This issue of Universal Jurisdiction has been a highly contested issue since its beginnings. Universal Jurisdiction allows any state to prosecute an individual who is believed to have committed a crime that is believed to jeopardize the international world order. When used appropriately universal jurisdiction is a very useful tool in the international system, however, its alleged abuses have caused individuals to question its validity. Currently the issue of Universal Jurisdiction is under debate in the General Assembly. The outcome of this debate will undoubtedly have an impact on the international system.
Much of the debate surrounding Universal Jurisdiction is how to specifically define the principle. Currently, it is defined as jurisdiction
…show more content…
that is established over a crime without reference to the place of perpetration, the nationality of the subject or victim or any other evidence linking the crime and prosecuting state. Crimes against humanity, genocide, torture, and war crimes are all offenses that fall under Universal Jurisdiction. The definition of Universal Jurisdiction is linked to the idea that certain crimes can affect the international world order. Universal Jurisdiction has been applied successfully in numerous instances.
The first notable use of Universal Jurisdiction came in 1961 when Israel requested to try Adolph Eichmann for crimes committed during World War II. Adolf Eichmann attempted to seek asylum in Argentina but was extradited by Israel and forced to stand trial. Another example in which Universal Jurisdiction was successfully applied was in the case of John Demjanjuk. Demjanjuk was accused by Israel of committing crimes against humanity while acting as a Nazi guard during World War II. Once evidence was brought forth, he was deported to Israel in 1986 by the United States to be tried in court. Ultimately, he was not found guilty in the Israeli courts. However, he was deported in 2009 once again, through the use of Universal Jurisdiction, this time by Germany. These cases show that Universal Jurisdiction works well and is effective when all states are …show more content…
cooperative. The successes of Universal Jurisdiction illustrate the pros of having Universal Jurisdiction, yet, there are some shortcomings. Universal Jurisdiction can be a great tool because it can fill the void when states refuse to prosecute their citizens as shown with Adolf Eichmann when he resided in Argentina. It also eliminates the opportunity for criminals to avoid prosecution by fleeing the state in which they committed their crimes in order to receive immunity. Be that as it may, Universal Jurisdiction does not place any obligation upon the state the criminal resides to assist cooperate in the investigation. The majority of cases are only successful because all states were cooperative in assisting in the investigation by providing evidence or extraditing the suspect; all things they are not obliged to do under the principle of Universal Jurisdiction. In addition, ‘forum shopping’, in which multiple states investigate an individual for the same crime in order to increase the likelihood of a conviction, can be an issue. This brings into question the rights of the defendant. A clause prohibiting this is currently absent in Universal Jurisdiction. The current debate on Universal Jurisdiction is on how it should be specifically defined and whether high ranking officials and heads of state should receive immunity.
Universal Jurisdiction has been criticized for being ineffective due to its broad definition. For instance, there are not any limits on the amount of times an individual can be tried for the same crime or any criteria to ensure its compatibility with the Charter of the United Nations. As a result of the absence of compatibility criteria, it leads to the debate of whether Universal Jurisdiction should respect the immunity of high ranking officials and heads of state. Although Abdoulaye Yerodia Ndombasi, former Congo Prime Minister, was able to win his case on the basis of immunity, there are still no clear guidelines regarding the prosecution of individuals who have immunity. The African Union is the biggest advocate for guidelines regarding high ranking officials and heads of state because they believe their leaders have been unfairly targeted in numerous cases such as the case of Yerodia and former Liberian president, Charles
Taylor. The principle of Universal Jurisdiction is very promising, however, it will never be accepted among all nations unless it has an explicit definition. The ambiguities of Universal Jurisdiction leave it open for interpretation which then invites abuse, particularly by powerful states. This abuse then leads to widespread criticism that takes away from its Universal Jurisdiction’s validity. In order for Universal Jurisdiction to become an effective tool, it must be more clearly defined.
There continues to be a growing debate to this day over the use of international law in the Supreme Court, and even though the case of Roper v. Simmons and Justice Kennedy, are nearly a decade old, they are both frequently
According to Article 38 of the 1946 Statute of the International Court of Justice, the Court shall apply “international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law” in its decisions (Kritsiotis 123). In other words, the International Court of Justice cites customs as a formal source of law. According to Roberto Unger, author of Law in a Modern Society, customary international law is best defined as “any recurring mode of interaction among individuals and groups, together with the more or less explicit acknowledgement of these groups and individuals that such patterns of interaction produce reciprocal expectations of conduct that out to be satisfied (Shaw 72-73). In other words, customary international laws are primarily concerned with how and why sates behave in a particular manner. Customs derive from the behavior of states (state practice) and the subconscious belief that a behavior is inherently legal (opinio juris). Evidence of state behavior is documented in the decisions of domestic courts, international courts, and international organizations. Unlike treaty law, customary laws are binding on all states. Additionally, if a treaty derives from a custom it is also binding on all states. Some of the international court cases that have been instrumental in the development of customary international law include the Nicaragua v. United States case, the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case, the Scotia case, the Asylum case, the Paquete Habana case, and the Lotus case.
This essay considers that the violation of human rights can indeed be address by extraterritorial jurisdiction throw the human rights legal framework, mainly throw treaties as showed jurisprudence.
...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).
In 1780, the term “international law” was created and first used by Jeremy Bentham in his Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Since about 1840, in the English and Romance Languages it has replaced the older terminology of ‘law of nations’ or ‘droit de gens’ which can be traced back to the Roman concept of ius gentium and the writings of Cicero. Since its inception, there have been different definitions offered to define the term “international law”. For example, Bentham himself defined international law as the law which relates to the mutual transactions between sovereigns as such. Tim Hiller says, it is the “body of rules which are legally binding on states in their intercourse with each other”. In the view of Sir Cecil Hurst, “international law is the aggregate of rules which determines the rights which one state is entitled to claim on behalf of itself or its nationals against another state”.
The Common Law, also known as Anglo-American Law, surfaced in England during the Middle Ages in the 14th century and was spread all over the world with the British colonies. Although England had numerous connections to the rest of Europe in those times, one thing that was not similar was the use of judicial decisions as the foundation of common law.
There is such a thing as universality of human rights that is different from cultural relativism, humanity comes before culture and traditions. People are humans first and belong to cultures second (Collaway, Harrelson-Stephens, 2007 p.109), this universality needs to take priority over any cultural views, and any state sovereignty over its residing citizens.
Reforms aside, the Committee of Ministers continuously acknowledged the need to improve the protection of human rights by the help of the ECtHR. Shortly after Protocol 14 the Committee of Ministers of the CoE recalled „its mission to take measures in order to guarantee the long-term effectiveness of the control system instituted by the Convention (Council of Europe 2004)“. In this section some of the steps taken as well as issues that remain problematic will be highlighted.
...., Raič, and Thuránszky J., The International Court of Justice: its future role after fifty
Public International law International law contains of rules and principles, which preside over the relations and communication of nations with each other. International Law that is in most other countries referred to as Public International Law concerns itself only with questions of rights among more than a few nations or nations and the citizens or subjects of other nations. In dissimilarity, Private International Law deals with controversies among confidential persons, natural or juridical, arising out of situations having important association to further than one nation. In current years the line up connecting public and private international law have became more and more doubtful. Issues of private international law may also associate issues of public international law and numerous matters of private international law nave considerable meaning for the international group of people of nations. International Law consists of the basic, classic concepts of law in nationwide legal systems, status, property, responsibility, and tort. It also includes substantive law, procedure, process and remedies. International Law is rooted in receipt by the nation states, which comprise the system. Customary law and conventional law are primary sources of international law. Customary international law results when states trail convinced practices usually and time after time out of an intelligence of legal responsibility. Lately the customary law was codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Conventional international law derives from international agreements and may obtain any appearance that the constricting parties have the same opinion upon. Agreements may be complete in admiration to any substance except for to the leve...
The Lotus case garners attention due to the fact that it was among the first cases dealing with whether jurisdiction was assumed in accordance with principles of international law. While the Lotus case was heard in the context of criminal jurisdiction over a collision in the high seas, the Lotus principle has been applied in a variety of other cases in varying contexts. For this reason, the judgment of the Permanent Court of International Justice is critiqued for specifically answering only the question in the special agreement as the continued application of the Lotus Principle as a general principle in other contexts such as anti-trust regulations may lead to ambiguous results.
The doctrine of human rights were created to protect every single human regardless of race, gender, sex, nationality, sexual orientation and other differences. It is based on human dignity and the belief that no one has the right to take this away from another human being. The doctrine states that every ‘man’ has inalienable rights of equality, but is this true? Are human rights universal? Whether human rights are universal has been debated for decades. There have been individuals and even countries that oppose the idea that human rights are for everybody. This argument shall be investigated in this essay, by: exploring definitions and history on human rights, debating on whether it is universal while providing examples and background information while supporting my hypothesis that human rights should be based on particular cultural values and finally drawing a conclusion.
Von Galhn and Taulbee. 2013. Law Among Nations. An Introduction to Public International Law. Pearson Education.
First of all, we need to know the definition of the subjects of international law. In the perspective of legal theories, to identify the subjects of international law must be based on these following basic signals: The participation in international legal relations that be adjusted by the international law; having the will of independence in international activities; having a full rights and obligations severally toward other objects under the scope to adjust of international law; ability of shoulder the international legal responsibility for the acts executed by object. Generally, objects of international law are the entities that are participating in, or may have the ability to participate in the international legal relations independently. They have the full legal international rights and obligations for the acts executed by object.
There is an undeniable fact that there has been a rise in globalization. It has become a hot topic amongst the field of international politics. With the rise of globalization, the sovereignty of the state is now being undermined. It has become an undisputed fact that the world has evolved to a new level of globalization, the transferring goods, information, ideas and services around the globe has changed at an unimaginable rate. With all that is going on, one would question how globalization has changed the system that is typically a collection of sovereign states. Do states still have the main source of power? What gives a state the right to rule a geographically defined region? It is believed by many that due to the introduction of international systems and increasing rate of globalization, the sovereignty of the state has been slowly eroded over time. My paper has two parts: First, it aims to take a close look at how globalization has changed the way the economy worked, specifically how it opened doors for multinational corporations to rise in power. Second, to answer the question, is it possible for it to exist today? And even so, should it?