Universal Jurisdiction And The Difficulties

Why not focus on just one nation instead of studying the problem of wrongful convictions across different nations? Research has been justified by comparative studies, satisfying the curiosity of the other nation’s justice system. The benefits of obtaining research from other nation’s studies is the most important. Often, we learn more about our own justice system by looking at it in the perspective of another nation 's system. The compare and contrast that we look at will decide whether our system should be improved so that what is served is justified. The improvement of justice through the reduction errors has made us undergo research. Therefore, the ones who take part to the cross national analysis and learning from each other about the ways the other nation’s systems work to avoid wrongful convictions.

Over one hundred and eighty sovereign states are members of the United Nations and they have different constitutions. Some have to provide for a federal structure, in others although unitary, include different legal systems within the one state. The disparities between constitutions deals with momentous ethnic, linguistic and religious considerations. Their vagueness requires a prudent imposition on what ?is? and what ?ought? to be the law. The premise of this piece is on Global Administrative Law, with an exegesis on critical legal studies.

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?

this essay I will attempt to examine and analyse the effectiveness of international courts and

This essay advances the position that the quotation under discussion is, with all due respect to the Author, entirely incorrect. It is the counter-argument of this essay that the Courts of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) have ‘abused’ their interpretive jurisdiction, and, in places, have even done violence to the very wording of the Treaty itself.

This paper will clearly lay out the Unites States concerns with the International Criminal Court and will attempt to resolve them. I will then argue that no country has the right to be above international law, including the United States and that it is in the best interest of America and the world community for the united states to join the efforts of the ICC and sign the Rome Statute.

The International Criminal Court (ICC), created in 1998 (Thayer and Ibryamova 2010), is responsible for investigating and prosecuting the most extreme cases, including crimes against humanity, aggressive crimes, war crimes, and genocide. The credibility of this institution, however, has been compromised due to the United States revocation of support and membership. Initially it is important to recognize the arguments against the United States becoming a member state of the ICC and what precipitated the U.S. withdrawing its signature from the document that instituted the Court. Once this has been established, addressing and refuting these objections will develop the arguments in favor of ICC membership. Finally, this analysis will lead to

The creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) intended to ensure the pursuit of criminal accountability of mass human rights violations did not go as smoothly as was hoped. Overtime, sensitive questions emerged on the impact of ICC prosecutions on ongoing or recently ended conflicts. Particularly, with regards to the possibility of the ICC impeding the progress of domestic initiatives seeking to deal with the aftermath of a conflict through peace and reconciliation processes. In such instances, should the Prosecutor only consider the facts of the case, or should she also take into account broader considerations, such as the impact of her actions? The Rome Statute left these uncertainties on the relationship between the ICC and local peace and reconciliation initiatives unaddressed. In drafting

With the power to prosecute severe wrongdoers ranging from genocide to crimes against humanity, the institution was designed to be the court of last resort for those extreme delinquents. The ICC was formed in 2002 and currently has 122 members. Out of these members, 30 of them have not ratified the agreement meaning they do not have to abide by the procedures given out by the court (Schabas, 2004, pp.13-16). For instance they do not have to expedite a criminal that is wanted by the court. Thus, many criminals have been indicted into the ICC but have not been brought forward making the process very extensive consequently many of the ICC trials are still ongoing. Since the decisions made and the processes that it entails take a significant amount of time, the procedure can take many years to complete and declare a sentence. When using punishment as a deterrent for crime, there are three characteristics to consider, which include swiftness, certainty, and severity. The only characteristic that the ICC guarantees is severity based upon the brutality of the committed crime. With the process being lengthy, and the lack of certainty that the criminals are faced with, the effectiveness and efficiency of the ICC can be questioned. The conception of the court demonstrates unity and togetherness across the globe and at surface level establishes a sense of security for the majority of individuals (Schabas, 2004, pp.24-25).However, many nations that have severe difficulties and the most atrocious violations of human rights around the world have not ratified the treaty, making the court inoperable. This institution must cost billions of dollars annually to maintain; nevertheless these funds could be used more effectually on the ground in these troubled nations in an attempt to understand the root of these problems. Although this once again brings into

Crimes against the international community are a collection of offences that are recognised by the international community as being of universal concern. However the prosecution of crimes against the international community can be controversial. Such crimes may be committed in the context of military conflict. They may be highly politically motivated, or they may have been ordered or committed by the state itself. The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 was a significant development in the law of crimes against the international community. The independent international court established by the Rome Statute, acts as a last resort for crimes fitting into the three categories of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Due to Australia’s Dualistic system, both the War crimes Act

Though there are many countries that are apart of the ICC, a fair question is what sparked the need for such a powerful court? Because even though the ICC is doing their best not to repeat the mistake of have crimes go unpunished there are situation such as the United States refusing to join the organization and has immunity from being prosecuted that makes the court look unfair and re enforces the idea that that the powerful are untouchable. Another case would be that the ICC has been heavily criticized for being prone to prosecute cases only in Africa, which raises the question why do they prosecute countries that are not wealthy and ignore the corruption in wealthy countries. These small questions can make one consider if there really is a need for an international criminal court. However what one fails to understand is there is a need for an international court. In this paper I will be discussing exactly what was the cause of such a powerful court, why the United State has continuously refuse to join the ICC and had immunity before official leaving and finally why does it seem like the ICC is prosecuting countries that are not wealthy such as countries in Africa and ignore the corruption in wealthy countries.

When comparing apples to pears, one is not making a fair comparison, but a disproportionate comparison. Often times when international law is discussed or attempts are made to understand international law; many often attempt to compare international law with existing laws such as national law or domestic law. Making such disproportionate comparisons leads to many misconceived notions and attitudes toward international law. For an adequate comparison of international law to other laws, one should look closely at the available facts. This essay will demonstrate the vitality of international law, in a world of nations which continue to increase in interdependence.

In the pursuit of positive peace for the global community, certain mechanisms are necessary in order to better protect human rights and resolve interstate conflicts. Prior to the events of World War II, a cogent set of laws defining those human rights, much less violations therein were never heard at an international scale. The International Criminal Court has the role as both appellate for justice and voice for peace in the international community but has not yet resolve the contradictory ends of both roles. That contradictory end is that many countries proclaim the necessity of the International Criminal Court as an advocate for conflict resolution and peace advocacy while being resist or outright antagonistic towards the court when their own state has committed those same crimes. To the ends of defending basic universal rights, the International Criminal Court (hereafter ICC) serves that capacity when state level systems cannot or will not act accordingly.

Implementation of international human rights law can happen on either a local, a territorial or a global level. States that endorse human rights arrangements confer themselves to regarding those rights and guaranteeing

The United Nations is widely regarded and respected as the most powerful institution that promotes international cooperation and human rights action. In theory, actions implemented by and within the United Nations are based on the mutual global goal of protecting international human rights and preventing human sufferings. These actions are constituted through three main mechanisms: the Treaty-based system, the Human Rights Council, and Security Council and Humanitarian Interventions, with the level of confrontation and seriousness in each mechanism increases respectively. While aimed to serve the mutual goal of protecting human rights over the world and have shown some successes, in a world of sovereignty, actions when implemented are in fact grounded by the national interests of each state, including embracing its national sovereignty, concreting its strategic relationships with other states, and enhancing its reputation in the international community. This paper will analyze the successes and failures of each of the three mechanisms of the United Nations regime, through which it aims to prove that when it comes to actions, states focus more on their national, and in some cases, regional interests than on the mutual goal of strengthening human rights throughout the world, thus diminishing the legitimacy of the whole United Nations system.