With a Philippine Public Law Lens

Abstract

A treaty is usually binding because states consented to it (pacta sunt servanda). Peremptory norms of general international law—jus cogens—are different: they bind regardless of consent and admit no derogation. When a new peremptory norm emerges after a treaty has entered into force (a “supervening jus cogens” norm), international law treats any conflicting treaty obligations as no longer legally maintainable. The principal legal consequence, as reflected in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) and widely regarded as customary in this respect, is termination of the treaty to the extent of the conflict, coupled with duties to eliminate the consequences of the unlawful regime and to bring relations into conformity with the new peremptory norm. In the Philippines, these effects interact with constitutional constraints on treaty-making, the incorporation of generally accepted principles of international law, and the role of domestic courts in refusing to give effect to international commitments contrary to fundamental norms.

1. Core Concepts

1.1 Jus cogens (peremptory norms)

A jus cogens norm is a rule of general international law that:

is accepted and recognized by the international community of states as a whole as non-derogable, and
can be modified only by a later norm of general international law having the same peremptory character.

Typical examples widely treated as jus cogens include prohibitions of:

genocide,
slavery and the slave trade,
torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (often discussed at the peremptory level),
crimes against humanity,
racial discrimination/apartheid,
aggression (frequently discussed as peremptory), and the peremptory status of some aspects of self-determination is also commonly argued.

Two linked ideas matter here:

Non-derogability: states cannot contract out of the norm.
Hierarchical superiority: jus cogens sits above ordinary treaty and customary rules; inconsistent rules yield.

1.2 “Supervening jus cogens”

This refers to a peremptory norm that crystallizes or is recognized as peremptory after a treaty’s conclusion/entry into force, and the treaty becomes incompatible with that new peremptory norm.

This is distinct from:

a treaty that conflicted with jus cogens from the beginning (that situation is usually discussed as invalidity ab initio), and
changes in policy, morality, or “ordinary” customary law (which do not have the same hierarchical effect).

2. The Vienna Convention Framework (and the Customary-Law Baseline)

2.1 Article 64 (Supervening jus cogens)—the trigger rule

The VCLT’s key rule is commonly summarized like this:

If a new peremptory norm of general international law emerges, any existing treaty that conflicts with that norm becomes void and terminates.

The practical meaning: the treaty cannot continue to require (or authorize) what the new peremptory norm forbids.

2.2 Article 53 (Conflict with jus cogens at conclusion)—contrast

When the conflict existed at the time of conclusion, the treaty is void (treated as having no legal effect from the start as between the parties, subject to specific consequences rules).

Why this matters:

Article 53 is about original invalidity.
Article 64 is about supervening termination.

2.3 Article 71 (Consequences of invalidity/termination due to jus cogens)

This is where the real “impact” lives. The consequences are stricter than ordinary termination:

Parties must:

eliminate as far as possible the consequences of any act performed in reliance on the treaty that conflicts with the peremptory norm; and
bring their mutual relations into conformity with the peremptory norm.

This is more than “stop performing.” It is “stop—and unwind where feasible—and align future relations.”

2.4 Procedural and systemic context

Even where Article 64 is clear in theory, disputes arise in practice over:

whether the alleged norm is truly jus cogens,
what conduct counts as “conflict,”
whether the conflict is total or severable, and
what “eliminate consequences” requires in concrete terms.

3. What Counts as “Conflict” Between a Treaty and Jus Cogens?

International law generally treats conflict broadly. A treaty conflicts with jus cogens when it:

requires prohibited conduct,
authorizes prohibited conduct,
purports to excuse prohibited conduct, or
creates a legal regime that necessarily entails prohibited conduct.

3.1 Direct versus indirect conflict

Direct conflict: A treaty clause says “State A may torture detainees” (obvious).
Indirect/structural conflict: A treaty creates arrangements that predictably lead to prohibited outcomes (e.g., mandatory transfer of persons to real risk of torture, if framed with no safeguards).

3.2 The “no-escape clauses” problem

Clauses attempting to:

grant immunity for international crimes,
waive responsibility for torture, slavery, or genocide, or
bar prosecution absolutely, are frequent flashpoints. Whether every “immunity” or “amnesty” scenario reaches jus cogens conflict depends on drafting, scope, and how the peremptory norm is characterized (e.g., prohibiting torture vs. requiring criminal accountability).

4. Legal Effects of Supervening Jus Cogens: What Actually Happens to the Treaty?

4.1 Termination (and “voidness”) under Article 64

Under the VCLT framing, the treaty “becomes void and terminates.” In functional terms:

The treaty cannot be relied on to justify continued performance of the conflicting obligations.
Obligations inconsistent with the peremptory norm cease to be legally enforceable as treaty obligations.

4.2 Total termination vs. partial invalidity (severability)

In practice, many treaties contain both lawful and unlawful parts.

A workable approach is:

If the conflict is confined to specific provisions and the remainder can operate independently consistent with the parties’ intent, only the conflicting parts fall away.
If the conflicting provision is essential to the bargain, the treaty may effectively be terminated as a whole.

The VCLT’s general severability logic (and general treaty law) supports partial survival where feasible, but jus cogens consequences are strict in requiring alignment with the peremptory norm.

4.3 Ex nunc vs. ex tunc consequences

Supervening jus cogens is conceptually about after-emerging peremptory law. So:

the treaty was valid before the peremptory norm emerged (or before it was recognized as peremptory),
but becomes untenable from that point forward.

Still, Article 71’s “eliminate consequences” can require some degree of unwinding of ongoing effects created earlier—especially where the treaty established continuing unlawful situations.

4.4 Relationship to state responsibility

Even if a treaty once existed, a state cannot avoid responsibility for conduct that violates jus cogens. If conduct after the emergence of the peremptory norm violates that norm, the state’s responsibility is engaged under general international law.

5. Broader System Effects: Erga Omnes, Non-Recognition, and Third States

Because many jus cogens norms also generate obligations owed to the international community as a whole (often discussed as erga omnes or erga omnes partes depending on the context), supervening jus cogens can affect more than the treaty parties:

Non-recognition: other states should not recognize as lawful situations created by serious breaches of peremptory norms.
Non-assistance: they should not aid or assist in maintaining such situations.
Cooperation: there may be duties to cooperate to end the serious breach.

This matters when treaties support a continuing situation—e.g., occupation regimes, apartheid-type systems, or institutionalized forced labor.

6. Philippine Context: Where International Doctrine Meets Domestic Public Law

6.1 Constitutional reception of international law

Philippine constitutional design is unusually explicit about the role of international law, including the principle that generally accepted principles of international law form part of the law of the land. Even without assuming the Philippines’ treaty status to the VCLT, Philippine legal analysis often treats core VCLT principles as reflective of customary international law in treaty interpretation and validity questions.

Implication: If a treaty obligation conflicts with a peremptory norm, Philippine institutions (executive, Senate, courts) have strong doctrinal footing to treat that treaty obligation as legally inoperative internationally—and highly suspect domestically.

6.2 Treaty-making constraints (Executive + Senate concurrence)

Philippine treaty practice is constitutionally structured: the political branches create binding commitments through executive negotiation and Senate concurrence (for treaties in the constitutional sense). This matters because:

A treaty that would require jus cogens-violating conduct should be non-ratifiable in principle, since the state lacks authority to consent to derogation from peremptory norms.
If a treaty was valid when concurred in but later becomes inconsistent due to supervening jus cogens, the Philippines faces a duty at the international level to terminate/modify the conflicting obligations, and domestically to avoid implementing them.

6.3 Domestic effect: courts and “non-application”

Even when termination is a matter of international law, domestic legal systems must decide what to do with:

enabling legislation,
executive agreements/practices,
and pending cases invoking treaty rights.

A Philippine court confronted with a treaty clause that conflicts with a peremptory norm has several tools:

Interpretation consistent with international law and the Constitution (read the treaty as not authorizing prohibited conduct if text allows).
Refusal to apply the offending clause domestically (treat it as void/inoperative).
Constitutional review if domestic implementation violates constitutional rights aligned with the peremptory norm (e.g., protection from torture, due process, liberty).

In effect, jus cogens supplies a ceiling: domestic law should not enforce what international law treats as non-derogably prohibited.

6.4 Implementation agencies and operational decisions

Where treaties govern military cooperation, law enforcement, extradition, and mutual legal assistance, the most common Philippine-facing issues are operational:

Transfer/extradition with torture risk: If a treaty requires surrender without safeguards and a supervening peremptory norm is understood to forbid transfer into real risk of torture, Philippine authorities must incorporate assurances, judicial review, or refuse transfer.
Detention arrangements: If a treaty framework enables incommunicado detention or abusive interrogation, it becomes legally fragile under peremptory anti-torture norms.
Immunity clauses: Provisions that shield persons from accountability for international crimes risk collision with peremptory norms, depending on how the obligation of accountability is framed.

6.5 Treaty hierarchy vis-à-vis the Constitution

In Philippine doctrine, the Constitution is supreme domestically. A treaty cannot override it. This complements jus cogens in two ways:

If the Constitution protects rights overlapping with peremptory norms, the domestic system already blocks implementation.
Even if the Constitution were silent on a point, the incorporation of generally accepted principles of international law can supply a domestic legal basis to treat peremptory norms as controlling.

7. Identification Problems: How Do We Know a Jus Cogens Norm Has “Supervened”?

7.1 The hardest part is not the consequence; it’s the premise

The legal regime is strict once jus cogens is established. But proving a norm is jus cogens is demanding.

Markers commonly used in legal argument include:

widespread and representative state practice plus opinio juris,
consistent recognition in multilateral treaties (especially near-universal human rights instruments),
judgments and reasoning of international courts and tribunals,
statements by states in diplomatic practice,
codification and commentary by the International Law Commission,
and (sometimes) near-universal domestic constitutional traditions and criminalization.

7.2 “New norm” vs. “new recognition”

Sometimes the behavior prohibited was long condemned, but only later treated as peremptory. Parties may disagree whether Article 64 is triggered by:

emergence of the norm itself, or
emergence of its peremptory character.

Practically, what matters is whether the international community now recognizes non-derogability as a legal fact.

8. Practical Consequences for Treaty Operations

8.1 Renegotiation, amendment, or replacement

For the Philippines (or any state), the preferred pathway when jus cogens conflict appears is:

amend the treaty,
adopt an additional protocol,
issue agreed interpretations (if text allows), or
terminate and replace with a compliant instrument.

8.2 Domestic legislative cleanup

If implementing statutes exist, they may need:

repeal or amendment,
new safeguards, remedies, or oversight mechanisms,
and administrative guidance to agencies (DFA, DOJ, DND, PNP, BI, etc.) to prevent unlawful execution.

8.3 Pending disputes and transition

Hard cases arise when:

private parties relied on treaty arrangements (e.g., investment or commercial regimes), and
the treaty’s operation now intersects with peremptory norms (e.g., forced labor in supply chains, trafficking, slavery-like practices).

International law’s insistence on conformity can collide with reliance interests. Article 71’s “eliminate consequences” leans toward compliance even at significant adjustment cost.

9. Reservations, Interpretations, and “Contracting Around” the Problem

9.1 Reservations cannot defeat jus cogens

A reservation that purports to allow what peremptory norms forbid is ineffective. Even if other parties accept it politically, it cannot create lawful permission to derogate from jus cogens.

9.2 Interpretive declarations and saving clauses

Well-drafted treaties often include:

human rights saving clauses,
obligations to comply with international humanitarian law and international human rights law,
explicit anti-torture and anti-trafficking commitments,
and procedures for refusal where fundamental norms would be violated.

These features reduce the chance that later-recognized peremptory norms will “break” the treaty.

10. A Philippine-Facing Toolkit: How to Draft and Operate Treaties Safely Under Jus Cogens

If the policy goal is durable treaty commitments, the best practices are predictable:

Insert non-derogation clauses referencing non-derogable rights and prohibitions (torture, slavery, genocide, etc.).
Add refusal and safeguard mechanisms (e.g., no transfer where substantial risk of torture; judicial review; monitoring).
Build compliance architecture: reporting, inspections, access to counsel, medical examinations for detainees, anti-trafficking controls.
Avoid absolute immunities for serious international crimes; if immunities are necessary for functional reasons, draft narrowly and preserve accountability pathways.
Include severability and suspension mechanisms so that a future jus cogens conflict does not collapse the entire arrangement.
Align domestic implementing law at the time of concurrence/ratification so agencies can comply without improvising.

11. Bottom Line Rules (Doctrinal Summary)

Peremptory norms override treaties. Consent does not validate derogation.
When a new peremptory norm emerges, conflicting treaty obligations cannot continue.
The parties must stop the conflict and unwind consequences where feasible, and align their relations with the peremptory norm.
In the Philippines, constitutional supremacy plus incorporation of generally accepted principles of international law strengthens the domestic basis to refuse implementation of jus cogens-conflicting treaty provisions.
The hardest litigation point is usually identification: whether the alleged norm is truly jus cogens and whether the treaty truly conflicts, and if so, how far severability and cleanup obligations reach.

12. Illustrative (Non-Exhaustive) Philippine-Relevant Hypotheticals

A security cooperation treaty requires automatic transfer of detainees to a partner state with no hearing and no ability to refuse transfer even where torture risk is substantial. If peremptory anti-torture rules are engaged, the Philippines would have to halt transfers or read in safeguards; persistent conflict would terminate the obligation.
A labor migration agreement that enables conditions amounting to slavery-like practices (debt bondage, confiscation of passports, coercion) could become incompatible with peremptory anti-slavery norms; obligations supporting such a regime cannot remain operative.
A peace arrangement framed as a treaty includes blanket immunities for genocide or crimes against humanity. If accountability is treated as required by the peremptory character of those prohibitions (a contested but serious argument in some settings), the immunity provisions are at high risk of being treated as incompatible.

Conclusion

Supervening jus cogens operates as a legal “override switch” on treaty obligations: when the international community recognizes a new non-derogable norm, treaties must yield to it. The consequences are not merely prospective non-performance but affirmative duties to eliminate the effects of the conflicting regime and to realign legal relations. In the Philippines, that international hierarchy converges with domestic constitutional structures: treaty consent is bounded by higher law, and courts and political branches have doctrinal tools to prevent or discontinue enforcement of treaty commitments that clash with peremptory norms.

If you want, I can format this into a law-review style article with footnote placeholders (without external sourcing) and a tighter thesis-driven narrative suitable for submission.