Top Online Law Tutor | Law Tutors Online™

If we get into the historical perspectives, international law did not concern itself with the rights of individuals. The concept of sovereign equality that emerged from the Treaty of Westphalia¹ was not compatible with concerns posed from human rights. A part of this development was because States were seen as sovereigns who were free to exercise control over their territory without any interference from beyond their borders. And the conduct of States towards their subjects was an important component of this sovereign authority. Hence, the legitimate concerns of other States were therefore seen as restricted to the welfare of their own citizens abroad. Back in the early days when few individuals travelled across State borders, this was hardly a concern. It is worth mentioning that the diplomatic agents of States were the most common example of such individuals and they were accorded privileges and protections by the host State.  Over time, this veil of sovereignty has slipped as intern

  “Jus cogen” norms are rules of customary international law that have become so familiar in the system that they are treated as the inviolable rights under the international law. It has to be noted that customary international law is created through custom and this indicates that the acceptance of persistent unlawful acts by other states over a period of time creates a new legal principle under international law. In ordinary circumstances, a treaty obligation will prevail over customary international law unless that specific law has gained the status of a “jus cogen” norm. Hence, the States considers the “Jus cogens” norms as inviolable. This essentially means that any international instrument will not apply if its effect would be to violate a “jus cogens” norm. And neither will contrary State practice give rise to a new custom of international law. These norms are extremely powerful as these norms were created when State practice by a significant majority of States along with the