Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T08:48:22.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identifying Conflicts of Norms: The ICJ Approach in the Case of the Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2012

FRANÇOIS BOUDREAULT
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The potential for conflicts of norms is particularly great in modern international law. Yet until now, the International Court of Justice has said very little as to what it considers a conflict of norms. The opportunity to do so arose in the case of the Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening). There, it was argued that granting Germany sovereign immunity in proceedings before Italian courts involving civil claims for violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) committed by the German Reich between 1943 and 1945 would come in conflict with prevailing peremptory (jus cogens) norms of international law. In its 3 February 2012 Judgment, the ICJ rejected this argument. In the present article, the author argues that the conceptions of conflict of norms underlying the Court's judgment and the dissent of Judge Cançado Trindade both have weaknesses. The author suggests an alternative framework to ascertain conflicts of norms. He then applies this framework to the rules of state immunity and the IHL rules breached by Germany, agreeing in the end with the conclusion reached by the majority of the ICJ that these rules did not conflict.

Keywords

conflict of normsperemptory (jus cogens) normsstate immunity

Information

Type
HAGUE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS: International Court of Justice
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , December 2012, pp. 1003 - 1012
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 2012

Conflicts of norms can arise in every legal system. The potential for conflicts of norms is particularly great in modern international law, with its multiple law-making processes and the increasing variety of subject matter sought to be regulated.Footnote 1

Broadly speaking, a conflict of norms arises ‘where two norms that are both valid and applicable point to incompatible decisions so that a choice must be made between them.’Footnote 2 But what does ‘point to incompatible decisions’ mean? It seems clear that there is a conflict if a norm obliges a party to do X and at the same time another norm prohibits the same party to do X. But what if a norm prohibits a party to do X and another norm permits that same party to do X? What if applying a norm may hinder the enforcement of another norm? Do these situations amount to genuine conflicts of norms?

So far, the International Court of JusticeFootnote 3 has said very little as to what it views as constituting a conflict of norms. But the opportunity to do so arose in the case of the Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening). There, Germany claimed that Italy had violated its international obligations by denying Germany sovereign immunity in proceedings before Italian courts involving civil claims for violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) committed by the German Reich between 1943 and 1945. One of the arguments raised by Italy was that granting Germany immunity in the circumstances would conflict with peremptory (jus cogens) IHL norms, which had prevalence.

In its 3 February 2012 Judgment,Footnote 4 the ICJ found that Germany was entitled to immunity from civil claims in Italian courts. In doing so, it rejected the contention that the customary rules on state immunity were in conflict with prevailing jus cogens rules.Footnote 5 Judge Cançado Trindade vigorously dissented, opining that there was a clear conflict between state immunity and peremptory norms.Footnote 6 The majority and the dissenter thus apparently embraced different conceptions of conflicts of norms. Which one of these conceptions should be preferred, if either of the two?

In this article, I first recall the opposing positions on the question whether there is a conflict between state immunity rules and peremptory IHL rules (section 1). I then identify drawbacks in the majority and dissenter's approaches to conflicts of norms, and suggest a different method for ascertaining conflicts of norms, drawing on the analysis made in the doctrine (section 2). Thereafter, I apply the framework of analysis outlined in section 2 to the rules of state immunity and the peremptory IHL rules breached by Germany (section 3).

At the outset, it should be emphasized that this article deals only with the question of what constitutes a conflict of norms, not with the question of how to resolve such a conflict once it has been identified.Footnote 7 The purpose of this article is to stimulate the discussion on the first of these questions, which does not always get the attention it deserves in the case law.

1. The opposing positions on whether there is a conflict between the rules on state immunity and IHL rules

1.1. The majority of the ICJ

In an early part of its Judgment, the Court found that the acts of the German Reich in the Second World War were acta jure imperii (acts of sovereignty).Footnote 8 It then agreed with the Parties that states were generally entitled to immunity in respect of acta jure imperii (‘state immunity rule’).Footnote 9

After rejecting a number of the bases invoked by Italy to support its courts’ exercise of jurisdiction against Germany,Footnote 10 the Court examined the argument that, under the circumstances, state immunity had to give way because it conflicted with peremptory norms. The Court saw no conflict of norms. Even assuming arguendo that the IHL rules breached by Germany were jus cogens – a question the Court did not explicitly decideFootnote 11 – there was no conflict between these rules and the rule of state immunity:

The two sets of rules address different matters. The rules of State immunity are procedural in character and are confined to determining whether or not the courts of one State may exercise jurisdiction in respect of another State. They do not bear upon the question whether or not the conduct in respect of which the proceedings are brought was lawful or unlawful. . . . recognizing the immunity of a foreign State in accordance with customary international law does not amount to recognizing as lawful a situation created by the breach of a jus cogens rule, or rendering aid and assistance in maintaining that situation, and so cannot contravene the principle in Article 41 of the International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility.Footnote 12

The mere fact that a non-peremptory rule may hinder the enforcement of a jus cogens rule did not, ‘in the absence of a direct conflict’, lead to the conclusion that the non-peremptory rule should not be applied.Footnote 13 In this connection, the Court referred to its findings in the Armed Activities and Arrest Warrant cases.Footnote 14

Nor was there a conflict between the rule on state immunity and the duty of the state to make reparation:

The duty to make reparation is a rule which exists independently of those rules which concern the means by which it is to be effected. The law of State immunity concerns only the latter; a decision that a foreign State is immune no more conflicts with the duty to make reparation than it does with the rule prohibiting the original wrongful act.Footnote 15

In addition, the Court was not convinced that there was a jus cogens rule requiring a state to make full reparation to each victim of an IHL violation in light of ‘a century of practice in which almost every peace treaty or post-war settlement has involved either a decision not to require the payment of reparations or the use of lump sum settlements and set-offs’.Footnote 16

After noting that the argument of a conflict with jus cogens had also been rejected by national courts having addressed the question (the exception being Italy) and the European Court of Human Rights,Footnote 17 the Court concluded that ‘even on the assumption that the proceedings in the Italian courts involved violation of jus cogens rules, the applicability of the customary international law on state immunity was not affected.’Footnote 18

1.2. Judge Cançado Trindade

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Cançado Trindade fundamentally disagreed with the Court's reasoning on this point. In his view, the law on state immunities had to be reassessed in light of fundamental human values,Footnote 19 which underlie international law. He considered that contemporary international legal doctrine ‘gradually resolves the tension between state immunity and the right of access to justice rightly in favour of the latter, particularly in cases of international crimes.’Footnote 20 Thus, breaches of jus cogens norms should bring about the removal of claims of state immunity.Footnote 21 Judge Cançado Trindade agreed with the Italian courts and a minority of judges at the European Court of Human Rights that there was a conflict of norms because applying state immunity in the circumstances would allow Germany to evade the consequences of its actions in violation of jus cogens rules.Footnote 22

2. Identifying conflicts of norms

2.1. The conceptions of conflict of norms underlying the judgment and the dissent

Both the Court and Judge Cançado Trindade provided limited indications of what they viewed as constituting a conflict of norms.

2.1.1. The Court's conception

The Court stated that there can be no conflict when two norms regulate different matters, in particular when one norm is procedural in character and the other one is substantive.Footnote 23 The Court added that the mere fact that a rule may hinder the enforcement of another rule did not amount to a conflict of norms.Footnote 24 But it did not explain further what would constitute a conflict of norms.

Several questions arise from the Court's statements. At the outset, if sameness of subject matter is a necessary condition for a conflict of norms, is it also a sufficient condition? In other words, if the relevant norms regulate the same matters, is there automatically a conflict of norms? The Court did not say anything about this.

In addition, the distinction procedural v. substantive rules endorsed by the Court is not without its problems. First, some norms may not be easily categorized as either procedural or substantive, but may fall somewhere in between, for instance the rules on admissibility and jurisdiction.Footnote 25 Second, is it correct to say that a ‘procedural’ norm can never come in conflict with a ‘substantive norm’? Take, for instance, a substantive norm granting Party A the right to obtain something from Party B and a procedural norm totally preventing Party A from having recourse to the institutional mechanisms available for the enforcement of its right. It seems that procedural norms can undermine or even negate substantive rights. Denying the existence of a conflict of norms in such a situation might be unduly restrictive.

More generally, looking at the ‘subject matter’ of norms in the abstract may not be the best way to identify conflicts of norms. As a Study Group of the International Law Commission explained, if conflict is to exist only between norms dealing with the ‘same’ subject matter, then the existence of conflict depends on the way in which the subject matter of a norm is described, and this description may vary from one person to another.Footnote 26 Thus, the ILC Study Group considers it preferable to consider the application of the norms in a specific situation, from the perspective of the addressees of these norms.Footnote 27 In fact, ‘[i]f an attempted simultaneous application of two rules to one set of facts or actions leads to incompatible results it can safely be assumed that the test of sameness is satisfied.’Footnote 28

2.1.2. Judge Cançado Trindade's conception

For his part, Judge Cançado Trindade seems to consider that a conflict arises when the application of one norm may hinder the enforcement of the other norm. This approach might be too expansive. If there is a conflict of norms as soon as a norm may incidentally affect the enforcement of a different norm, then the potential for conflict is infinite. For instance, any procedural requirement in a court of law may be deemed in conflict with a substantive norm because it has the potential to hinder the enforcement of the substantive norm. This might seriously undermine the predictability and stability of international norms.

2.2. Doctrine on conflict of norms

Both the majority and the dissent's conceptions of conflicts of norms thus seem unsatisfying. How is the issue discussed in the literature?

Norms of conduct can be reduced to prohibitions, obligations, or permissions (or rights) to do something.Footnote 29 When two valid norms apply at the same time, and at least one party is an addressee of both norms, there is a potential for a conflict of norms. If the two norms do not bind the same party, there can be no conflict of norms.Footnote 30 This is a further reason why conflicts of norms should be assessed from the perspective of the addressees of the norms.

The paradigmatic case arises where, for the same addressee, Norm A obliges to do X and at the same time Norm B prohibits to do X. The addressee in such a situation cannot comply with both norms at the same time. This is what might be called a contrary conflict.Footnote 31 Such a conflict then has to be resolved by application of conflict resolution rules.

Is there a conflict when Norm A permits (but does not oblige) a party to do X and Norm B prohibits that same party to do X? Or when Norm A permits a party to refrain from doing X and Norm B obliges that same party to do X? On a strict view, it is possible to abide by both norms by exercising the discretion granted by Norm A in the sense required by Norm B. If Norm B prohibits X, the party could refrain from exercising its right to do X under Norm A; if Norm B obliges X, the party could exercise its right to do X under Norm A. This would ensure that all the norms are complied with.Footnote 32 However, excluding such situations from the definition of a conflict of norms in effect amounts to making Norm B prevail in all cases, and invalidating or rendering inapplicable Norm A: one indirectly resolves contradictions in favour of the strictest norm.Footnote 33 But there might be reasons why Norm A should be preferred in a particular system. Accordingly, an increasing number of authors consider there is a conflict of norms in such situations.Footnote 34 This is what might be called a contradictory conflict.Footnote 35

These relationships of conflict become obvious when one uses the language of deontic logic. In deontic logic, prohibitions, obligations, and permissions (or rights) are interdefinable through mere negations:

a prohibition to do X is the negation of the permission to do X;

an obligation to do X is the negation of the permission not to do X;

a prohibition to do X is the obligation to do not X.Footnote 36

As Vranes explains,Footnote 37 this can be illustrated by the following deontic square:

In this diagram, the two lines ‘1’ show a contradictory conflict between an obligation/prohibition and a permission; line ‘2’ illustrates a contrary conflict between an obligation to do X and a prohibition to do X.

From these relationships of conflict, modern legal doctrine has suggested the following definitions of a conflict of norms:

–two norms are ‘in a relationship of conflict if one constitutes, has led to, or may lead to, a breach of the other’.Footnote 38

–‘There is a conflict between two norms, one of which may be permissive, if in obeying or applying one norm, the other one is necessarily or possibly violated.’Footnote 39

These definitions also provide a method for ascertaining the existence of conflicts of norms. As a preliminary step, it should first be determined whether the two norms are valid and bind at least one party in the circumstances. The next step is to determine whether, for any such party, compliance with one norm necessarily or potentially violates the other; this should be considered from the side of each norm.Footnote 40 If obeying or applying one of the two norms necessarily or potentially violates the other, the conflict of norms should then be resolved by applying the legal system's rules of conflict resolution.

3. Application to the rules on state immunity and peremptory IHL rules

It might be interesting to apply the method outlined above to the norms at issue in the case of the Jurisdictional Immunities, to show how this method would work in practice and compare the results with the conclusion reached by the Court.Footnote 41

Starting from the perspective of Germany:

  1. 1. The state immunity rule gives Germany a right to be immune from civil process in another state;

  2. 2. On the other hand, Germany is prohibited from conducting war in violation of peremptory IHL norms.

There can be no conflict of norms here: obeying or applying either norm does not necessarily or potentially violate the other norm. In particular, even if Germany exercises its right to state immunity, this action does not in itself violate peremptory IHL norms.

Similarly, if we consider Germany's obligation to provide reparation for violations of peremptory IHL rules:

  1. 1. The state immunity rule gives Germany a right to be immune from a civil process in another state;

  2. 2. On the other hand, Germany is obliged under international law to provide reparation for its violation of peremptory IHL norms.

Even if Germany exercises its right to state immunity, this does not entail that Germany will breach its obligation to provide reparation. As the ICJ explained: the obligation to make reparation does not say anything about the means by which it is effected.Footnote 42 There is thus no conflict either.

One could also proceed from Italy's viewpoint:

  1. 1. Italy is obliged to accord immunity to Germany;

  2. 2. Italy is prohibited from giving immunity to Germany because that amounts to recognizing as lawful a situation created by the breach of a jus cogens rule or rendering aid and assistance in maintaining that situation (and this is prohibited according to Article 41(2) of the Articles on State ResponsibilityFootnote 43).

This might make for a more interesting discussion as there would seem to be a conflict here. However, the conflict disappears if one agrees with the ICJ that affording state immunity does not amount to recognizing as lawful a situation created by the breach of a jus cogens rule or rendering aid and assistance in maintaining that situation.Footnote 44

Finally, one could also consider the issue from the perspective of the relationship between individual victims of IHL violations and the state(s) responsible for these violations. One could argue (as Judge Cançado Trindade did) that:

  1. 1. Victims of violations of IHL jus cogens rules have a right in international law to obtain direct and full reparation from the state(s) responsible for these violations;

  2. 2. If state immunity rules are applied, this would prohibit victims of IHL violations from obtaining compensation.

If both of these premises were correct, there would seem to be a conflict of norms in the sense defined above. Again, however, the conflict disappears if one agrees with the ICJ that the first of these premises has not been made out.Footnote 45

Applying the framework suggested above, one thus reaches the same conclusion as that reached by the ICJ in its Judgment. However, this conclusion was reached after an analysis that avoids the drawbacks identified in section 2.1.1 above. Indeed, the method suggested is comprehensive: it can be applied even when the norms at issue deal with the same subject matter. Further, there is no need to attempt to classify the norms in categories which have no normative value themselves. Rather, the interpreter of the norms considers their application in a specific situation, from the perspective of the addressees of the norms. In the process, the norm is reduced to the basic language of deontic logic, which makes clear the meaning given to the norms by the interpreter and any logical incompatibilities between them. This enhances the transparency of the decision-making process.

Footnotes

1 Milanovic, M., ‘Norm Conflict in International Law: Whither Human Rights?’, (2009) 20 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 69, at 69. See also J. Pauwelyn, Conflict of Norms in Public International Law (2003), at 12–23, suggesting eight reasons for the inevitable occurrence of norm conflicts in modern international law.

2 Conclusions of the work of the Study Group on the Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, adopted by the International Law Commission at its fifty-eighth session, in 2006, and submitted to the General Assembly as a part of the Commission's report covering the work of that session (A/61/10, para. 251) (hereinafter ‘Conclusions of the Study Group on Fragmentation’), para. 1(2).

3 Hereinafter ‘ICJ’ or ‘Court’.

4 Hereinafter ‘Judgment’.

5 Judgment, paras. 92–97.

6 Dissenting Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade, e.g., paras. 130–134, 296, 303.

7 Each system will have its own rules for resolving conflicts. Certain norms might be given prevalence as hierarchically superior (e.g., jus cogens norms in international law or obligations under the UN Charter per Art. 103: see in this last respect Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, Order of 14 April 1992, [1992] ICJ Rep. 114, at paras. 42–4). Conflict of norms on the same level might be resolved for instance by preferring the more specific norm (lex specialis) or the more recent norm (lex posterior; see, e.g., Art. 30 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 UNTS 331 (‘Vienna Convention’)). The Study Group on the Fragmentation of International Law suggests that the basic rules to resolve normative conflicts in international law are found in the Vienna Convention: Conclusions of the Study Group on Fragmentation, para. 1(2).

8 Judgment, para. 60.

9 Judgment, para. 61.

10 The Court found that state immunity could not be denied on the basis of a ‘territorial tort exception’ (Judgment, paras. 62–79) and that international law did not prevent or restrict state immunity when the state is accused of serious IHL violations (Judgment, paras. 81–91).

11 Although the Court does state in obiter that at least some IHL rules are jus cogens. See Judgment, para. 95. The Court recalls its finding in the Armed Activities case that the rule prohibiting genocide has the character of jus cogens (Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Rwanda), Judgment of 3 February 2006, [2006] ICJ Rep. 6, para. 64). It also finds that the rules allegedly violated by the Congolese Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Arrest Warrant case (Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Belgium), Judgment of 14 February 2002, [2002] ICJ Rep. 3) – the minister was accused of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols, as well as of crimes against humanity – ‘undoubtedly possess the character of jus cogens’.

12 Judgment, para. 93. The relevant part of Article 41 of the International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility provides that ‘No State shall recognize as lawful a situation created by a serious breach within the meaning of article 40 [i.e., a serious breach of obligations under peremptory norms], nor render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation.’

13 Judgment, para. 95.

14 Footnote Ibid., para. 95, recalling that the Court held in those cases that (1) the jus cogens status of a rule does not confer upon the Court a jurisdiction which it would not otherwise possess (Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Rwanda), Judgment of 3 February 2006, [2006] ICJ Rep. 6, paras. 64 and 125); and (2) the fact that a minister for foreign affairs was accused of breaching rules with jus cogens status did not deprive him of his immunity under international law (Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Belgium), Judgment of 14 February 2002, [2002] ICJ Rep. 3, paras. 58 and 78).

15 Judgment, para. 94.

16 Footnote Ibid., para. 94.

17 Footnote Ibid., para. 96.

18 Footnote Ibid., para. 97.

19 Dissenting Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade, para. 40.

20 Footnote Ibid., para. 52.

21 Footnote Ibid., para. 129.

22 Dissenting Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade, e.g., paras. 130–134, 296, 315. Judge Cançado Trindade also argued that the rules on state immunity were never meant to apply in the case of international crimes in breach of jus cogens. See, e.g., paras. 184–213, 306, 312.

23 Judgment, para. 93.

24 Footnote Ibid., para. 95.

25 See, e.g., A. Nollkaemper, ‘International Adjudication of Global Public Goods: The Intersection of Substance and Procedure’, SHARES Research Paper 09 (2012), ACIL 2012-08, finalized May 2012, available online at www.sharesproject.nl and to be published in (2012) 23 EJIL, at 6–9. For example, Nollkaemper explains that the question whether a claimant state is an injured state (an admissibility question) ‘requires an assessment of whether the defaulting state owed an obligation towards the claimant state, which is a question of substantive law’ (at 7).

26 Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, finalized by Martti Koskenniemi, A/CN.4/L.682, 13 April 2006 (hereinafter ‘Report of the Study Group on Fragmentation’), at paras. 21–22.

27 Footnote Ibid., paras. 21–23.

28 Footnote Ibid., para. 22, citing Vierdag, E. W., ‘The Time of the “Conclusion” of a Multilateral Treaty: Article 30 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and Related Provisions’ (1988) 59 BYBIL 75, at 100.

29 See, e.g., Vranes, E., ‘The Definition of “Norm Conflict” in International Law and Legal Theory’, (2006) 17 EJIL 395, at 408 (referring to the work of J. Bentham and to deontic logic).

30 Pauwelyn, supra Footnote note 1, at 165–6.

31 Vranes, supra Footnote note 29, at 409.

32 Accordingly, some early commentators argued that these situations did not amount to genuine conflicts of norms, but to mere divergences. See, e.g., Jenks, C. W., ‘The Conflict of Law-Making Treaties’, (1953) 30 BYBIL 401, at 425–7.

33 Pauwelyn, supra Footnote note 1, at 170–1. See also Vranes, supra Footnote note 29, at 401–5.

34 Pauwelyn, supra Footnote note 1, at 175–88; Vranes, supra Footnote note 29, at 409.

35 Vranes, supra Footnote note 29, at 409. As an example of this, the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that a permissive norm could be in conflict with a norm imposing an obligation. In Bank of Montreal v. Hall ([1990] 1 S.C.R. 121) the Supreme Court examined whether there was a conflict between a provincial rule obliging banks to obtain a judicial authorization before seizing mortgaged property, and a federal rule which gave banks a right (permission) to seize mortgaged property without judicial authorization. Both the provincial and federal rules were found valid and applicable in the circumstances. The bank could have sought to obtain judicial authorization to seize the mortgaged property as this would not have been in violation of the federal rules. However, requiring it to do so would have frustrated the legislative intent behind the federal rule, which was to ensure that the banks could seize the property quickly. The Supreme Court found that the provincial and federal rules were in conflict. Pursuant to the paramountcy doctrine in Canadian constitutional law, the federal norm was made to prevail over the provincial norm, which was declared inoperative in the circumstances.

36 Vranes, supra Footnote note 29, at 408 (references omitted). Thus, if the prohibition of a given conduct is negated, this same conduct is permitted, and vice versa. In other words, the prohibition of a given conduct constitutes the contradictory opposite of the permission of this conduct (‘non-prohibition’, positive permission). The same is true for the permission to forbear from adopting a given conduct and the obligation to adopt this conduct: negating this obligation yields a permission of contradictory content (‘non-command’, negative permission) and vice versa. Hence there are two types of permission, the first consisting in the absence, or negation, of a prohibition, the second in the absence of an obligation. Prohibition and obligation are also logically interdefinable through negation, if the conduct which is regulated (the descriptive proposition) is negated.

37 Vranes, supra Footnote note 29, at 409 (itself referring to J. Bentham, Of Laws in General, ed. H. L. A. Hart (1970), at 93–109; K. Adomeit, Normlogik – Methodenlehre – Rechtspolitologie (1986), at 26–9 and 82–6).

38 Pauwelyn, supra Footnote note 1, at 175–6. This definition is endorsed in Milanovic, M., ‘A Norm Conflict Perspective on the Relationship between International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law’, (2009) 14 Journal of Conflict & Security Law 459, at 465.

39 Vranes, supra Footnote note 29, at 415.

40 Footnote Ibid.

41 Some of the norms at issue here are customary norms, and their exact content or formulation may be subject to debate. This article does not address this question. But it is obvious that the content or formulation of a customary norm might have an impact on whether it is in conflict with another norm.

42 Judgment, para. 94.

43 See supra Footnote note 12.

44 Judgment, para. 93.

45 Footnote Ibid., para. 94.

Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
note 1
note 29
note 1
note 29
note 1
note 29
note 29
note 29
note 29
note 1
note 29
Ibid.
note 12
Ibid.