Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Enforcement of international law
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Enforcement of international law
A proper discussion of the concept and legal nature of international sanctions can be achieved by a dual means: assessing the concept of international sanctions and comparing it to the legal regime that attempts to disregard national sovereignty and jurisdictional limit of the law. In order to understand the concept of sanctions this discussion analyzes previous writings by John F. L. Ross who questions the international nature of sanctions that often outlaw staying on the fence. The discussion further delves into the writings of H. L. A. Hart to assess the effectiveness of international law which is the legal basis upon which international sanctions can be based. The discussion concludes by questioning the efficiency of international sanctions …show more content…
The article permits states to resort to non military measures in dealing with a state that has gone against an international norm. Sanctions can be economical, political, religious or even moral. But the Charter in itself cannot lay out the legal nature of international sanctions. The legal nature of international sanctions can only be understood by first analyzing the concept and nature of international law. If any discussion concludes that international law has all attributes pertaining to domestic law, like the ability to inflict punishment, it follows then that international sanctions have the ability to pass through the wall of sovereignty. It has been said that international law cannot be a legal system because it lacks a legislature, judiciary or any recognized policy making body and authority that may enforce sanctions (Hart 2012). Sanctions need to have a legal backing and if Hart’s definition of international law is followed, then the only conclusion is that imposition of sanctions lacks the backing of any law. Although Hart’s definition of international law has certain loopholes, his general observance of sanctions as part and parcel of international law cannot be ignored in answering whether sanctions are actually legal. For instance, when sanctions are imposed upon a powerful state like Russia, it often responds in kind by toughening up on what the sanctions were aimed to curtail or by occupying another country. If sanctions had a legal backing Russia could simply be dragged into an international court and found guilty of breaking a law. Further, if sanctions have any legal basis, it would be easier for small powers to impose sanctions against big powers that engage in the unlawful invasion because it would simply be a matter of looking at procedural rules and concluding that a certain state needs to face sanctions. But as matters stand, only
” Before I go on, I feel it necessary to define some key phrases in this resolution: ? Economic sanctions- the deliberate, government inspired withdrawal, or threat of withdrawal, of customary trade or financial relations. "Customary" does not mean "contractual"; it simply means levels of trade and financial activity that would probably have occurred in the absence of sanctions. ? To achieve- to fulfill ?
The predominant conflict between the United States and Great Britain prior to the war of 1812 was the British impressment of American sailors and merchants. At the time, Britain was at war with the First French Empire led by Napoleon Bonaparte. It was anticipated that many soldiers and sailors would desert the British Navy because of its substandard conditions. The majority of the deserting sailors joined the United States Merchant Marine; it not only had safer working conditions, but had payment of approximately four times the amount received in the British Navy. As substantial amounts of sailors abandoned the British Navy, U.S. ships were frequently stopped and searched for deserters. In this process, anyone allegedly deserting was impressed,
The United Nations General Assembly 36-103 focused on topics of hostile relations between states and justification for international interventions. Specifically mentioned at the UNGA was the right of a state to perform an intervention on the basis of “solving outstanding international issues” and contributing to the removal of global “conflicts and interference". (Resolution 36/103, e). My paper will examine the merits of these rights, what the GA was arguing for and against, and explore relevant global events that can suggest the importance of this discussion and what it has achieved or materialized.
Intermediate sanctions are a new punishment option developed to fill the gap between traditional probation and traditional jail or prison sentences and to better match the severity of punishment to the seriousness of the crime. Intermediate sanctions served in the community now account for 15 percent of adjudicated juvenile cases (Puzzanchera, Adams, and Sickmund, 2011). All intermediate sanctions are enforced by the United States Criminal Justice System. The main purposes of intermediate sanctions: (1) better match the severity of punishment to the seriousness of the crime, (2) reduce institutional crowding, (3) control correctional costs. Primarily, this is a needed method of punishment to make offenders accountable for the extent of crime and if so let offenders live in their communities to fulfil punishment if not too extensive.
In early 2003, the threat of Saddam Hussein and the possibility of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq captured the attention and concern of the world. One nation decided to illegally act on these unsubstantiated claims, invading the country, violating the UN Charter and breaking several international laws in the process. The penalizations that were subject to the invading country, the United States, were never carried out. The United State’s role and influence over the UN and the Security Council, along with the nature of the unenforceable, politics and power-based international laws, allowed them to escape sanctions after their invasion of Iraq. The United States did not have a legitimate reason for invading, and their ability to repudiate international law would be unacceptable for any other country. Their decision to invade Iraq was one based on money and politics, and the US should be subject to penalties just as any other nation would have to face after unnecessarily waging war on a nation.
...). Therefore, if liberty rights and rights to goods and services are violated in various states, then how can Nussbaum expect to see the central capabilities guaranteed in such states? Another negative aspect about placing obligations or establishing guarantees from states is that some may lack the power to fulfill those obligations (O’Neill 435) For example, underdeveloped states or the deemed failed states lack the economic resources and political stability to do so. Others don’t necessarily need to be in a similar situation for failing as duty-bearers. States regarded as being strong in the international community may encounter enforcement problems. Even so when they cannot guarantee liberty rights to their constituents as do many authoritarian regimes. As a result, O’Neill suggests reconsidering whether all second-order obligations should be assigned to states.
In part one this essay proposes that an arms embargo is simple to initiate, primarily because it meets the demands for action in circumstances of conflict and violent repressions, and requires minimum political consensus among the UN member states. Nonetheless, the failures of many arms sanctions during the past two decades could either maintain or alter this situation. Furthermore, the second part of this essay will argue, with specific references to the EU’s sanctions against China and Syria that embargoes are not difficult to lift per se, but their removal ofte...
As states in the United Nations Charter, article 2(4) outlines the general prohibitions on the use of force. It provides that all member states shall refrain from the threat of use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the UN. The charter additionally outlines exceptions to article 2(4): force used in self-defense the attack must be an armed attack; security council enforcement actions under chapter VII-The security council is authorized under article 39 to determine the existence of any...
“Intermediate sanctions are correctional programs that fall somewhere between probation and prison, (pg. 124, Allen).” Due to over crowded prison in the U.S. the government had to look to an alternative, which is intermediate sanctions, a step up to probation. Intermediate sanctions allow offenders to be released back into the community while still being monitored. “The sanctions are based on the sentencing goal of rehabilitation, which is a type of penalty used to reform the offender and return the offender to society as a law-abiding citizen. Intermediate sanctions alleviate prison overcrowding by allowing more offenders to participate in programs designed to reform the offender while the offender lives as a part of the community, (Study.com).”
The first element of international law is state practice. There are certain behaviors that are regarded as customs once they are practiced by a substantial amount of states over a prolonged period of time. However, it is important to note that this stand...
...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).
The use of military force is a valid customary international law norm and it is enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Nevertheless, the use of force is only authorised if it falls under one of two categories: self-defence (article 41 of the United Nations Charter), or Security Council authorisation. To justify a resort to pre-emptive war, a state must give reasonable proof that the action is necessary to the vital national security interests of the state, and that the act of aggression in self-defence is proportional, according to Charter principles. The threat imposed by an aggressor must be proven to be clear and imminent, direct, critical to the state facing disproportionate danger, and unable to be handled using peaceful alternatives. According to the Charter, to deem self-defence lawful requires that an attack has already been launched against a victim state. Examples of states acting pre-emptively in anticipatory self-defence have further elaborated on this legality, creating in some instances an international acceptance that in the case of an imminent attack, the necessity of a proportional assault in self-defence is lawful. However, the issue remains that the Charter, in order to deem an action as lawful self-defence, requires the existence of an armed attack on the victim state. Interpretation on what constitutes an armed attack is what generates the most disagreement amongst the international law community. It is agreeable, however, that no state can be expected to sit idly by and await the first blow of an armed attack by an aggressor state in the modern era of warfare.
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
Proportionality plays a prominent role in limiting the power of taking counter measures in response to the internationally wrongful acts. The requirement of proportionality, which is universally affirmed in the international practice and literature and also provides an important theoretical function. In a legal system in which the response to the wrongful conduct is exercised on a decentralised basis, proportionality secures a certain predictability of response and predetermines, roughly the social sanction against the wrongdoer.
The rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in International law.