The Scope Of Customary International Law

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

Sanctions are only appealed to in the event that there is a breach. It therefore follows that the opinion of Hart is that various form of law cannot be explained in a single expression as orders backed with threats of sanction. Thus, in contradiction with Austin’s viewpoint, Hart formulated a dual system which contains two types of rules, primary rules (duty-imposing) and secondary rules (power-conferring). Primary rules are generally duty-imposing, which embodies non-optional rules of obligation. It often concerned with standard of behavior as requirement to do or to abstain from performing an act. On the other hand, secondary rules are ancillary to primary rules the former conferring right to introduce, to vary the primary rules and to determine the mode in which their violation could be determined (judicial process). Such secondary rules are rather regulatory or facilitative than coercive in nature. In short, Austin’s catch all theory of seeing law as command back with sanction leave no room for right, privileges given to subject of Sovereignty which does not constitute non optional

When comparing apples to pears, one is not making a fair comparison, but a disproportionate comparison. Often times when international law is discussed or attempts are made to understand international law; many often attempt to compare international law with existing laws such as national law or domestic law. Making such disproportionate comparisons leads to many misconceived notions and attitudes toward international law. For an adequate comparison of international law to other laws, one should look closely at the available facts. This essay will demonstrate the vitality of international law, in a world of nations which continue to increase in interdependence.

This essay advances the position that the quotation under discussion is, with all due respect to the Author, entirely incorrect. It is the counter-argument of this essay that the Courts of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) have ‘abused’ their interpretive jurisdiction, and, in places, have even done violence to the very wording of the Treaty itself.

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

Basically, Ratner discusses how we have two challenges: how to make universal rules legitimate amongst a community of diverse nations and how to make these rules effective in the absence of a governing authority. He then goes on to explain how there are four fundamental shifts in these kinds of issues. New Forms, New Players: Rules of international law used to reside in treaties or customary law, but as new domains from the environment to the internet become appropriate for international regulation, states become unwilling to embrace strict rules. Soft law enables states to adjust to the regulation of new areas without fearing punishment upon failure to comply. New participants are making demands

There is a close relationship between human rights and criminal law. The scope of my paper will surround human rights and the International Criminal Court (ICC) in addition to human rights and international crimes. International criminal justice in this context speaks to those interested in prosecuting against the background of international human rights and humanitarian norms. The use of criminal law has many positive effects and pursues many goals that are worth considering. For example, deterrence, accountability and punishment are important principles that will be discussed in the context of human rights. Is the International Criminal Court an effective method to promote and protect human rights internationally? If so, why and how?

The principle of equality of arms has become, through the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the cornerstone of the right to a fair trial. It implies that no party must be placed in a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent. The development of this standard at the international level and the intensification of normative interactions phenomenon have led international and internationalized criminal courts to recognize, in a praetorian and unified way, this principle and import it into their procedure to ensure the legitimacy of their decisions. However, this guiding principle of the trial comes into conflict with another aim assigned to international criminal justice: the effectiveness of the fight against impunity.

In July of 2002, when the Rome Statute of the ICC entered into force, it was a major step towards the realization of the old dream of universal and lasting, if not perpetual peace ( Delmas-Marty, 01)1. In fact, ICC represented one of the most significant opportunities the world has had to prevent or drastically reduce the deaths and devastation caused by conflicts (iccnow, 2012) 2. Unfortunately, as Delmas-Marty in ‘Ambiguities and Lacunae’ pointed out, the court is faced with ambiguities that arise in the relationship between its legal and political substructures (Delmas-Marty, 01)1. In essence, the court’s foundation is weakened by policies that are still dominated by a sovereign model, despite operating principally within a universalist

Article 2 emphasizes the rudimentary importance of sovereignty in international law as almost absolute. This belief has been further demonstrated in General Assembly Resolutions. Resolution 2625, accepts the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. Amongst other considerations, it confirms the importance of the Charter and sovereign equality. General Assembly Resolution 3314, defines aggression and calls upon members to refrain from aggression as well as other uses of force that would not be in compliance with the Charter. It also reinforces the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States. Declaration 42/22, the approval of the Declaration on the Enhancement of the Effectiveness of the Principle of Refraining from the Threat or Use of Force in International Relations, once again reaffirms the importance of non-intervention, the importance of peaceful relations and the necessity for peaceful means to be used in conflict resolution because a) the risks and concerns associated with conflict and more importantly in this

The doctrine of fundamental change of circumstances, (rebus sic stantibus) is a principle of customary international law allowing a part to an agreement to withdraw or terminate it where there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. The main justification for this principle is that treaties often remain in force for many years, during which time fundamental changes may occur in the political or international environment which may require a departure from the provisions set out in the treaty. However, this principle has also been criticized for disrupting the binding force of obligations taken by states, particularly when bearing in mind that there is no compulsory jurisdiction forcing states who terminate a treaty on this ground,

What are the requirement(s) found in the U.S. constitution governing the President’s ability to enter into treaties with other countries, i.e. international legal agreements?

Since norms are how states ought to act and behave, a shared moral assessment is key for establishing an international norm. Norm emergence, the first stage in the norm life cycle, relies purely on norm entrepreneurs convincing actors to support the norm (Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998, 895). A shared moral assessment makes it easier to persuade states to support the norm. For instance, anti-apartheid sanctions against South Africa became an international norm due to the shared moral assessment of racial equality (Klotz, 1995, 452). As there was international agreement of racial equality, there was also international agreement that racial discrimination, such as South Africa’s apartheid policy, was morally wrong (Klotz, 1995, 453). Thus, it was easier to convince the international community to impose economic sanctions against South Africa as a signal to end apartheid

International commercial arbitration is one of the most important legal institutions in international private law. This conclusion follows from the fact that the nature of arbitration depends largely on autonomy of the parties, who choose arbitration procedure as the procedure in which the dispute will be settled; place where the arbitration is to be held; arbitral tribunal etc. Probably the most important and considerable expression of the autonomy is the right to choose the law, which is to be applied to merits of the dispute. The chosen applicable law guarantees in large measure predictability of the outcome of the case and allows parties to control the scope of interpretation and application of the international commercial

The United Nations is widely regarded and respected as the most powerful institution that promotes international cooperation and human rights action. In theory, actions implemented by and within the United Nations are based on the mutual global goal of protecting international human rights and preventing human sufferings. These actions are constituted through three main mechanisms: the Treaty-based system, the Human Rights Council, and Security Council and Humanitarian Interventions, with the level of confrontation and seriousness in each mechanism increases respectively. While aimed to serve the mutual goal of protecting human rights over the world and have shown some successes, in a world of sovereignty, actions when implemented are in fact grounded by the national interests of each state, including embracing its national sovereignty, concreting its strategic relationships with other states, and enhancing its reputation in the international community. This paper will analyze the successes and failures of each of the three mechanisms of the United Nations regime, through which it aims to prove that when it comes to actions, states focus more on their national, and in some cases, regional interests than on the mutual goal of strengthening human rights throughout the world, thus diminishing the legitimacy of the whole United Nations system.