Treaties Against Terrorism And Aircraft Hijacking

Throughout, 1945 to 1946, the International Military Tribunal, or IMT, for short, tried 22 major war criminals on the charges of crimes against peace and conspiracy. They defined these crimes that the defendants committed as “murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds.” They all got their respective sentences in prison starting from 10 to 20 years in prison to execution.

“To exercise your right of free speech you have to fight against economic pressure and against strong sections of public opinion, but not, as yet, against a secret police force” (George Orwell). Terrorism is designed to wreak havoc unto everyday lives. It is designed to provoke governments into making mistakes. It is orchestrated through brutality and rooted under the belief that the mass murder of ordinary citizens will cause nations to crumble under their very (backbone?) and abandon their most basic commitments. Taking a wondrously broad view of national security, the Canadian Anti-Terrorism Act, Bill C-51, enables, under the strictest sense, a “modern day Gestapo” (Rocco Galati).1 It provides a reckless, dangerous, and ineffective measure

The advantage of selective application of the Convention lies in the ability for an administration to be able to justify certain activities that otherwise would be unlawful. Colin Powell attempted point out this inconsistency in his appeal to various executive branch leadership by stating, “The United States and international community have consistently held Afghanistan to its treaty obligations and identified it as a party to the Geneva Conventions” (Caseldine-Bracht, 2006, p. 77). Insinuations of hypocrisy aside, the use of prisons outside the United States failed to place the use of harsh interrogation techniques beyond American culpability (Lowenthal, 2012, p. 286). These extraterritorial arrests have raised serious ethical and legal issues for intelligence officers and policymakers, as well as created discomfort with allies. In the end, the short-term advantage of circumventing international laws has resulted in the very real long-term repercussions of eroding U.S. credibility when attempting to intervene in states that abuse human rights.

The ICC portrays a significant responsibility in serving as a court of last resort, and was established by the Rome Statute in 2002 in the Hague, The Netherlands (4). The Rome statute pledged the 121 states, such as Australia, to the establishment of a Permanent Criminal Court, under the jurisdiction of 'mass atrocity crimes', such as War Crimes, Genocide and Crimes against Humanity. However, the uncooperative nature between the ICC and member states is what mitigates its overall enforceability and effectiveness of a successful International Court. The level of enforceability and lack of individual rights which the ICC portrays is demonstrated by the Prosecutor v Al Bashir [2009] (5)case. Omar Al Bashir is a Sudanese Politician head of the Congress Political Party. On the 14th July 2008, the ICC alleged that Al Bashir broke the International Responsibility for all three acts which the ICC hold jurisdiction over, committed since 2003 in Darfur. This allegation became supported by not only the ICC, but by other International measures such as Amnesty International, Genocide Intervention Network and NATO. The Court has issued 30 arrest warrants, only winning two convictions; this has allowed Al Bashir to allude

human rights.21 While opponents of international law argue that it is all “mere window dressing.”22 According to Hathaway, States ratify treaties symbolically to show other States that they accept the principles of human rights but they rarely change their practices because of their obligations in the treaty.23 Based on a study of the ICCPR, Linda Keith argued that, “it may be overly optimistic to expect that being a party to this international covenant will produce an observable direct impact”. 24These findings raise the question as to whether human rights law regime is at all effective in protecting individual human rights. Whether the lack of adherence to human rights obligations indicates

The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks have represented the end of the warfare system built in the aftermath of the Second World War. On the other hand, the tough US reaction culminated in the creation of a new order shaped by the terrorist threat and characterized by the so-called “war on terror”: an unprecedented way of doing politics and conducing conflicts. This scenario brought new challenges and perils to the legal framework aimed at regulating the relationships within international actors: international law, international humanitarian law and human rights law. New tendencies on behalf of States jeopardize the international system as a whole.

My position on the matter is that the international community is its own territory and since the victims and perpetrators all live in that community, Eichmann should have been tried by an international court. Israel should have detained Eichmann until an international tribunal was created to accomplish the task of seeking justice. Arendt argues that establishing an international tribunal would have been difficult, however I argue it would not have been impossible. The Israeli government was so focused on showing their domestic power and exacting vengeance that they did not consider the principle elements and goals of a criminal trial such as innocent until proven guilty, only putting the accused on trial for crimes they committed, unbiased assessment of the accused and clearly defining legal concepts. An international tribunal would have had the proper jurisdiction to take on the trial and they would have addressed the crimes committed on all those affected, not just the Jewish community, as the war was a crime against all of humanity. The international tribunal would not simply comprise of the winners putting the losers on trial. The focus of the trial wouldn’t be on revenge, but rather justice for the international

While many people may have strong feelings about what to do about terrorist regimes they do not know or understand what is currently being done. One of those such things is extraordinary rendition. A process that when successful can lead to valuable information that saves lives but when it fails can result in the torture of innocent bystanders. It is a process which creates a discussion about torture on a global scale and the morality of it. It is a debate between morality and safety that is not as black and white spectators might perceive. It is also an act which causes global powers to rethink they way they perceive each other and their actions.

The moral rule is not "when one is about to kill you, pre-empt him and kill him first," but rather "when one is about to kill you, do everything necessary in order to thwart his intention." Accordingly, if there is no alternative to killing him, strike first. If there is an alternative other than killing him, thwart his intention without striking first, without killing him.

The men and women that sacrifice their lives to protect their country are not free to murder and persecute at will. The soldiers that torture prisoners of war beyond the legal limits set by international law or kill civilians are war criminals. One of the problems that concern political leaders around the world is the development of a process to capture and try a war criminal that is legally agreeable and affordable (Marvasti). Some countries refuse to participate with the International Criminal Court and tend to hide war criminals (Kramer). Furthermore, there are countries that are sympathetic to war criminals and grant them asylum (Haskew). These are just a few of the reasons that many war criminals remain at large today. In order for

There remain many legal and moral issues associated with the pursuance of counterterrorism. The primary concern is the treatment of prisoners. Although the Geneva Conventions protect uniformed military personnel from mistreatment, it is argued that they do not apply to terrorists and insurgents as they are not uniformed and do not obey any recognized government. In addition, the Bush administration classified them as “enemy combatants” denying them rights such as trials and formal charges while detaining many indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Although President Obama has signed orders closing Guantanamo Bay, this has yet to occur; albeit multiple transfers of prisoners have occurred . In addition, the issue of

The legality of Eichmann’s trial against the state of Israel is separate from the possible illegality of the means in which he was brought their. In this case, any international violations committed were rectified by a joint decision by the Argentinian and Israeli government. The international tort that may have been committed by the State of Israel was thus rendered insignificant.

Looking further into this document, we will look at how member states who have signed this treaty are obliged to treat prisoners of war. How this treaty is enforced and the effectiveness of the enforcement as well as how this treaty has been upheld and looked at over the decades that it has been in effect will be analyzed. Failings by some countries in upholding the principles of this treaty will be discussed as well.

The history of international trials is largely limited to the Nuremberg Tribunals and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. However, these limited historical precedents, with an imperfect body of jurisprudence from which to draw, afford one objective: the search for justice. This justice, however, is victim to the political will that drives trials (Goldstone, quoted in “Historical Evolution – From Nuremberg to the International Criminal Court”). Thus, although justice is usually the preeminent focus for a post-conflict society, it is also the most difficult to attain (Hayner, 8). From a different perspective, one may see the most significant limitation of international trials to be their subordination to international political will.

In 1949, the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War was created to prohibit immoral, cruel and degrading punishment toward prisoners during wartime. The United States ratified this covenant and became a member of the Geneva Conventions. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, a series of human abuses occurred from October through December of 2003 where American military personnel have conducted acts of brutality and immoral behavior toward Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison. The inhumane “interrogation method” of the American military have clearly violated Article 2 and 4 of the Geneva Conventions. Article 2.2 states “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state