Jus Cogens / Peremptory Norm Cases: Prosecutor v. Furundžija [1998]

IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Chamber Judgment of 10 December 1998 · International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (Trial Chamber) · International – ad hoc tribunal

Public International Lawpublic-international-lawPublic International LawInternational criminal law – torture – jus cogens

Issue

Whether the prohibition on torture had the status of a peremptory norm (jus cogens) in international law.

Held

The Trial Chamber held that the prohibition on torture has achieved the status of a peremptory norm.

Exam use

In an exam, introduce Jus Cogens / Peremptory Norm Cases: Prosecutor v. Furundžija with the citation only if you can remember it accurately; otherwise use the case name and court, then focus on the rule and application. A strong answer should say what Jus Cogens / Peremptory Norm Cases: Prosecutor v. Furundžija decided, why the facts mattered, and how the authority helps resolve the new facts. Avoid treating the case as a decorative reference. Use it to prove a doctrinal step in International criminal law – torture – jus cogens, then move quickly to analysis.

Summary

Jus Cogens / Peremptory Norm Cases: Prosecutor v. Furundžija is included in the Public International Law case database because it gives students a concrete authority for International criminal law – torture – jus cogens. The reported citation is IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Chamber Judgment of 10 December 1998, and the decision is associated with International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (Trial Chamber). In revision, treat the case as a way to connect the legal issue to a real dispute rather than as an abstract rule. The key exam move is to state the holding, identify the fact pattern that made the rule matter, and then decide whether a new problem question should apply, distinguish, or limit the authority.

Facts

The material factual signal for Jus Cogens / Peremptory Norm Cases: Prosecutor v. Furundžija is: Furundžija, a local commander, was charged with torture and outrages upon personal dignity for interrogating a victim using severe physical and psychological violence. Students should read the linked source and turn that signal into a short fact table: parties, transaction or public-law setting, procedural posture, conduct in dispute, and the fact the court treated as decisive. This prevents vague case-dropping. In an answer on Public International Law, use the facts to explain why International criminal law – torture – jus cogens was live, then compare the problem facts against the facts in the case before stating any conclusion.

Procedural History

Jus Cogens / Peremptory Norm Cases: Prosecutor v. Furundžija is reported as a decision of International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (Trial Chamber). The procedural route should be checked against the linked source before formal citation. For study notes, record whether the decision was an appeal, judicial review, trial judgment, tribunal ruling, or constitutional/application proceeding, because that posture affects how confidently the rule can be used.

Issue

Whether the prohibition on torture had the status of a peremptory norm (jus cogens) in international law.

Held

The Trial Chamber held that the prohibition on torture has achieved the status of a peremptory norm.

Ratio Decidendi

The prohibition on torture is a peremptory norm (jus cogens) from which no derogation is permitted; it imposes obligations erga omnes and triggers universal jurisdiction under certain conditions.

Obiter Dicta

Check the linked source for concurring, dissenting, or obiter observations before quoting this case. If the case includes non-binding reasoning, use it as persuasive support rather than as the core rule.

Reasoning

For reasoning, start with the ratio: The prohibition on torture is a peremptory norm (jus cogens) from which no derogation is permitted; it imposes obligations erga omnes and triggers universal jurisdiction under certain conditions. Then read the source and separate three things: the legal test, the facts used to apply that test, and any policy or institutional reason the court gave. This structure makes Jus Cogens / Peremptory Norm Cases: Prosecutor v. Furundžija easier to use in essays and problem questions. In Public International Law, the case should be compared with related authorities on International criminal law – torture – jus cogens; if the jurisdiction, statute, or procedural posture differs from the exam problem, explain that limit explicitly instead of treating the authority as automatic.

Plain-English Explanation

Plainly, Jus Cogens / Peremptory Norm Cases: Prosecutor v. Furundžija is a case to use when a Public International Law answer needs an authority on International criminal law – torture – jus cogens. Do not just list it. Explain the problem the court had to solve, the rule or holding it used, and the fact that made the result persuasive. That turns the case from a memorised name into evidence for your legal analysis.

Essay-Ready Explanation Generator

Version 1 of 4

Reference to Jus Cogens / Peremptory Norm Cases: Prosecutor v. Furundžija (IT-95-17/1-T, Trial Chamber Judgment of 10 December 1998) strengthens a Public International Law answer because the case reflects the principle that The prohibition on torture is a peremptory norm (jus cogens) from which no derogation is permitted; it imposes obligations erga omnes and triggers universal jurisdiction under certain conditions. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as Whether the prohibition on torture had the status of a peremptory norm (jus cogens) in international law. The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.

Underlying Concepts

  • public-international-law
  • Public International Law
  • International criminal law – torture – jus cogens
  • case authority
  • exam application

Key Passages

  • Verify exact wording in the linked source before quoting.

Significance

Jus Cogens / Peremptory Norm Cases: Prosecutor v. Furundžija is significant for LawConquer users because it supplies a named authority for International criminal law – torture – jus cogens in Public International Law. The case can anchor a paragraph, support a rule statement, or provide a contrast point when another authority points the other way. Its practical value is strongest when the student links the holding to the material facts and then explains whether the present problem is analogous or distinguishable.

Related Cases

No related cases listed.

Exam Tips

In an exam, introduce Jus Cogens / Peremptory Norm Cases: Prosecutor v. Furundžija with the citation only if you can remember it accurately; otherwise use the case name and court, then focus on the rule and application. A strong answer should say what Jus Cogens / Peremptory Norm Cases: Prosecutor v. Furundžija decided, why the facts mattered, and how the authority helps resolve the new facts. Avoid treating the case as a decorative reference. Use it to prove a doctrinal step in International criminal law – torture – jus cogens, then move quickly to analysis.

Revision Checklist

  • Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
  • State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
  • Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
  • Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.

Problem Question Use

Use Jus Cogens / Peremptory Norm Cases: Prosecutor v. Furundžija in a problem question by matching the factual trigger to the new scenario. If the fact pattern aligns with Furundžija, a local commander, was charged with torture and outrages upon personal dignity for interrogating a victim using severe physical and psychological violence., apply the ratio and explain the likely result. If a crucial fact, jurisdiction, statute, or procedural posture differs, distinguish the case and use it as a boundary rather than a controlling answer.

Common Pitfalls

  • Name-dropping the case without applying the facts
  • Ignoring jurisdiction or procedural posture
  • Quoting without checking the linked source

Sources