International courts, like all judicial courts, are seen as neutral parties to a dispute. International courts interpret international law and provide an avenue for states to settle their differences. In court, each state should have equal power. The court should not take into account how large or powerful a state is. Justice is supposed to be blind. However, in practice, state power does matter.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), also known as the World Court, is the paramount court of international law. Nevertheless, there appear to be power discrepancies within the ICJ. When looking at the structure and history of the ICJ, one can observe the advantages of major powers within the court. States look to the ICJ as an impartial arbitrator, but the ICJ seems to be significantly more partial than one may expect it to be. If major powers are favored in the court, weaker states will lose faith in the supreme judicial organ of global law. The ICJ serves a critical role in international law and thus it must fairly proceed in disputes brought forth by any member state. This is not the case and there is an imbalance of power in the ICJ system as major powers heavily influence the structure, decision-making, and compliance measures. Specifically, The United Nations Security Council has the utmost influence in the United Nations (UN) and thus has serious power inside the ICJ. The major powers can influence decisions in a variety of ways, such as through their constant
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.
Taking this into consideration, dealing with external activities of a state, international law has extensive latitude. In Article 38 (1) of the Statue of the International Court of Justice, the following sources of international law are acknowledged: (a) international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting States; (b) international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law; (c) the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; (d) ... judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law (36). Sources having a technical meaning related to the law making process and must not be confused with information sources, research sources or bibliographies on international law (35). Rules expressed and recognized by consenting states are referred to as treaties and/or conventions. Treaties are codified agreements established by consenting states as means of resolving a dispute or to recognize mutual interests. Since treaties are codified, they are favored over customary law; therefore, becoming a vital part of building a more stable foundation for international law. States are required to meet their international obligations as well as formulate efforts to
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.
this essay I will attempt to examine and analyse the effectiveness of international courts and
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
In this essay, I shall be discussing whether the UN Security Council (hereafter referred to as the Security Council) is fit for purpose in the 21st Century. The approach I will be taking is more of a generic outlook; examining which fragments of the Security Council requires reformation.
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
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.
After the League of Nations failed to prevent WWII, the UN was established as a replacement of the flawed League of Nations to maintain international peace and promote cooperation. In addition, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was formed by the UN Charter, and its jurisdictions can be enforced by the UN Security Council (but is subject to the veto power of the five permanent members of the council). The UN has helped to diffuse the tension between USA and USSR over the Cuban Crisis of 1962, succeeded in averting the Arab-Israel war in 1967 and so on, proving the capability and functions of the UN.
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.
Roles of the European Court of Justice ‘The European Court of Justice played a decisive role in the
Rule of law in simplest terms means law rules, that is, law is supreme. The term “Rule of law‟ is derived from the French phrase “la principle de legalite” (the principle of legality) which means a government on principle of law and not of men. Rule of Law is a viable and dynamic concept and, like many other concepts, is not capable of any exact definition. It is used in contradistinction to rule of man. Sir Edward Coke, the Chief Justice in King James I‟s reign is said to be the originator of this principle. However, concrete shape was given to it by Professor A.V. Dicey, for the first time in his book “Law of the Constitution” (1885) in the form of three principles.
The rule of law is a difficult concept to grasp and proves elusive to substantive definition. However, the following work considers the attempts of various social and legal theorists to define the concept and pertinent authorities are considered. Attitudes and emphasis as to the exact shape, form and content of the rule of law differ quite widely depending on the socio-political perspective and views of respective commentators (Slapper and Kelly, 2009, p16), although there are common themes that are almost universally adopted. The conclusions to this work endeavour to consolidate thinking on the rule of law in order to address the question posed in the title, which is at first sight a deceptively simple one.
Japan firmly believes we need to take action to reform the Security Council before it loses its legitimacy and efficiency as an essential tool for the maintenance of peace and security. Japan is ready to discuss, with a flexible and realistic viewpoint, different options, which will lead the way for the expansion in both permanent and non-permanent categories. Japan is working proactively to increase both the permanent and non-permanent membership of the council. Japan is the second largest contributor to the UN, behind the United States and is the world's largest donor of official development assistance. Japan's commitment to the United Nations, supported by its national strength should allow the nation to assume greater global responsibility through the efforts of the Security Council.
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.