Jus cogens: how to improve the world (you will only make things worse)

This article traces the evolution of the concept of jus cogens from its initial emergence in international legal discourse as an abstract novelty to its present-day articulation through specific substantive norms. The analysis highlights how this category has been shaped by diverse intellectual traditions, ranging from natural law and positivist approaches to critical, sociological, and postcolonial perspectives. Particular emphasis is placed on the work of the International Law Commission, which in 2022 proposed a “non-exhaustive list” of jus cogens norms. While the list has provided a useful reference point for both institutional and doctrinal debates, it has also created challenges: there is a risk that it may be treated as a closed canon, resistant to further development, while excessive reliance on it could narrow the flexibility of the concept and obscure its systemic role. Methodologically, the study draws on historical and doctrinal analysis, institutional practice, and the jurisprudence of international courts — most prominently the International Court of Justice — as well as on state practice where the peremptory character of norms has been explicitly invoked. The article also considers social and cultural perspectives, regional initiatives, and alternative forms of justice that give weight to the experiences of victims and affected communities. Additional focus is placed on comparative perspectives: national legal traditions — civil law, common law, socialist, and others — have profoundly influenced the interpretation of peremptory norms and continue to shape contemporary understandings of jus cogens across different contexts. The authors argue that jus cogens has consolidated its role both as a structuring category of international law and as a cornerstone of the international legal order. It performs protective and preventive functions, ensuring that fundamental values are insulated from derogation. At the same time, the long-term viability of the concept depends on its openness to renewal in the spirit of “pluralist universalism”, which requires balancing universal claims with recognition of diverse legal traditions and historical experiences. By contrast, attempts to instrumentalize jus cogens as a universalizing device for “improving the world” without sufficient grounding in practice and consensus risk producing counterproductive outcomes — an outcome aptly captured in the ironic title of this article.