History And Introduction Of The International Court Of Justice

The United Nations fights for humanitarian issues through the use of peaceful dialogue between countries and leaders. The UN's powers of authorising peacekeeping, sanctions and force when absolutely necessary is given to it by the UN charter, an international treaty. They are limited by the fact that they cannot make their resolutions and policies the law, however the important conversations they start and ideas that are shared are influential upon the many powerful leaders who choose to listen.

There is such a thing as limited jurisdiction and general jurisdiction. There are reasons courts

in which this decision is made. In some jurisdictions, the cases may be decided upon

64: Original jurisdiction which means it can try all cases dealing with such subjects as:

The United Nations is the central organisation involved in international law. The effectiveness of the United Nations can be undermined by State sovereignty, which guarantees that there is no higher authority than the nation state. State sovereignty has a significant impact on the creation and enforcement of international law. Due to state sovereignty the United Nations is not effective in the enforcement of international law. International law is the law that governs the relationship between states.

Jurisdiction refers to a courts power over property within its geographical boundaries. The court cannot use jurisdiction unless the defendant has minimum contacts within the state where the court is located. Minimum contacts is legal term for a defendant from one state that can be taken to court in another state for a civil case due to the defendant's unlawful actions, which was committed in the state where the court exist. Minimum contact requirements are associated with the Fourteenth Amendment right of due process. Most case are resolved on a case by case basis after a consideration of all the facts. A decision on jurisdiction may depend on one or more different factors not present on other cases.

By the end of the first world war, the international community founded the League of Nations, the first international security organization with the primary goal of maintaining world peace. The first world war saw drastic increases in mankind 's capacity to kill other human beings and cause insurmountable harm to human society and culture. The human condition was drastically different. With a new world war on the horizon, the international community had decided to band together to form a way in which it could help exercise the correct legal disposition and formality to positively influence the world. An international body was crucial after the first world war in order to maintain peace and order as the world picked up the pieces from their injustices. This was also true after the Second world war where the world saw, again, how the cruelties of humanity had to be prevented in order for the international body to prevent the forming of higher casualty rates and human suffering.

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

The United States’ decision to not join the ICC is largely contested today; however, many may be unaware that though its role is currently vehemently debated, the United States was once instrumental in the creation of the Court. Even prior to World War I, the United States was a proponent of international courts, as well as was the creator of many standards of global law now incorporated into the Rome Statute that created the International Criminal Court. Among these contributions are, “Inclusion in the jurisdiction of the Court of crimes committed during internal armed conflicts, and the drafting of a supplemental code explaining the precise actions and intent that must be proved for each of the crimes in the Statute…” (AMICC

The evolution of international criminal justice is important to consider. Two ad-hoc tribunals, the International Criminal Tribunal of Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda (ICTR), have facilitated the adoption of the ICC. The ICC came into existence on July 1, 2002. The court operates on the principle of complementarity which means that the court does not function unless a state in question is unable or unwilling to investigate and, if warranted, prosecute for one of the covered crimes. Whereas the ICTY and the ICTR had primary jurisdiction and could supersede state action, the ICC only has the aforementioned

The UN Security Council establish a Commission of Experts (hereafter the Commission) to examine and analyse information on crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in the territory of the former

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

International commercial arbitration is one of the most important legal institutions in international private law. This conclusion follows from the fact that the nature of arbitration depends largely on autonomy of the parties, who choose arbitration procedure as the procedure in which the dispute will be settled; place where the arbitration is to be held; arbitral tribunal etc. Probably the most important and considerable expression of the autonomy is the right to choose the law, which is to be applied to merits of the dispute. The chosen applicable law guarantees in large measure predictability of the outcome of the case and allows parties to control the scope of interpretation and application of the international commercial