Abstract
Most analyses of the persistent objector doctrine seem to omit the impact that its application has on the general requirement of consent as a cornerstone of the international legal order, and as an unavoidable requisite in the formation of rules of customary international law. The present work holds that the persistent objector rule not only undermines the consensual nature of obligations in international law, but also generates issues of normative authority, dubious attribution of meaning to silence, temporal determination, and with self-determination and equality. It concludes that the doctrine, furthermore, lacks practice and opinio juris, meaning that its validity and existence in the realm of customary international law is highly questionable.
Recommended Citation
Moisés M. Mogollón,
The Consent-Based Problems Surrounding the Persistent Objector Doctrine,
43
Mich. J. Int'l L.
301
(2022).
Available at:
https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol43/iss2/3