Peremptory Norms of General International Law (Ius Cogens) and Russia’s Aggression Against Ukraine

Authors

  • Felix Herbert Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Germany

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18523/kmlpj320043.2024-10.51-81

Keywords:

Ukraine, Russian Aggression, Peremptory Norms of General International Law (Ius Cogens), Treaty Invalidity, Non-recognition, Non-assistance, Obligation to Cooperate to End Serious Ius Cogens Breaches

Abstract

Russia’s war against Ukraine violates several ius cogens norms, especially the prohibition of aggression (I.). Though ius cogens is said to protect fundamental values of the international community, it is not immediately apparent how it provides protection against an aggressor state. The article therefore analyses the implications of ius cogens for Ukraine, Russia, and the international community. The legal consequences of ius cogens can be divided in two sets, one concerning the invalidating effect of ius cogens on conflicting legal acts, the second concerning state responsibility. The first set raises the pivotal question under what circumstances a potential Russo-Ukrainian peace settlement would be invalid (II.). The second set of legal consequences engages the international community by conferring obligations on all states in relation to the war (III.). This includes the obligations of non-recognition and nonassistance in situations created by serious ius cogens breaches, and the obligation to cooperate to end such breaches. While the customary status and content of these obligations is not fully settled, state practice in response to the war contributes to crystallizing and clarifying these obligations to some extent. Therefore, despite Russia’s ongoing aggression, international practice responding to the war reinforces ius cogens (IV.).

Author Biography

Felix Herbert, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law

Felix Herbert is a Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law in Heidelberg, Germany and a PhD candidate under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Christian Marxsen, LL.M (NYU) at Humboldt University of Berlin. He teaches public international law at Heidelberg University, where he also graduated in 2020. His current research focuses on peremptory norms of general international law (ius cogens), especially at the example of the prohibition of the use of force.

References

  1. Andreichenko, Svitlana. “Supplying Ukraine with Weapons Due to the Russian Aggression: Legal Justification.” Graz Law Working Paper No. 06-2023 (16 March 2023). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4390454.
  2. Aust, Helmut Philipp. Complicity and the Law of State Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511862632.
  3. Aust, Helmut Philipp. “Legal Consequences of Serious Breaches of Peremptory Norms in the Law of State Responsibility.” Chap. 9 In Peremptory Norms of General International Law (Jus Cogens), Disquisitions and Disputations, edited by Dire Tladi, 227-55. Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, 2021.
  4. Azarova, Valentina. “An Illegal Territorial Regime? On the Occupation and Annexation of Crimea as a Matter of International Law.” Chap. 3 In The Use of Force against Ukraine and International Law, edited by Sergey Sayapin and Evhen Tsybulenko, 41-72. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser, 2018.
  5. Banzai, Hiroyuki. “Impacts on Jus Cogens: Impact on the Law of State Responsibility and Law of Treaties.” Chap. 2 In Global Impact of the Ukraine Conflict, Perspectives from International Law, edited by Shuichi Furuya, Hitomi Takemura and Kuniko Ozaki, 25-47. Singapore: Springer Nature, 2023.
  6. Barber, Rebecca. “What Does the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ Require of States in Ukraine?”. Journal of International Peacekeeping 25, no. 2 (2022): 155-77. https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-25020005.
  7. Barber, Rebecca J. “Cooperating through the General Assembly to End Serious Breaches of Peremptory Norms.” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 71 (January 2022): 1-35.
  8. Barnidge Jr., Robert P. “Questioning the Legitimacy of Jus Cogens in the Global Legal Order.” Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 38 (2008): 199-225. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047427049_009.
  9. Beurret, Florent, "Limiting the Veto in the Face of Jus Cogens Violations: Russia’s Latest (Ab)Use of the Veto," Opinio Juris, 06 May 2022, opiniojuris.org/2022/05/06/limiting-the-vetoin-the-face-of-jus-cogens-violations-russias-latest-abuse-of-the-veto/.
  10. Binder, Christina. “Uniting for Peace Resolution (1950).” In Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, edited by Rüdiger Wolfrum, May 2017.
  11. Brunk, Ingrid, and Monica Hakimi. “The Prohibition of Annexations and the Foundations of Modern International Law.” American Journal of International Law (pre-publication manuscript) (2024): 1-70. https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2024.26.
  12. Cannizzaro, Enzo. “A Higher Law for Treaties?”. Chap. 25 In The Law of Treaties Beyond the Vienna Convention, edited by Enzo Cannizzaro, 425-41. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
  13. Casey-Maslen, Stuart. Jus Ad Bellum, the Law on Inter-State Use of Fore. Oxford: Hart, 2020.
  14. Chinkin, Christine. Third Parties in International Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.
  15. Christakis, Théodore. “L’obligation De Non-Reconnaissance Des Situations Créées Par Le Recours Illicite À La Force Ou D'autres Actes Enfreignant Des Règles Fondamentales.” Chap. 7 In The Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order, Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes, edited by Christian Tomuschat and Jean-Marc Thouvenin, 127-66. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2006.
  16. Clancy, Pearce. “Neutral Arms Transfer and the Russian Invasion of Ukraine.” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 72 (2023): 527–43. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589323000064.
  17. Corten, Olivier. “1969 Vienna Convention Article 52.” In The Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties, edited by Olivier Corten and Pierre Klein. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
  18. Costelloe, Daniel. Legal Consequences of Peremptory Norms in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
  19. Crawford, James. State Responsibility, the General Part. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. doi:10.1017/cbo9781139033060.
  20. Dawidowicz, Martin. “The Obligation of Non-Recognition of an Unlawful Situation.” Chap. 46 In The Law of International Responsibility, edited by James Crawford, Alain Pellet and Simon Olleson, 677-86. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
  21. Desierto, Diane, "Non-Recognition," EJIL:Talk!, 22 February 2022, ejiltalk.org/nonrecognition/.
  22. Dinstein, Yoram. War, Aggression and Self-Defence. 6. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
  23. Essawy, Rana Moustafa, "Is There a Legal Duty to Cooperate in Implementing Western Sanctions on Russia?," EJIL:Talk!, 25 April 2022, ejiltalk.org/is-there-a-legal-duty-to-cooperatein-implementing-western-sanctions-on-russia/.
  24. Essawy, Rana Moustafa. “The Responsibility Not to Veto Revisited under the Theory of ‘Consequential Jus Cogens’.” Global Responsibility to Protect 12, no. 3 (2020): 299-335. https://doi.org/10.1163/1875-984x-20200002.
  25. "Eu Member States Exported Weapons to Russia after the 2014 Embargo." Investigate Europe, accessed July 8, 2024, https://www.investigate-europe.eu/en/posts/eu-statesexported-weapons-to-russia.
  26. Fazal, Tanisha M. “The Demise of Peace Treaties in Interstate War.” International Organization 67, no. 4 (2013): 695-724. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818313000246.
  27. Ferrer Lloret, Jaume. “The “Particular Consequences” of Serious Violations of Jus Cogens Norms in the Ilc Draft of 2022: Progressive Development of International Law?”. Anuario Espanol de Derecho Internacional 39 (2023): 149-208.
  28. Forlati, Serena. “Coercion as a Ground Affecting the Validity of Peace Treaties.” Chap. 19 In The Law of Treaties Beyond the Vienna Convention, edited by Enzo Cannizzaro, 320-32. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
  29. Gaeta, Paola. “The Character of the Breach.” Chap. 31 In The Law of International Responsibility, edited by James Crawford, Alain Pellet and Simon Olleson, 421-26. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
  30. Green, James A., Christian Henderson, and Tom Ruys. “Russia’s Attack on Ukraine and the Jus Ad Bellum.” Journal on the Use of Force and International Law 9, no. 1 (2022): 4-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2022.2056803.
  31. Gutiérrez-Espada, Cesáreo. “De La Guerra En Ucrania.” Anuario Español de Derecho Internacional 39 (2023): 81-99. https://doi.org/10.15581/010.39.81-99.
  32. Hansel, Mary H. “‘Magic’ or Smoke and Mirrors? The Gendered Illusion of Jus Cogens.” Chap. 18 In Peremptory Norms of General International Law (Jus Cogens), Disquisitions and Disputations, edited by Dire Tladi, 471-508. Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, 2021.
  33. Herbert, Felix. “The Ilc’s Function Beyond Codification and Progressive Development: Catalysing Customary International Lawmaking.” Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 27 (2024): (forthcoming).
  34. "Iran Supplies Arms to Russia." Arms Control Association, accessed July 8, 2024, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2022-11/news/iran-supplies-arms-russia.
  35. ILC. Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries. (2001).
  36. ILC. Draft Conclusions on Identification and Legal Consequences of Peremptory Norms of General International Law (Jus Cogens). (17 May 2022).
  37. ILC. Draft Conclusions on Identification and Legal Consequences of Peremptory Norms of General International Law (Jus Cogens), with Commentaries. (22-27 July 2022).
  38. ILC. Draft Conclusions on Identification of Customary International Law, with Commentaries. (2018).
  39. ILC. Fifth Report on Peremptory Norms of General International Law (Jus Cogens) by Dire Tladi, Special Rapporteur. (24 January 2022).
  40. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine. Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine. (18 October 2022).
  41. Jørgensen, Nina H. B. “The Obligation of Cooperation.” Chap. 48 In The Law of International Responsibility, edited by James Crawford, Alain Pellet and Simon Olleson, 695-701. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
  42. Jørgensen, Nina H. B. “The Obligation of Non-Assistance to the Responsible State.” Chap. 47 In The Law of International Responsibility, edited by James Crawford, Alain Pellet and Simon Olleson, 687-94. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
  43. Knuchel, Sévrine. Jus Cogens: Identification and Enforcement of Peremptory Norms. Zürich: Schulthess, 2015.
  44. Kolb, Robert. The International Law of State Responsibility. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2017.
  45. Krisch, Nico. “Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression, Introduction to Chapter Vii: The General Framework.” In The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, Volume Ii, edited by Bruno Simma, Daniel-Erasmus Khan, Georg Nolte, Andreas Paulus and Nikolai Wessendorf, 2012.
  46. Lanovoy, Vladyslav. Complicity and Its Limits in the Law of International Responsibility. Oxford: Hart, 2016. doi:10.5040/9781782259398.
  47. Leiæ, Johann Ruben, and Andreas Paulus. “Ch.Xvi Miscellaneous Provisions, Article 103.” In The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, Volume Ii, edited by Bruno Simma, Daniel-Erasmus Khan, Georg Nolte, Andreas Paulus and Nikolai Wessendorf, 2012.
  48. Lieblich, Eliav. “Whataboutism in International Law.” Harvard International Law Journal 65, no. 2 (2024): 1-54.
  49. Lim, Chin Leng, and Ryan Martínez Mitchell. “Neutral Rights and Collectice Countermeasures for Erga Omnes Violations.” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 72, no. 2 (2023): 361-91. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020589323000076.
  50. Linderfalk, Ulf. “The Source of Jus Cogens Obligations – How Legal Positivism Copes with Peremptory International Law.” Nordic Journal of International Law 82 (2013): 369-89.
  51. "Lukashenko Is Letting Putin Use Belarus to Attack Ukraine." Foreign Policy, accessed July 8, 2024, https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/24/russia-ukraine-war-belarus-chernobyllukashenko/.
  52. Malawer, Stuart S. “Imposed Treaties and International Law.” California Western International Law Journal 7, no. 1 (1977): 1-178.
  53. Marxsen, Christian. “The Crimea Crisis from an International Law Perspective.” Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal 2 (2016): 13-36. https://doi.org/10.18523/kmlpj88177.2016-2.13-36.
  54. Marxsen, Christian. “The Crimea Crisis, an International Law Perspective.” Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 74 (2014): 367-91.
  55. Milano, Enrico. “Security Council Action in the Balkans: Reviewing the Legality of Kosovo’s Territorial Status.” European Journal of International Law 15, no. 5 (2003): 999–1022.
  56. Moeckli, Daniel, and Raffael N. Fasel. “A Duty to Give Reasons in the Security Council, Making Voting Transparent.” International Organizations Law Review 14, no. 1 (2017): 13-86. https://doi.org/10.1163/15723747-2017001.
  57. Nguyen, Quoc Tan Trung. “The Practice of Non-Recognition and Economic Sanctions: The Case Study of Ukraine, Manchuria and South Africa.” Journal of Conflict & Security Law 29 (2024): 73–95. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krad012.
  58. Niewęgłowski, Krzysztof. “Normative Aspects of Jus Cogens Identification in Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.” Zeszyty Prawnicze 78, no. 2 (2023): 9-24. https://doi.org/10.31268/ZPBAS.2023.26.
  59. Orakhelashvili, Alexander. Peremptory Norms in International Law. Oxford Monographs in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
  60. Paddeu, Federica. “Military Assistance on Request and General Reasons against Force: Consent as a Defence to the Prohibition of Force.” Journal on the Use of Force and International Law 7, no. 2 (2020): 227-69. https://doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2020.1805963.
  61. Peters, Anne. “The War in Ukraine and the Curtailment of the Veto in the Security Council.” Revue Européenne du Droit 5 (2023): 87-93.
  62. Raube, Svenja. Die Antizipierte Einladung Zur Militärischen Gewaltanwendung Im Völkerrecht. Baden-Baden: Nomos 2023.
  63. Reisman, W. Michael. “Termination of the Ussr’s Treaty Right of Intervention in Iran.” American Journal of International Law 74 (1980).
  64. "Rising Flow of Russian Oil Products to China, India and the Middle East." Reuters, accessed July 8, 2024, https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/rising-flow-russian-oilproducts-china-india-middle-east-russell-2023-02-16/.
  65. Schmalenbach, Kirsten. "#26 Völkervertragsrecht: Können Friedensverträge Nichtig Sein?" By Sophie Schuberth, Philipp Eschenhagen, Erik Tuchtfeld and Isabel Lischewski. Völkerrechtspodcast. April 7, 2023. https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/de/26-voelkervertragsrecht-koennen-friedensvertraege-nichtig-sein/.
  66. Schmalenbach, Kirsten. “Article 52.” In Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a Commentary, edited by Oliver Dörr and Kirsten Schmalenbach. Berlin: Springer 2012.
  67. Schmalenbach, Kirsten, and Alexander Prantl, "How to End an Illegal War?," Völkerrechtsblog, 21 April 2022, https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/de/how-to-end-an-illegal-war/.
  68. Scobbie, Iain. “The Invocation of Responsibility for the Breach of ‘Obligations under Peremptory Norms of General International Law’.” European Journal of International Law 13, no. 5 (2002): 1201-20. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/13.5.1201.
  69. Talmon, Stefan. “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?”. Chap. 6 In The Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order, Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes, edited by Christian Tomuschat and Jean-Marc Thouvenin, 99-125. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2006.
  70. Tams, Christian J. “Do Serious Breaches Give Rise to Any Specific Obligations of the Responsible State?”. European Journal of International Law 25, no. 5 (2002): 1161–80.
  71. Trahan, Jennifer. Existing Legal Limits to Security Council Veto Power in the Face of Atrocity Crimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020. doi:10.1017/9781108765251.
  72. "Ukraine Cuts N Korea Ties over Recognition of Separatist Regions." Al Jazeera, accessed July 8, 2024 https://aljazeera.com/news/2022/7/13/n-korea-recognises-breakaway-ofrussias-proxies-in-east-ukraine.
  73. Verhoeven, Sten. Norms of Jus Cogens in International Law, a Positivist and Constitutionalist Approach. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 2011.
  74. "‘Very Big Mistake’: Nato Chief Cautions China over Supplying Weapons to Russia." Politico, accessed July 8, 2024, https://www.politico.eu/article/very-big-mistake-nato-chief-jensstoltenberg-cautions-china-over-russia-weapons-supply-ukraine-war/.
  75. Vidmar, Jure. “The Use of Force and Defences in the Law of State Responsibility.” Jean Monnet Working Paper (05/2015). https://ssrn.com/abstract=2796224.
  76. Villalpando, Santiago. L’émergence De La Communauté Internationale Dans La Responsabilité Des États. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2005.
  77. Vishchyk, Maksym, and Jeremy Pizzi, "Compromises on Territory, Legal Order, and World Peace: The Fate of International Law Lies on Ukraine’s Borders," Just Security, 6 October 2023, https://www.justsecurity.org/89216/compromises-on-territory-legal-order-and-world-peacethe-fate-of-international-law-lies-on-ukraines-borders/.
  78. Weisburd, Arthur Mark. “The Emptiness of the Concept of Jus Cogens, as Illustrated by the War in Bosnia-Herzegovina.” Michigan Journal of International Law 17 (1995): 1-52.
  79. Zhang, Yueyao, "Summoning Solidarity through Sanctions, Time for More Business and Less Rhetoric," Völkerrechtsblog, 08 June 2022, https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/summoningsolidarity-through-sanctions/.

Downloads

Published

2024-12-30

How to Cite

Herbert, F. (2024). Peremptory Norms of General International Law (Ius Cogens) and Russia’s Aggression Against Ukraine. Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal, (10), 51–81. https://doi.org/10.18523/kmlpj320043.2024-10.51-81

Issue

No. 10 (2024): Kyiv-Mohyla Law & Politics Journal

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Felix Herbert

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal provides free access to original research without restriction barriers (i.e. subscription fees, licensing fees etc.).

Unless otherwise indicated, content is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license, which means you are free to:

distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially

...provided that any use is made with attribution to author(s) and Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal.

The copyright in the article or any other submission to Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal shall remain with the author(s).

The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions and will retain publishing rights without restrictions.