More handpicked essays just for you.
The Effectiveness Of The International Criminal Court
The Effectiveness Of The International Criminal Court
The Effectiveness Of The International Criminal Court
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The International Criminal Court was formally established 1 July 2002. “The statue which exercises jurisdiction over four crimes – genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression (applicable only after a further provision defining aggression and conditions of jurisdiction is adopted).” (Toon, 2004: 1). The ICC is considered to be a court that is a last resort. It was implemented for heinous crimes that are committed to be used when states (countries such as Southeast Asia) are not willing or not able to provide justice for such crimes to the victims. To date, Southeast Asia has only two of their eleven states that have implemented the ICC which are Cambodia and Timor – Leste. Third world countries have a hard time with prioritizing their affairs. With economic hardships, terrorism, and socio-political taking the precedence over justice for individuals that are victims of the above crimes. There are many questions that have been established in regards to why countries, South East Asia in particular have not become part of the ICC. The author, Valeriane Toon, presents to her readers some questions as to why Southeast Asia has not accepted the International Criminal Court. “Is it the fear of setting a precedent by consenting to the subjugation of territorial integrity on ethical grounds, which could culminate in a spontaneous compromise of state sovereignty once this, is ensconced into customary law, as articulated by numerous major powers? Or is it simply a rejection of terms propounded by the Statue” (Toon, 2004: 1)? The other main question that cannot be overlooked is how much influence does the United States may have over the governments of Southeast Asia” (Toon, 2004: 1)? Though Toon provides o...
... middle of paper ...
...ow are they able to provide justice when (unfortunately) justice cost money. Toon says that, “Certain segments of the government are not in favor of the ICC, conscious that it can curb the extent of their liberty and swiftness in the execution of national policies (Toon, 2004: 6). However, the logical conclusion of this would be to amend such factors that infringe on the governments’ ability to provide swift justice.
Works Cited
Toon, Valeriane. “International criminal court: reservation of non-state parties in southeast Asia.”
Contemporary Southeast Asia 26.2 (2004), 218+.
Berman, Franklin. “The International Criminal Court”, paper presented at the Fourth International Law
Seminar, Singapore, 2 September 2000.
“Coalition for the international Criminal Court, Spring Semester 2012,
http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc_861_wenqi.pdf.
"Cambodian Genocide." World without Genocide. William Mitchell College of Law, 2012. Web. 13 Apr. 2014. .
Genocide is a pressing issue with a multitude of questions and debates surrounding it. It is the opinion of many people that the United Nations should not get involved with or try to stop ongoing genocide because of costs or impositions on the rights of a country, but what about the rights of an individual? The UN should get involved in human rights crimes that may lead to genocide to prevent millions of deaths, save money on humanitarian aid and clean up, and fulfill their responsibilities to stop such crimes. It is preferable to stop genocide before it occurs through diplomacy, but if necessary, military force may be used as a last resort. Navi Pillay, Human Rights High Commissioner, stated, “Concerted efforts by the international community at critical moments in time could prevent the escalation of violence into genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity or ethnic cleansing.”
There have been many humanitarians that strive to help countries suffering with human right abuses. People think that the help from IGOs and NGOs will be enough to stop human rights violations. However, it hasn’t been effective. Every day, more and more human rights violations happen. The problem is escalating. People, including children, are still being forced to work to death, innocent civilians are still suffering the consequences of war, and families are struggling to stay firm together. Despite the efforts from the people, IGOs, and NGOs, In the year 2100, human rights abuse will not end.
first look at the validity of the court and of the entity of authority itself.
The idea of intervention is either favoured or in question due to multiple circumstances where intervening in other states has had positive or negative outcomes. The General Assembly was arguing the right of a state to intervene with the knowledge that that state has purpose for intervention and has a plan to put forth when trying to resolve conflicts with the state in question. The GA argues this because intervention is necessary. This resolution focuses solely on the basis of protection of Human Rights. The General Assembly recognizes that countries who are not super powers eventually need intervening. They do not want states to do nothing because the state in question for intervening will continue to fall in the hands of corruption while nothing gets done. The GA opposed foreign intervention, but with our topic it points out that intervention is a necessity when the outcome could potentially solve conflicts and issues. In many cases intervention is necessary to protect Human Rights. For instance; several governments around the world do not privilege their citizens with basic Human Rights. These citizens in turn rely on the inter...
Every country has a justice system in place in their society in order to maintain peace and equality. The Criminal Justice System gives civilians the opportunity to receive justice through a legal system while giving them a fair chance to deal with negligence and misconduct. There are several components that work together to enforce the purpose of the Criminal Justice System. Most obviously, it includes the rules and laws entrenched in the Charter and Constitution in which prosecutors and judges base their decisions. Secondly, it consists of the parliament who is responsible for putting these laws together.
Throughout the years there has been limitless legal cases presented to the court systems. All cases are not the same. Some cases vary from decisions that are made by a single judge, while other cases decisions are made by a jury. As cases are presented they typically start off as disputes, misunderstandings, or failure to comply among other things. It is possible to settle some cases outside of the courts, but that does require understanding and cooperation by all parties involved. However, for those that are not so willing to settle out of court, they eventually visit the court system. The court system is not in existence to cause humiliation for anyone, but more so to offer a helping hand from a legal prospective. At the same time, the legal system is not to be abuse. or misused either.
Stewart Gordon is an expert historian who specializes in Asian history. He is a Senior Research Scholar at the Center for South Asian Studies at the University of Michigan and has authored three different books on Asia. Gordon’s When Asia Was The World uses the narratives of several different men to explore The Golden Age of medieval Asia. The fact that this book is based on the travels and experiences of the everyday lives of real people gives the reader a feeling of actually experiencing the history. Gordon’s work reveals to the reader that while the Europeans were trapped in the dark ages, Asia was prosperous, bursting with culture, and widely connected by trade. This book serves to teach readers about the varieties of cultures, social practices, and religions that sprang from and spread out from ancient Asia itself and shows just how far Asia was ahead of the rest of the world
Williams, Sarah. "Genocide: The Cambodian Experience." International Criminal Law Review 5.3 (2005): 447-461. Academic Search Premier. Web. 25 Nov. 2013.
Treaties are the highest source of international law besides jus cogens norms that have binding effect on the parties that ratify them.2 International human rights treaties rely on the “name and shame” mechanisms to pressure states to improve practices.3 However with “toothless” international human rights norms, moral coercion is not always effective. An empirical study conducted by Professor Oona Hathaway assessing the effect of human rights treaty ratification on human rights compliance, maintains in its findings that ratification of human rights treaties has little effect on state practices.4 States do not feel pressured to comply and change their practices, rather, signing treaties is “more likely to offset the pressure rather than augment it.”5 So, is it time to abandon human rights treaties and remit protection of human right to domestic institutions. Hathaway posits elsewhere that despite this treaties “remain an indispensable tool for the promotion of human rights.”6 Instead of getting rid of the treaty system, it is necessary to enhance the monitoring and enforcements mechanism to strengthen the human rights regime to ensure compliance.7 This article evaluates the extent to which international law serves as a useful tool for protection of human rights.
Marks, Stephen P. "Elusive Justice For The Victims Of The Khmer Rouge." Journal Of International Affairs 52.2 (1999): 691. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 19 Dec. 2011. .
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is an important organ of the United Nations. Actually it is the UN's principal judicial arm used to foster international peace. It was established after the League of the Nation and its judicial organ the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) were dissolved after the Second World War, in 1946. Its main purpose is to support the UN (which was formed in 1945) in its endeavour in promoting international peace and law . Important to note is the fact that this court, although referred to in a non-technical context as the world court, does not automatically possess compulsory international jurisdiction. The treaty creating this court, referred to as the stature of international court of justice, provides an option for member states to chose whether to be subjected to the court international compulsory jurisdiction or not. A state once it decides to be subjected to this compulsory jurisdiction is still at liberty of setting condition that will shield it against adverse implication of the subjection. This provision gives mainly powerful states undue advantage over less powerful ones when it comes to international matters. For instance they can easily decide not to attend the court proceeding, and if they attend they refuse to abide to the court ruling without facing serious implications .
important to ensure justice for all parties affected. Instead of giving the key role to the goverment. It
As the former employee of the United Nations, the author discusses the challenges, strengths, and weaknesses of the UN and the reasons why it has not always been successful as the only most respected organization which act as a platform for international collaborations. According to the author, despite, the UN since its creation had commendable achievements in education, economic, social and humanitarian issues, yet it has not been more than just a platform for discussion and dialogue in other important global matters like international peace and security. As a result many of the member states including the civil societies and international organizations have always been complaining of the unjust and unfair internal structure of the UN, which often block the path toward an effective global governance. The complexity of the internal structure of the UN obviously raised concerns over issues of access to, and fair participation in the international affairs among the member states.
States are left with a wide discretion, limited only by prohibitive rules and wherein no such prohibitive rules exist, States have the freedom to adopt the principles that it regards as best and most suitable. The ICJ effectively held that acts or omissions that are not prohibited under international law are