A State is responsible for the actions of its own organs. For example; the military forces are considered to be a State organ, also the executive, legislative or judicial office of government. The term accountability grew attraction in recent years significantly and has been used as a disguise, covering concepts such as respectable governance, transparency and democracy. And some states use impunity to have the ability to disobey international law directly or indirectly; this may be given to a states leader for protection. As a result, this action of using impunity grew a discontent for international civil societies, because the international civil society demands respect for states accountability and international law. Many people believe …show more content…
“Critics of the consent-based theory argue that it cannot explain why international law is binding because it fails to explain why it prevents nations from simply withdrawing their consent.” ( Andrew T.Guzman. (2009) ‘A compliance based theory of international law’ , existing theories of international law , p.6-14) , this shows that states that violate law could be held to account but not …show more content…
so it is argued that if a first world country violates an international law , this country could walk away with no punishment because of its impunity and power , unlike a third world country . So the issue is that some states that violate international law could be held to account some countries could not be held to account, depending on the country that violates the law.” International law scholarship lacks a satisfactory theory of why and when states comply with international law. “ ( Andrew T.Guzman . (2009) ‘A compliance based theory of international law’ , existing theories of international law, p.1-14 ) “. This statement by Andrew T.Guzman shows how international law only applies on certain states , not all sates and this leads to unsatisfactory to the international civil society. And as I said earlier when a country/states with impunity and power are less likely to be held to account . This shows that only weak countries could be held to account unlike imputed
Vinjamuri, Leslie. “Deterrence, Democracy, and the Pursuit of International Justice.” In Ethics and International Affairs 24:2 (2010): 191-211.
Since this is true, states are less restrained by the potential risk of humanitarian consequences of their actions. However, global human rights norms do make a difference, but to what extent? This article explains that the U.S violated the fundamental norm to not target civilians on multiple occasions during the Iraq war, however it was not blatantly done; the targeting was done indirectly, and more secretive. The ability for the United States to commit these international crimes discretely, without repercussions displays the level of influence the United Nations has. However, when civilian targeting is discovered this is the point where international humanitarian norms come into play; states fear being shamed or illegitimated. Since the establishment of an international court there has been a reduction in this type of crimes against humanity. Actions such as torture during war has been significantly reduced because of its
The rule of law allows for a mutual understanding of common virtues and a defined path to follow. Strong, respected laws foster strong institutions which promote stability and encourage social development. Without a well system of laws, residents endure serious setbacks: “Conflict-affected states—those, by definition, where the rule of law is lacking—count for disproportionately high percentages of the developing world’s poor, uneducated, and infant deaths,” (Goldston P. 1). Communities depend on laws for stability and prosperity. Several key pillars must be established in order for a community to lay the groundwork for a firm respect of its laws, according to the World Justice Project. Accountability must be established and the government, as well as private actors, need to be held accountable under the law. The laws must be clear, publicized, stable, and just; and protect fundamental rights and core human rights. The processes by which the laws are enacted and enforced must be accessible, fair, and efficient. Justice needs to be delivered in a timely manner by competent, ethical, and independent representatives who are accessible and reflect the makeup of the communities they
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...
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.
During the evaluation of the events in each topic area there are some legal terms that may need to be defined. These terms may also be defined differently depending on the state that the event occurs in. At the end of this paper there is a list of definitions that describe what a certain legal action could mean. All forms of government view these definitions similarly, however, each state may have differing consequences for each of the crimes.
The central government has accountability for merely a small sum of the occupations that mark the behavior of everyday affairs. This ringed true during the first century of nationhood when the states made most of the governmental decisions involving the lives of the citizens. The states defined all the crimes and their punishments, they established the laws of contract, structured public health and safety, and established the legal standards for schooling, welfare and principles.
In a rule of a law where democracy exists the independence and power of police should be authorized based on their accountability. Accountability that consists of holding police responsible for what they do as an organization or individuals by observing their policies and practices and the purpose for which they claim authority which should be justifiable. And checking to what extent would the police be feasible to the societies for their actions?
...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).
It is therefore no longer is it credible for a state to turn its back on international law, alleging a bias towards European values and influence. All that humankind now requires to bring about the elusive, but eternal, dream of perpetual peace is a global citizenship based on a strong commitment to principles of equity and democracy grounded in civil society.
The rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in International law.
Tanzi, Attila., Problems of Enforcement of Decisions of the International Court of Justice and the Law of the United Nations, EJIL, 6, (1995) 539-572.
The international system is an anarchical system which means that, unlike the states, there is no over ruling, governing body that enforces laws and regulations that all states must abide by. The International System in today’s society has become highly influential from a number of significant factors. Some of these factors that will be discussed are Power held by the state, major Wars that have been fought out in recent history and international organisations such as the U.N, NATO and the W.T.O. Each of these factors, have a great influence over the international system and as a result, the states abilities to “freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development”.
Von Galhn and Taulbee. 2013. Law Among Nations. An Introduction to Public International Law. Pearson Education.
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