In the article, the author emphasizes that despite the close proximity of jus cogens and erga omnes, they have different legal nature. However, in terms of universality, it can be argued that these concepts act as tools to achieve one goal - to safeguard the interests of the international community. A legal analysis of Article 20 of the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights of 1966 has been carried out, which is enshrining the provision according to which (Part 1) any propaganda of war should be prohibited by law. The Provision of General Comment № 11 adopted by the UN Committee on Human Rights in 1983 to Article 20 of the Covenant are examined, on the basis of which the author notes that, in consideration of the nature of Article 20, States Parties are required to take the necessary legislative measures which prohibit actions about which it is mentioned. The author emphasizes on the basis of the Provisions of the Covenant and the General Observations that any propaganda of war and any act in favor of national, racial or religious hatred, which is incitement to discrimination, antagonism or violence, should be prohibited by law. Prohibition, which is mentioned, applies to all types of propaganda acting for the purpose of threatening or aggressing or breach of the world contrary to the Charter of the United Nations. To the General Comment № 24 adopted at the 52nd session of the Human Rights Committee in 1994 on the issues concerning admonitions, which are being made during the ratification of the Covenant or the Optional Protocols has the following provisions: admonitions that violate imperative norms incompatible with the object and the objectives of the Covenant. Accordingly, the Provisions of the Covenant, which constitute customary International Law (and a fortiori, if they have the character of imperative norms), which cannot be the subject of reservations. The author analyzed that in the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 28 May 1951 concerning a case of reservation to the Genocide Convention, the Court filed the clarification of the concept of erga omnes. It is found that, in accordance with the General Comment № 29 of 24.07.2001, on the issue of the State's waiver of rights in relation to the state of emergency, according to p. "в". Article 13, the Committee emphasizes the imperative nature of Article 20 of the Covenant and the impossibility of the State's waiver from its implementation. No declaration of a state of emergency made in accordance with article 4, paragraph 1, may serve as a justification for a State Party to conduct, in violation of Article 20, the promotion of war or the organization of speeches in favor of national, racial or religious hatred that constitute incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.

Full Text

Published Version
Open DOI Link

Get access to 115M+ research papers

Discover from 40M+ Open access, 2M+ Pre-prints, 9.5M Topics and 32K+ Journals.

Sign Up Now! It's FREE

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call