The concept of obligations erga omnes within the scope of the rule of allocation

This research examines obligations erga omnes as one of the most significant principles of public international law, particularly within the framework of the rule of allocation. This relationship concerns the prioritization of legal sources without establishing an objective hierarchy that ranks one rule above another in the international public order. The interaction between obligations erga omnes and other principles of public international law raises important questions regarding potential overlaps in meaning and application.

Key issues include the extent to which such obligations are binding and enforceable against states, whether they can be classified or divided into categories, and how closely they are linked to the fundamental rules of public international law. International jurisprudence and scholarly legal doctrine play an essential role in clarifying and reinforcing the relationship between erga omnes obligations and more specific state obligations

This study adopts an analytical methodology to interpret relevant legal texts and to explain the legal nature of these obligations and their role in international law. An inductive approach is also employed through close textual reading to derive the intended meanings without distortion.Therefore, these obligations can be compared with the obligations in the face of all in light of the rule of specification in the form that appears more clearly in application, but the final achievement of the result represents a proper application of the obligations in the face of all, and they are pure principles far from coercive rules and include a broader scope than them, but they carry in Its content is a legal and moral obligation to implement that is difficult for states to transgress, whether explicitly or implicitly.

The research sheds light on obligations vis-à-vis everyone, under the rule of privatization, and what that relationship means in terms of arranging those sources in a way of priorities without being subject to an objective hierarchy that arranges the importance of one rule over another in the international public order.