LSE Law Review最新文献

筛选

英文中文

Treaties, Peremptory Norms and International Courts: Is the Hierarchy Theory Treading Water? 条约、强制性规范和国际法院：等级理论是在蹚浑水吗？

LSE Law Review Pub Date : 2020-03-18 DOI: 10.61315/lselr.84

Madeleine Lusted

{"title":"Treaties, Peremptory Norms and International Courts: Is the Hierarchy Theory Treading Water?","authors":"Madeleine Lusted","doi":"10.61315/lselr.84","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.61315/lselr.84","url":null,"abstract":"In its recent report, the ILC addressed two main outstanding issues relating to jus cogens norms: the existence of regional jus cogens and the possibility of an illustrative list. The report concludes with draft conclusion 24, which proposes a non-exhaustive list of the “most widely recognised” peremptory norms, such as the prohibition of genocide and aggressive use of force. Peremptory norms are no doubt a “positive part of international law,” yet are still conceptualised by some as “a dramatic (or threatening) magic.” The ILC’s report is perhaps an attempt to concretise jus cogens as, in Kolb’s words, an “operational concept of law”, rather than a mere extension of natural law theory or lofty ideals. This post offers the thesis that, whilst such a mission is admirable, the operation of peremptory norms as envisaged by the ‘hierarchy theory’ remains impeded by the dominance of treaties as a source of international law. Furthermore, this seems unlikely to change in the immediate future because treaties are a primary vehicle for the enforcement of state sovereignty, which remains paramount in an international legal sphere dominated by positivist notions of state consent. The conflict is thus characterised by the dichotomy between realpolitik and international ideals.","PeriodicalId":514338,"journal":{"name":"LSE Law Review","volume":" 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141222208","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

How Can the Methodology of Feminist Judgment Writing Improve Gender-Sensitivity in International Criminal Law? 女性主义判决书写作方法如何提高国际刑法中的性别敏感性？

LSE Law Review Pub Date : 2020-03-18 DOI: 10.61315/lselr.79

K. Gooding

引用次数: 0

R v Evans: An Uneasy Precedent? R v Evans：不稳定的先例？

LSE Law Review Pub Date : 2020-03-18 DOI: 10.61315/lselr.80

Ann-Marie Sous

引用次数: 0

首页上一页