Critical Weakness in International Law - Essay Example

?Weakness in International Law Introduction International law refers to a set of regulations adopted by countries thus equally applicable in such following international treaties. Unlike national laws, international law applies to nations rather than to citizens. International law serves as basic framework for international relations. The laws regulate the conduct of states in relation to each other. Law enforcement on the other hand refers to a system of investigating, apprehending and punishing those who violate the laws set by a nation. Researches on the applicability of international laws reveal that the violation of international laws by states are more frequent than the violation of national law a trend largely attributable to the existing operational frameworks for the respective laws. Such validate the claim that enforcement is s the critical weakness in the application of international laws. Nations form treaties in order to safeguard their specific interests. In doing this they create institutions that oversee the applicability of the treaties and laws that govern the application of such treaties. Among the numerous international bodies that oversee the application of different international treaties, include the international court of justice and the international criminal court both of which are creations of the United Nations. The operations of the two courts have exhibited lack of resources and manipulation by members-states thus crippling their operations and sovereignty1. Membership in such international treaties as the United Nations is always voluntary a feature that makes the compliance with the laws equally voluntary. Additionally, the United Nations has no definite framework that enforces the legislations. The application of the laws is therefore voluntary and subject to the existing relations between nations. National laws maintain a national jurisdiction; they safeguard the interests of the population and are therefore outlined in the constitutions. Besides the laws, governments have various police departments and effective infrastructure capable of implementing the laws. A country like the United States has several police departments and several other federal institutions that investigate and apprehend violators of the national laws. Coupled with the various police departments is an efficient judiciary that works in close relation with the numerous correctional facilities. This implies that the enforcement and the implementation of national are efficient owing to the existence of effective institutions created by the national constitutions. The national governments thus have an inclusive supervision and the implementation of national laws through effective enforcement through the various state officers who work to maintain law and order in the societies. The situation differs in the application of international laws, as explained international laws are reliant on the treaties that govern the relationship among nations. Such international bodies as the United Nations and the European Union have no enforcement frameworks capable of ensuring compliance o the international laws. Compliance to the laws is voluntary and reliant on the existing national laws. The United Nations for example has effective and elaborate laws that seek to safeguard the citizens of different nations from exploitation and dictatorship in the modern society. The international criminal court therefore investigates and tries offenders of international interests. The court and the United Nations Security Council both have clear definitions of crimes against humanity and war crimes. The bodies thus try perpetrators of such crimes a move that seeks to protect civilians from exploitative leadership. Despite the existence of such elaborate laws, the international body exhibits inefficiency and lack of capacity in the implementation of the laws. The international bodies do not have police officers and investigators with the authority to arrest the criminals thus availing them for trial. Instead, the bodies rely on the agreement among the members states. Membership in the united nation commands compliance to the existing international laws. The body thus commands that all member states must comply with the laws and uphold the legislations of the body. It is a key requirement that the member states infuse the international laws with their local constitutions thus provides such laws with an authority and superiority over other national laws. In case of a conflict between the national laws and the international laws, the United Nations for example demands that the member states must uphold the international laws since it represents the global interests. The international criminal court has no definite law enforcement agency such as the police to ensure the application of the laws. The international body depends on good will from the members states. The court expects the local governments to investigate, apprehend and forward the suspects to the court for trail. In case of resistance buy the suspect, the court issues an arrest warrant against the suspects but then again the court cannot enforce the arrest and search warrants owing to the lack of definite enforcement agencies. After issuing an arrest warrant, the court relies on the national law enforcement agencies following the compliance of the member states to the international treaties to arrest and hand over the suspects to the court for trail. This has proven challenging in the past since the court targets the wealth in the society most of who often hold positions of influence in the societies. Arresting such national figures thus prove difficult. Failure by a nation to arrest and hand over its suspected citizens to the court for trails, the court often rely on other members states to facilitate the arrest and hand over such suspects to the court. In case the suspects travel out of their countries to other countries, which are signatories to the Rome Statutes, the court expects such member states to arrest the suspects and hand them over to the court. Additionally, such has proven equally unrealistic since no country is strong and bold enough to arrest foreign citizens most of whom are always individuals of power and influence in their countries. Arresting a foreign citizen creates diplomatic rows among the countries thus affecting the existing cordial relationships among such countries. The conviction of Charles Taylor in July 2012 portrayed several weaknesses in the enforcement of the international laws. The former Liberian president led one of the most vicious civil wars in the world. Serving as a president of Liberia for fourteen years, Charles Taylor led the massacre of more than a five hundred thousand civilians and maimed more than a million others. Together with his close allies and son, Charles McArther Emmanuel Taylor who is currently serving a ninety-seven year prison term for human rights violation in the war when he served as commander to the government’s anti-terrorism unit. The court convicted after finding him guilty for “aiding and abetting” crimes against humanity and war crimes thus sentencing for fifty-seven years in jail. While the conviction of Charles Taylor was a bold move by the court being one of the greatest convictions off the court and in fact received myriad applause by the victims of the war it was a cowardly move and a portrayal of the court’s ineffectiveness at investigating and instituting effective cases against the most influential culprits in the world. Taylor was a president for fourteen years; the local Liberian courts have convicted most of his allies for more serious crimes. His son, then serving as commander of an antiterrorism government’s unit was found guilty of a more serious offense and is currently serving a longer jail term. It is obvious that the son functioned with the authority of his father. Taylor was the most powerful man in the country and the civil war was a strategy of safeguarding his own interests. Additionally, Evidence against Taylor was readily available with the in the country. His allies mentioned him adversely in their respective cases in Liberia. Despite the existence of such, the court decided to try Taylor on his roles in “aiding and abetting” the war. Taylor’s arrest and conviction thus portrayed inefficiency and favoritism by both the prosecutor and the entire court. Furthermore, the court sentenced Taylor for fifty-seven years assuming that being seventy years old; the man may not live past fifty more years. This exhibits a pretentious attitude of the court. The victims of the war deserved justice. Finding a man, who ordered the murder of mothers and fathers and left a million other sons and daughters without limbs guilty of “aiding and abetting” war crimes does not represent the interests of such victims. The favoritism becomes more evident especially when a local tribunal in the country jails other minor players in the war following their roles in implementing Taylor’s policies. The same has been the case in the court’s endeavors in trying to try the Sudanese president Omar Al Bashir. In July 2008, the international criminal court prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo established that president Omar Al Bashir bore responsibility in the 2003 Darfur war in South Sudan. The prosecutor carried out investigation with the aid of Sudan’s neighbors such as Kenya and Uganda thus establishing incriminating evidence against the sitting president. The court thus expected the president to avail himself before the court for the inception of his trials. When the president failed to show up for the trials, the court served him with a warrant of arrest thus requiring any other country member state of the united nations to arrest the president and hand him over to the Hague based court. Sudan is a member state of the Rome convention and therefore a signatory of the statute instituting the court. However, the court is targeting the country’s president. President Omar Al Bashir is arguably the most powerful political figure in the country. After overthrowing a government in a bloodless coup in 1989, Al Bashir has remained the president of the country to date manipulating laws in the country thus safeguarding his personal interests in the country’s leadership. The Sudanese government could not therefore arrest its own president and hand him over to the international Court. The court thus relied on the relationship and compliance of other member states to arrest the suspected president an endeavor that has proven challenging. The president has travelled to different nations all of which were member states of the Rome Convention. In 2010 for example, the president travelled to Kenya, the strongest economy in the region to witness the promulgation of a new constitution. The local government welcomed the president and refused to arrest him owing to the possible diplomatic consequences of such an act. Despite Kenya being the most powerful economy in the region, the government could not arrest a sitting president since such would cause diplomatic rows and political instability in the region. Sudan was a major producer of oil in the region, arresting its president would affect several trade agreements in the region besides the evident threat of a regional war. In 2011, the president applied for a visa to travel to South Africa to attend a global environmental conference and in 2013, the president applied for an American visa in order to attend the United Nations council meeting. In both occasions, the South African and American governments denied the president visa with the American government expressing its disgust at the president’s attempt to travel to the country. The two instances portray the unwillingness of the member states of the Rome convention to abide by the terms of the convention and help the court exercise justice. Either the South African or the American government could have easily welcomed the president in the countries then arrest him. However, both nations feared the political and economic ramifications of such a move and therefore prevented such by denying the president visas to visit any of the nations. A 2007 presidential election in Kenya has presented the international criminal court with the greatest operational challenge. As stated earlier, Kenya is one of the greatest economies in Africa. The east African country is a key player in the determination of peace and political stability in the region, the country boarders the volatile Uganda, Sudan and a war torn Somalia. Despite being the strongest economy in the region, the country has the largest refugee camps in the world following the wars in the region. In 2007, a presidential election resulted in a violence that resulted in the death of more than a thousand citizens and the displacement of more than a million others in the tribal skirmishes. After the restoration of peace and stability in the country, the international criminal court prosecutor determined six people whom he established had direct personal responsibilities in the wave of violence in the region. After close to five years of investigations and postponement of the commencement of the cases against the six, another presidential election occurred in the country with the two of the people emerging a president and a deputy president respectively. By becoming the president and deputy president of a strong economy in a poor continent, President Uhuru Kenyatta and his deputy have engaged in smear campaigns against the court in the continent often portraying the court as a political institution targeting Africa. The country has even contemplated withdrawing from the Rome statute in order to save its democratically elected leaders from a trial while in office. Furthermore, the leaders have rallied other African leaders against the court and the Rome Convention thus necessitating a continental withdrawal from the Rome Statute. Most of the African countries have experienced civil wars thus making them targets of the court. Such countries as Zimbabwe, Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Liberia, Nigeria and Sudan among many other African countries have had civil wars thus making the culpable suspects of the court following the abject disregard to human rights which both thee court and the Rome statute seeks to protect. Such poor relations by the court have so far frustrated the activities of the court in the continent thus facilitating the withdrawal attempts by the Kenyan leaders. The lack of capacity by the court to carry out independent investigations and arrest the leaders without involving other nations has impaired the operations of the court thus affecting obedience to the international laws. The court has a negative reputation in most of the African countries, as the leaders believe that the court is targeting the continent. The negative publicity affects the efficient dispensation of justice, as is the case with national laws, which enjoy national enforcement through the constitutional security bodies in the countries. In retrospect, enforcement is the largest determent to the application of international laws. A case study of the operations of the international laws portrays a lack of capacity by the court in conducting effective investigation and trial of leaders2. The court is not just slow in expediting justice a case that has resulted in the present stalemate in the trial of Kenyan leaders and evident lack of capacity to arrest and enforce legislations. The country has elaborate definition and description of crimes against humanity and war crimes. However, the court has failed to institute cases against European leaders. Additionally, the court lacks capacity to counter the spreading negative publicity in African countries thus necessitating their withdrawal attempts by the continent’s leaders. Reference Slomanson, W. (2011). Fundamental Perspectives on International Law. Boston, USA: Wadsworth. Read More