Uluslararası Hukukta Jus Cogens ve Erga Omnes Yükümlülüklerin Ayrımı: Kavramsal Bir Yeniden Değerlendirme

Abstract

Uluslararası hukuk düzeninin temel taşlarını teşkil eden jus cogens normları ile erga omnes yükümlülükleri arasındaki diyalektik ilişki, doktrinel tartışmaların ve yargısal içtihatların merkezinde yer almaya devam etmektedir. Her iki kavram da özünde uluslararası toplumun temel değerlerini ve kolektif menfaatlerini koruma gayesine matuf olsa da, normatif kaynakları, hiyerarşik konumları ve ihlal halinde doğurdukları hukuki sonuçlar bakımından belirgin distinksiyonlar arz etmektedir. Uluslararası hukukun emredici ve üstün kuralları olarak tanımlanan jus cogens normları, devletlerin iradi rızalarından bağımsız, evrensel bir bağlayıcılığa sahiptir. Bu normlar, uluslararası kamu düzeninin bir yansıması olup, kendilerine aykırı düzenlenen her türlü antlaşma veya hukuki işlemi batıl kılarak mutlak butlan yaptırımına tabi tutar. Öte yandan erga omnes yükümlülükleri, borcun muhatabı bakımından bir genişlemeyi ifade ederek, doğrudan uluslararası toplumun bütününe karşı üstlenilen ödevleri tanımlar. Bu kategorideki yükümlülüklerin ihlali, ihlalden doğrudan zarar görmese dahi her bir devlete "korunan menfaat" temelinde hukuki sorumluluk iddiasında bulunma ve actio popularis benzeri bir yetkiyle müdahil olma imkânı tanımaktadır. Bununla birlikte, her jus cogens normunun doğası gereği bir erga omnes yükümlülük tevlit edip etmediği ya da her erga omnes yükümlülüğün emredici niteliğe sahip olup olmadığı hususu, uluslararası hukuk hiyerarşisindeki kavramsal karmaşayı derinleştirmektedir. Uluslararası Adalet Divanı’nın Barcelona Traction (1970) ve East Timor (1995) kararları, bu ayrımın usuli ve maddi boyutlarına dair önemli parametreler sunsa da, normatif sınırların kesin tespiti noktasında gri alanlar bırakmıştır. Bu çalışma; güncel literatür, devlet uygulamaları ve yargı içtihatları ışığında söz konusu kavramlar arasındaki girift ilişkiyi yeniden değerlendirmeyi; kesişim ve ayrışma noktalarını saptayarak uluslararası hukukun normatif yapısına dair daha tutarlı ve sistematik bir kavramsal çerçeve geliştirmeyi amaçlamaktadır.

Keywords

• Jus Cogens
• Erga Omnes Yükümlülükler
• Uluslararası Hukuk
• Devlet Sorumluluğu
• Barcelona Traction Kararı.

The Distinction Between Jus Cogens Norms and Erga Omnes Obligations in International Law: A Conceptual Reassessment

Abstract

The dialectical relationship between jus cogens norms and erga omnes obligations, which constitute the cornerstones of the international legal order, remains at the center of doctrinal debates and judicial precedents. Although both concepts essentially aim to protect the fundamental values and collective interests of the international community, they possess distinct characteristics regarding their normative sources, hierarchical positions, and the legal consequences arising from their breach. Jus cogens norms, defined as the peremptory and superior rules of international law, possess universal binding force independent of the voluntary consent of states. These norms reflect the international public order and render any treaty or legal act in conflict with them null and void, subjecting them to the sanction of absolute invalidity. On the other hand, erga omnes obligations signify an expansion regarding the addressee of the duty, defining obligations owed directly to the international community as a whole. A breach of obligations in this category grants every state the standing to claim legal responsibility based on “protected interest”, even if they are not directly injured, thereby allowing for intervention through a mechanism similar to actio popularis. However, the question of whether every jus cogens norm necessarily generates an erga omnes obligation, or whether every erga omnes obligation possesses a peremptory character, deepens the conceptual complexity within the hierarchy of international law. While the International Court of Justice’s decisions in Barcelona Traction (1970) and East Timor (1995) provide significant parameters regarding the procedural and substantive dimensions of this distinction, they leave gray areas concerning the precise determination of normative boundaries. This study aims to re-evaluate the intricate relationship between these concepts in light of contemporary literature, state practice, and judicial decisions. By identifying the points of intersection and divergence, it seeks to develop a more coherent and systematic conceptual framework for the normative structure of international law.

Keywords

• Jus Cogens
• Erga Omnes Obligations
• International Law
• State Responsibility
• Barcelona Traction Case

References

1. Bassiouni MC, ‘International Crimes: Jus Cogens and Obligatio Erga Omnes’ (1996) 59(4) Law and Contemporary Problems 63-74.
2. Bianchi A, ‘Human Rights and the Magic of Jus Cogens’ (2008) 19 European Journal of International Law 491-508.
3. Bianchi A, International Law Theories: An Inquiry into Different Ways of Thinking (Oxford University Press 2016).
4. Brownlie I (ed Crawford J), Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (9th edn, Oxford University Press 2019).
5. Cassese A, International Criminal Law (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2008.
6. Charlesworth H, Christine Chinkin and Shelley Wright, ‘Feminist Approaches to International Law’ (1991) 85(4) AJIL 613-645
7. Crawford J, State Responsibility: The General Part (Cambridge University Press 2013).
8. Crawford J, Chance, Order, Change: The Course of International Law (Hague Academy/Brill 2014).

9. D’Amato A, ‘It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane, It’s Jus Cogens!’ (1990) 6 Connecticut Journal of International Law 1.
10. De Wet E, ‘The Prohibition of Torture as an International Norm of Jus Cogens and Its Implications for National and Customary Law’ (2004) 15 European Journal of International Law 97-121.
11. De Wet E, ‘The International Constitutional Order’ (2006) 55 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 51-76.
12. De Wet E, ‘Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes’ in Dinah Shelton (ed), The Oxford Handbook on Human Rights (OUP 2013).
13. De Wet E, ‘Invoking Obligations Erga Omnes in the Twenty-First Century: Progressive Developments Since Barcelona Traction’ (2013) 37 South African Yearbook of International Law 1-19.
14. De Wet E, International Law and the Protection of Humanity: A Constitutional Approach (Oxford University Press 2020).
15. Denk E, ‘Uluslararası Antlaşmalar Hukukunda Jus Cogens Kurallar’ (2001) 56(2) Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi 43-69.
16. Dinah S, ‘Normative Hierarchy in International Law’ (2006) 100 American Journal of International Law 291, 300.
17. Dörr O and Schmalenbach K (eds), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary (2nd edn, Springer 2018).
18. Dupuy, P-M. ‘The Constitutional Dimension of the Charter of the United Nations Revisited’ (1997) 1 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 1.
19. Dupuy P-M, ‘Some Reflections on Contemporary International Law and the Appeal to Universal Values: A Response to Martti Koskenniemi’ (2005) 16 EJIL 131-137.
20. Ertuğrul Ü E, Uluslararası Hukukun Emredici Normlarından Doğan Yükümlülüklerin Ciddi İhlallerinden Devletin Sorumluluğu (Yetkin Yayıncılık 2012).
21. Gaja G, ‘The Protection of General Interests in the International Community’ (2012) 364 Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International 56.
22. Hannikainen L, Peremptory Norms (Jus Cogens) in International Law: Historical Development, Criteria, Present Status (Finnish Lawyers’ Publishing Company 1988).
23. Higgins R, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (Clarendon 1994).
24. Hillier T, Principles of Public International Law (2nd edn, Cavendish 1998).
25. International Law Commission, ‘Report on the Law of Treaties by Mr H Lauterpacht, Special Rapporteur’ UN Doc A/CN.4/63, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1953, vol II.
26. International Law Commission, ‘Third Report on the Law of Treaties by GG Fitzmaurice, Special Rapporteur’ UN Doc A/CN.4/115, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1958, vol II.
27. International Law Commission, ‘Second Report on the Law of Treaties by Sir Humphrey Waldock, Special Rapporteur’ UN Doc A/CN.4/156 and Add 1-3, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission 1963, vol II.
28. International Law Commission, ‘Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts’ (2001) UN Doc A/56/10.
29. International Law Commission, ‘Draft Conclusions on Peremptory Norms of General International Law (Jus Cogens)’ (2019) UN Doc A/74/10.
30. Kaya G, ‘Uluslararası Hukukta Bölümlenmenin Uluslararası Deniz Hukuku Yönünden İncelenmesi’ (2021) 29(3) Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 2009-2049.
31. Kim E-JK, ‘Acceptability, Impartiality, and Peremptory Norms of General International Law’ (2015) 34 Law and Philosophy 661-689.
32. Klabbers J, Treaty Conflict and the European Union (Cambridge University Press 2009).
33. Kolb R, Peremptory International Law - Jus Cogens: A General Inventory (Hart Publishing 2015).
34. Koskenniemi M, ‘The Politics of International Law - 20 Years Later’ (2009) 20(1) EJIL 7-19.
35. Koskenniemi M, From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument (Cambridge University Press 2005).
36. Linderfalk U, ‘The Creation of Jus Cogens - Making Sense of Article 53 of the Vienna Convention’ (2011) 72 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 359.
37. Longobardo M, ‘The Contribution of International Humanitarian Law to the Development of the Law of International Responsibility Regarding Obligations Erga Omnes and Erga Omnes Partes’ (2018) 23 Journal of Conflict and Security Law 433-463.
38. Memeti A ve Nuhija B, ‘The Concept of Erga Omnes Obligations in International Law’ (2013) 14 New Balkan Politics https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3502662 Erişim tarihi 30 Ağustos 2025
39. Orakhelashvili A, Peremptory Norms in International Law (Oxford University Press 2006).
40. Picone P, ‘The Distinction between Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes’ in Enzo Cannizzaro (ed), The Law of Treaties Beyond the Vienna Convention (Oxford University Press 2011) 411-424.
41. Sayar Kanyış T, ‘Ceza Hukuku Kurallarının Yer Bakımından Uygulanması Çerçevesinde Evrensellik İlkesi’ (Doktora Tezi, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi 2025).
42. Schwelb E, ‘Some Aspects of International Jus Cogens as Formulated by the International Law Commission’ (1967) 61(4) American Journal of International Law 946-975.
43. Shaw MN, International Law (9th edn, Cambridge University Press 2021).
44. Shelton D, ‘Normative Hierarchy in International Law’ (2006) 100 American Journal of International Law 291-323.
45. Simma B and Alston P, ‘The Sources of Human Rights Law: Custom, Jus Cogens and General Principles’ (1988-89) 12 Australian Year Book of International Law 82-108.
46. Simma B, ‘From Bilateralism to Community Interest in International Law’ (1994) 250 Recueil des Cours 217.
47. Sinclair I, The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (2nd edn, Manchester University Press 1984).
48. Söyler Y, ‘Barcelona Traction Davası ve Uluslararası Hukuka Etkisi’ (2015) 19(3) Gazi Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 207-247.
49. Suy E, ‘Article 53’ in Olivier Corten and Pierre Klein (eds), Les Conventions de Vienne sur le droit des traités: Commentaire article par article, vol III (Bruylant 2006) 1905-1921.
50. Tams CJ and Asteriti A, ‘Erga Omnes, Jus Cogens, and their Impact on the Law of Responsibility’ in Panos Koutrakos and James Evans (eds), The International Responsibility of the European Union (Hart 2013) 1-32.
51. Tams CJ, Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law (Cambridge University Press 2007).
52. Thirlway H, ‘The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice - Part One’ (1989) 60 British Yearbook of International Law 1-157.
53. Tladi, D, Peremptory Norms of General International Law (Jus Cogens): Disquisitions and Disputations (Brill 2021).
54. Tomuschat C, ‘Obligations Arising for States without or against their Will’ (1993) 241 Recueil des Cours 195-374.
55. Tomuschat C, ‘Reconceptualizing the Debate on Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes - Concluding Observations’ in Christian Tomuschat and Jean-Marc Thouvenin (eds), The Fundamental Rules of the International Legal Order: Jus Cogens and Obligations Erga Omnes (Martinus Nijhoff 2006) 425-436.
56. Uzun E and Özkerim Güner N, ‘Uluslararası Adalet Divanının Gambiya vs. Myanmar İhtiyati Tedbir Kararının Devlet Sorumluluğu Açısından Değerlendirilmesi’ (2024) 15(2) İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 335-349.
57. Villiger ME, Commentary on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Brill 2009).
58. Weatherall T, Jus Cogens: International Law and Social Contract (Cambridge University Press 2015).
59. Weil P, ‘Towards Relative Normativity in International Law?’ (1983) 77(3) American Journal of International Law 413-442
60. Zdravkovic A, ‘Obligations Erga Omnes - Jus Cogens in Statu Nascendi? A Theory Inspired by the Nature of International Law’ (2021) 12 Union University Law School Review 577-600.