The Treason Act of 1351 - Essay Example

The ability and responsibility to promote human rights rests on everyone’s shoulders; but what is acceptable behavior in attempting to prevent a terrible act from occurring, and what is rightfully considered treason? And in terms of ruling courts of law, who should decide what is and is not acceptable? The Treason Act of 1351 was originally written in Norman French, and has gone through several revisions. The Fifth Statute defines treason in the following manner: “II. ITEM, Whereas divers Opinions have been before this Time in what Case Treason shall be said, and in what not;1 the King, at the Request of the Lords and of the Commons, hath made a Declaration in the Manner as hereafter followeth, that is to say; When a Man doth compass or imagine the Death of our Lord the King, or of our Lady his Queen or of their eldest Son and Heir; or if a Man do violate the King’s companion, or the King’s eldest Daughter unmarried, or the Wife, the King’s eldest Son and Heir; or if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm,…” 1 The scenario of Jonathan the postal worker asks several vital questions. 1) Is it treasonable to try and stop your country from committing a terrible act, such as the act of mass murder; 2) were Jonathan’s actions in trying to solve the dilemma acceptable; and 3) which other authoritative bodies could have successfully, or not successfully, stopped the criminal act of mass murder? Answering these questions requires examination of the elements that make up the treason act, and the actions in question. There is strong evidence to support the argument that none of Jonathan’s actions, nor the intent behind them, meets the definition of treason. Though the Act has gone through several changes since 1351, the four offenses that initially made up the Treason Act remain in tact, and in the case of Jonathan, deserve analysis. The first two offenses revolve around participating in the death of and/or purposely violating the Queen and her companion. Jonathan’s actions do not indicate that he had any intention of violating or bringing about the death of the Queen, or anyone else associated with the Crown. The third offense stated under the Treason Act is levying war against the Queen. Nothing in Jonathan’s scenario remotely suggests that he was waging war of any kind. In fact, because the scenario provides access to Jonathan’s thought process, the argument could be made that he was very much against warring actions of any kind, and was very much conflicted as to what to do about it. The fourth offense of the Treason Act is adhering to enemies of the Crown, and/or giving them aid or comfort. Jonathan’s actions fall just short of this offense, but it is the point that requires the most examination. Although Great Britain and China share a past comprised of political animosity and ideological disaccord, the status of their current relationship is not that of enemies. Current world events, such as the return of Hong Kong to the Chinese government, and a shared membership in the Security Council, which seemingly finds it difficult to sanction countries that use aggression against its own citizens, might even suggest that the two countries have, in fact, placed themselves in a sort of alliance or understanding. There may still be residual resentment on the part of China from the British occupation of Hong Kong, and other historical political events, but it can not be said that the two countries are at war with each other. China still maintains its own political ideology, however. Even though it has somewhat softened on business and industry, China has a long way to go before its position and actions in human rights and natural rights are deemed favorable by western countries such as Great Britain and the United States. Still, merely having political ideas in disagreement does not make two countries enemies. Therefore, Jonathan’s actions were not those of someone conspiring with or supporting an enemy of the Crown. Having covered the four offenses, as stated in the Fifth Statute, Jonathan is not guilty of treason. That does not exonerate him, however. Jonathan’s actions cannot be seen as an acceptable resolution, because they had significant political and economic consequences that were three fold. While several corrupt political figures were forced to resign, his decision to hand over the letters to the Chinese Embassy inadvertently cost the UK the island of Jenicki, a dependent territory, and deflated any plans the UK had of securing leasing funds from their ally, the United States. While none of these considerations occurred to Jonathan, he should have refrained from interfering with international political affairs, and should answer for such, but only in scale to the other involved parties, whose only penalty was forced resignation. In fact, one could make the argument that, according to Article 8 of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, if an individual can be found guilty of crimes he committed simply by following the orders of a superior or by going along with the intentions of superiors, it is then safe to say that a person has a moral and legal duty to question orders and intentions from superiors that are of a criminal nature. In the book, Human Rights and the Moral Responsibilities of Corporate and Public Sector Organizations, 2 The views of Tom Campbell and Seumas Miller on human rights support the findings of the IMT at Nuremberg. They state, “In the case of human rights laws in particular, the moral obligations of non-government agents may be broadly construed as requiring the utilization of the means at their disposal to further the same objectives: realizing human rights. Individuals should not only refrain from violating the human rights of others, but they may be expected to join in persuading others to do likewise, to do what they can to prevent infringements of human rights and to promote human rights objectives.” There were several other authoritative bodies of government in which that Jonathan could have confided, besides going to the Chinese Embassy. The first and obvious choice would have been his postal superiors in upper management, who, as government authorities themselves, would have been duty bound to review the letters and report the issue to the proper authorities. Seeing as to how the letters involved members of the Ministry of Defense, it is understandable why Jonathan did not go there. He could, however, have gone to Scotland Yard, and turned the letters over to the London Metropolitan Police,3 who 1) were not implemented in the letters, and thus 2) also would have known whom to hand the case over to. Jonathan did not go to the American Embassy for a similar reason. While the letters give no indication as to whether or not the United States had knowledge of the events slated to unfold, the letters did name the United States as a party eager to lease the island of Jenicki from the British government for political and military gain, and thus, America too had to be seen as a probable conspirator in Jonathans eyes. One has to wonder why Jonathan would not choose to go to the British Embassy, since that was yet another governmental body that was not mentioned in the letters. Had he done so, Jonathan would have successfully prevented the occurrence of mass murder, and would never have been charged with treason. The International Criminal Court was established to oversee the prosecution of those charged with heinous international crimes against humanity, when those crimes were not sufficiently address in their native country. Though a powerful institution, it most likely would not have had the ability to prosecute only the planning of a crime, and thus, would have been useless. The Court does have authority, however, to respond to current events involving crimes against humanity, and has done so. Citing a threat to international security and peace, in May 2005,4 the UN Security Council called for the war crimes committed in Darfur to be investigated by the ICC. In 2007, Ahmed Harun and Ali Kushayb were charged with war crimes committed in the years 2003 and 2004, but because the Sudan has not ratified the Rome Statute, it has neither cooperated with the ICC nor recognized its authority. The Court can still prosecute members of government and political leaders, such as Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who has consistently denied the existence of war crimes in Darfur, a part of western Sudan, even in the face of murder and extermination of countless of helpless people. In March 2009, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Bashir, citing rape, torture, murder, extermination, and forcible transferring large numbers of civilians. As with the previous Sudanese cases, nothing has come of it from the officials in Sudan, but if Bashir travels outside of his realm, he could very well be apprehended to face those charges in the International Criminal Court. In conclusion, Jonathans actions do not render him a traitor, because they do not satisfy the elements of treasonable offenses, but his actions cannot be deemed acceptable. There were other methods of resolution that Jonathan bypassed that could have prevented him from the charge of treason. While the International Criminal Court would not have been much help in Jonathan’s case, they do have authoritative standing in current cases of war criminality across the globe. __________________________________________________________ 1. Treason Act 1351, c. 2 25_Edw_Stat_5. 2. Campbell, Tom, Seumas Miller, Human Rights and the Moral Responsibilities of Corporate and Public Sector Organisations, Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 2004, p.17. 3. Metropolitan Police Authority, Home Page, retrieved 21 March 2009, . 4. International Federation for Human Rights, retrieved 21 March 2009, . Read More