The Nature Of Acastus Declaration - Essay Example

Considering The International Law and Practice on Treaties, Answer the Following Question Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 What Is The Nature Of Acastus’ Declaration And What Are Its Effects? 3 2. Is Theresa April Correct in Thinking That Radius is not Violating International Law by implementing its Act Of 3 December 2012? 5 3. Based on the Provisions of the Treaty Creating UNIPOL, do you think it is Lawful under International Law? 7 4. Is Mr Obamo’s Correct in Thinking That Acastus is not bound By the Treaty Creating 10 UNIPOL? 10 References 13 1. What Is The Nature Of Acastus’ Declaration And What Are Its Effects? The declaration made by Acastus stated that the renewal of leaves to remain in Acastus for migrant workers shall be possible after the migrant workers have received a certificate of integration which will be further delivered by the authorities of the county where he or she lives. Furthermore, it was made mandatory that the certificate shall be delivered only after the migrant workers have performed 1000 hours of unpaid community service that contributes to the economic development of Acastus. The nature of declaration by Acastus in this regard can be termed to be ethnocentric, conservative and against the human rights. According to International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, migrant workers and their family members are free to depart any nation including their home nation. The aforesaid right is not subject to any restrictions otherwise in certain instances such as in the case of national security, public health and other justifiable grounds. The article 9 of the convention also affirms the right of migrant workers and their families to be protected by law and further the article 10 of the convention makes it apparent that no migrants and their families shall be subject to torture or treated inhumanly or cruelly. In addition to this, the article 11 of the convention also advocates that no migrants or their family members can be held on slavery. Moreover, the article 11 of the convention also puts restriction on performing forced and compulsory works by migrants and their family members (United Nations, 2008). Furthermore, the convention firmly states that family members of the migrant shall be treated with humanity and dignity (International Organisation for Migration, 2008). However, abiding by the obligation of article 11 of the convention, Acastus does not make it compulsory for migrant workers to work for 1000 hours for community services. In this context, it can be viewed that Acastus does not directly compel migrant workers to work 1000 hours but non-compliance shall result in non-renewal of leaves which shall ultimately force them to work 1000 hours for community service or leave Acastus. Thus, Acastus has adopted a policy that would not violate the obligations of the convention while on the other side it would make migrant workers to work for 1000 hours without violating obligations of the convention. As a consequences of the anti-immigration law enforced by Acastus, its neighbouring country Radius also adopted similar statute relating with immigration policies where it stated that the renewal of leaves to remain in Radius for migrant workers will require migrant workers to receive certificate of integration from the authorities of the county where he or she lives identical with the provisions enforced by Acastus within the country. However, the differences occur at the point where Acastus makes in mandatory for migrant workers to work for 1000 hours of unpaid community service in order to be eligible to receive certificate of integration. On the contrary, Radius affirms that migrant workers will have to work for three months in a labour camp in order to contribute towards economic development of Radius so that migrant workers are eligible to receive the certificate of integration from the county’s authorities. It should be noted that unlike Acastus, Radius has signed the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families in 2005 but has not yet ratified it. Consequently, any obligations of the convention do not bind Radius from making it compulsory to work in labour camps. Apparent to the circumstances, Radius can take any action that may significantly violate the human rights and further it may lead towards unprecedented actions of the Radius which may ultimately result in suffering of the migrant workers. Precisely, it can be ascertained that the impact of anti-immigration statute in both the countries are unethical and against the human rights (Ministry of Justice, 2009). 2. Is Theresa April Correct in Thinking That Radius is not Violating International Law by implementing its Act Of 3 December 2012? There are several international laws that are enacted for protecting human rights nationally and internationally. Furthermore, these laws have their likely impact on the laws enacted nationally by any country. Responsively, the anti-immigration law enforced by Radius is enacted without considering the various international laws such as Universal Declaration of Human Rights (A 217 (III) - 1948) (V-1948), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (T-1966), Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (T-1984), International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and members of their Families (T-1990), Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (T-1967), and Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (T-1951) among others (United Nations, 2011). The anti-immigration law enforced by Radius compels migrant workers to work in a labour camp for three months without getting paid which can be referred as unethical and further such rigid laws can be attributed to be against the basic human rights. The anti-immigration law implemented by Radius by no means comply with any of the international laws protecting human rights. Moreover, the declaration made by Radiusian Home Secretary, Theresa April that “It is the sovereign right of Radsius to do what it can to protect itself, and we will not let foreigners dictate us what to do” is indeed very ethnocentric and conservative approach. Her opinion towards migrant workers shall in no case be appreciated by any laws safeguarding the interest of human beings. Arguably to the statement made by Ms. April, various relevant points can be put forward that shall justify her comment as to be void and impracticable. Contextually, article 3 of Universal Declaration of Human rights (A 217 (III) – 1948) (V-1948) affirms that every individual possesses the right to life, freedom and security. Moreover, Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (T-1984) emphasizes that no one is subject to be treated in an inhuman manner, tortured or cruelly treated with. International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and members of their Families (T-1990) also firmly makes it apparent that every migrant worker and their family members are treated equally without discrimination as well as these migrant workers are not compelled or forced to work in any circumstances (United Nations, 2011). After carefully considering the aforesaid laws related with human rights protection, it can be clearly argued that the declaration made by Ms. April cannot be justified at any grounds to be practicable. Thus, the perception of Ms. April that the implementation of the Act of 3 December 2012 does not lead towards violating international law can be seriously discarded on the basis of the aforesaid assumptions made by various human rights Acts. Instead, such laws as stated above are impracticable and void, which exclusively breach the essential human rights and deprive human beings from their liberty along with snatching away an individual’s right to life (Ministry of Justice, 2009). The implementation of anti-immigration Act of 3 December 2012, is unethical and inhuman in the sense that making people to work and not paying them for their hard work just because they belong to another nation is not justifiable at any grounds. Contextually, such laws are not feasible in the modern world where there is an increasing trend of globalisation and cross broader movement of people (Fischer, 2013). Thus, the implementation of anti-immigration Act of 3 December 2012 undoubtedly breaches international laws. Accordingly, such laws need to be urgently modified or replaced with other laws that are more practicable and are further framed in compliance with other international laws that deter any assumptions which breach human rights. 3. Based on the Provisions of the Treaty Creating UNIPOL, do you think it is Lawful under International Law? The provisions of the treaty creating UNIPOL imply anti-immigration views which firmly state that nationals of countries belonging to other than Acastus and Radius shall leave the territories of Acastus and Radius. Furthermore, the provisions strictly imply that those not abiding by the regulation and refusing to leave the country will deemed to be imprisoned and expelled forcefully. In certain extreme circumstances, the immigrants resisting to do so shall be killed without any considerations. Contextually, such provisions farmed by Acastus and Radius are unfair and unjustifiable on the grounds of ethics and humanity. Both the countries are implicitly engaged in ethnocentric and conservative approaches (The British Psychological Society, 2010) International law comprises a set of rules and principles dealing with the conduct of a state with the other states. Moreover, international laws can be regarded as a body of law which includes international agreements comprising treaties and memoranda of understanding among others (Stein, 2010). Notably, a treaty binds the states that rectify the particular international law. In other words, within the subject-matter of jurisdiction, international bodies are certified under the treaty to formulate the specific contents of the obligations that shall be abided by the state entering into the treaty. Contextually, states that have ratified international law are obligated to comply with the legal obligations of international laws (Yasuaki, 2003). Therefore, it is worth mentioning that Acastus has ratified International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families which prohibits forced or compulsory labour services as well as grants right of life to migrant workers. Nonetheless, Acastus under the provision of the treaty creating UNIPOL shall be permitted to drag the innocent migrant workers forcefully out of the country which further provides the right to Acastus to imprison and to even kill migrant workers if they refuse to leave the country. Hence, it is important to remember that Acastus has rectified the international convention, therefore it is obligated to comply with the rules and the principles stated in the convention. However, if Acastus adheres to the provision creating the treaty of UNIPOL, it shall be viewed as a breach of international convention, as this convention does not grant imprisonment and killing of innocent migrant workers. Thus, the provision of the treaty cannot be considered lawful under the international law. In the past, sovereignty has been centred on a state’s capability to perform exclusive jurisdiction within its national borders without any interference by other nations. However, in the recent times, growing influence of human rights norms and other related factors has dramatically altered this perception. Today, factors such as migration of people are no longer associated with a nation’s security or economic development alone, but in the present day context such factors are also closely linked with the protection of individuals or migrants against threats to fundamental human rights (International Organisation for Migration, 2012). In this regard, international humanitarian law and human rights law are enacted by international bodies such as United Nations Organisation (UNO) for protecting individuals from any kind of discriminations or unlawful treatments weather in war time or peace time (United Nations Human Rights, 2012). These international laws identify core minimum human rights such as right to life, right to humane treatment, prohibition against slavery, right to leave any country and right to liberty among others. Furthermore, international law requires every migrant to comply with rules and regulations of the host country and it requires the host country to accept practices that do not breach any international law. Despite the initiatives of international bodies on human rights, migrant workers are treated unlawfully and forcibly. Additionally, there fundamental rights are violated and exploited unprecedentedly. In other words, abuse of migrant workers is relentlessly continuing to exist still in many regions of the world. Such act of host countries can be related with their failure to understand and to respect the fundamental rights in the name of economic development and national security. Thus, the provisions of the treaty creating UNIPOL are unlawful and inhuman. The provisions of the treaty cannot be termed as lawful on any grounds as these provisions do not safeguard the interests of the migrant workers or the human beings at large. Instead, the provision supports unethical practice that firmly violates the two major human rights including right to life and right to freedom. Precisely, it can be stated that the provision of the treaty governing the migration policy of both the countries are null and unjustifiable on any ground (International Organisation for Migration, 2012). 4. Is Mr Obamo’s Correct in Thinking That Acastus is not bound By the Treaty Creating UNIPOL? Since both the countries, Acastus and Radius are the parties to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, they must comply with the obligation of the Vienna Convention prior to any decision making on the validity of the treaties binding them. It should be considered that the Presidents of Acastus and Radius have ratified the treaty creating UNIPOL. According to Vienna Convention, the treaty cannot be termed as invalid as the treaty creating UNIPOL is ratified by both the countries without any compulsion or pressure and at their will. Moreover, being a President of the country, both Matthew Rommie and Jamie Bond have authority and power to represent their respective countries and enter into treaties willingly. In this relation, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that consent on the treaty when made by signature representative of the state leads the state to be bound by the provisions of the treaty. However, it should be noted prior to the treaty creating UNIPOL was signed Anna Rommie, the President’s wife secretly met with Mr. Bond at the bar of the hotel where Mr. Bond promised Anna Rommie that he would make generous donation to Anna Rommie’s charity provided her husband (President of Acastus) signed the treaty creating UNIPOL. Thus, according to the article 49 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, if any state affirms to a treaty through fraudulent manner with a negotiating state, in such case the state may regard it to be invalid consent and can find itself to be free from treaty binding the state (Europa – University Viadrina Frankfurt, 2011). Thus, in the case of Acastus and Radius, it can be viewed that the President of Radius showed greed to the wife of the Acastus’ President for making her husband to sign the treaty creating UNIPOL. Consequently, it is apparent that the signing of treaty between the two countries were not been performed in a transparent way. Moreover, certain fraudulent activities were performed by Radius to make Acastus bound by the provision of the treaty creating UNIPOL (Europa – University Viadrina Frankfurt, 2011). Hence, after considering the aforesaid two aspects related with the signing of treaty creating UNIPOL, It can be stated that Mr. Obomo’s thinking that “Acastus is not bound by the treaty creating UNIPOL” is correct according to the obligations articulated by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969. Moreover, the Vienna Convention permits that the treaty creating UNIPOL between Acastus and Radius can be amended with mutual consent between the countries involved in the treaty or the treaty can be terminated according the section 3 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 (Europa – University Viadrina Frankfurt, 2011). On the other hand, the provisions of treaty creating UNIPOL also do not comply with laws related with human rights and they focused on more ethnocentric and conservative approach of the two countries that shall have radical impact on the international cooperation of these two countries with other nations. The treaty creating UNIPOL is indeed unethical and impracticable which shall be hardly appreciated by any country. Moreover, complying with the treaty creating UNIPOL shall result in the violation of International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families for Acastus. This shall further lead towards the criticism of Acastus in the global arena. In addition to this, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties does not permit Acastus to breach any treaty or convention signed by the country in a transparent manner without proper procedures being incorporated under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 (Europa – University Viadrina Frankfurt, 2011). Evidently, the provisions of the treaty creating UNIPOL do not depict fair involvement of the two countries while signing the treaty. At the same time, acceptance of the provisions articulated in the treaty creating UNIPOL shall also contribute towards the violation of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties as well as the acceptance shall render to the breach of International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. Thus, the provision of treaty is unlawful against the international law. References Europa – University Viadrina Frankfurt, 2011. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or Between International Organizations. Viadrina International Law Project. [Online] Available at: http://www.vilp.de/localizationfull?lang=EN&id=853 [Accessed January 16, 2013]. Fischer, S., 2013. Globalization and Its Challenges. Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics. [Online] Available at: http://www.iie.com/fischer/pdf/fischer011903.pdf [Accessed January 16, 2013]. International Organization for Migration, 2008. Human Rights of Migrant Children. International Migration Law, pp. 9-373. International Organisation for Migration, 2012. Rights and Obligation of Migrants. Essentials of Migration Management, Vol. 1, pp. 1-21. Ministry of Justice., 2009. The Human Rights Act 1998: the Definition of “Public Authority.” Government Response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ Ninth Report of Session 2006-07 [Online] Available at: http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm77/7726/7726.pdf [Accessed January 16, 2013]. Stein, J. V., 2010. International Law: Understanding Compliance and Enforcement. The International Studies Encyclopaedia. [Online] Available at: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~janavs/vonstein-compendium.pdf [Accessed January 16, 2013]. The British Psychological Society, 2010. Code of Human Research Ethics. The Principles. [Online] Available at: http://www.bps.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/code_of_human_research_ethics.pdf [Accessed January 16, 2013]. United Nations, 2008. International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. Committee on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. [Online] Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/48bbf24f2.pdf [Accessed January 16, 2013]. United Nations Human Rights, 2012. International Human Rights Law and the Role of the Legal Professions: A General Introduction. Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers. [Online] Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/training9chapter1en.pdf [Accessed January 16, 2013]. United Nations, 2011. International Legal Frameworks for Humanitarian Advocacy. General Human Rights Law. [Online] Available at: http://ochanet.unocha.org/p/Documents/International%20legal%20framework%20in%20humanitarian%20advocacy.pdf [Accessed January 16, 2013]. Yasuaki, O., 2003. International Law in and with International Politics: The Functions of International Law in International Society. European Journal of International Law, Vol. 14, pp. 105-139. Read More