The International Criminal Court Of The United States

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 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 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

One could argue that the International Criminal Court already exists, and there is no need for another one. However, the International Criminal Court follows The Rome Statute for jurisdiction which only allows action to be taken for crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. Though there are some crimes committed through the darknet that can fall under this, such as terrorism, the majority of them do not. This does not mean these crimes are any less

The International Court of Justice bears a significant responsibility in resolving international disputes, bridging the gap between state sovereignty and international stability for nation states. It is the principle organ of the United Nations, withholding a goal to "Settle, in accordance with international law, legal

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

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

After a coup d’état in 1969, Libya lived under Gaddafi’s authoritarian government for more than four decades. His regime was characterized by brutal repression against opposition through torture, massacres and public hangings or mutilations. This level of political repression was the government’s mean to maintain control over military and general population. Any kind of political association was forbidden, the media was controlled, and the population was closely surveillance for the government in order to avoid coup attempts. The Libyan Intelligence Service, whose chief was Abdullah Al-Senussi, was in charge of the security in and outside the country. The violence of Gaddafi’s regime transcended Libya frontiers as the monitoring of dissidents around the world ended up in the assassination of target opponents that were living in western countries.

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.

supporting countries armies, police force, national guard, etc… to capture the warrants that are handed out for the apprehension of criminals. If the increase of the $146 million dollar budget is to happen, then the funding could help support a sole police task force for the International Criminal Court, in which they do not have to rely on other countries but rather themselves. Solely having their own police task force will allow for the issue of more warrants within supporting countries due to not having to rely on their police force, but rather their own. As stated from the International Criminal Court, “As a judicial institution, the ICC does not have its own police force or enforcement body; thus, it relies on cooperation with countries worldwide for support, particularly for making arrests, transferring arrested persons to the ICC detention centre in The Hague, freezing suspects’ assets, and enforcing sentences.” As stated by the following quote, the current jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court is not vast, and

     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.

African states have shown a strong commitment to putting an end to impunity for massive violations of humanitarian law. This commitment is shown first in domestic contexts in which African states have used their own criminal law systems to prosecute war criminals, in special tribunals such as that in Sierra Leone, and in African states ' well-established commitment to the international criminal Court. African countries have been actively involved in the establishment of the International Criminal Court and the Rome Statute more than 20 years ago, since negotiation started for the creation of the ICC. Among other African delegations,

The international criminal court (ICC) is an unalike international organization, as it deals with individuals of the state parties and non state parties both. The Court among its wide prospects prosecutes individuals, accepts communications and complaints from them, and also allows for an independent official to initiate prosecution. But, independent officials in international organizations always have a controversial position given the fact that they have autonomy and authority to act independently creating a probable threat to the national sovereignty of the member nations. In addition, here the statute also had the proposal to keep the court under the purview of a political institution (Security Council) which was also

The mandate of the Court is to try individuals and to hold such persons accountable for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, namely the crime of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression, when the conditions for the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction over the latter are fulfilled.

Although article 16 of the ICC’s statute provides for deferral, the deliberations of the Kenyan deferral requests bring out critical legal issues and gaps that need to be addressed. Article 16 reads as follows, ‘No investigation or prosecution may be commenced or proceeded with under this Statute for a period of 12 months after the Security Council, in a resolution adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations has requested the Court to that effect; that request may be renewed by the Council under the same conditions’. This therefore means the major consideration before a deferral is arrived at is whether an investigation or prosecution is a threat to international peace and security or not.