The history of the doctrine is rather thin.

Prior to Oomingues, the doctrine had only been recognized by an international tribunal on two other occasions.21 Those two cases are Colombia v Peru (the Asylum Case)22 and United Kingdom v Norway (the Fisheries Case)23-both of which were adjudicated by the International Court of Justice ("ICJ"). It is notable that in both cases, the ICJ's recognition of the persistent objector doctrine was purely dictum and the ICJ had resolved the disputes on other grounds.24 Even more notably, neither the Asylum Case nor the Fisheries Case addressed human rights law. The Asylum case addressed whether Peru's repudiation of a treaty's asylum provision amounted to persistent objection.25 The Fisheries Case addressed whether Norway's repeated opposition to the demarcation of a fishing zone amounted to persistent objection.26 As discussed below in Part III, invoking the persistent objector doctrine in the human rights context creates a unique tension worth discussing. Neither the Asylum Case nor the Fisheries Case discussed this unique tension and, therefore, their persuasiveness as precedents is limited.

Source: http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/international-law/884010-1.html#ixzz1dJ7h90Cf In the Asylum Case (Colombia v Per), judgement 20 November 1950 (General List No. 7 (19491950)), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) recognised that Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice encompassed local custom as well as general custom, in much the same way as it encompasses bilateral and multilateral treaties.[1]. The Court also clarified that for custom to be definitively proven, it must be continuously and uniformly executed. The Colombian Ambassador in Lima, Per allowed Vctor Ral Haya de la Torre, head of the American People's Revolutionary Alliance sanctuary after his faction lost a one day civil war in Peru on 3 October 1948. The Colombian government granted him asylum, but the Peruvian government refused to grant him safe passage out of Peru. Colombia maintained that according to the Conventions in force - the Bolivian Agreement of 1911 on Extradition, the Havana Convention of 1928 on Asylum, the Montevideo Convention of 1933 on Political Asylum - and according to American International Law, they were entitled to decide if asylum should be granted and their unilateral decision on this was binding on Per.[2] Both submissions of Colombia were rejected by the Court. It was not found that the custom of Asylum was uniformly or continuously executed sufficiently to demonstrate that the custom was of a generally-applicable character. The Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v. Norway) was the culmination of a dispute, originating in 1933, over how large an area of water surrounding Norway was Norwegian waters (that Norway thus had exclusive fishing rights to) and how much was 'high seas' (that the UK could thus fish). On 24 September 1949, the UK requested that the International Court of Justice determine how far Norway's territorial claim extended to sea, and to award the UK damages in compensation for Norwegian interference with UK fishing vessels in the disputed waters, claiming that Norway's claim to such an extent of waters was against international law. On 18 December 1951, the ICJ decided that Norway's claims to the waters were not inconsistent with international laws concerning the ownership of local sea-space.