The International Criminal Court (ICC) is an intergovernmental organization that functions as a judicial body that prosecutes crimes relating to genocide, war crimes, major human rights violations, and crimes against humanity. This court addresses mass atrocities committed by individuals that states have chosen not to prosecute (Roth, 1). The ICC was founded by the ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 2002. One hundred and twenty-four states ratified the Rome Statute, therefore, all ratifying states became members of the ICC. The purpose of the ICC is to function as a last-resort option for victims that cannot find justice in their own state and as a deterrent to leaders who do not fear domestic prosecution …show more content…
The international realm is not entirely anarchic as intergovernmental organizations, nongovernmental organizations, multi-national corporations, and social movements absolutely have power and influence within the international realm. It is through actors like these that slave trade is now seen as a gross violation of human rights. This example invalidates the idea that the international realm is completely anarchic as theorized by defensive realists. The UN and ICC do not have their own independent militaries or government, but the cooperation between member states provides enough, if not more, power and threat than one individual state could. South Africa withdrawing from the ICC inadvertently shows that they possibly support the mass atrocities and the criminals that the ICC prosecutes. This is one reason South Africa has put their withdrawal on hold as of October of 2017 (Torchia). Constructivism explains and supports their membership within the ICC. Membership shows that South Africa supports human rights and will take a stance against those who commit atrocious crimes. Supporting human rights is a stance that comes with support from most states and international actors. Withdrawal from the ICC is the path of least resistance, but it puts South Africa in a much riskier predicament given the possible repercussions from other states and international actors. Lastly, given the large representation and nationality of the chief prosecutor, it is unlikely that the ICC has an African bias. It is much more plausible that the concentration of mass atrocities occurring throughout the world is greater within Africa explaining why the majority of ICC prosecutions have been African nationals. Overall, constructivism explains South Africa’s current hold on their withdrawal as the ramifications of leaving the
Next in 1899, 1907, 1954 the International Peace Convention (originally The Hague Convention) where held because, in the last wars multiple cultural, art, literature and artifacts pieces were destroyed. Also, the community notice the rise in technology of weapons. The rules of war from the two convention consist of National and Cultural Symbols, Chemical and Biological warfare, Wounded and Sick Soldiers, POW (Geneva III), Civilians and Occupation, and Cultural Property. All of those are rules of war and the are severe consequences if they are broken. The United Nations and International Court of Justice (also known as the World Court) will take care of war crimes. Multiple other organizations were made by the U.N. to take care of certain wars for people such as, Nazi's and The Civil war in Yugoslavia. All countries are suppose to respect and follow the rules of war no matter the
...an, Payam. "Are International Criminal Tribunals a Disincentive to Peace?: Reconciling Judicial Romanticism with Political Realism." Human Rights Quarterly 31 (2009): 624-54.
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.
Wendt, A. (1992). “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization, 46(2), pp. 391-425.
...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).
“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.
Wemmers (1996) highlights that an effective criminal justice system also protects human rights. Victims are gradually being seen as the notable possessors of such rights that lead to reviews in our domestic system and also by international bodies. The protection of said rights, such as in South Africa where less express definitions between ‘victim’ and ‘human’ rights are being made by policy m...
IGOs are comprised of multiple sovereign states that act together to work in good faith and carry out common interest. This common interest to work toward a certain goal is called a collective action. The fault in establishing many IGOs such as the ICC is establishing a common interest, this is known as “collective action problems”. Membership is voluntary in the ICC, so its jurisdiction is limited. It's not a problem of “belonging” when joining a group, but whether joining the group is beneficial (Olson, 6). That explains why countries like the U.S. and China are not members, as they probably violate certain ICC laws. For instance, U.S. Congress would not support joining the ICC because they could hypothetically prosecute U.S. citizens (Kaye).
Criminal trials enable the international community to enact a system of justice against the perpetrators of crimes against humanity. This charter limits the scope and responsibilities of the tribunal largely to a role of accountability. Yet, one may argue that simply by levying charges against the accused, the international community has acknowledged crimes of the past. The purpose of the judiciary is to “investigate the specific acts of accused perpetrators” (Hayner, 22). Nevertheless, standard rules of evidence, which may exclude important or relevant information, limits the ability of the court to document the truth for historical record (Hayner, 107).
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 .
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...
The Amnesty Committee established the foundation for the subsequent transitional justice mechanisms. South Africa followed
of my journals I wrote earlier. There are clear and overwhelming lessons of what works and best practices that have been documented by different program initiatives. However, these lessons are not adequately utilized particularly, by state actors. One of my recent assignments I completed for the Justice and Reconciliation program was to support the development of guidelines for the concurrent jurisdictions of the African criminal tribunals.
The rough consensus on global governance, despite the vagueness of the term, is that it refers to a visible variety of processes that have fundamentally altered the means by which power is exercised in the modern era. The extent of that variety remains hotly debated, with some claiming that the term encompasses “virtually anything”, and so a solid grasp on what the concept actually entails may only be gleaned by coordinating various descriptions. The classic depiction by International Relations scholars of the international system as inherently anarchical and state-centric may today be no longer as self-evident as it once was, yet an entirely new and comprehensive global system of governance has yet to truly emerge. In this stage of development, it may remain impossible to gain a firm grasp on what global governance consists of, due to the novelty, rapidly changing and loose nature of this new paradigm. Regardless, as the
Theories of International Relations (IR) explain how international relations work or how states behave in the international arena. Western theories of IR such as realism or neo-realism, liberalism or neo-liberalism, English School or International Society, constructivism, and critical theories such as Marxism, feminism, etc are familiar to scholars and students of international relations. In recent times, there have been, and there are, attempts to discover or develop theories of IR that are non-Western. Africa is one place where such attempt is going on. But the question is: Is there an African theory of IR?