The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a relatively new organization; only just a decade old and it has seen a great deal of hardships and success. Since the creation of ICC it has seen a vast deal of criticisms that “[range] from concerns about racism and neocolonialism” and so forth. Not only has it encountered criticisms, but as well, people have questioned the usefulness of this organization? In truth, is it necessary to question the value, based on what little it has accomplished and in addition to, the amount of wealth it needs to stay buoyant? Concerning all of that, the ICC is nothing humanity has seen before; it has been described as “the most ambitious initiative in the history of modern international law.” The ICC was fashioned to handle judicial issues regarding government officials (however, it does not just include government officials but individual soldiers (though, persons under the age of eighteen are protected) and military leaders, and their superiors), unlike the International Court of Justice (ICJ; whose authority falls over states). Nevertheless, to comprehend the ICC, we are first going to look at the history (how it was created and why); secondly, why it is outside of the authority of the United Nations (UN); thirdly the accomplishments and failures. Lastly as a final point, the criticisms surrounding the ICC (reasons for such hatred towards it).
The idea of an international criminal court first arose after the atrocities of World War II. The beginning point for the formation of the International Criminal Court “is usually described as the Nuremburg and Tokyo Trials [that] followed World War II.” The United Nations first saw, the future of international justice when the draft of the statute was...
... middle of paper ...
...iminal Court: Successes and Failures of the Past and Goals for the Future. Last modified March 23, 2012. Accessed November 30, 2013. http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/.
ICC. International Criminal Court, Accessed November 30, 2013. http://www.icc-cpi.int.
International Court of Justice. "Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against Nicaragua." June 27, 1986. http://web.archive.org/web/20050530111816/http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icases/inus/inus_ijudgment/inus_ijudgment_19860627.pdf (accessed November 30, 2013).
Karns, Margaret P, and Karen A Mingst. International Organizations: The Politics and
Processes of Global Governance. Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2010.
Usacka, Anita Building the International Criminal Court Lecture: University of the Pacific,
McGeorge School of Law Pacific McGeorge Global Business & Development Law Journal. 2011
Drumbl, M. B. (2007). International Decisions. American Society of International Law , 101 (4), 841-848.
Andreas F Lowenfield, “Looking Back and Looking Ahead,” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 83, No. 2, April 1989, p. 336-341.
There are both provincial and universal benefits to gaining an international perspective on the various legal systems. First, by recognizing that our American legal system is not the only way possible, we become more aware and more critical of that system. When learning of the different processes in socialist and civil legal systems, it puts our own legal system into a new perspective. Not only do we gain this new insight, but an international perspective can foster ideas to improve our system. There is always the possibility that a criminal justice approach used in one country could be successfully implemented in another. On a universal level, an international perspective is vital. Crimes are no longer confined to individual territories. Transnational crimes are a rising concern. By understanding the various legal processes of other nations, we are better equipped to handle such situations (Reichel,
On May 25, 1993, U.N. Security Council Resolution 827 established an international tribunal charged with prosecuting violations of international law arising from the armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. Not since the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, following World War II has an international court tried individuals accused of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide. The International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTFY), which was established at The Hague, Netherlands, is widely seen as an important step toward the deterrence of crimes, the establishment of the firm rule of international law, and the promotion of world peace. Yet, from its inception, the tribunal has generated controversy among supporters and detractors. Among those who believe that the tribunal idea is sound, the principal concerns are that such an institution be established on a sound legal basis, that it adhere to an acceptably high standard of due process, that it administer equal and dispassionate justice, and that it be perceived by nations and individuals to be legitimate, fair and effective. Unfortunately, the Yugoslavia tribunal has not yet met all these standards--and may never be able to meet all of them in the fullest sense. A discussion of some of the realities that face the ICTFY demonstrates why the task of making the tribunal work is so difficult--and why it is vital that it be accomplished.
Back some couple centuries ago, genocide committed by states was seen as heroic, as they were allowed to commit such an atrocity in pursuit of building a larger empire (Lecture 9/18). Keep in mind, that the term “genocide” had not been officially defined by that time, thus not containing the same meaning as it does today. Instead of being seen as evil, states that committed genocide were seen as heroic. In-fact, William Blackstone once said “the king can do no wrong is a necessary and fundamental principal of the English constitution (Lecture 9/18). It wasn’t until 1948, that the term “genocide” had been officially labeled as an official term and international crime. This was declared by the United Nations. One of the first trials to occur due to this was the Nuremberg Trials. In the Nuremberg Trials, twenty-four Nazi leaders and six Nazi organizations were convicted on four counts (Lecture 9/18). Of those twenty-four convicted, twelve of those people were sentenced to the death penalty for the crimes they had committed. Fast-forwarding to the 90’s, 120 countries had signed an international treaty that established the International Court. The International Court was established in 1998 as a result of the treaty and it gave the ICC the jurisdiction to prosecute any related Genocide crimes (History.com). Before I move on
... that would destabilize many reigns of the world” (Dan 2010). It is evident that “international law exists only in theory and not in practice “(John 2005, 267). This clearly proves that there is a major debate around the nature of international law as in some cases they do not abide by the rules but rather confront each case differently.
There is a close relationship between human rights and criminal law. The scope of my paper will surround human rights and the International Criminal Court (ICC) in addition to human rights and international crimes. International criminal justice in this context speaks to those interested in prosecuting against the background of international human rights and humanitarian norms. The use of criminal law has many positive effects and pursues many goals that are worth considering. For example, deterrence, accountability and punishment are important principles that will be discussed in the context of human rights. Is the International Criminal Court an effective method to promote and protect human rights internationally? If so, why and how?
The Appeals Chamber rejected the heading of the appellant related to the lack of jurisdiction of the ICTY by asserting its power to determine its own jurisdiction. The Court affirmed its “compétence de la compétence” under Article 36 (6) ICJ Statute by arguing that the tribunal has been lawfully and legitimately founded under Chapter VII of the United Nations and reaffirmed that The UN Security Council had the legitimacy to establish a “subsidiary organ”, i.e. a tribunal, under international law respecting the rule of law.
...es’ constitutions, the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, according to Wright, “pressed for the acceptance of its rulings in Argentine courts” (166). Not only international efforts, but also domestic efforts, to apply international jurisprudence to local courts were on the rise. For example, in 1995, CELS launched its “program for the application of international law to human right in local courts” based on the amendments to the Argentine constitution (Wright 166). Just as well, human rights lawyers pushed “courts to embrace the international principle that crimes against humanity cannot be amnestied” (Wright, 167). In sum, the International human rights lobby wanted each country to mold its human rights jurisprudence around the rulings of international human rights law, and domestic actors adopted the same goal.
The current paper identifies the particular issues of substantive and procedural law in cases of use of force against states. Submitted for assessment are all the legal issues related to the United Nations (UN) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ), with reference to four specific cases: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland vs. Albania, Nicaragua vs. the United States of America, the Democratic Republic of Congo vs. Uganda and lastly, the Republic of Guyana vs. the Republic of Suriname.
“On November 21, 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted resolution 174 (II), establishing the International Law Commission and approving its statute.”[2] The International Law Commission encourages the development of international law and its codification. The Commission deals primarily with public international law, but also hears private cases as well.[3] International law is applied within an international community, such as the United Nations, and functions to define the proper norms or standards for members to abide by in a collective manner. Examples of such standards could be a ruling on The Universal Declaration of Human Rights or on threats to peace within the International Community.
...th 2001). Roth argues that the concept of international jurisdiction is not a new idea but was exercised by the US government in the 1970 after an aircraft hijacking. Also the war crime courts established after the end of World War II exercised international jurisdiction. In fact the Geneva Convention states that is a person regardless of their nationality should be brought before the court of any state in which that person has committed grave breaches of law and convention. Roth states that the concept of international jurisdiction is not a new one but that only in recent years have states been willing to act on universal jurisdiction and go after criminals of the international community regardless of their stating or power within the international community. Roth believes in the ability and authority of international organizations and institutions (Roth 2001).
...., Raič, and Thuránszky J., The International Court of Justice: its future role after fifty
The process of reforming the United Nations (UN) has been a highly debatable issue among the international community. Since the initial signing of the UN Charter in 1945, the world has changed dramatically as the UN is trying to regulate a forum that assesses and deals with global issues while also struggling to unite all 193 member states of the UN when some states have been seen to have conflicting ideas and personal agendas (Teng, 2003, pp. 2-3). This essay is targeted to highlight what I feel are the most pressing arguments for UN reform amongst the international community. This will be done by highlighting the problems and ongoing issues surrounding the lack of representation and P5 power of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), arguing that the UNSC is out of date and controlled egotistically. This essay will also highlight the humanitarian aspect of the UN and the role it plays in meeting and solving complex global problems. This will be done by showing reform propositions in the aforementioned councils in the UN in hopes of showing how reform will be achieved.
International law is a body of legally binding rules that are suppose to govern the relations between sovereign states. (Cornell Law School) In order to be a qualified subject, a state has to be sovereign. To be considered sovereign the state needs to have territory, a population, and a government that is recognized or legitimized to most other states. In the more modern explanation of international law now can include the rights and obligation on intergovernmental international organizations and even individuals. Examples of an international organization would be Greenpeace or the United Nations and an example of an individual would be war criminals, a leader of a state that violated human rights during a time of war. When a dispute arise and cannot be solved amongst the two actors involved they can turn to the U.N. to arbitrate and to the International Court of Justice, one of many courts within the U.N. to find a resolution to their problem. The International Court of Justice’s main task is to help settle legal disputes submitted to it by states and...