Military Tribunals

Was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that the application of military tribunals to citizens when civilian courts are still operating is unconstitutional. It was also

David Rieff talks about the idea of the “international community which gives both the humanitarian worker and the victims of crisis “false hope” that something will be done (Rieff, 2003). He says that “the moment one taps on to the idea of the international community, it (humanitarianism) falls part like a toy” (Rieff 2003, p.9). The concept of international community, however vague or disastrous it might seem or sound, is also the source of logistics for

Few places are more treacherous than the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in Africa. For two decades, near-steady warfare has claimed millions of lives in the area.

The main idea behind the Nuremberg Trials following World War II was to set an international precedent for how war crimes should be persecuted following wartimes. Part of the motivation for the Nuremberg Trials was in the way the Germans were treated after World War I. Harsh sanctions were imposed on Germany and huge debts were accumulated – this inevitably crippled the German economy and bred unrest. During a period of time when anti-allied sentiments were high it was easy for a charismatic Hitler to gain power and lead the Germans to WWII. With the hopes of finding a way to punish those directly responsible for the war, rather than the whole nation, the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Russia joined together to create an international

When a country encounters a catastrophic situation where human rights are being violated, it is the state’s responsibility to protect its nation. Frequently state’s shift from humanitarian intervention to responsibility to protect as a solution to human rights violations. Humanitarian intervention has been defined as a states’s use of “military force against another state when the chief publicly declared aim of that military action is ending human-rights violations being perpetrated by the state against which it is directed.”1 In order for a state to successfully protect, according to Anne Orford in the article Lawful Authority and the Responsibility to Protect, they must “prevent genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.” (pg 248, Orford) A state is responsible for protecting its population, if they fail to do so the responsibility and authority to do so shifts to the international community.

Cases and disputes are evaluated and resolved in courts or tribunals everywhere across the world every day. Out of all these cases, it is the rarer cases involving sports disputes that provide some of the more intriguing and interesting cases that should be studied in order to get a better grasp on the effectiveness of both tribunals and courts as well as how they balance the rights of the player and the rights of others affected. The extent of these sports disputes can often range from minor things such as minor defamation cases, but can also involve large cases involving things such as use of Performance Enhancing Drugs, contract disputes or even League Lockouts.

While conventions have been in place since WWII to define war crimes and genocide and allow prosecution of those who commit these acts, the United Nations response to these atrocities has been sporadic and disorganized. The massacre in Srebrenica shined a spotlight on the failures of the international community to prevent mass atrocities. We needed an international guideline to systematically and effectively respond to civil war and intrastate conflict. Out of this was born the idea of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P).

The aftermath of the Rwandan genocide paved the way for the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) facing an environment of war and instability. The DRC had two major wars, in 1996-1997 and 1998-2003.The key players of the first war were Congolese government forces with the support of Uganda under Laurent Kabila and the Democratic Forces for Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) loyal forces to the Mobutu regime. The second war was termed the “African First World War” by Alan Doss, a United Nations Special Representative for the Secretary General in 2009 (Doss,2009). It directly involved five other African countries, namely Namibia, Uganda, Angola, Zimbabwe and Rwanda, as well as DRC government forces and approximately

Humanitarian intervention is argued to be a necessary means as to prevent foreign states abusing the human rights of its citizens; this position is essentially held by the powers which have the capacity to undertake (but also to undermine) these international interventions. This argument that if taken at face value could be seen by the majority as a respectable position to support as it is popularised by the altruistic feelings garnered from the vocal support, or silent nonchalance towards the enacting powerful groups of humanitarian intervention agencies such as the United Nations (UN) and the United States of America (USA/US). This essay will expand upon the moral codes of which humanitarian interventions are based upon; I do however counter these idyllic foundations with the outcomes from two specific case studies being the US’s Iraq “humanitarian intervention” and the UN’s Libyan humanitarian intervention. These two case studies showcase the alternative neo-colonialist motives behind organizations’ altruistic façade which frames the lives of people as sufferers in conflicts, which is done to support their interventions.

The United Nations efforts in peace-keeping operations in Rwanda had many setbacks and was considered to be a failure for many reasons. One of the reasons being the International community’s failure to make a distinction between a civil war and genocide in Rwanda. (Khan, 196) This meant that the little effort presented by the UN department of peacekeeping operations was often too late. In previous years the world has witnessed countless civil wars which have taken place in Somalia, Liberia, Haiti, Georgia and Angola. However, genocide was not present in these wars and was uncommon. (Khan, 196) According to Alain Destexhe, Rwanda was only the third experience of genocide in this century. Thus, with the ongoing tensions and unrest, dating back to 1990, between the Hutu-led government and the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) it was evident that Rwanda was on course for a civil war but what was failed to realise was that a genocide was also taking place. (Khan, 197)

I am basing my decision on the utilitarian and deontology theories. It is the duty of the Secretary of Defense to uphold the President’s orders. Therefore, based on the military order placed into affect by President George W. Bush in 2001 it is our duty to try terrorist under a military tribunal. There is a due process under the military tribunal and there for they are given a “full and fair trial.” It is in the best interest of the United States people, for the military intelligence sources and methods to be maintained. Therefore, this supports a utilitarian theory by have the greater good

I will shed the light on the Security Council which is the keystone of the United Nations system of collective security, and its role in maintaining international peace and security by settling disputes pacifically under chapter VI of the UN Charter and by taking action regarding threats, breaches, and acts of aggression under chapter VII. I will then discuss the several options that Nation states had resorted to in the past to intervene in order to protect civilians. And I will finally highlight the notion of the responsibility to protect which emerged in 2001 and its implication on populations under

The numerous and continuing violations of International Humanitarian Law can only be stopped and reduced if both parties to the conflict commit to implementing practical measures for protecting civilians and especially civilians with disabilities. The responsible authorities of both conflicting parties must implement training, regular supervision and the ongoing evaluation of the conduct of all persons under their command towards the protection of civilians. Specific orders for the protection of all civilians, including civilians with disabilities, must be given by the superior officers of both conflicting parties in order to stop any illegal actions by their Armed Forces or militia and they must suppress any violations against civilians and

Resolution 2098 was adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 28th March 2013 regarding the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The UN recognized the lack of progress in DRC and adopted the resolution creating the Intervention Brigade unanimously. These difficulties had already been highlighted previously and it was recommended to address the violence issue in a more robust way, notably after the humanitarian failures of the 1990s (genocide in Rwanda, in Srebrenica, massacres in refugee camps in DRC , etc.) Resolution 2098 created a new mandate for the stabilization force in the DRC (Mission de l’Organisation des Nations Unies pour la stabilisation en République démocratique du Congo, or MONUSCO) which included a “Force Intervention Brigade” (FIB) tasked with carrying out “targeted offensive operations” to neutralize armed groups with the intent of preventing violence against civilians and protecting them under imminent threat . The mandate included the employment of “all necessary measures” and went beyond the mandate of MONUSCO, making it the first-ever offensive force under the control and command of the UN. Even though the FIB is part of MONUSCO, that is a peacekeeping operation, the mandate was given under the Chapter

The objective for this paper is to evaluate the role and impact of the United Nations peacekeeping force as it interrupts with international incidents. A background on the creation of the United Nations and the evolution of the UN’s peacekeeping will be provided. Two United Nations peacekeeping operations (Bosnia and East Timor) will be explained in detail and provide improvements that can contribute to future peacekeeping missions. The strengths and weaknesses of both peacekeeping operations will be highlighted for justification about the improvements. This investigation will come to a conclusion for the United Nations about the implications required for future peacekeeping missions as it has floundered in previous missions.