The United States and the International Criminal Court (ICC)

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

According to Daniel Goldhagen, genocides are constantly being underestimated, which causes the never ending realities of the past repeating itself. From high officials to ordinary citizens, people often overlook the pattern and causes of these systematic killings. One of these includes the UN, which was created to prevent another World War, and to protect the rights of sovereignty of member states. This organization serves to solve international issues, but has failed and continues to fail to prevent genocides. Even though this group signed in 1948 a UN document, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which punished and still punishes people guilty of genocide, not one life was ever saved from that declaration. The reason is because most at first want to deny that these extreme situations could happen ever again. Sadly,

     The world organization that concerns itself with issues parallel to genocide is the Commission on Human Rights. It is the commission’s duty to meet once a genocidal act occurred and was reported. Then the commission must develop different ways to mend the problem at task in a fair and just way. By doing so, the commission helps to fix this human right’s issue with the seven treaties.

The Armenian genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire against its minority Armenian population from 1915-1917 left an estimated 1.5 million dead and to date, not one individual has been tried for these egregious crimes. The mass killings of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire in World War I and Jews by the Nazis in World War II shocked the conscience of the international community and led to the creation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG), in order to hold the perpetrators of crimes of this magnitude accountable. In its preamble, the UN charter sets the objective to "establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained". The genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire and Nazis made it clear that an international standard must be set in order to protect the rights of individuals. The UN has attempted to establish international law with the creation of the CPPCG and other resolutions, however, these resolutions are simply words on paper unless they are properly enforced. In this essay I will be examining whether the United Nations have been successful in its enforcement international law, specifically the CPPCG.

There have been a number of instances in which the United Nations is not effective in enforcing international law. They are not successful as states are able to decline the authority of the International Court of Justice to hear the case. This

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.

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.

Genocide is one of the evillest moral crimes any ruling authority such as a government can commit against its people and it happens more than we think. A general definition of Genocide is the intention to destroy or murder people because of their race, beliefs, or even political and economic status. As we have been taught in this course Raphael Lemkin, created the term ‘Genocide’ 1944. Lemkin combined the ancient Greek word ‘genos’ which means race and the Latin word ‘cide’ which translates to killing. There are many examples of genocide in the world but the most recognizable is that of the Holocaust and how the German powers that be sought and attempted to kill all Jews. A recent example is the Rwandan Genocide in 1994 where the assassination of Juvénal Habyarimana caused a violent reaction resulting in mass killings. In efforts to reduce Genocide, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (UNCG) was adopted by the United Nations in 1948 and was placed in force in 1951. On July 1, 2002 the International Criminal Court (ICC) came into force. The ICC not only accepted the UNCG’s definition of Genocide but expanded it to include crimes against humanity such as enslavement, deportation, torture, rape, enforced disappearance and apartheid. There have been many organizations created throughout the world to defend and prevent genocide and even communities, religions and even colleges are forming organizations and these are just some examples of how

this essay I will attempt to examine and analyse the effectiveness of international courts and

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

To support my argument, I will first discuss the evolution of international criminal justice and the ICC. Then I will address my three subsidiary arguments. First, I will argue that the International Criminal Court is effective because it increases accountability of human rights violators. Secondly, I will argue that the existence and use of the court increases disapproval and deterrence which protects human rights making the ICC effective. Third, I will argue that the International Criminal Court is effective because it allows for a universal standard of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour as well as transcends and empowers national jurisdictions. Finally, I will address the counter argument and conclude.

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.

     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.

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.