Effectiveness of International Law

According to ICRC, International human rights law is the body of international law intended to advance human rights on social, provincial, and residential levels. As a type of worldwide law, global human rights law is fundamentally comprised of arrangements, understandings between sovereign states to have restricting lawful impact between the gatherings that have consented to them; and standard universal law, guidelines of law got from the predictable direct of states carrying on of the conviction that had the law obliged them to act that way. Other worldwide human rights instruments while not lawfully restricting add to the usage, comprehension and improvement of universal human rights law and have been perceived as a wellspring of political obligation.

Throughout this course thus far we have generically discussed the various models of mediation(in particular facilitative),skills and tasks needed by a mediator to conduct a successful mediation. The facilitative approach we have been studying, via theory and in-class exercises has afford us some great insight into mediating into a variety of domestic conflicts from family to business disputes.However,there is a whole other subfield in mediation ,which we have not discussed and that is international mediation. International mediation also has a variety of forms. Cases for mediation can range from a conflict between two states, an ethnic conflict that, has bought violence within a particular state, or perhaps a business dispute between

There have been a number of instances in which the United Nations is not effective in enforcing international law. They are not successful as states are able to decline the authority of the International Court of Justice to hear the case. This

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

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.

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.

international courts and tribunals may achieve limited success in some areas of the world, it

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

Though there are many countries that are apart of the ICC, a fair question is what sparked the need for such a powerful court? Because even though the ICC is doing their best not to repeat the mistake of have crimes go unpunished there are situation such as the United States refusing to join the organization and has immunity from being prosecuted that makes the court look unfair and re enforces the idea that that the powerful are untouchable. Another case would be that the ICC has been heavily criticized for being prone to prosecute cases only in Africa, which raises the question why do they prosecute countries that are not wealthy and ignore the corruption in wealthy countries. These small questions can make one consider if there really is a need for an international criminal court. However what one fails to understand is there is a need for an international court. In this paper I will be discussing exactly what was the cause of such a powerful court, why the United State has continuously refuse to join the ICC and had immunity before official leaving and finally why does it seem like the ICC is prosecuting countries that are not wealthy such as countries in Africa and ignore the corruption in wealthy countries.

This paper will clearly lay out the Unites States concerns with the International Criminal Court and will attempt to resolve them. I will then argue that no country has the right to be above international law, including the United States and that it is in the best interest of America and the world community for the united states to join the efforts of the ICC and sign the Rome Statute.

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.

2. This international society has a law that establishes the rights of its members – above all, the rights of territorial integrity and political sovereignty.

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.

The World Trade Organization (“WTO”) Dispute Settlement System and the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) are two of the most widely used methods of international dispute settlement.

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.