International and Members of the International Court - Essay Example

US and Saudi Extradition conflict Well, in this case, there is need to create a basic ground within which the decision will be freely and justly be made for the alleged criminals to be tried in the US owing to the fact that their supposed role for indictment offended the Americans. In my first argument, I support the fact that they should be tried according to the American system of proving culpability. First, a criminal will remain a criminal whether tried in the local or international court, these can not change. Second, there should be empirical evidence that links the group with the alleged criminal activity and that is agreeable that it‘s against the fundamental human rights and ethics as perceived by both US and Saudi government. In that sense, the Saudi will be obliged to eat a humble pie and accept any form of arbitration as long as it’s sound and appeal to logic in equal measure. It is the hope of every country that acts of aggression should be strictly and stringently dealt with as the compromise the cordial relationship that exists between countries (Pyle 124). The provision for the law is such that any culpable individual can not escape the wrath. It is therefore still better if the US want to take the initiative of subjecting the suspects to a trial. The sentiment of the Saudi government through their minister for defense can be lawfully interpreted as giving the suspects a feeling that either they are not responsible for the alleged crimes or that in the event that they are, then the US government has moral and legal authority to adjudicate on the matter. There may be no established structures within the US and Saudi government which clearly indicates the channel that should be pursued in such a case, and that it entirely depends on the good will of the Saudi government to surrender the suspect which in this case are their citizens to be tried in a foreign land. The prosecution in pursuit of the American system become appreciated on grounds that they are the complainant, just on this fact, they have the moral authority to try the suspects using their jury. On the other hand, the Saudi government may be right as giving another country a lee way to try citizens of your country is an act of surrendering sovereignty to foreigners. In the light of sovereignty, the Saudi government are legally in order to avert possible extradition of her citizens for a trial through a system they cast sufficient doubt in. the fact is even accentuated by the fact that no legal extradition arrangement exist between the two countries. In the event of extradition, it is legally proper that there should be a formal and effective arrangement that provides for course of action in the event that such is necessary (Stanbrook, Ivor, and Clive 97). The Saudi defense minister then is much within the provision of the law to hesitate extraditing Saudi citizens for US based arbitration. The US is thus bound to accept the Saudi system and ensure that justice prevails in consistent with the system in place. Sovereignty to a nation is regarded as one of the most essential and fundamental attribute that a nation can be proud of. The sovereignty to a nation is universally applause to entail capacity and legality of a nation constituted of a defined territorial frame to exercise degree of authority internally and domestically as well as those extended to the international borders. Within this defined territorial entity, there has to be a permanent population within which authority is exercised. In the determining the sovereignty of a nation, the United Nations assembly considers three cardinal issues; the territory, the people and the government. With regard to the factors that are considered by the United Nation, certain factors associated with the territory do not really play significant role in the determination of sovereignty. These factors include the degree of remoteness of the territory, the size of the population, the size of the territory and the nature of law that exists in the territory. Sovereignty of a nation is thus synonymous to it’s independence in making concessions that are deemed fit by the government in place to further the prosperity and well being of the people who are encompassed by the territory. Such territories that are known to be sovereign are not bound by any law to find it admissible or fit to be a party to any of the international association or bodies that exercise and wield authority thereafter joining (Baylis and Steve 145). The countries become free to evaluate the concept that relates them to other nations before being a party to such. For instance, the international court situated in Hague is bestowed with arbitrating crimes that are considered international and members of the international court consent to the stipulated writings that governs the court as at the time of its establishment. Whereas sovereign states enjoys some undisputed rights and privileges, they are bound to work in tandem with other nations to constantly solve the ever emerging economic or political problems within them (Baylis and Steve 145). . Just like in the analogy of the law of nature that there is no man who can survive alone, nations also vulnerable to this, though not legally obliged to rise to the need of other nations, whether to lend a helping hand or not is the discretion of the individual countries(Krasner 98). These countries can only be in a position to assist when by offering the assistance they are not going to inflict any harm to themselves or cultivate enmity to other nations by supporting an act of aggression by assisting a rival country in furthering their own interest within another country. It must then not be misconstrued that a nation can assist another nation in terms of military support; the extent of assistance is not limited military support just like it can be advance in the time of certain distress like famine, natural disasters and pestilence, military assistance too can be advanced (Fowler, Michael, and Julie 132). Those falls within the moral assistance that sovereign nations can be involved in. Works cited Baylis, John, and Steve Smith. The globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Print. Fowler, Michael Ross, and Julie Marie Bunck. Law, power and the sovereign state: the evolution and application of the concept of sovereignty. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State Univ. Press, 1995. Print. Krasner, Stephen D.. Problematic sovereignty. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000. Print. Pyle, Christopher H.. Extradition, politics, and human rights. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2001. Print. Stanbrook, Ivor, and Clive Stanbrook. Extradition: law and practice. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Print. Read More