Omar Saleh Ali Al Okour, Leen Nazem Ahmad Aljayoussi, Mohammad Mustafa Eyadat, Tariq Mohammad Qasim Alnsour, Ahmad Aqeil Mohammad Al-zaqibh
ABSTRACT
This study explores how the doctrine of persistent objection functions within the framework of customary international law, offering states a mechanism to dissociate themselves from emerging norms, provided their opposition is consistent and the norm in question does not constitute a peremptory (jus cogens) rule. Structured around four central themes, the paper first examines the conceptual foundations and historical development of the doctrine. It then assesses varying academic perspectives, including both endorsement and critique. The third section outlines the specific legal and procedural conditions that trigger the doctrine’s applicability. Lastly, the analysis turns to significant judicial interpretations, with a focus on decisions from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and findings of the International Law Commission (ILC). The research concludes that persistent objection is broadly accepted in both legal theory and state conduct as a legitimate limitation on the binding force of customary norms. The paper advocates for formal acknowledgment of the doctrine by global institutions such as the United Nations and recommends further scholarly engagement to refine its legal contours and practical implications.
