Abhivardhan & Bhavana J Sekhar
In the most generic terms, legal pluralism would mean the existence of different legal systems that exist independently and cover the same states or territories. The rules of international law are not present as hierarchical order and the sources of the international law as stated under the Article 38 of the ICJ Statute as treaties, customs, and general principles of law. The fragmentation of the normative structure of international law is very apparent. There is nevertheless an existence of conflict between various rules that are posed in international law. The usual practice international law has always had the presence of some norms more important than others and therefore an inaction or violation of these norms are considered as an international wrong. In the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion (International Court of Justice, 1996 pp. 257, para. 79), it is certain that there is presence of some inviolable principles of international customary law from which no transgression is permissible, and no objections could be raised. 3.1
The Primacy of Norms in Case Conflict of Norms is in Place
When there is conflict of norms in place, the question of what norm should be given importance and how their importance is determined are significant questions that are raised. In order to comprehend such questions, it is important to understand the informal practice of hierarchical position of certain norms namely the erga omnes obligation and the peremptory norms. Article 103 of the UN Charter reads that an obligation under any international agreement and its superiority would take place in case of a conflict. The text of Article 103 states that the all the obligation and commitments under the UN Charter will supersede all the other commitments. Many have argued that the obligations would also include the obligations that arise due to the customary international law. However, this view was omitted when the UN Charter was entered into. This would mean that the principle of superiority of UN Charter would only be in case of other treaties. The possibility of advancements in international law holds that it might be possible for Article 103 to extend to any {17}
