Essay On International Law

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

Canada, was once a respected peacekeeper now a disgrace to its past. Canada was once the primary contributor to the United Nations for peacekeeping. Now Canada is not even close to being regarded as a contributor. Even the people in Canada do not think that Canada has any involvement in the peacekeeping business. Many people looked at Canada as a symbol of peace which many still do, but most do not know that Canada has fled from its old ways and now is just an image of the past. Canada is no longer presented as a peacekeeping country. Therefore Canada is not the peace keeping country it used to be because of its lack of support to the United Nations, Canada’s opinion on its duty as a peacekeeper, and the loss of influence as a peacekeeper.

Canadians pride themselves on being a “peacekeeping country” and many believe that peacekeeping represents a defining aspect of Canadian identity because it reflects fundamental values, beliefs and interests. Canada has been a leader in peace operations since its development that spearheaded by a Canadian. In fact, Canada’s role as peacekeeper remains the main focus of the Canadian military after its invention around 60 years ago, originally started by a Canadian. Their efforts have gained an international reputation for Canada as a significant contributor to international peace and stability. While Canada has an exemplary history in UN peacekeeping, the current extent of its contribution, both in terms of peacekeeping personnel and percentage of funds to peacekeeping missions, are on a clear decline. The belief that Canada is a peacekeeping country is misguided because recent Canadian commitment shows a sharp decline in Canadian participation in UN peacekeeping. Surprisingly, as of March 2007, Canada ranked 59th out of 114 countries in terms of military and police contributions to UN operations. Despite Canadian declined involvement in peacekeeping during the last decade, it still remains a valuable and important mission that greatly deserves Canadian resources including monetary support, resources and personnel.

Canada should support the United Nations, because the it uphold Canada’s national interests. For instance, the UN engages in peacemaking activities which are aimed at assisting nations who have emerged out of conflict, reducing the risk of the country returning back to conflict and providing them with peace and development. Additionally, Canada similar to the UN works to advance international peace and security through the pursuit of disarmament of nuclear weapons of mass distraction and the regulations of arms. Furthermore, like the Canadian Charter of RIghts and Freedoms, the UN aims to prevent or responds to serious violations of human rights.

Brett Schaefer and Steven Groves believes the United States decision was justifiable. They argue that the International Criminal Court has a worthy purpose, but still has issues that need to be addressed before the United States would join the court. Schaefer and Groves explain the Article 98 Agreement and the American Service Member Protection Act. Also their argument contains the five concerns the Bush Administration had about joining the ICC, but the two major concerns regard the fear of political abuse of power and also the threat to national sovereignty.

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.

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

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 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.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the six chapters assigned for this week. First, in Weiss et al.’s first chapter entitled The Theory of UN Collective Security, the authors elaborate on the foundation and purpose of the United Nations serves on a global scale by means of collectivity. Second, chapter four entitled Evolving Security Operations: Kosovo, East Timor, Sierra Leone, Lebanon, Sudan, Cote d’Ivoire, Libya, and Syria, provides specific examples of relations between the United Nations and individual nation-states, the progress the UN has made in developing countries, and how the resistance the UN faces affect the organization as well as the population they serve. Third, chapter ten of Weiss et al.’s book, Sustainable Development as Process: UN Organizations and Norms focuses on the humanitarian efforts of the UN, especially in the focus of establishing self-sufficiency in developing countries. Then the three chapters in Pease’s book, Security, The Environment, and Human Rights and Humanitarian Issues, focus on three key issues facing the international organizations today.

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

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.