Talk:Erga omnes

International relations: Law Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law (assessed as High-importance).

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Latin Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Untitled

Does anyone know if there is an additional second term for this concept? I've searched an unabridged copy of Black's Law Dictionary eighth edition and been unable to find 'Erga Omnes', even though I've seen it referenced in legal briefs in a manner that indicates the definition here on Wikipedia is essentially accurate.

No, I know of no other term that means "erga omnes." If it's not in your dictionary, I would guess it's because Black's focuses on American law, and this is a term used in international law. Lagringa 06:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction in roman law, and land law is that between rights in REM (rights as against the whole world eg. property rights) and rights in PERSONUM (personal rights, eg in contracts). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.243.34 (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is: in rem and in personam. It does not match the difference between statute and contract - e.g. outside of both, a common-law right not to be assaulted is in rem and squatting can create a property right in rem; and a contract for exchange of property can transfer a right in rem. If there is a difference between erga omnes and in rem, it may be only in international law.

USLegal (for what it may be worth) has:

Erga omnes means in relation to all. The term is used to describe legal obligations and rights towards all. Erga omnes is used in property law. The right against trespass of a property can be enforced as against everyone. The term is in contradiction to contract law, where contract can be enforced only against a party to the contract and no other.

International law applies the principle of erga omnes in certain cases. Some obligations are against all states. In some cases, defaulting state alone has obligation. However, certain states are entitled to invoke obligations erga omnes in proceedings before the International Court of Justice, and to take countermeasures in response to serious erga omnes breaches.

Wikiain (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]