Advantages And Disadvantages Of International Humanitarian Law

The Third Geneva Convention is probably the most recognized and important treaty concerning prisoners of war to ever be put down on paper that is recognized by the world over. Though this treaty is very thorough and complete in its wording regarding those that are affected and bound by its wording, there still is one major defect in the treaty that needs to be rectified and dealt with. This flaw is that there is no independent court body or commission that oversees abuses by parties against others in regards to their mistreatment or torture. Persons who find themselves at the hands of captors only have international courts or commissions as well as domestic courts to hear their cases. This can cause an untimely delay in hearing these cases,

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

International law is defined as a set of rules that countries follow in dealing with one another. Since there is no world government, there is no

Complying with International human rights standards is an easy way of obtaining international support to win this war. It is also the required standard of behavior for any human being.

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.

Humanitarian interference positions a hard trial for an international society constructed on the doctrines of sovereignty, intervention, and the use of force. Directly after the holocaust, the society of states recognized the laws prohibiting genocide, forbidding the exploitation of civilians, and identifying plain human rights. These humanitarian values often clash with doctrines of sovereignty. Sovereign states are required to perform as protectors of their citizens’ security, but what happens if states act as villains towards their own people, treating power as a pass to kill? Should dictatorial states be recognized as valid members of international society and permitted the protection afforded by the intervention norm? Or else, most states loss their sovereign rights and be exposed to reasonable intervention if they aggressively abuse or fail to protect their citizens? Connected to this, what responsibilities do other states or organizations have to enforce human rights standards against governments that vastly violate them?

- Participation of the International Law Organization: [Accepts the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice with reservations; accepts the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court]. (1)

- International law organization participation: [Accepts the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice with reservations; accepts the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court]. (1)

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 rules of war; it sounds ridiculous when stated like that. Even though war is a brutal man vs. man, kill or be killed affair, there are rules to war. The 1949 Geneva conventions are the body of international law that deals with armed conflict. They were created for good reasons, but there are also flaws within them. The Geneva Conventions are exploited by terrorists and in some ways interfere with national security. These laws are getting our soldiers undeservedly prosecuted, even though our enemies don’t follow them at all. POW(Prisoner of War) treatment, war crimes, and the application of the laws towards terrorism are three protocols that need to be changed within the Geneva Conventions.

human rights.21 While opponents of international law argue that it is all “mere window dressing.”22 According to Hathaway, States ratify treaties symbolically to show other States that they accept the principles of human rights but they rarely change their practices because of their obligations in the treaty.23 Based on a study of the ICCPR, Linda Keith argued that, “it may be overly optimistic to expect that being a party to this international covenant will produce an observable direct impact”. 24These findings raise the question as to whether human rights law regime is at all effective in protecting individual human rights. Whether the lack of adherence to human rights obligations indicates

Section one deals with the debates that surround the issues of humanitarian intervention and just war theory on the basis of international scale. One article by Holzgrefe is completely focused on the debate, stating the many ethical theories of many different theorists: from "utilitarianism; natural law; social contractrianism; communitarianism; and legal postivism" (7). Holzgrefe goes on to define what each ethical theorist is and their understanding of the debate on humanitarian intervention. However, there is the idea of when it is right to intervene and when intervention is unfavorable. The most interesting part was the third section of the article.

Distinction takes on fundamental importance in relation to abuse, as disclosed after the attacks of September 11, 2001. The Geneva Conventions are gaining because the nature binding with respect to two events: the war in Afghanistan began in October 2001. And the invasion of Iraq started in March 2003. This situation, the state corresponding to aggression on the part of terrorists should strictly comply with the Geneva conventions, the violation of which would result in the creation of war crimes. It also means, with respect to persons detained in connection with the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, there is no automatic and complete exclusion above all common art. 3 of the Geneva Conventions, contrary to the position adopted by the

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?

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.