The term "public order" refers to the preventing of disorder and represents more than a normal mention of law and order. It includes the breaching of the law by ceasing disorders. The French term "ordre public" represents, on the other side, a sum of basic rules and principles founded on the society. For this reason, the English term is often followed by the French term in brackets. For this purpose, the hierarchy of public order is building on the principles of lawfulness and equality of the states in front of the law. The Project of Articles of the International Law Commission of the United Nations considers that problems of "accountability", "responsibility" and "liability" as a foundation of international public order. „Responsibility" is associated to the breaching of the international legal obligation and „liability" - with the prejudice produced by that state. It is true that the doctrine has led to some considerable problems regarding jus cogens principles, as they are defined and how can they be determined. Sir Hersch Lauterpacht considered that jus cogens represents the ordre publique on the international arena, but he has also introduced, rules of international moral as being cogens, and, in consequence, jus cogens can be applied to political interest in international relations. Jus cogens was perceived as positive law (in the practice of the stare). De Luna considered that positive law represents rules established by the states, when jus cogens is not positive law, but, if positive law represents rules applied in the practice of international community, than jus cogens is positive law. In Prosecutor vs. Furundzija, International Criminal Tribunal or the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) it has been declared that jus cogens can not be breached by any state „through international or local treaties or special custom ones, which do not posses the same normative force". It is true that jus cogens norms are not established in a definitive manner, but in many cases of jurisprudence are provided as examples of jus cogens. The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights has emitted a rapport without a legal obligation in the case Michael Domingues vs. United States establishing that there is a "jus cogens norm to not impose a capital punishment on natural persons who have committed crimes until the age of 18"[1]. Also, ICTY has declared in Prosecutor vs. Furundzija that there is a jus cogens norm for the interdiction of torture. The jus cogens norms have a special statute according to article 53 of the Vienna Convention[2] which establishes that, no state can prefer a practice of a treaty contrary to jus cogens even if it may have an interest to do so. But, jus cogens represents an important part of international custom law and of the reasons invoked by Goldsmith-Posner regarding the satisfaction of interests of the states by coercion, cooperation or coordination (even by breaching jus cogens) can not be applied in this undeniable sector of community international law. Yasseen considered that unanswerable norms represent a part of public order seen nor only as natural law, but also as positive law according to De Luna's opinion. This refers to positive practices of states but nor to dispositions.[3]

[1] Sean D. Murphy, United States Practice in International Law, Cambridge University Press, 2006, p. 204
[2] Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 53,1155 UNTS 331, 8 International Legal Materials 1969, p. 679 
[3] See note 38, p. 63