An International Criminal Court

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

A few United Nations representatives from Cuba, India, and Panama have wished to resolve the problem of genocide by recognizing it as an international crime, as stated in Document A. For example, inadequate provisions were placed when various Nazis were not punished for their wrongdoings. Nonetheless, this is seen as a negative aspect; however, it should be seen as motivation for others to strive to prevent further acts of genocide by punishing it as an international crime and create international laws. Since the late 1940s the United Nations has brought forth countless amounts of articles and documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Document E), which includes various articles that back up specific rights such as the right to life, liberty, and security of person, for these rights have since then helped prevent acts of genocide. It is through international laws where genocide will be ceased by making it an international crime, where it will assure international cooperation for its prevention and be dealt with its true deserving

When dealing with the subject of universal jurisdiction there is a starting point that cannot be ignored. In practice there are still various international crimes that go unpunished despite the international obligation to prosecute those who committed them, though principle of universal jurisdiction is extensively discussed. Constraints of real politics or diplomacy clashed with the concept of universal jurisdiction. Political reasons have prevailed over legal reasoning in a number of cases.

According to Bosco (2014) the development of international criminal justice was stimulated by the Nuremberg trials that came after World War II. The Nuremberg trials were presided over by jurists who came from different powers and set new standards that defined international war crimes. The courts all over the world were determined to bring the international community together through the formation of an international court. The international court was to be tasked with the function of prosecuting crimes against humanity and carry out the cause of justice as well as the rule of law in all places globally. Despite the need for international court and the determination of most countries to develop it, the start of cold was a major setback in its formation (Bosco,

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

POLSCI 120W Final paper Why the International Criminal Court should ignore politics? The International Criminal Court (ICC) should ignore and be above politics to form legitimacy in future. First, the ICC is a legal institution made by sovereign governments have different political view, interests, and purpose to protect. Its job is to support universal rules of law and act fairly with ignoring political pressures.

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

This paper seeks to canvass the legacy of the Nuremberg Trial; the legal justifications and procedural innovations that were once controversial and which through the turn of the century have now come to be regarded as a milestone towards the application of principles of international law, establishment of a permanent international criminal court enshrined under the Rome Statute and setting new precedents for the international community. Furthermore, the author seeks to juxtapose the legal and political justifications given for the

Having human rights in place imposes certain obligations on the government and justifies the complaints of those whose rights and freedoms have not been respected. Everyone is entitled to human rights regardless of their nationality, gender, race, religion, or political opinion. The failure to recognize these rights results in conflict and a vicious cycle of violence as more human rights are violated. To avoid such clashes, human rights have become a fundamental part of global law and policy. However, they have not always been that way. Catastrophic events in history that claimed thousands of lives ran their vicious course before it was recognized that there had to be human rights established. The most famous example of genocide is the Holocaust, which killed around six million Jews. After the Holocaust, the United Nations recognized that there had to be human rights put into place. Two human rights from the United Nations’ “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” that were perversely violated during the Holocaust are Article 5 (the protection against inhumane treatment or punishment) and Article 25 (the right to a standard of living.) Light is shed upon the exploitation of human rights during the Holocaust in both Night by Elie Wiesel and The Sunflower: On the Possibilities and Limits of Forgiveness by Simon Wiesenthal. The Holocaust was a devastating event that opened our eyes to just how cruel humans can be, and why human rights must be enforced and protected.

To support my argument, I will first discuss the evolution of international criminal justice and the ICC. Then I will address my three subsidiary arguments. First, I will argue that the International Criminal Court is effective because it increases accountability of human rights violators. Secondly, I will argue that the existence and use of the court increases disapproval and deterrence which protects human rights making the ICC effective. Third, I will argue that the International Criminal Court is effective because it allows for a universal standard of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour as well as transcends and empowers national jurisdictions. Finally, I will address the counter argument and conclude.

In 1998, the International Criminal Court was created through the Rome Statute. The court was made with the intention of being a justice system that had jurisdiction over international crimes such as war crimes and genocide. Originally, there were 124 states that ratified the International Criminal Court and there were 31 states that signed. Recently, states have decided to leave the International Criminal Court or retract their signatures. There are many arguments as to why these states are choosing to leave, but, specifically for African states like South Africa, people argue that the International Criminal Court is mainly prosecuting crimes committed in Africa; they believe they are spending an unfair amount of time on the crimes in

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.

     Over the past few years, the International Criminal Court (ICC or “the Court”) has been igniting controversy the world over. As more countries rallied behind it, more objections have been made, particularly from Americans, regarding what many view as fundamental flaws. I have chosen two papers to compare and contrast the different viewpoints taken by the authors when reflecting upon America’s involvement with the ICC. One calls for total rejection of the ICC, the other weighs the risks and benefits and calls for revision but acceptance.

 On May 25, 1993, U.N. Security Council Resolution 827 established an international tribunal charged with prosecuting violations of international law arising from the armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. Not since the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, following World War II has an international court tried individuals accused of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide. The International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTFY), which was established at The Hague, Netherlands, is widely seen as an important step toward the deterrence of crimes, the establishment of the firm rule of international law, and the promotion of world peace. Yet, from its inception, the tribunal

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.