Erga omnes
 | This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. |
Erga omnes (Latin: in relation to everyone) is frequently used in legal terminology describing obligations or rights toward all. For instance a property right is an erga omnes right, and therefore enforceable against anybody infringing that right. An erga omnes right (a statutory right) can here be distinguished from a right based on contract, which is only enforceable against the contracting party (Inter partes).
In international law it has been used as a legal term describing obligations owed by States towards the community of states as a whole. An erga omnes obligation exists because of the universal and undeniable interest in the perpetuation of critical rights (and the prevention of their breach). Consequently, any state has the right to complain of a breach . Examples of erga omnes norms include piracy, genocide, slavery, and racial discrimination. (See for example the brief citation on the web site of the International Court of Justice, at International Law, near the end, citing the Court's decision in Barcelona Traction) More recently, the International Court of Justice has recognized that the right to self determination also posesses an erga omnes character in the Case Concerning East Timor at paragraph 29.
While the content of the obligations erga omnes may arise from particular treaties (such as the Genocide Convention), by their nature they are not based on treaty, but upon obligations binding on all states, regardless of whether they have signed a particular treaty.
The term is closely connected with the international law concept of universal jurisdiction: the idea that certain activities are so reprehensible that all states have [jurisdiction]] over the offencestate, and may apprehend an alleged perpetrator and try them under their own jurisdiction. However, while it is reasonably well established that all states may bring a claim against another state for violation of erga omnes norms (as recognized for example in the Case Concerning East Timor), it is less clear that the principle of universality extends to allow prosecutions of individuals. For example, Belgium issued “an international arrest warrant in absentia” against the incumbent Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Congo, alleging crimes against humanity, among other things. The matter was brought to the International Court of Justice in the case Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium). The [http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/iCOBE/icobejudgment/icobe_ijudgment_20020214.PDF ICJ's decision at paragarph 43 specifically found that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the question of universal jurisdiction, instead deciding the question on the basis of immunity of high ranking State officials. However, the matter was addressed in separate and dissenting opinions, such as the separate opinion of President Guillaume at paragraph 12, where he concluded that only universal jurisdiction exists only in relation to piracy; and the dissenting opinion of Judge Oda who at paragraph 12 recognized piracy, hijacking, terrorism and genocide as crimes subject to universal jurisdiction.
See also
External links
- Obligations and rights erga omnes in international law Resolution, july 27 2005 from the Institute of International Law in Geneva.
For a skeptical analysis of the existence of erga omnes obligations, see [http://www.nesl.edu/lawrev/vol35/2/Rubin.PDF#search=%22erga%20omnes%20treaty%22 Actio Popularis, Jus Cogens and Offenses Erga Omnes?]