Jus Cogens
Literal meaning: “Compelling law; peremptory law”
What does the Latin term "Jus Cogens" mean in law?
Jus cogens (also ius cogens) refers to peremptory norms of international law from which no derogation is permitted. These are fundamental principles that are accepted and recognized by the international community of states as norms from which no departure is allowed and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character. Examples of jus cogens norms include the prohibitions against genocide, slavery, torture, piracy, and wars of aggression. A treaty that conflicts with a jus cogens norm is void under Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Unlike ordinary customary international law, jus cogens norms cannot be set aside by treaty or acquiescence.
Source: General · Legal Latin
Legal Definition
Jus cogens (also ius cogens) refers to peremptory norms of international law from which no derogation is permitted. These are fundamental principles that are accepted and recognized by the international community of states as norms from which no departure is allowed and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character. Examples of jus cogens norms include the prohibitions against genocide, slavery, torture, piracy, and wars of aggression. A treaty that conflicts with a jus cogens norm is void under Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Unlike ordinary customary international law, jus cogens norms cannot be set aside by treaty or acquiescence.
How It's Used
International law scholars, tribunals, and courts invoke jus cogens to identify the small set of norms that occupy the highest rung in the hierarchy of international law. The concept is crucial in treaty interpretation, state immunity disputes, and cases involving allegations of grave international crimes.
Example Sentences
The International Court of Justice recognized the prohibition against genocide as a jus cogens norm from which no state may derogate by treaty or unilateral action.
The tribunal held that the bilateral treaty was void because it conflicted with the jus cogens prohibition against slavery.
Plaintiffs argued that the foreign state's sovereign immunity defense should yield to the jus cogens prohibition against torture, but the court held that immunity rules are procedural and not displaced by substantive jus cogens norms.