Prześlij tekst
Nr 2 (210) (2017)
Artykuły

Normy ius cogens w orzeczeniach i opiniach doradczych Międzyamerykańskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka

[Iuc cogens norms in judgements and advisory opinions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights]

PDF
  • Edyta Lis
Edyta Lis
Uniwersytet Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej w Lublinie

Opublikowane 2017-06-30

Słowa kluczowe

  • prawo międzynarodowe,
  • normy ius cogens,
  • Międzyamerykański Trybunał Praw Człowieka,
  • sądy,
  • opinie doradcze,
  • international law,
  • ius cogens norms,
  • Inter-American Court of Human Rights,
  • judgements,
  • advisory opinions
    • ...Więcej
    Less
Creative Commons License

Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa 4.0 Międzynarodowe.

Jak cytować

Normy ius cogens w orzeczeniach i opiniach doradczych Międzyamerykańskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka: [Iuc cogens norms in judgements and advisory opinions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights]. (2017). Studia Prawnicze The Legal Studies, 2 (210), 31-66. https://doi.org/10.37232/sp.2017.2.2

Abstrakt

Od kilkudziesięciu lat zauważalne jest coraz większe zainteresowanie, zarówno przedstawicieli nauki prawa międzynarodowego, jak i trybunałów międzynarodowych problematyką norm ius cogens. Normy ius cogens stanowią swoiste bowiem wytyczne dla trybunałów międzynarodowych przy wydawaniu rozstrzygnięć, ponieważ łączą w sobie elementy zasad i polityki. W przypadku rozbieżności pomiędzy stanowiskami sędziów, sprzecznych wyników interpretacji lub braku zgodności praktyki państw sędziowie powinni ustalić spójne stanowisko, które zapewni integralność porządku międzynarodowego. Dokonując takiego wyboru, kierują się zasadami – określającymi prawa i polityką – określającą cele.

Międzyamerykański Trybunał Praw Człowieka (ATPCz) jest regionalnym sądem przewidzianym w rozdz. VIII Międzyamerykańskiej Konwencji Praw Człowieka z 22 listopada 1969 r. (AKPCz). Jedną z charakterystycznych cech orzecznictwa ATPCz jest stosowanie innowacyjnej interpretacji praw człowieka oraz, w przeciwieństwie do praktyki Międzynarodowego Trybunału Sprawiedliwości, dość odważne przypisywanie określonym normom statusu ius cogens. Wyrażany jest pogląd, że w zakresie ustalenia treści norm ius cogens ATPCz uczynił dużo więcej niż jakikolwiek inny sąd międzynarodowy i przyczynił się do ukształtowania się nowego prawa międzynarodowego, tzw. international law for humankind. Ponadto Trybunał ten dość często odwołuje się do orzeczeń ETPCz, komentarzy ogólnych, uwag końcowych Komitetu Praw Człowieka10lub dokumentów soft law.

 

The concept of ius cogens norms is one of the most controversial issue in the international law. These norms were definied in the art. 53 of Vienna Convention on the law of treaties of 1969, according to which ius cogens norm it is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of the international law having the same character. This definition indicates that these norms limit the ability of States of creation or change the norms of the international law. However, the indicated definition does not include examples, scope and substance of ius cogens norms. In the commentary to the art. 50 of the draft articles on the law of treaties the International Law Commission stated that substance of these norms will be worked out in the States’ practice and in the judicial decisions of international courts . Contrary to International Court of Justice Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), in its judicial decisions in great measure widened the scope and the substance of ius cogens norms. Consequently, IACtHR has developed a progressive case law in this realm. In separate opinion, in the case Caesar v. Trinidad and Tobago from 2005, judge A.A. Conçado Trindade concluded that the IACtHR, in identification of ius cogens norms, have done more than any other international court. In its judgements and advisory opinions IACtHR recognized that e.g. forced going missing, tortures, discriminations, extrajudicial executions are the infringements of ius cogens norms. Taking into consideration jurisprudence of the IACtHR it is hard to say on what grounds it was prescribed that a given norm is forming a part of ius cogens. This article analyses the way the IACtHR identified ius cogens norms. Therefore it was indispensable to define its competence ratione materiae. Next, taking into consideration the gravity and the nature of infringement and the fact that all infringements of human rights which have been described simultaneously constitute violation of other human rights, this paper is limited only to three of them. It also outlines what functions, in the jurisprudence of IACtHR, fulfil the attribution to the norms the status of ius cogens norms.

PDF

Bibliografia

  1. Allain J., Jus Cogens Nature of Non-Refoulement, ,,International Journal of Refugee Law” 2001, vol. 13, no. 4.
  2. Alexidze L., Legal Nature of Jus Cogens in Contemporary International Law, ,,Recueil des Cours” 1981–III, vol. 172.
  3. Almonacid-Arellano et al v. Chile, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of 26 September 2006, Series C, No. 154.
  4. Alvarez-Rio I., Contreras-Garduno D., A Barren Effort? The Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on Jus Cogens, tekst dostępny na: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r34038.pdf. Dostęp: 19 lipca 2017 r.
  5. American Convention on Human Rights, Adopted at the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, San José, Costa Rica, 22 November 1969, tekst Konwencji dostępny na: https://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_B-32_American_Convention_on_Human_Rights.htm. Dostęp: 19 lipca 2017 r.
  6. Anaya S. J., International Human Rights and Indigenous Peoples: The Move toward the Multicultural State, „Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law” 2004, vol. 21, no. 1.
  7. Antonowicz L., Zagadnienie podmiotowości prawa międzynarodowego, „Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska Lublin-Polonia” 1998, Sectio G, vol. XLV.
  8. Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo, New Application: 2002 – Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda, Separate Opinion judge ad hoc J. Dugard, Judgment of 3 February 2006.
  9. Arrocha P., The Never-ending Dilemma: is the Unilateral Use of Force by States Legal in the Context of Humanitarian Intervention?, „Anuario Mexicano de Derecho Internacional” 2011, vol. XI.
  10. Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Text adopted by the International Law Commission at its fifty-third session, in 2001, and submitted to the General Assembly as a part of the Commission’s report covering the work of that session, (A/56 /10), „Yearbook of the International Law Commission” 2001, vol. II, Part Two.
  11. Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of February 24, 2012, Series C, No. 239.
  12. Basch F. F., The Doctrine of Inter-American Court of Human Rights Regarding States’ Duty to Punish Human Rights Violations and its Dangers, „American University International Law Review” 2007, vol. 23, no. 1.
  13. Binachi A., Human Rights and the Magic of Jus Cogens, „European Journal of International Law” 2008, vol. 19, no. 3.
  14. Blake v. Guatemala, Merits, Judgment of January 24 , 1998 , Series C, No. 48.
  15. Blake v. Guatemala, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of January 22 , 1999, Series C, No. 48.
  16. Boisson de Chazournes L., The Principle Compétence de la Compétence in International Adjudication and Its Role in an Era of Multiplication of Courts and Tribunals, [w:] Arsanjani M. H., Cogan J., Sloane R.D., Wiessner S., (eds), Looking to the Future: Essays on International Law in Honor of W. Michael Reisman, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston 2011.
  17. Buergenthal T., The Advisory Practice of the Inter-American Court of Justice, „American Journal of International Law” 1979, vol. 79, no. 1, s. 4–12.
  18. Burgorgue-Larsen L., Ubeda de Torres A., Greenstein R., The Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Case Law and Commentary, Oxford 2011.
  19. Byers M., ‘Conceptualising the Relationship between Jus Cogens and Erga Omnes Rules’, „Nordic Journal of International Law” 1997, vol. 66, no. 2-3.
  20. Cantoral Benavides v. Peru, Merits, Judgment of August 18, 2000, Series C, No. 69.
  21. Case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of September 10, 1993, Series C, No. 15.
  22. Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 27, 2003, Series C, No. 103.
  23. Case of Molina Theissen v. Guatemala, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of July 3, 2004, Series C, No. 108.
  24. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of July 8, 2004, Series C, No. 110.
  25. Caesar v. Trinidad and Tobago, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of March 11, 2005, Series C, No. 123.
  26. Case of ”Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of September 15, 2005, Series C, No. 134.
  27. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of October 24, 2012, Series C, No. 251.
  28. Claude O., Comparative Approach to Enforced Disappearances in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights Jurisprudence, „Intercultural Human Rights Law Review” 2010, vol. 5.
  29. Claude-Reyes et al. v. Chile, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgmen of September 19, 2006, Series C, No. 151.
  30. Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of May 25, 2010, Series C, No. 212.
  31. Conçado Trindade A. A., The Humanization of Consular Law: The Impact of Advisory Opinion No. 16 (1999) of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on International Case-law and Practice, „Chinese Journal of International Law” 2007, vol. 6, no. 1.
  32. Conçado Trindade A. A., Enforced Disappearances of Persons as a Violation of Jus Cogens: The Contribution of the Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, „Nordic Journal of International Law” 2012, vol. 81, no. 4.
  33. Conçado Trindade A. A., International Law for Humankind: Towards a New Jus Gentium, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2013.
  34. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, New York, 10 December 1984, UNTS 1987, vol. 1465, no. 24841.
  35. Cuneo I. M., Right of Indigenous Peoples to Meaningful Consent in Extractive Industry Projects, „Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law” 2005, vol. 22, no. 1.
  36. Czapliński W., Concepts of Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law in the Light of Recent Developments, „Polish Yearbook of International Law” 1997–1998, vol. 23.
  37. Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, A/RES/30/3452, Annex, 9 December 1975.
  38. de Hoogh A., The Relationship between Jus Cogens, Obligations Erga Omnes and International Crimes: Peremptory Norms in Perspective, „Austrian Journal of Public International Law” 1991, vol. 42.
  39. Dubois D., Authority of Peremptory Norms in International Law: State Consent or Natural Law, „Nordic Journal of International Law” 2009, vol. 78, no. 2.
  40. Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 20, 2014, Series C, No. 289.
  41. Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of August 28, 2014, Series C, No. 282.
  42. Fabri H. R., Enhancing the Rhetoric of Ius Cogens, „European Journal of International Law” 2012, vol. 23, no. 4.
  43. Fernanda M., Solla P., Enforced Disappearances in International Human Rights, McFarland and Company Inc., Publishers, Jefferson, North Carolina and London 2006.
  44. Gaja G., The Protection of General Interests in the International Community, ,,Recueil des Cours” 2012, vol. 364.
  45. Genovese C., van der Wilt H., Fighting Impunity of Enforced Disappearances through a Regional Model, „Amsterdam Law Forum” 2014, vol. 6, no. 1.
  46. Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of September 22 , 2006, Series C, No. 153.
  47. Gonzalez Medina and Family v. Dominican Republic, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of February 27, 2012, Series C, No. 240.
  48. Grossman C., The Inter-American System of Human Rights: Challenges for the Future, „Indiana Law Journal” 2008, vol. 83, no. 4.
  49. Heliodoro-Portugal v. Panama, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of August 12, 2008, Series C, No. 186.
  50. Hennebel L., The Inter-American Court of Human Rights: the Ambassador of Universalism, „Quebec Journal of International Law” September 2011.
  51. Human Rights Committee, Mojica v. Dominican Republic, Communication No. 449 /199 1, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/51/D/449 /199 1, 15 July 1994.
  52. Human Rights Committee, Mériem Zarzi v. Algeria, Communication No. 178 0/2008, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/101/D/178 0/2008, 22 March 2011.
  53. Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen-Peńa v. Bolivia, Merits, Reparation and Costs, Judgment of September 1, 2010, Series C, No. 217.
  54. International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, New York, 20 December 2006, UNTS 2010, vol. 2716, no. 48088.
  55. Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, Legal Standards Related to Gender Equality and Women’s Rights in the Inter-American Human Rights System: Development and Application, OEA/Ser. L/V/II. 143 Doc. 60, 3 November 2011, Original: Spanish, update approved by Commission on January 26, 2015.
  56. Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, signed at Cartagena de Indias, Colombia, on 9 December of 1985, at Fifteenth Regular Session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, tekst dostępny na: https://www.oas.org/juridico/english/sigs/a-51.html. Dostęp: 19 lipca 2017 r.
  57. Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, Adopted at Belem do Para, Brazil, on 9 June 1994, at the Twenty-fourth Regular Session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, tekst dostępny na: https://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/a-60.html. Dostęp: 19 lipca 2017 r.
  58. International and National Courts Confronting Large-Scale Violations of Human Rights - Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War crimes – Background Paper for Seminar Opening of the Judicial Year January 2016, prepared by the Department of the Jurisconsult.
  59. Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-10/89 of July 14, 1989 , Series A, No. 10.
  60. Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, Competence, Judgment of September 24 , 1999, Series C, No. 54.
  61. Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child, Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002, Series A, No.17.
  62. Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants, Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003, Series A, No. 18.
  63. Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening), Judgment of 3 February 2012.
  64. Keller H., Heri C., Enforced Disappearance and the European Court of Human Rights: A‘Wall of Silence’, Fact-Finding Difficulties and States as ‘Subversive Objectors’, „Journal of International Criminal Justice” 2014, vol. 12, no. 4.
  65. Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, Merits and Reparations, Judgment of June 27 , 2012, Series C, No. 245.
  66. Kolb R., Peremptory International Law - Jus Cogens: A General Inventory, Bloomsbury Publishing 2015.
  67. Konwencja wiedeńska o prawie traktatów, sporządzona w Wiedniu dnia 23 maja z 1969 r., Dz.U. 1990 r. Nr 74 poz. 439, załącznik.
  68. Kuna Indigenous People of Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous People of Bayano and their Members v. Panama, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of October 14, 2014, Series C, No. 284.
  69. Kwiecień R., Państwa jako suwerenni „międzynarodowi prawodawcy” a systemowe cechy prawa międzynarodowego, [w:] Kwiecień R. (red.), Państwo a prawo międzynarodowe jako system, Lublin 2015.
  70. Kyriakou N., An Affront to the Conscience of Humanity: Enforced Disappearance in International Human Rights, European University Institute, Department of Law, Thesis Submitted for Assessment with a View to Obtaining the Degree of Doctor of Laws of the European University Institute, Florence, June 2012.
  71. Kyriakou N., International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and Its Contributions to International Human Rights Law, with Specific Reference to Extraordinary Rendition, „Melbourne Journal of International Law” 2012, vol. 13, no. 1.
  72. Lejla Fazlić and others against Bosnia and Herzegovina and 4 other applications, Application No. 66758 /09, Decision of 3 June 2014.
  73. Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of August 27, 2014, Series C, No. 281.
  74. Linderfalk U., What Is so Special AboutJus Cogens? On the Distinction between the Ordinary and the Peremptory International Law’, „International Community Law Review” 2012, vol. 14, no. 1.
  75. Lixinski L., Treaty Interpretation by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Expansionism at the Service of the Unity of International Law, „European Journal of International Law” 2010, vol. 21, no. 3.
  76. MacDonald R. St. J., Fundamental Norms in Contemporary International Law, „Canadian Yearbook of International Law” 1987, vol. 25.
  77. Marguš v. Croatia, Application No. 4455 /10, Judgement of 27 May 2014.
  78. Medellin-Urquiaga X., The Normative Impact of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on Latin-American National Prosecution of Mass Atrocities, „Israel Law Review” 2013, vol. 46, no. 3.
  79. Micus A., The Inter-American Human Rights System as a Safeguard for Justice in National Transitions: From Amnesty Laws to Accountability in Argentina, Chile and Peru, Brill/Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston 2015.
  80. Międzyamerykańska Deklaracja Praw i Obowiązków Człowieka, przyjęta na IX sesji państw OPA, Bogota, Kolumbia 1948 r., tekst dostępny na: https:// www.cidh.oas.org/Basicos/English/Basic2.American%20Declaration.htm. Dostęp: 19 lipca 2017 r.
  81. Mik C., Jus Cogens in Contemporary International Law, „Polish Yearbook of International Law” 2013, vol. 33.
  82. Meron T., On a Hierarchy of International Human Rights, „American Journal of International Law” 1986, vol. 80, no. 1.
  83. Meron T., International Law in the Age of Human Rights, „Recueil des Cours” 2003, vol. 301.
  84. Modolell González J. L., The Crime of Forced Disappearance of Persons According to the Decisions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, „International Criminal Law Review” 2010, vol. 10, no. 4.
  85. Neuman G. L., Import, Export, and Regional Consent in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, „European Journal of International Law” 2008, vol. 19, no. 1.
  86. Neuman G. L., The External Reception of Inter-American Human Rights Law, „Quebec Journal of International Law” September 2011.
  87. Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute (Aut Dedere Aut Judicare), Preliminary Report, by Mr. Zdzislaw Galicki, Special Rapporteur, A/CN.4/571.
  88. “Other Treaties” Subject to the Consultative Jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 64 American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-1/82 of September 24, 1982 , Series A, No. 1.
  89. Parker M. C., Notes: “Other Treaties”: The Inter-American Court of Human Rights Defines Its Advisory Jurisdiction, „American University Law Review” 1983, vol. 33, no. 1.
  90. Parker K., Jus Cogens: Compelling the Law of Human Rights, „Hastings International and Comparative Law Review” 1989, vol. 12, no. 2.
  91. Pasqualucci J. M., Advisory Practice of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Contributing to the Evolution of International Human Rights Law „Stanford Journal of International Law” 2002, vol. 38, no. 2.
  92. Pasqualucci J. M., The Evolution of International Indigenous Rights in the Inter-American Human Rights System, „Human Rights Law Review” 2006, vol. 6, no. 2.
  93. Pasqualucci J. M., The Practice and Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, second edition, Cambridge 2013.
  94. Paulus A. L, Jus Cogens in a Time of Hegemony and Fragmentation. An Attempt at a Re-appraisal, „Nordic Journal of International Law” 2005, vol. 74, no. 3.
  95. Paust J., The Reality of Jus Cogens, „Connecticut Journal of International Law” 1991, vol. 7, no. 1.
  96. Proposed Amendments of the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica, Advisory Opinion OC-4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4.
  97. Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija, ICTY, Case No. IT-95 -17/1-T10, Trail Chamber, Judgement 10 December 1998.
  98. Rights and Guarantees of Children in the Context of Migration and/or in Need of International Protection, Advisory Opinion OC-21/14 of August 19, 2014, Series A, No. 21.
  99. Rodley N. S., The Definition(s) of Torture in International Law „Current Legal Problems” 2002, vol. 55, no. 1.
  100. Rodríguez-Pinzón D., Martin C., The Prohibition of Torture and Ill-Treatment in the Inter-American Human Rights System: A Handbook for Victims and Their Advocates, OMCT Handbook Series Vol. 2, Switzerland, April 2014, Revised and updated by Sol Martín H.
  101. Rodríguez Vera et al. (The Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 14, 2014, Series C, No. 287.
  102. Sarkin J., Why the Prohibition of Enforced Disappearance Has Attained Jus Cogens Status in International Law, „Nordic Journal of International Law” 2012, vol. 81, no. 4.
  103. Saul M., Identifying Jus Cogens Norms: The Interaction of Scholars and International Judges, „Asian Journal of International Law” 2014, vol. 5, no. 1.
  104. Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of March 29, 2006, Series C, No. 146.
  105. Sayđý v Turkey, Application No. 377 15/11, Judgement of 27 January 2015.
  106. Schwarzenberger G., Nature of Jus Cogens, ,„Texas Law Review” 1965, vol. 43, no. 4.
  107. Second Report of the Special Rapporteur, Sir Humphrey Waldock, A/CN.4/156 and Add.1–3.
  108. Shelton D., Normative Hierarchy in International Law, „American Journal of International Law” 2006, vol. 100, no. 2.
  109. Simma B., Alston P., Sources of Human Rights Law: Custom, Jus Cogens, and General Principles, „Australian Year Book of International Law” 1988–1989, vol. 12.
  110. Simmons W. P., Remedies for Women of Ciudad Juárez through the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, „Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights” 2006, vol. 4, no. 3.
  111. Statut Międzynarodowego Trybunału Karnego, sporządzony w Rzymie dnia 17 lipca 1998 r., Dz.U. z 2003 r. Nr 78, poz. 708.
  112. Stoll v. Switzerland, Application No. 69698 /01, Judgement of 10 December 2007.
  113. Tasioulas J., Custom, Jus Cogens, and Human Rights, [w:] Bradley C.A. (ed.), Custom’s Future International Law in a Changing World, Cambridge 2016.
  114. The Right to a Remedy for Enforced Disappearance in India: A Legal Analyses of International and Domestic Law Relating to Victims of Enforced Disappearance, IHRLC Working Paper Series No. 1, Berkeley Law, University of California, April 2014.
  115. The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the due Process of Law, Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1, 1999, Series A, No. 16.
  116. Thirlway H., The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice: Fifty Years of Jurisprudence, Volume I, Oxford 2013.
  117. Tibi v. Ecuador, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of September 7, 2004, Series C, No. 114.
  118. Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 26, 2008, Series C, No. 190.
  119. Tunkin G. I., Jus Cogens in Contemporary International Law, „University of Toledo Law Review” 1971, vol. 3, no. 1.
  120. Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26 , 1987 , Series C, No. 1.
  121. Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, Judgment of July 29 , 1988 , Series C, No. 4.
  122. Verdross A., Jus Dispositivum and Jus Cogens in International Law, „American Journal of International Law” 1966, vol. 60, no. 1.
  123. What Amounts to ‘a Serious Violation of International Human Rights Law’?, An Analysis of Practice and Expert Opinion for the Purpose of the 2013 Arms Trade Treaty, Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, Academy Briefing No. 6, August 2014.
  124. Wolfke K., Jus Cogens in International Law (Regulation and Prospects), „Polish Yearbook of International Law” 1974, vol. 6.
  125. Wong Ho Wing v. Peru, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of June 30, 2015, Series C, No. 297.
  126. Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of June 17, 2005, Series C, No. 125.
  127. Yatama v. Nicaragua, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of June 23, 2005, Series C, No. 127.
  128. Zemanek K., The Metamorphosis of Jus Cogens: From an Institution of TreatyLaw to the Bedrock of the Legal Order, [w:] Cannizzaro E. (ed.), The Law of Treaties Beyond the Vienna Convention, Oxford 2011.