The Case Between Germany And The United States Essay

It led to economic problems and a lack of food or jobs. These in turn

World War I ended with the Treaty of Versailles, a treaty that was largely negotiated by the Allied Powers - primarily Britain, France, and Russia - and whose purpose seemed to be the punishment of Germany, who had been part of the Central Powers. Germany was widely blamed for causing so much destruction measured both in lives and monetary value during the war, and once they lost, the victors imposed harsh sanctions and restrictions on German trade and military. Germany was unfairly used as a scapegoat at the end of the war, and did not deserve the restrictions and blame put on them. Such restrictions were morally and ethically unfair, and left Germany no room to rebuild their economy after a war that left them in shambles. During his

In the last few centuries, Europe has experienced major changes both in its population makeup and number. Be that as it may, in the last two decades, it has been faced with an unprecedented decline in population growth while struggling with the issue of an aging population. Indeed, from Helsinki to Lisbon, the birth rate has fallen dramatically in recent years. It has fallen so much so that most countries have put together some form of policies to help mitigate what is perceived as a serious demographic crisis in european capitals. Those policies have yielded different results. While some countries like France are now experiencing a slow growth rate as a result of those policies, others in the likes of Germany are forced to still deal with an ever declining population. In this paper, I will be analyzing, comparing, and contrasting the policies in both countries.

Schaefer and Groves’ argument contains facts. As an example, the International Criminal Court does not have a clear definition of what the crime of aggression is and has yet to define the crimes it claims jurisdiction over (p. 152). This fact supports why the United States’ decision is justifiable because their military actions could be charged by enemy countries since there is no clear definition of what aggression means. Another example is that the International Criminal Court can prosecute an individual from a country that is not party

As President of the United States, it is absolutely necessary to declare war on Germany. America should join in on the war against Germany and defeat the aggressive nation. German’s actions of sinking ships with American passengers, failing to follow both international and their own laws, and provoking America’s southern neighbor are more than enough reasons to declare war. Both American citizens and ships are not safe when they are sailing on the seas because of German threat. Mexico is too close for comfort if they are willing in to engage in combat. Neutrality must be broken for the wellbeing of the United States.

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.

international courts and tribunals may achieve limited success in some areas of the world, it

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

Germany, a country rich in culture and heritage, yet plagued by the fallout of World War I and World War II, has progressed to become the centerpiece of the European Union and the world’s third richest economy. The first German Empire dates back to the Roman Empire starting in the 8th century AD. During the Middle Ages the German Empire fended off many attacks against their soil from the Hungarians and the Slavs. Fighting and power struggles continued until the 1400’s, when the modern world gradually came into existence with intellectual, economic and political changes.

Many countries were involved in WWI, Germany being one of them. It is arguable whether Germany is responsible for the outbreak of war or rather the responsibility of individual countries such as Britain, Russia, France, Austria-Hungary and the Balkans collectively. However, Germany should be blamed to the full extent of starting WW1 due to the reasons that Germany had unconditional support for Austria, Germany 's war plans were planned to cause more conflict and Germany 's mobilization schedule.

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

As it began, our century drew to a close, with Germany once again the economic powerhouse and political hub of Europe. What is remarkable is how quickly this happened, how unbidden and unanticipated: the toppling of the Berlin Wall in November 1989; the reunification a year later; the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War in late December 1991; a resurgent impetus to West European integration in 1992; and NATO enlargement, which was consecrated in April 1999. Unquestionably, this chain of events has profoundly affected Germany’s situation over the past decades. For the first time since the establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) in 1949 and the painstaking process of

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.

war with a unique goal for its conclusion as his main goal was not to