Erga Omnes Obligations Reconsidered: State Responsibility, Jus Cogens Hierarchy, and the Normative Limits of Peremptory Norms in Contemporary International Law

Abstract

The doctrine of erga omnes obligations has long been regarded as a cornerstone of international legal order, yet its operational boundaries remain contested among scholars and adjudicative bodies alike. This article critically re-examines the relationship between erga omnes obligations and jus cogens norms in the context of evolving state responsibility frameworks under the 2001 ILC Draft Articles. Drawing on a systematic analysis of International Court of Justice jurisprudence, arbitral awards, and treaty practice from 1970 to 2024, the study demonstrates that conflation of these two normative categories produces significant doctrinal inconsistencies and impedes the effective invocation of collective legal standing. The authors propose a graduated normativity model that disaggregates peremptory content from actio popularis standing, offering a theoretically coherent framework for inter-state dispute resolution and accountability mechanisms in multilateral legal regimes.