Even Night is not Eternal: Towards Global Abolition of the Death Penalty

By Obrian M. Rosario

INTRODUCTION

Gradually, societies evolve, and collective reckonings redefine what humanity can no  longer tolerate. These shifts give rise to jus cogens norms, which are peremptory principles of  international law that are universal, non-derogable, and immune to the whims of individual  states. Norms such as the prohibitions against slavery, genocide, apartheid, and torture stand as  testaments to humanity’s moral progress, embodying the highest legal and ethical standards  under international law. 

History teaches us that some of humanity's greatest strides often come from rejecting its  darkest practices. From the scourge of slavery to the horrors of genocide, the international community has repeatedly dismantled systems of cruelty, enshrining universal principles of  dignity and justice. Yet, one relic of humanity’s harsh past, the death penalty, remains  entrenched in some nations, defying the march of progress. Once widely accepted, capital  punishment is increasingly recognized as incompatible with the highest standards of human  rights and international law. 

The death penalty is a vestige of humanity’s darker history, akin to slavery and apartheid. Like the night, which seems endless but inevitably yields to dawn, the abolition of capital  punishment is within reach. Historical moments of profound human suffering, such as the  atrocities of World War II and the Holocaust, compelled the global community to realign itself  around principles of human rights, culminating in the establishment of the United Nations and  foundational human rights treaties.(1) Although the abolition of the death penalty was debated  during the drafting of foundational international human rights frameworks, it failed to  materialize amid widespread retributive sentiment following the war.(2) Yet, even then, legal  scholars and human rights advocates recognized capital punishment as a violation of human dignity, comparable to slavery and apartheid.(3) Today, while vestiges of these once-common  practices linger, they are now universally condemned, serving as aberrations that underscore the  global rejection of such injustices.(4) The same can and must be said of capital punishment.  

The worldwide movement to abolish capital punishment reflects this truth: a march  toward justice that, while slow, has gained undeniable momentum. Over 75% of the world’s  nations have abolished the death penalty in law or practice, affirming the growing consensus of incompatibility with human rights and dignity.(5) Still, the United States remains an outspoken  outlier, clinging to one of the most archaic and brutal forms of state-sanctioned violence. This  resistance to progress is especially troubling in the current political climate, where hard-won  civil and human rights are increasingly under threat, undermined by the shifting tides of political  power. Recent United States Supreme Court decisions, from rolling back reproductive freedoms  to striking down affirmative action, signal a broader regression. Amid this regression, the persistence of the death penalty further illuminates the United States’ reluctance to align with  evolving global standards of justice and human dignity. 

As an abolitionist, I grapple with the challenge of maintaining hope in the face of this  resistance. How do we advance the abolition of the death penalty when it feels like our nation is moving backward? History provides a roadmap. Just as past movements methodically built consensus to overcome entrenched injustices, so too can we galvanize a collective effort to end  capital punishment. The inevitability of abolition rests on the growing global consensus and the undeniable truth that the death penalty violates foundational principles of human rights. 

My studies in international law and capital punishment have deepened my conviction that  abolition is both a legal and ethical imperative. While international law cannot always compel  immediate change, its influence on United States legal doctrine is undeniable. For example, the Supreme Court’s decision in Roper v. Simmons to abolish the juvenile death penalty cited global  consensus, highlighting the potential for international norms to shape domestic law.(6) Furthermore, treaties such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) further frame the death penalty as  incompatible with the “right to life” and human dignity.(7) This provides a legal avenue that, while  often slow to manifest in action, holds the promise of a world free from state-sanctioned killing. 

Global abolition of the death penalty is inevitable. Yet, the United States’ refusal to join  this movement undermines its moral standing and violates foundational principles of  international law. In this paper, I will be tackling the question of whether the prohibition against  capital punishment qualifies as a jus cogens norm and, if so, whether the United States' death  penalty violates international law. It argues that the prohibition against capital punishment  constitutes a jus cogens norm, establishing a universal, non-derogable standard of international  law, making the United States death penalty a clear violation. This necessitates its abolition or, at  the very least, the implementation of a moratorium. 

In Part I, I will establish that the prohibition against the death penalty has attained the  status of a jus cogens norm of international law. This analysis will draw on international human  rights treaties, prevailing state practices, and the practices of international tribunals, all of which  collectively reinforce its status as a jus cogens norm and its incompatibility with foundational  principles of human rights, including the "right to life" and the prohibition against torture.  

Consequently, in Part II, I will argue that the United States death penalty flagrantly  violates international law, emphasizing the country’s increasing isolation from the global  consensus on justice and human dignity. Finally, this paper concludes by urging the international community to affirm the jus cogens status of the prohibition and calls on the United States to  abolish the death penalty or, at minimum, establish a moratorium.  

As humanity has transcended atrocities like slavery and genocide, it must also reject the  death penalty. While the road to abolition may be long, the trajectory is clear: a global  commitment to justice and dignity will ultimately extinguish the shadow of state-sanctioned  killing. The time for the United States to join this movement is now. The night of the death  penalty has been long, but its end is inevitable.

The Prohibition Against Capital Punishment is a Jus Cogens Norm

 The near-universal global prohibition against the death penalty reflects its evolution into  a jus cogens norm, representing the highest standard of international law. State practice,  international human rights treaties, and international tribunals demonstrate the growing global  consensus toward abolition. Collectively, these elements indicate that the prohibition against  capital punishment has attained the status of a jus cogens norm.

A. Defining Jus Cogens: The Pinnacle of International Law

Jus cogens norms, also known as peremptory norms, are principles so fundamental to the  international legal order that no state may derogate from them.(8) These norms include the  prohibitions against slavery, torture, racial discrimination, genocide, and apartheid. By their very  nature, jus cogens norms invalidate any conflicting agreements or actions, past or future,  between all states.(9) The essence of jus cogens lies in its universal and non-derogable nature.(10) Certain rights  and customs have become so ingrained in the international legal system that they are elevated  above general customary law, forming the foundation of the global legal order.(11) Scholars have likened jus cogens norms to a sort of "international constitution," akin to constitutional principles  at the domestic level, rendering any state law or action that violates them void.(12) As a result,  international legal scholars frequently invoke jus cogens norms to support calls for substantive  policy changes and reforms.[13] 

Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCTL) codifies this  concept, determining that “[a] treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a  peremptory norm of general international law. For the purposes of the present Convention, a  peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the  international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted  and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the  same character.”[14] In addition, Article 64 of the VCLT declares that “[if] a new peremptory norm  of general international law emerges, any existing treaty which is in conflict with that norm  becomes void and terminates.”[15] Consequently, a jus cogens norm must meet four criteria: (1) it  is a norm of general international law; (2) the norm is accepted by the international community  of states as a whole; (3) the norm is immune from derogation; and (4) the norm is modifiable  only by a new norm having the same status.[16] 

The first two criteria ensure that the norm is universally recognized as fundamental to the  global legal system. Ultimately, the norm must be recognized by a vast majority of nations as  essential to the public order.[17] The third and fourth distinguish jus cogens norms from other  international norms by emphasizing their supremacy and permanence.[18] These will be the main  focus of this paperas I draw on international human rights treaties, prevailing state practices, and  the practices of international tribunals to illustrate how the prohibition of capital punishment  satisfies these requirements. Once deemed a jus cogens norm, it becomes non-derogable, underscoring its indispensable role in maintaining international order. This non-derogability can  be established through explicit treaty provisions or widespread recognition of the norm’s status. In the realm of human rights, the significance of jus cogens norms is even more  pronounced.[19] Certain human rights are considered so vital to human dignity that they cannot be  undermined by unilateral state action.[20] Many scholars argue that if fundamental human rights  exist, so too must the norms that safeguard those rights—superseding any contrary state  actions.[21] The prohibition against the death penalty, rooted in the principles of human dignity and  the right to life, meets these criteria. Its growing recognition as a fundamental international norm  aligns with the moral and legal underpinnings of jus cogens, reflecting an evolving global  consensus that capital punishment is incompatible with the most basic principles of humanity and international law.

B. The Prohibition Against Capital Punishment Constitutes a Jus Cogens Norm

The global shift away from the death penalty signifies more than a mere change in state  practices; it marks the recognition of capital punishment as a fundamental violation of universal  human rights. Consequently, this section argues prohibition against capital punishment has  attained the status of a jus cogens norm of international law. To support this claim, this paper  examines the jus cogens criteria under the VCTL, global trends in state practice, the international  human rights framework, and the principle of non-derogability. The evidence overwhelmingly  shows that the prohibition of capital punishment aligns with core international legal principles,  reflecting an evolving consensus that categorizes it as a violation of universally recognized human rights.

1. Standard of Review

To establish the jus cogens status of the abolition of the death penalty, this analysis  adheres to the following four widely recognized factors established under Article 53 of the  VCTL must be satisfied: (1) it must be a general norm of international law; (2) it must be  accepted by the international community of states as a whole; (3) it must be immune from  derogation; and (4) it must be modifiable only by a new norm of the same status.[22] This  framework ensures that a jus cogens norm represents the highest standard of universality and  immutability in international law, reflecting humanity's collective moral progress.[23]

2. General Norm of International Law

State practice, an international human rights treaty legal framework, and international  tribunal rulings and practice evidence that the prohibition against the death penalty is a general  norm of international law.

a) State Practice: A Global Shift Away From Capital Punishment

The first question is whether a significant majority of nations have, either in law or  practice, recognized the death penalty as contrary to international law.[24] The global shift away  from the death penalty underscores its recognition as a general norm of international law. As of  2023, 146 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice, representing  approximately 75% of the world’s nations.[25] This figure includes 114 states that have abolished  it entirely, nine that allow it only for exceptional crimes (e.g., wartime offenses), and 23 that are  abolitionist in practice, having refrained from executions for at least a decade. By contrast, only  56 nations actively retain and apply the death penalty.[26] This figure alone meets the "vast  majority" standard necessary to establish a jus cogens norm. 

 Notably, capital punishment is concentrated in a small minority of states. For instance, in  2023, the majority of executions were carried out in just five countries- China, Iran, Saudi  Arabia, Somalia, and the USA.[27] Excluding China, which lacks transparency in its reporting,  89% of all reported executions took place in just two countries – Iran and Saudi Arabia.[28] These  figures illustrate how the death penalty is no longer a widely accepted practice but a relic  maintained by a narrow subset minority of states.  

Further reflecting this shift, many countries refuse to extradite individuals to nations  where they may face the death penalty.[29] For example, European Union (EU) member states,  where abolition is a prerequisite for membership, routinely require assurances that extradited  individuals will not face capital punishment.[30] 

Recent reforms further highlight the growing global consensus against the death penalty.  In 2023 alone, Malaysia eliminated mandatory death sentences for 11 offenses, Kenya commuted  all pre-2022 death sentences to life imprisonment, and Ghana abolished the death penalty,  joining 28 other African nations.[31] In stark contrast, Uganda expanded its use of capital  punishment through the Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2023, positioning itself alongside  authoritarian regimes in defiance of global norms. This is the type of company the United States wants to keep, aligning itself with authoritarian regimes and defying the global consensus.

b) International Human Rights Framework on Capital Punishment

When the world’s nations came together over seventy-five years ago to establish the  United Nations (U.N.), few reminders were needed of what could happen when a state believed  there was no limit to what it might do to a human being. Several international human rights  treaties have arisen since the establishment of the U.N. in 1948, increasingly framing the death penalty as a violation of fundamental human rights. The staggering extent of state brutality and  terror during World War II and the consequences for people throughout the world were still  unfolding in December 1948 when the UN General Assembly unanimously adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).[32] The Universal Declaration is a pledge among  nations to promote fundamental rights as the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace. The  rights it proclaims are inherent in every human being.[33] They are not privileges that may be  granted by governments for good behavior, and they may not be withdrawn for bad behavior.  Article 3 of the UDHR states that “[e]veryone has the right to life, liberty and the security of  person.”[34] Death is fundamentally incompatible with the right to life, and there is evidence that  drafters considered adding a provision to Article 3 abolishing the death penalty.[35] In spite of  many members’ support, drafters opted for the general language of Article 3 without an explicit  prohibition due to the supposed political infeasibility of a total abolition would undermine the  passing of the UDHR and thus kicked the can down the road for further treaties to deal with it.[36] Additionally, Article 6 of the UDHR explicitly prohibits torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading  treatment or punishment.[37] The use of force is permitted in international law for self-defense.[38] The death penalty, however, is not an act of self-defense against an immediate threat to life. It is  the premeditated killing of a prisoner who could be dealt with equally well by less harsh means.  There can never be a justification for torture or cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or  punishment. The cruelty of the death penalty is evident. Like torture, an execution constitutes an  extreme physical and mental assault on a person already rendered helpless by government  authorities. Given the brutality and finality of the death penalty, it can and has been argued that  the death penalty and the process of waiting on death row constitute torture. 

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) was adopted in 1996 to  serve as the treaty designed to implement the various provisions of the UDHR.[39] Article 6 of the  ICCPR protects the right to life, outlawing arbitrary enforcement and permitting the death  penalty only under the strictest conditions while explicitly encouraging its abolition.[40] Article 7  prohibits “torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”[41]

In 1989, 33 years after the adoption of the Covenant itself, the UN General Assembly  adopted the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, which gave abolition decisive momentum.[42] Member States which became parties to the Protocol agreed not to execute anyone within their  jurisdictions.[43] As of this writing, 90 nations have ratified the Protocol, committing to abolish the  death penalty entirely.[44]

Furthermore, in a series of 9 resolutions adopted in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016 and 2018, 2020, and 2022, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly called for States  to respect international standards that protect the rights of those facing the death penalty, to  progressively restrict its use and reduce the number of offenses which are punishable by death  urging a global moratorium of the death penalty.[45] 

The international legal system is complex and rests on the notions of sovereignty and  equality. Rarely do states achieve consensus among themselves to write a treaty, much less ratify  one, or for the general assembly to take a consistent stance on an issue. This proliferation of  international human rights treaties and resolutions stands as evidence of a global norm of prohibition against the death penalty.

c) International Tribunals

International criminal tribunals provide further evidence of global rejection. The ad hoc  International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, established in 1993 and 1994, respectively, as well as the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose Statute was  adopted on 17 July 1998-exclude the death penalty from their list of permissible punishments.[46] This reflects the understanding that even for the gravest crimes, such as genocide and war  crimes, capital punishment is inconsistent with international justice.

3. Widespread Acceptance

The rapid increase in signatories to the Second Optional Protocol, coupled with the  growing number of abolitionist states, underscores a compelling claim that prohibition is  universally accepted. Currently, there is only one treaty adopted by some members of the  international community that deals specifically with the abolition of the death penalty. The  Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),  adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1989, explicitly seeks to abolish the death  penalty.[47] As of the writing of this paper, 90 nations have ratified the Protocol, which permits the  retention of the death penalty only in wartime if reservations are made.[48] 

For context, only Costa Rica, San Marino, and Venezuela had permanently abolished the  death penalty by the beginning of the 20th century.[49] By contrast, over 50 countries have  abolished it since 1990, including nations across Africa (e.g., South Africa, Mozambique), the  Americas (e.g., Canada, Paraguay), Asia (e.g., Hong Kong, Nepal), and Europe (e.g., Poland,  Ukraine).[50] Additionally, as previously stated, 146 countries have abolished the death penalty in  law or practice, representing approximately 75% of the world’s nations.[51] 

While global support for abolition is not yet unanimous, the overwhelming trend toward  restricting and abolishing the death penalty demonstrates its incompatibility with modern human  rights principles. The evolving consensus reflects a world turning its back on capital punishment,  paving the way for its recognition as a jus cogens norm.

4. Non-Derogability and Modification

The principle of non-derogability distinguishes jus cogens norms from other legal  principles. While the Second Optional Protocol allows for limited derogation during wartime  with explicit reservations, this exception reinforces the norm’s high status rather than  undermining it.[52] While war is not explicitly outlawed on the international stage, it is  increasingly looked down upon, and limiting capital punishment to wartime limits the  punishment to a fixed set of circumstances. Modification to the norm would require a new  protocol of equal or greater standing, further entrenching its immutability on the international  stage.  

Global enforcement of the prohibition against the death penalty and the United States  death penalty’s classification as fitting into other non-derogable norms, such as the prohibition  against torture, demonstrates its non-derogability and modification. Globally, countries refuse to  extradite criminals without assurances from death penalty retentionists states that they will not  execute. Moreover, the death penalty and conditions on death row arguably qualify as torture. Thus, the prohibition against capital punishment is non-derogable.  

Therefore, the prohibition of capital punishment satisfies the criteria for a jus cogens norm under international law. Supported by state practice, human rights frameworks, and the  principle of non-derogability, the abolition of the death penalty represents a global movement  toward the universal protection of human dignity. While challenges remain, the evidence points  to an irreversible trajectory that situates capital punishment as a violation of the highest  principles of international law.

II. The United States Death Penalty: A Violation of International Law

Having demonstrated that the prohibition of capital punishment has attained the status of  a jus cogens norm of international law, it is clear that the United States death penalty stands in  direct violation of this universal principle. The prohibition against capital punishment must be  universal, and the United States is no exception. Despite a global consensus opposing its use, the  United States persists in executing individuals at both federal and state levels, often justifying the  practices as a means of deterrence or retribution. However, by continuing this practice, the  United States stands in direct contravention of its international obligations, undermining its  credibility as a human rights leader and aligning itself with authoritarian regimes notorious for  human rights abuses. 

The case for abolishing the death penalty is rooted in its inhumanity, irreversible nature,  and moral indefensibility. The risk of executing innocent individuals can never be entirely  eliminated. Since 1973, over 200 individuals have been exonerated from death row in the United  States, according to the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC).[53] A 2014 study estimated that  at least 4% of those sentenced to death are innocent—a chilling statistic given the irreversible  nature of capital punishment.[54] Furthermore, empirical evidence has consistently discredited the  death penalty's purported deterrent effect.[55] Research has shown no correlation between capital  punishment and reduced crime rates.[56] An eye for an eye will make the world go blind. Alternatives, such as life imprisonment, have proven equally effective, if not more so, in  deterring crime, rendering executions an unnecessary and cruel spectacle. 

The discriminatory application of the death penalty further compounds its injustice.  Individuals from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds and racial or ethnic minorities  disproportionately bear its weight. These inequities manifest in limited access to legal  representation and biased judicial outcomes. For example, federal executions in 2020 disproportionately targeted Black men, the only Native American on federal death row, and the  only federally condemned woman.[57] This disparity illustrates how systemic inequality permeates the administration of capital punishment in the United States. Additionally, the death penalty is often exploited as a political tool. In the United States, politicians have used executions to bolster  “tough on crime” and “law and order” platforms to win elections, mirroring authoritarian  regimes where capital punishment is wielded to suppress dissent and punish political opponents.  

The United States has repeatedly violated international human rights standards in its  application of the death penalty. High-profile cases, such as Medellín v. Texas, underscore its  failure to comply with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), which mandates  that foreign nationals be informed of their right to consular assistance upon arrest.[58] Despite clear  rulings from international tribunals, the United States has executed foreign nationals in defiance  of their home countries' objections, eroding trust in its commitment to international law.[59] 

Botched executions further underscore the death penalty's inherent cruelty. Numerous  cases highlight the failures of lethal injection protocols, resulting in prolonged and excruciating  deaths that violate the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment under  international human rights law.  

By maintaining the death penalty, the United States undermines its global credibility as a  human rights leader. Aligning with the world's top executioners, such as China, Iran, and Saudi  Arabia, the United States weakens its moral authority to advocate for human rights worldwide  and tarnishes its reputation as a democratic leader. The continued use of the death penalty  perpetuates injustice, systemic discrimination, and cruelty while isolating the United States from  the growing global consensus on human dignity.

The United States death penalty represents a stark violation of international law and  human rights principles. As a jus cogens norm, the prohibition of capital punishment is non derogable, yet the United States continues to defy global consensus by carrying out executions.  Abolishing the death penalty would not only align the United States with the prevailing standards  of human dignity but also restore its role as a leader in the global fight for justice and human rights.

CONCLUSION

The near-universal prohibition against capital punishment solidifies its status as a jus cogens norm of international law. This peremptory norm of international law, on par with the  prohibition of slavery, torture, apartheid, and genocide, reflects a global consensus that capital  punishment violates the right to life and fundamental human dignity. Supported by international  treaties, practices, and jurisprudence, the global abolition movement highlights the death  penalty's incompatibility with evolving human rights standards. 

Despite this, the United States persists in its use of capital punishment, perpetuating  systemic racial injustices and flouting international rulings. This continued reliance on state sanctioned killing isolates the United States. from the global community and undermines its  credibility as a proponent of justice and human rights. Abolishing the death penalty will not only align the United States with a global supermajority but also set a powerful example for  remaining retentionist nations to follow suit, reinforcing the prohibition against capital  punishment’s status as jus cogens norm. 

Meaningful reform is imperative, whether through an immediate moratorium or the  permanent abolition of executions. President Biden has the unique opportunity to fulfill his  campaign promise to work with Congress to end the federal death penalty. Failure to act risks entrusting the machinery of death to future leaders who have and will continue to exploit it as a  tool of oppression, disproportionately targeting marginalized communities. Capital punishment implicates every member of society as it is carried out in the name of  the people. At its core, it represents a premeditated and cold-blooded killing by the state, standing in stark contradiction to the principles of justice, equality, and human dignity; the blood  is on all of our hands. It is time for the United States to honor the universal right to life and  abolish the death penalty once and for all. Just as the light of dawn disrupts the night, the  emergence of too a jus cogens norm prohibiting capital punishment demands the abolition of the  United States death penalty.

Citations

1 Frans Viljoen, International Human Rights Law: A Short History, U.N. Chron. (Jan. 1, 2009),  https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/international-human-rights-law-short-history.

2 Obonye Jonas, Human Rights, Extradition, and the Death Penalty: Reflections on the Stand-off Between Botswana and South Africa, INT’L J. HUM. RTS. (2013).  

3 See Id.  

4 International Law Commission, Report on the Work of Its Seventy-First Session, U.N. Doc.  A/74/10, ch. 5 (2019). 

5 Amnesty International, About the Death Penalty, https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we do/death-penalty/#aboutthedeathpenalty (last visited Dec. 2, 2024) [hereinafter Amnesty  Website]. 

6 Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005). 

7 G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (Dec. 10, 1948) [hereinafter  UDHR]; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted Dec. 16, 1966, S. EXEC.  Doc. E, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 23 (1978), 999 U.N.T.S. 171. [hereinafter ICCPR]. 8 Mark W. Janis, The Nature of Jus Cogens, 3 CONN J. INT’L L. 359, 362 (1988). 9 Gordon A. Christenson, Jus Cogens: Guarding Interests Fundamental to International Society,  28 VA. J. INT’L L. 585, 587 (1988). 

10 See Janis, supra note 8.  

11 See Christenson, supra note 9 at 586. 

12 See Viktor Mayer-Sch6nberger & Terre E. Foster, More Speech, Less Noise: Amplifying  Content-Based Speech Regulations Through Binding International Law, 18 B.C. INT’L & COMP. L. REV. 59, 92 (1995). 

13 See Christenson, supra note 9, at 615, note 127. 

14 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature May 23, 1969, U.N.T.S.  Regis No. 18, 232, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.39/27 (27) reprinted in 63 AM. J. INT’L L. 875 (1969)  [hereinafter Vienna Convention]. 

15 See Id. 

16 Geoffrey Sawyer, The Death Penalty Is Dead Wrong: Jus Cogens Norms and the Evolving  Standard of Decency, 22 PENN ST. INT’L L. REV. 459, 467 (Winter 2004). 17 Carin Kahgan, Jus Cogens and the Inherent Right to Self-Defense, 3 ILSA. J. INT’L & COMP. L. 767, 775-76 (1997). 

18 See Id. at 776-77.  

19 See Theodor Meron, On a Hierarchy of International Human Rights, 80 AM. J. INT’L L. 1, 15 (1986). 

20 See Id. 

21 See Id.  

22 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331(entered into  force Jan. 27, 1980), Article 53. 

23 See Sawyer, supra note 16. 

24 See Jerome J. Shestack, Globalization of Human Rights Law, 21 INT’L L. J. 558 (1997). 25 See Amnesty Website, supra note 5.  

26 See Id.  

27 See Id.  

28 See Id.  

29Policy Issues: International, DEATH PENALTY INFORMATION CENTER, 

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/international (last visited Dec. 2, 2024).  30 Ionel Zamfir, The Death Penalty and the EU’s Fight Against it, European Parliamentary Research Service, (Feb. 2019). 

31 The Death Penalty in 2023: Year End Report, DEATH PENALTY INFORMATION CENTER (2023)  at 38, https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/dpic-reports/dpic-year-end-reports/the death-penalty-in-2023-year-end-report. 

32 UDHR. 

33 See Harold Hongju Koh, Paying Decent Respect to World Opinion on the Death Penalty, 35 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 1085, 1093 (2002). 

34 UDHR, art. 3.  

35 Mary Ann Glendon, A World Made new: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of  Human Rights, 152 (2001). 

36 Id. at 152; See also Harold Hongju Koh, supra note 33.  

37 UDHR, art 6.  

38 Use of Force Under International Law, JUSTIA (June 2024), 

https://www.justia.com/international-law/use-of-force-under-international-law/. 39 See ICCPR. 

40 See ICCPR, art 6. 

41 See ICCPR, art 7. 

42 See Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,  Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty, G.A. res. 44/128, annex, 44 U.N. GAOR Supp.  (No. 49) at 207, U.N. Doc. A/44/49 (1989) [hereinafter Second Optional Protocol to ICCPR]. 43 See Id.  

44 See Id.  

45 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Death penalty: The international  framework, U.N., https://www.ohchr.org/en/topic/death-penalty/international-framework. 46 The Practical Guide to Humanitarian Law: Death Penalty, DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS,  https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/death-penalty/.  

47 See Second Optional Protocol to ICCPR. 

48 See Id. 

49 The Death Penalty: List of Abolitionists and Retentionists Countries, Amnesty International  (Dec. 1995).  

50 See Amnesty Website. 

51 See Id.  

52 See Second Optional Protocol to ICCPR 

53 Policy Issues: Innocence, DEATH PENALTY INFORMATION CENTER, 

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence. 

54 Samuel R. Gross, Barbara O’Brien, Chen Hu & Edward H. Kennedy, Rate of False Conviction  of Criminal Defendants who are Sentenced to Death, Proceedings of the National Academy of  Sciences (Apr. 28, 2014).  

55 Peter Passell, The Deterrent Effect of the Death Penalty: A Statistical Test, 28 STAN. L. REV. (Nov. 1965) 

56 Id. 

57 Francesca Guiliani-Hoffman, The US Government has Executed 10 people This Year – the Most Since 1896, CNN (Sept. 17, 2020), https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/17/politics/federal-death penalty-2020-trnd/index.html. 

58 Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008). 

59 Id.