Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Habeas Corpus as Jus Cogens in International Law

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Criminal Law and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For hundreds of years procedural rights such as habeas corpus have been regarded as fundamental in the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence. In contemporary international law, fundamental norms are called jus cogens. Jus cogens norms are rights or rules that can not be derogated even by treaty. In the list that is often given, jus cogens norms include norms against aggression, apartheid, slavery, and genocide. All of the members of this list are substantive rights. In this paper I will argue that some procedural rights, crucial for the fair functioning of criminal proceedings, such as habeas corpus, should also have the status of jus cogens norms. I will begin by explaining what it means for a right to have jus cogens status. And I will follow this with a defense of having procedural rights like habeas corpus added to the list of jus cogens norms. I will then rehearse some of the debates about the jus cogens status of procedural rights in the European Commission on Human Rights. At the end of this paper, I will look at the attempts to deal with the abuses at Guantanamo by the American Commission on Human Rights, and by the US and Australian courts, as a way to understand why there needs to be a stronger support for habeas corpus than is today provided by regional courts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aristotle, Nicomachean ethics, Book V, Chap. 10, 1137b10.

  • Blackstone, W. (1765, 1979). Commentaries on the laws of England (Vol. I). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Bracton 474–477 (1883). Sir Travis Twiss, ed., Bracton, De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae (London: Longmans and Co., 1883). A constitutional history of Habeas Corpus, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press [quoted in Duker, W. F. (1980)].

  • Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light, and Power Co., Limited, Second Phase (1970). Belgium v. Spain, 1970 I.C.J. 3, 1970 WL 1.

  • Charlesworth, H., & Chinkin, C. (1993, 2010). The gender of Jus Cogens. Human Rights Quarterly, 15, 63–76. (Reprinted from Philosophy of Law: Classic and Contemporary Readings, pp. 610–619, by L. May, & J. Brown, Eds., Oxford: Wiley/Blackwell).

  • Clark, D., & McCoy, G. (2000). Habeas Corpus: Australia, New Zealand, The South Pacific. Sydney: The Federation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Criddle, E. J., & Fox-Decent, E. (2009). A fiduciary theory of Jus Cogens. Yale Journal of International Law, 34 (Summer).

  • Feller, E., Turk, V., & Nicholson, F. (2003). Refugee protection in international law. NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Franck, T. (1995). Fairness in international law and institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannikainen, L. (1988). Peremptory norms (Jus Cogens) in international law. Helsinki: Finnish Lawyers Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertz, R., & Liebman, J. S. (1998, 2001). Federal Habeas Corpus practice and procedure (4th ed.). Lexis Law Publishing.

  • Jacobs & White (2002). In C. Ovey & R. White (Eds.), The European convention on human rights (3rd ed., p. 138). NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janis, M. (1988, 2010). The nature of Jus Cogens. Connecticut Journal of International Law (Vol. 3, pp. 359–363). (Reprinted from Philosophy of law: Classic and contemporary readings, pp. 184–186, by L. May & J. Brown, Eds., Oxford: Wiley/Blackwell).

  • Lauterpacht, H. (1958). The development of international law by the international court.

  • Law Reform Commission, Report 1. (1966, September and 26). Application for Writs of Habeas Corpus and Procedure to be Adopted.

  • May, L. (2005). Crimes against humanity: A normative account. NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, L. (2007). War crimes and just war. NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, L. (2008). Aggression and crimes against peace. NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Orakhelashvili, A. (2006). Peremptory norms in international law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shue, H. (1980). Basic rights. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Story, J. (1834, 1884). Commentaries on equity Jurisprudence (pp. 1–3) London: Stevens and Hayes.

  • Tittemore, B. D. (2006). Guantanamo Bay and the precautionary measures of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: A case for international oversight in the struggle against terrorism. Human Rights Law Review, 6(2), 378–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tully, S. (2007, April and 23). Australian detainee pleads guilty before the First Military Commission. ASIL Insights 11(11).

  • Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties. (1969). May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S 331, 8 International Legal Materials 679 (1969), Art. 53 [hereinafter VCLT].

  • X. v. United Kingdom: Judgment. (1981). No. 46 (5.11.1981) pp. 56–58, quoted in Fawcett, J. E. S. (1987). The application of the European Convention on Human Rights (pp. 120–121). NY: Oxford University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Larry May.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

May, L. Habeas Corpus as Jus Cogens in International Law. Criminal Law, Philosophy 4, 249–265 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-010-9101-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-010-9101-x

Keywords

Navigation