Essay On North Korea

The conflict I am focusing on is the conflict between North Korea and the USA.

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

The book Rough Justice: Battle to Fix the World, One Prosecution at a Time was authored by David Bosco. Basically, the book focuses on the establishment of the international court and how years after its formation the powerful nations do not cooperate with it. Powerful nations such as the United States and Russia do not support the activities of International Criminal Court (ICC) and thus leaving its mandate to the poor African Nations. The book was chosen because it touches on one of the subjects of international law. The ICC is part of United Nations that deals with the violators of the international law: it helps to provide an enforcing mechanism for international law that has been lacking for long time.

The book Rough Justice clearly explains the struggle between power and justice in the realms of international law. The international criminal court was established on the principle that all the perpetrators of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocides should be subjected to investigations irrespective of ethnicity, nationality or political affiliation. The ICC was also expected to operate fairly in an international legal and political system. The international court is also required to operate in a straightforward manner without portraying any favoritism. The states were also required to avoid the actions of ICC if they wished by not ratifying the Rome Statute: thus, voluntarism remains an important principle of the international law.

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 International Court of Justice bears a significant responsibility in resolving international disputes, bridging the gap between state sovereignty and international stability for nation states. It is the principle organ of the United Nations, withholding a goal to "Settle, in accordance with international law, legal

"Totally prepared" has been declared by Donald Trump to take a military option against North Korea. Saying "it will be devastating" to Pyongyang.

The third source that I decided to use was an English newspaper. The headline from the article was the first thing that stood out, suggesting that Trump might bomb North Korea next. The article barely covers the event, instead, it covers Eric Trump's comments and the possibility that North Korea can be next. The newspapers instigates that the United States might use military action against North Korea though including Eric Trump's statement hinting that his father is not afraid to make "North Korea...next on the hit list if Kim Jong-Un carries on developing atomic weapons" (Daily Mirror, April 14, 2017). The newspaper just adds more fuel to the existing tension between the United States and North Korea with such a provocative statement.

The creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) intended to ensure the pursuit of criminal accountability of mass human rights violations did not go as smoothly as was hoped. Overtime, sensitive questions emerged on the impact of ICC prosecutions on ongoing or recently ended conflicts. Particularly, with regards to the possibility of the ICC impeding the progress of domestic initiatives seeking to deal with the aftermath of a conflict through peace and reconciliation processes. In such instances, should the Prosecutor only consider the facts of the case, or should she also take into account broader considerations, such as the impact of her actions? The Rome Statute left these uncertainties on the relationship between the ICC and local peace and reconciliation initiatives unaddressed. In drafting

After many years of tension between the United States and North Korea, North Korea released three American hostages as an act of good faith. Kim Dong-Chul, Kim Hak-Song, and Tony Kim were the three American citizens that were held captive in North Korea. Kim Dong-Chul was convicted for spying in North Korea and was sentenced to ten years of hard labor. Tony Kim, a teacher, was taken by North Korean officials at the airport and the exact charges were not specified, whereas Kim Hak-Song was arrested for hostile acts towards North Korea. The hostages were released from North Korea and boarded a plane that took them to Andrews Air Force Base outside of Washington D.C. This event occurred on May 9, 2018 at 7:45pm when the hostages left custody and boarded the plane. The hostages were freed after a visit from Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo and Kim Jong Un. This action by the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un, was seen as

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.

Over the last several years, there has been a debate among much of the international community over whether or not the structure of the United Nations Security Council should be changed. Should it? What are the arguments for and against? Would the UN be more or less effective if such changes were made?

Despite sufficient groundwork for the ICC laid out through the Rome Statute and amended to include aggression in Kenya in 2006-2007, the ICC in many nation’s eyes has been a failure. The first elected chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, an Argentine lawyer has been widely criticized for his continuous failures and this disappointment has led to reluctance of the states. When the ICC was established through the Rome Statute it became evident that the role of the chief prosecutor would be essential to the court’s success, and in many ways the successes of the court would mirror the successes of the prosecutor. This analysis has become accurate, only to the negativity of the court. Moreno-Ocampo’s failures are directly linked to the failures

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.