The International Criminal Court : An Independent International Organization

Crimes against the international community are a collection of offences that are recognised by the international community as being of universal concern. However the prosecution of crimes against the international community can be controversial. Such crimes may be committed in the context of military conflict. They may be highly politically motivated, or they may have been ordered or committed by the state itself. The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 was a significant development in the law of crimes against the international community. The independent international court established by the Rome Statute, acts as a last resort for crimes fitting into the three categories of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Due to Australia’s Dualistic system, both the War crimes Act

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.

Brett Schaefer and Steven Groves believes the United States decision was justifiable. They argue that the International Criminal Court has a worthy purpose, but still has issues that need to be addressed before the United States would join the court. Schaefer and Groves explain the Article 98 Agreement and the American Service Member Protection Act. Also their argument contains the five concerns the Bush Administration had about joining the ICC, but the two major concerns regard the fear of political abuse of power and also the threat to national sovereignty.

The International Military Tribunal was established in Nuremberg in August 1945, later followed by other tribunals. The Tribunal was set up by the Allied great powers: The United States, the Soviet Union, United Kingdom and France. Until October 1946 22 accused were prosecuted for crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. The extermination of the European Jews was not an independent count at the trial, but was included in crimes against humanity. Many of the murderers, tormentors and henchmen have since 1945 been convicted for the murder of Jews based on the guidelines from the Nuremberg Tribunal. Several of these have been

The allied forces formed the Nuremberg Tribunal, these forces included the United States, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, and France. These nations had announced that they would began grueling the Nazi’s in the winter of 1945. The United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union were the first to officially announced on december 17, 1942 that they wanted to litigate those who were responsible for the mass murders of the Jewish people. On October 1943 the Moscow Declaration was signed and this said that the criminal would be sent to their country and the country would take care of charging them accordingly to their laws. The Nuremberg trials officially began in Nuremberg, Germany on November 20, 1945 . Germany had surrendered just six months prior to the trials. Each one of the nations supplied a judge and a prosecution team in the trial (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum). The Nazi’s could be charged with one or many of the four accounts: Conspiracy, Crimes Against Peace, War Crimes,

Althoughthe Nuremberg Trials were designed to punish the Nais and to offer some sort of closer to the victims, there was one major problem that clogged the system. The problem was that there were

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.

According to Bosco (2014) the development of international criminal justice was stimulated by the Nuremberg trials that came after World War II. The Nuremberg trials were presided over by jurists who came from different powers and set new standards that defined international war crimes. The courts all over the world were determined to bring the international community together through the formation of an international court. The international court was to be tasked with the function of prosecuting crimes against humanity and carry out the cause of justice as well as the rule of law in all places globally. Despite the need for international court and the determination of most countries to develop it, the start of cold was a major setback in its formation (Bosco,

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.

The first International court is the ICC. The ICC has achieved some limited success with

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

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 1998, the International Criminal Court was created through the Rome Statute. The court was made with the intention of being a justice system that had jurisdiction over international crimes such as war crimes and genocide. Originally, there were 124 states that ratified the International Criminal Court and there were 31 states that signed. Recently, states have decided to leave the International Criminal Court or retract their signatures. There are many arguments as to why these states are choosing to leave, but, specifically for African states like South Africa, people argue that the International Criminal Court is mainly prosecuting crimes committed in Africa; they believe they are spending an unfair amount of time on the crimes in

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.

     The first article, entitled “National Constitutional Compatibility and the International Criminal Court”, is written by Helen