International Laws Should Allow Bounty Hunters

State Crimes are defined as “acts that are largely committed, instigated or condoned by governments and their officials” (International State Crime initiative). These crimes are considered to be very serious crimes in society today, due to the fact that they are either committed or condoned by governmental personnel with the aim of achieving certain goals. Having said that, scholars today do not have the knowledge of how important these crimes are since it violate international and criminal law within that state. Eugene McLaughlin identified four categories of state crime; Political crimes, crimes by security, economic crimes and social and cultural crimes. However, I will focus on the two that are more widely acknowledged Political crime is corruption and censorship, a state has the right to label a behaviour as political crime if it’s seen as a threat to the state. Crime by security has to do with genocide and torture, a great example of crime by security is the Rwanda Genocide that occurred in 1994 which ended up killing 800,000 citizens in just a few weeks. According to Grabosky and Stohl (2010), state crimes can be divided into six main types; State terror against another state, state terror against private interests, State facilitation of another state’s terrorism, state terror against its own citizens, state facilitation of private actors and political terror scale. In this essay, I will be mainly concentrating on the Rwanda Genocide, Libyan civil war of 2011 and

Both domestic and international measures are somewhat effective in dealing with international crime. Both crimes against the international community and Transnational crimes represent both positive outcomes in dealing with international crime, thus, exemplify issues in key areas. Through intergovernmental organizations such as the International Criminal Court and Operation Sovereign Borders (OSB), international crime Is effectively dealt with. Hence, problems such as extradition and people smuggling are hard to contain. These four issues will also be discussed in light of key effectiveness criteria, including equality, access, resources and the protection of rights.

Nations can do without the death penalty for heinous crimes committed. The actions of taking a person’s life due to their crimes casts a significant burden upon the person responsible for the convict to meet their maker. Applying the death penalty to someone that stole innocent lives is not justified, one death does not bring back the lives of those already lost. “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”

Matthew Lippman provides that the Lai Massacre violated the international humanitarian law of war. The Lai Massacre and the Vietnam War raises critical questions about how America conduct war and its military leadership in Vietnam. The massacre of innocent unarmed civilians illustrates the horrendous war crime committed by American soldiers. Lippman discusses how the United States tried to keep the events of My Lai Massacre from the public. The My Lai Massacre makes me wonder if this was only one of the many massacres in Vietnam War and if the higher US officials managed to cover-up the other massacres. The trials for the crimes committed in My Lai were held separately from the Nuremberg trails because officials wanted to avoid creating parallels between the two events. However, parallels can be drawn with American conduct in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. Troops who were in violation of international law and committed war crimes in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay were not held accountable for their action to their full extent. In fact, those who were convicted were not necessarily charged with war crimes. This leads us to question whether the events of my Lai and Nuremberg could ever be reconciled. Allan Ryan makes the argument that the Nuremberg Tribunals was the most significant development of international human rights law. I agree with Ryan as many tribunals following the events of World War II have been modeled after the Nuremberg Tribunals. For instance, this is true in

military commissions to try persons held by the U.S. in the Global War on Terrorism. In addition,

This paper will identify the various major global crimes and criminal issues that affect national and international criminal justice systems and processes. In addition, there will be a comparison and contrast of the different criminal justice systems and how they have addressed major global crimes and criminal issues.

There have been many cases of Crimes against Humanity during history, the most well known one probably being “The Holocaust”. If you don’t know what The Holocaust is, it is when hitler gassed and worked to death over 6 million jews. This is the Crime that made the world create an international community such as the United Nations, to try to prevent or end any crimes, or mass genocides like the Holocaust. The United Nation is the society that issues punishments to countries or people who issue out genocides or commit Crimes against Humanity, and also deals with the protection of smaller countries that don’t have the funds to protect themselves, but some people say that the United Nations aren’t doing their job. Some people would think it is a better idea for the bigger, richer countries, such as United States, Russia, and other richer countries, to help end these crimes. If the whole world create a bigger, stronger international community, better than the United Nations, and really helped try to prevent or end these genocides, then the world would be a much safer place, and because many countries are working together to make the world a better place, it would also build on trust between other countries and less countries would try to start wars.

Crimes against humanity are attacks that have taken place against civilization. This includes murder, extermination, rape, and enforced disappearances. These are just some examples of the many things that have happened from this cause. International nations should have part in helping this cause to some extent, although not enough to hurt their citizens or resources, putting their nation's self interest before another nation. The nation’s as a collective should agree to help out and interfere by opening their countries to the displaced and hurt people. In the following paragraphs I talk about the holocaust and its effects on the Jewish people, the dropping of the atomic bomb and the impact is had on the Japanese people, and Isis’ effect that they have on present crimes.

Prisoners of War are individuals, whether a soldier or civilians, who are captured as a prisoner during an armed conflict. In the middle ages the modern law was the source relating to the treatment of Prisoners of War. However, today the modern foundation of international law relating to the Treatment of Prisoners is the 1949 Geneva Convention.

As long as they are doing exactly what they are told to protect themselves from becoming the next victim I think they should be morally absolved. But if they are doing actions that are considered illegal under the law of the country on behalf of which they acted I feel they should be held responsible for those actions. For example, soldiers that rape women or excessively abuse prisoners should be held responsible for their actions. I feel children that are used to carry atrocities are victims themselves. They should receive special intervention to help them understand and become responsible contributing members of society.

Throughout history there have been atrocious crimes committed against humanity. Those responsible for these mass murders were usually governments, political leaders, or rebels. The “justification” for these inhumane crimes varied from discrimination of race, religion gender or ethnicity. These mass murders are also known as genocide. To make matters worse, for a period of time a majority of those responsible for these unspeakable crimes were not prosecuted. The reason being is that there was no way to bring the perpetrators to justice especially with the volume of victims. This left a feeling of vain and injustice for many victims. As time progressed systems, courts, and laws were implemented to handle this serious crime. The

According to international committee of the red cross, a war crime is defined as: “1)making the civilian population or individual civilians, not taking a direct part in hostilities, the object of attack;(2)launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;(3)making non-defended localities and demilitarized zones the object of attack.” However, it is challenging to interpret every state of affairs within only a single definition. The first war crimes tribunal since the end of World War II was in Yugoslavia. International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) states, “Between 1991 and 1995, the Yugoslav Army and Serbian paramilitaries occupied sections of Croatia. In mid-1995, the Croatian army reclaimed this territory, pushing out the Yugoslav Army and expelling many of the ethnic Serbs who had been living there for generations......generated a huge number of civilian casualties, human rights violations, and war crimes. To assess these crimes and determine culpability, even as the wars continued to rage, the United Nations established the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in 1993.” Serbian and Croatian leaders sacrificed civilians in order to fulfill their egoistic ambition to get a territory of Bosnia. It fact, war crime always abide by war and it can’t be helped. Though it is possible to identify each crime cases and rectify it subsequently. ICTY was established in order to achieve this goal. In the article the Truth About No Gun Ri, the author complicates matters further by stating, “That anxiety has been heightened by the ex-Yugoslavia war-crimes tribunal, which was created in 1993. Late in 1999, the

Although it might sound like a good idea from the start, the entire system violates basic human rights. The Constitution guarantees us, Americans, legal protections and with the ICC involved, we would be denied these protections. Such as, no guarantee of due process, no jury or right to a speedy trial, and no protection from double jeopardy. Joining the ICC can be detrimental to the reputation of the U.S and to be a reliable government if the President or someone of higher power were to be prosecuted by the ICC. The system is also ineffective, without trial or prosecution how can one prove if the offender is guilty or not? What if the person being charged for the crime wasn't guilty and the criminal is free to pursue any other heinous crimes

Vatican City would welcome help from the countries who strongly believe in the necessity to put an end to the illicit arms trade. To achieve this certain goal, we need to strengthen our laws and treaties that relate to this topic. In conjunction with that, the U.N. Charter should protect civilians from the violence and cruelty of

States’ interest in crimes against humanity and bringing justice for these crimes has increased significantly over the years. Primarily beginning with controversy over African slave trade, and then being brought to the world’s attention again and again over time through events such as the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, and the Nanking Massacre, crimes against humanity have continued to show themselves present. Because these crimes became international law through custom first, the Rome Statute was created as a formal law against these violations of human rights. This created the International Criminal Court (Frieden, Lake, & Schultz 2016, 462).