955), 349–50Google Scholar.

133 See Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, supra note 53, Art 53.

134 See ILC ARSIWA, Commentary on Art. 45, UN Doc. A/56/10, 2001, 307, para. 1.

135 There is also a certain overlap between the concepts of waiver, acquiescence, and estoppel.

136 Brown, C., ‘A Comparative and Critical Assessment of Estoppel in International Law’, (1996) 50 University of Miami Law Review 369Google Scholar, at 412.

137 Wagner, M. L., ‘Jurisdiction by Estoppel in the International Court of Justice’, (1986) 74 CLR 1777CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 1777.

138 For a restrictive notion of estoppel, see Cottier, T. and Müller, J. P., ‘Estoppel’, in Wolfrum, R. (ed.), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Vol. 3 (2012), 671–7Google Scholar.

139 Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment of 25 September 1997, [1997] ICJ Rep. 7, at 88 (Judge Weeramantry, Separate Opinion). Judge Weeramantry had adopted the broad notion of estoppel; see ibid., at 116–18.

140 Ibid., at 118.

141 See, e.g., Doehring, K., ‘Zum Rechtsinstitut der Verwirkung im Völkerrecht’, in Böckstiegel, K.-H.et al. (eds.), Völkerrecht, Recht der internationalen Organisationen, Weltwirtschaftsrecht: Festschrift für Ignaz Seidl-Hohenveldern (1988), 51Google Scholar at 57, 59.

142 See Talmon, S., ‘The Duty Not to “Recognize as Lawful” a Situation Created by the Illegal Use of Force or Other Serious Breaches of a Jus Cogens Obligation: An Obligation without Real Substance?’, in Tomuschat, C. and Thouvenin, J.-M. (eds.), The Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order (2005), 99CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 114–16.

143 Orakhelashvili, A., ‘State Immunity and International Public Order Revisited’, (2006) 49 GYIL 327Google Scholar, at 361.

144 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State case, supra note 1, para. 294 (Judge Cançado Trindade, Dissenting Opinion).

145 But see Bianchi, A., ‘Human Rights and the Magic of Jus Cogens’, (2008) 19 EJIL 491CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 495 (‘rules can be hierarchically ordered on the basis of their underlying values’).

146 See Ontario Court of Appeal, Bouzari v. Iran, 30 June 2004, 243 D.L.R. (4th) 406, para. 90.

147 On the ‘logic of values’, see Schmitt, C., ‘Die Tyrannei der Werte’, in Buve, S. (ed.), Säkularisation und Utopie, Erbracher Studien, Ernst Forsthoff zum 65. Geburtstag (1967), 37Google Scholar, at 60.