Sentences with phrase «jus cogens»

The fact that violations of jus cogens norms occurred in the past does not entail a conflict with nor permit a state to set aside the rules of immunity.

Furthermore, US courts have recently denied foreign state officials immunity against civil claims alleging violation of jus cogens norms.

In Samantar v Yousef (699 F. 3rd 763, 2012) the Federal Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded that «under international and domestic law, officials from other countries are not entitled to foreign official immunity for jus cogens violations, even if the acts are performed in an official capacity».

Territorial illegality arises under a serious breach of certain fundamental norms of international law, in particular jus cogens.

However, customary international law principles, such as universal jurisdiction or jus cogens remain elusive (e.g. Bouzari v. Islamic Republic of Iran (2004), 71 O.R. (3d) 675, leave to appeal refused, [2005] 1 S.C.R. vi).

However, in Kadi v Council and Commission, the CFI dismissed his challenge to the regulation, on the basis that UN Security Council Resolutions were binding on the EU save on jus cogens grounds.

«Other jurisdictions have been willing to hold corporate actors accountable for violations of jus cogens [compelling law]; and over time, the doctrine of act of state has been limited by public policy considerations said to be part of domestic law.»

[61] Jus cogens or peremptory norms of international law are overriding principles of international law, distinguished by their indelibility and non-derogability.

It is often claimed that the prohibition of the use of force in Art 2 (4) is a rule of jus cogens.

In my 2009 comment on this case, when it was still pending before the Quebec Superior Court, I was hopeful that the law was rapidly moving towards holding states, and individuals acting under colour of state authority, accountable for breaches of jus cogens norms.

Clearly a rule permitting humanitarian intervention can not be a jus cogens rule.

Art 53 of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties says that a rule of jus cogens can only be modified by another rule of jus cogens.

These include Lord Sumption's careful discussion of jus cogens; the surprisingly short shrift given to the government's argument based on state immunity; and the strident dismissal of the argument that UK courts should refrain from adjudicating on foreign acts of state where doing so would embarrass the UK in its international relations (per Lord Mance at [11](iv)(d)-RSB-; Lord Neuberger at [134]; and Lord Sumption at [241]-RRB-.

As a normative matter or as de lege ferenda, one definitely hopes that international law would develop a jus cogens rule requiring states to prevent the perpetration of mass atrocities.

Their reaction can be a refusal to give effect to an act of the IO, following a finding that the act was outside the scope of authority of the IO -LSB-...] or incompatible with another set of norms, be it international norms (such as a jus cogens norm or a human rights norm) or a norm of the domestic legal order that has precedence over the act of the IO (such as the practice of the German constitutional court in the cases involving judgments of The ECJ and the EctHR).»

Such a guarantee would reflect the fact that the principles of non-discrimination and equality before the law have the status of jus cogens, or put differently, that they are standards from which no deviation is permitted at international law.