ОПШТА ПРАВНА НАЧЕЛА КАО ПЕРЕМПТОРНЕ НОРМЕ МЕЂУНАРОДНОГ ЈАВНОГ ПРАВА

Sanja M. Đorđević Aleksovski

doi:10.5937/zrpfn0-66313

Sanja M. Đorđević Aleksovski Univerzitet u Nišu, Pravni fakultet https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2827-8728

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5937/zrpfn0-66313

Ključne reči: општа начела права, перемпторне норме, ius cogens, извори права, нормативна хијерархија, Бечка конвенција о праву међународних уговора

Sažetak

У раду се анализира однос између општих правних начела и перемпторних норми (ius cogens) у савременом међународном праву, полазећи од члана 38(1)(в) Статута Међународног суда правде и члана 53 Бечке конвенције о праву међународних уговора. Посебна пажња посвећена је питању да ли општа правна начела, традиционално схваћена као супсидијарни извор права, могу стећи статус норми од којих није допуштено одступање. Најпре се разматра природа и функција општих правних начела, уз разликовање начела изведених из унутрашњих правних система и оних која су инхерентна самом међународноправном поретку. Потом се анализира појам, елементи и правни ефекти перемпторних норми, са посебним освртом на рад Комисије за међународно право и релевантну судску праксу. Централни део рада посвећен је доктринарној расправи о могућности конверзије општих начела у ius cogens норме, при чему се супротстављају аргументи који инсистирају на разликама у њиховој генези и функцији са становиштима која наглашавају материјалне критеријуме, попут нормативног интензитета и универзалне прихваћености. Полазећи од анализе конкретних примера, рад указује да поједине перемпторне норме имају вишеструко порекло и да могу рефлектовати вредности садржане у општим правним начелима. На тој основи развија се концепт трансверзалне хијерархије, према коме ius cogens представља мета-нормативни квалитет који може бити својствен нормама различитог формалног порекла. Закључује се да, иако општа правна начела по правилу задржавају своју допунску функцију, није искључена могућност да одређена начела, под строгим условима, еволуирају у норме највишег хијерархијског ранга, чиме се потврђује вредносна трансформација међународног правног поретка. Трансформација општих начела у ius cogens норме представља пример развоја истински глобалног и вредносно утемељеног правног поретка.

Reference

Abi-Saab, G. (1973). The Third World and the Future of the International Legal Order, Revue Egyptienne de Droit International, Vol. 29, 27-66;

Bianchi, А. (2008). Human Rights and the Magic of Jus Cogens, The European Journal of International Law, Vol. 19 no. 3, 2008, 491-508;

Boas, G. (2023). Public International Law: Contemporary Principles, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar;

Bonafé, B. I., Palchetti, P. (2016). Relying on general principles of law, in: C. Brölmann, Y. Radi (eds.), Research Handbook on the Theory and Practice of International Lawmaking, Cheltenham, Edward Edgar Publishing, pp. 160–176;

Vázquez-Bermúdez, M., Crosato A. (2020). General Principles of Law: The First Debate within the International Law Commission and the Sixth Committee, Chinese Journal of International Law, 19 (1), 157-172;

Weatherall, Т. (2015). Jus Сogens: International Law and Social Contract, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press;

Wet, de E. (2004). The Prohibition of Torture as an International Norm of Jus Cogens and Its Implications for National and Customary Law, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 15, 97-121;

Wolfrum, R. (2010). General international law (principles, rules, and standards), R. Wolfrum (Ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Law, vol. IV, entry updated in 2010; Oxford University Press, 2012;

Wood, M. (2023). Values in the International Community: Jus cogens in light of the International Law Commission’s 2022 Conclusions, Berlin Potsdam Research Group - The International Rule of Law – Rise or Decline?, KFG Working Paper Series, No. 61;

Gaja, G. (2020). General principles of law, in: Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2020), paras. 17-20;

Gaja, G. (2019). General Principles in the Jurisprudence of the ICJ, in: M. Andenas et al. (eds.), General Principles and the Coherence of International Law, Leiden, Brill;

Dörr, O., Schmalenbach, K. (eds.). (2018). Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary, Berlin: Springer;

Simma, B., Pulkowski, D. (2006). Of Planets and the Universe: Self-contained Regimes in International Law, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 17, No. 3, 483-529;

Jovanović, M. (2019). The Nature of International Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press;

Yusuf, A. (2019). Concluding remarks, M. Andenas et al. (Eds.), General Principles and the Coherence of International Law, Leiden, Brill;

Kleinlein, T. (2015). Jus cogens as the ‘highest law’? Peremptory Norms and Legal Hierarchies, Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, 173-210;

Knuchel, S. (2015). Jus Cogens: Identification and Enforcement of Peremptory Norms, Schulthess;

Kolb, R. (2015). Peremptory International Law - jus cogens: A General Inventory. Oxford, Portland, Hart Publisher;

Lammers, J. G. (1980). General principles of law recognized by civilized nations, Kalshoven, F., Kuyper, P. J., Lammers, J. G. (Eds.), Essays on the Development of the International Legal Order in Memory of Haro F. van Panhuys, Alphen aa den Rijn, Sijthoff and Noordhoff;

Linderfalk, U. (2011). The Creation of Jus Cogens – Making Sense of Article 53 of the Vienna Convention, Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, 71, 359-378;

Linderfalk, U. (2009). Normative Conflict and the Fuzziness of the International ius cogens Regime, Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, 69, 961-977;

Mazzeschi, R. P. (2018). Coordination of Different Principles and Values in International Law, German Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 61, 209-250;

Mik, C. (2013). Jus cogens in contemporary international law, Polish Yearbook of International Law, 33, 27-93;

Milisavljević, B. (2020). Neka otvorena pitanja u vezi ius cogens normi u međunarodnom pravu, Harmonius, Journal of Legal and Social Studies in South East Europe, 151-169;

Nieto-Navia, R. (2021). International peremptory norms (jus cogens) and international humanitarian law, u: L. Chand Vorah, et al. (Eds.), Man’s Inhumanity to Man: Essays on International Law in Honour of Antonio Cassese, The Hague, Brill;

Orakhelashvili, А. (2006). Peremptory Norms in International Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press;

Pellet, A., Müller, D. (2019). Article 38, Zimmermann, A., Tams, C. J. (Eds.), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, Oxford University Press, Oxford;

Pellet, A. (2006). Comments in response to Christine Chinkin and in defense of jus cogens as the best bastion against the excesses of fragmentation, Finnish Yearbook of International Law, 17, 83-90;

Raimondo, F. O. (2008). General Principles of Law in the Decisions of International Criminal Courts and Tribunals, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden;

Redgwell, C. (2017). General principles of international law, Vogenauer, S., Weatherill, S. (Eds.), General Principles of Law: European and Comparative Perspectives, Hart;

Rosenne, S. (2006). The Law and Practice of the International Court, 1920-2005, Leiden, Boston, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers;

Ruiz Fabri, H. (2012). Enhancing the Rhetoric of Jus Cogens, European Journal of International Law, 23 (4), pp. 1049-1058;

Santalla Vargas, E. (2015). In quest of the practical value of jus cogens norms, Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, 211-239;

Thirlway, H. (2019). The Sources of International Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press;

Tomuschat, C. (2003). Human Rights: Between Idealism and Realism, Oxford, New York, Oxford University Press;

Fitzmaurice, M. (2017). The History of Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice: The Journey from the Past to the Present, in: The Oxford Handbook of the Sources of International Law, S. Besson, J. d'Aspremont (Eds.), Oxford University Press, pp. 179-208;

Fitzmaurice, G. (1973). The Future of Public International Law and of the International Legal System in the Circumstances of Today, Institut de Droit International, Livre du Centenaire 1873-1973, Karger;

Hannikainen, L. (1988). Peremptory Norms (Jus Cogens) in International Law: Historical Development, Criteria, Present Status, Helsinki, Finnish Lawyers’ Publishing Company;

Cançado Trindade, A. A. (2009). Jus cogens: the determination and the gradual expansion of its material content in contemporary international case law, XXXV Course of International Law organized by the Organization of American States, Inter-American Juridical Committee in Rio de Janeiro from 4 to 29 August 2008, Washington, D.C., OAS, 3-29;

Cheng, B. (1953). General Principles of Law as applied by International Courts and Tribunals, Cambridge Univesity Press;

Cherif Bassiouni, M. (1990). A Functional Approach to "General Principles of International Law", Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol. 11, Issue 3, 768-818;

Conklin, W. E. (2012). The Peremptory Norms of the International Community, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 23 no. 3, 837-861;

Costelloe, D. (2017). Legal Consequences of Peremptory Norms in International Law, Cambridge University Press, 2017;

Shao, X. (2021). What We Talk about When We Talk about General Principles of Law, Chinese Journal of International Law, 20 (2), 219-255.

European Court of Human Rights, case 22978/05 Gäfgen v Germany, judgment of 1 June 2010;

European Court of Human Rights, case 27765/09 Hirsi Jamaa and others v. Italy, judgment of 23 February 2012;

European Court of Human Rights, case 35763/97 Al-Adsani v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 November 2001;

European Court of Human Rights,case 22414/93 Chahal v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 15 November 1996;

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, case Marritza Urrutia v. Guatemala, judgment of 27 November 2003;

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Juridical Condition and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of 17 September 2003, requested by the United Mexican States, Series A, No. 18;

International Court of Justice, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of 26 February 2007, ICJ Reports 2007;

International Court of Justice, Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of Congo v Rwanda), Judgment of 3 February 2006, ICJ Reports 2006;

International Court of Justice, Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, judgment of 27 June 1986, ICJ Reports 1986;

International Court of Justice, Case Concerning Right of Passage over Indian Territories (Portugal v. India) Merits, Judgment of 12 April 1960, ICJ Reports 1960;

International Court of Justice, Dissenting opinion of Judge ad hoc Fernandez; South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v South Africa), Second Phase, Judgment of 18 July 1966, ICJ Reports 1966;

International Court of Justice, Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening), judgment of 3 February 2012, ICJ Reports 2012;

International Court of Justice, North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), Judgment of 20 February 1969, ICJ Reports 1969;

International Court of Justice, Nuclear Tests Case (Australia v. France), Judgment of 20 December 1974, ICJ Reports 1974;

International Court of Justice, Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), judgment of 20 July 2012, ICJ Reports 2012;

International Court of Justice, Separate Opinion of Cançado Trindade in Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), judgment of 20 July 2012, ICJ Reports 2012;

International Court of Justice, Separate opinion of Judge Moreno Quintana in Case Concerning the Application of the Convention of 1902 Governing Guardianship of Infants (Netherlands v. Sweden), Judgment of 28 November 1958, ICJ Reports 1958;

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, case IT-95-17/I-T Prosecutor v. Furundžija, decision of 10 December 1998;

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, case IT-96-21-T Prosecutor v. Delalić and others, decision of 16 November 1998;

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, case IT-96-23-T i IT-96-23/1 Prosecutor v. Kunarac, decision of 22 February 2001;

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Prosecutor v. Jelisić, Case No. IT-95-10-T, Judgment of 14 December 1999, Trial Chamber, Judicial Reports 1999;

International Law Commission, Draft Conclusions on Identification and Legal Consequences of Peremptory Norms of General International Law (jus cogens) with Commentaries, UN Doc A/CN.4/L.102 (2022), доступно на: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/1_14_2022.pdf (11.3.2026)

International Law Commission, Draft conclusions on identification and legal consequences of peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens), UN Doc A/CN.4/L.102 (2022), доступно на: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/1_14_2022.pdf (10.3.2026);

International Law Commission, Second report on jus cogens, A/CN.4/706;

Martti Koskenniemi, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Fragmentation and Expansion of International Law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682 of 13 April 2006, Conclusions.