Critical Evaluation of the States Legal Responsibility - Essay Example

Public International Law Table of Contents Introduction 3 Critical Evaluation of the s Legal Responsibility 4 Nature and Scope of Responsibility 4 Justification of the Insurrectional Movement for the States 6 State’s Responsibility to Overthrow Genocidal Governments 9 Conclusion 11 References 12 Introduction The notion of Public International Law (PIL) has been determined to have emerged as a significant constituent for the nations for ascertaining their economic, political and social development. In relation to a conventional definition, PIL is significantly termed as the regulation amongst sovereign States of a particular nation. In this regard, the law associated with war developed by the States is highly focused on emphasizing peace along with strengthening security and protection of areas within the nation. Despite the facts or concerns associated with paramount international law of the states in the recent phenomenon, the traditional concept of PIL has emerged by incorporating varied types of issues along with a broader scope of development activities1. In relation to the modern concept of PIL, the states across the global nations have a number of legal responsibilities to intervene and prevent war crimes, genocide, ethnic cleansing along with crimes against humanity2. Therefore, in keeping with the modern concept of PIL along with the legal responsibilities of the sovereign-states, the primary objective of this essay is to critically evaluate whether all States have adequate legal responsibility to assist insurrectional measures threatening to overthrow genocidal governments. Critical Evaluation of the State’s Legal Responsibility The responsibility of protecting population from war crimes, genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity involves the prevention of such in-humanitarian practices through effective and appropriate means. In this context, each individual State within the international community should inspire and support the other States to exercise the accountability and support the United Nations to enhance its early warning capability3. In relation to the agreed proposal of building crime free environment, the States from the global nations are obligated to comply with the international law along with demonstrating their commitment to promote peace and development in each State. In order to evaluate the responsibility of the States to support insurrectional movement, it is highly essential to understand the concept of sound responsibility and what it entails. Nature and Scope of Responsibility With respect to the notion of PIL, protecting individuals from genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity is the key responsibility for the States. With regard to the concept of sound responsibility, the doctrine generally entails three major activities of the States. Firstly, the laid down activity includes ensuring that the population under the strong jurisdiction of the State is not subjected to commit crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and genocide. Secondly, the responsibility of the State also entails taking adequate measure to prevent such in-humanitarian issues and promoting adequate safety of each individual from different crimes against humanity. And, the third aspect of responsibility depicts that the States should also ensure to build strong disciplines in terms of recognising such type of happenings and provide adequate reparation to each victim within the State4. With reference to the above mentioned responsibilities, it can be specified that the States should focus on building effective structural and organising aspects to ensure adequate compliance with the set of responsibilities. In this context, strong governmental apparatus and effective managing capability for ensuring that war-crimes, genocides and ethnic cleansing do not happen are crucial aspects for consideration for the States. Moreover, it is also important for the States to establish strong punishable measures for the offenders and ensure adequate compensation to the victims, who experience such type of inhumane practices. Correspondingly, in the context of PIL, the international community is also responsible for encouraging and supporting States to effectively practice their responsibilities along with enabling the UN to build its early warning capability5. The international communities should also inspire the regional organisations to establish early warning mechanism to complement their measures at the international context. In this regard, the communities should practice this by making constant incorporation with each State aimed at developing their capability to govern democratically. With regard to the notion of protecting population, the responsibility of fostering diplomatic along with humanitarian means in line with the commitment of defending each individual from genocide and other crimes against humanity related acts. With respect to the predetermined preventive measures of the international community, the activities are likely to be relevant if they are considered feasibly at an early stage with effective strategy and carefulness. Therefore, it is highly important for the sovereign-states to underline early warning capability along with making an effective differentiating assessment in order to deal with various types of circumstances6. Justification of the Insurrectional Movement for the States In relation to the phenomenon of political turmoil, the International Law has clearly stated that the insurrectional movements have adequate rights and responsibilities to fight for independence. The exertion of the International Law Commission (ILC) and policy has long been witnessed to be recognised as a well-built doctrine of the International Law. In this context, it has been critically identified that whenever the succession of insurrectional movement in building new state is materialised, it should comprise responsibilities ascending from internationally wrongful actions practiced by the third states seeking for independence. With respect to the well-built principles of International Law, it has been critically recognised that the States should not be held accountable for insurrectional movements internationally wrongful actions that are committed against the other sovereign-states seeking for independence7. According to the well-built principles of International Law, the succession of an insurrectional movement in building new State, the new state should hold the accountability for the obligations that are raised by the internationally wrongful actions. The Article 10(2) of the International Law has clearly stated the responsibility of the States regarding the internationally wrongful actions8. With reference to the well-established principle of the International Law Commission, the obligations of the States towards accumulating insurrectional movement can be acknowledged to form a number of potential unrests. The responsibilities that are raised by the internationally wrongful act can also impose various types of threats to the States in terms of protecting population from genocide along with crimes against humanity related concerns. Moreover, the well-built principle of ILC also exerts the doctrine that the newly developed States should be accountable for the actions that take place before its liberation as there is an organic as well as structural continuity regarding the legal personality of successfully building a new state. Correspondingly, the formation of new States through committing Internationally Wrongful Act can somehow create significant obstacles to the organic or structural continuity of the legal personalities that can negatively have an impact on the States to improve wellbeing of the population. Nevertheless, the notion of ILC principle is observed to be fair and equitable with respect to the State, which ceases other State within a common territorial integrity. In this context, the act of ceasing predecessor States by unification or incorporation of other States can be considered as fair and equitable. Therefore, the implementation of the ILC Article 10(2) tends to ensure that the the internationally wrongful actions do not persist to be unpunished and any victim of such wrongful action possesses the opportunity to seek adequate reparation from the debtor state. On the other hand, in the context of any newly developed State or transferring of territory, the opposite resolution regarding the non-devolution of obligation would certainly create various types of unfair consequences. Thus, it is affirmed that the unfair consequences regarding such type of wrongful acts significantly lead to dissecting of the territorial integrity. Besides, the consequences may also result in facing considerable loss in terms of maintaining strong part of territory9. With reference to the concept of internationally wrongful act committed by the States to build or incorporate other State into the territory, it can cause a number of conflicts which may lead to convey various types of social unrests such as crime, genocide along with other crimes against humanity as well. In relation to the well-established principle of the ILC, the states should emphasise adequate safety along with responsibility to protect human life from various types of inter-state conflicts. Moreover, the UN has also argued concerning the obligatory principle of ILC and endorsed the protection responsibility for each State across the globe. The responsibility entailed by the UN to each state can harmonise the political, economic and trade relations between the states and enable the population to gain continuous advantage to improve their life. In this regard, the international communities across the UN are also accountable for applying appropriate and effective humanitarian, diplomatic along with different other non-violent measures. With regard to dealing with the well-built principle ILC, the organisation has been witnessed to take collective measures in keeping with the Charter including the chapter VII of the International Law10. State’s Responsibility to Overthrow Genocidal Governments According to the critical observation of the well-established principle along with the internationally wrongful act, it has been identified that the doctrine can engender a number of conflicts among the States, which may also raise question for each state to protect population from genocide, crime and other crimes against humanity. Furthermore, the standard can also convey various types of social unrests within the States as the statute involves major regulations that question the adequate security of human life in any of the States. In this context, there are a number of initiatives that has been recognised to be established by different organisations11. The World Summit 2005 of the UN has played a paramount role in respect of the protection of population from war crimes, genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The organisation has been witnessed to develop a set of well-build policies for the States and to ensure to protect each individual from those types of concerns. Moreover, the generous provisions of the summit had also incorporated adequate measure for the victims associated with disengaging process of the States through ensuring appropriate reparation and compensation12. Conclusion The discipline and nature of the ILC and its well-established doctrine have long been recognised as the fundamental principle of the International Law in which the notion of insurrectional movement thrives to create a new State. In this context, the formulation of the new State comprises a set of responsibility that should be ensured by the States to protect the population from war crime, genocide, ethnic cleansing along with crimes against humanity related concerns. According to the critical observation of the ILC Article 10(2), it has been affirmed that the newly built States should be accountable for acts that take place before the independence as the new State constitutes organic and structural continuity of their legal personalities. However, it has also been recognised that a few of the States is in support of the principle. Therefore, the study has addressed the potential responsibilities of the States with respect to the protection of the population from the genocide, war crime along with different crimes against humanity. References Eyal Mayroz, ‘The legal duty to ‘prevent’: after the onset of ‘genocide’’ (2012) 14(1) Journal of Genocide Research accessed 02 February 2014 International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect, ‘An Introduction to the Responsibility to Protect’ [n.d.] (International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty) accessed 02 February 2014. Kelly Vinopal, ‘Researching Public International Law’ (2013) American Society of International Law, 3-34. Muna Ndulo, ‘Responsibility to Protect Populations from Genocide, War-crimes, Ethnic Cleansing and Crimes Against Humanity’ [n.d.] (Nature of the Responsibility) accessed 02 February 2014. Patrick Dumberry, ‘New State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts by an Insurrectional Movement’ (2006) 17(3) The European Journal of International Law accessed 02 February 2014 Patricia J. Campbell, Aran MacKinnon and Christy R. Stevens, An Introduction to Global Studies (John Wiley & Sons 2011) 120 Philip Cunliffe, Critical Perspectives on the Responsibility to Protect: Interrogating Theory and Practice (Taylor & Francis 2011) 75 Richard H. Cooper, Juliette Voà ̄nov Kohler, Responsibility to Protect (Palgrave Macmillan 2009) United Nations, Yearbook of the International Law Commission 2001, Volume 2 (United Nations Publications 2007) 50 United Nation, ‘Resolution adopted by the General Assembly’ [2005] (60/1. 2005 World Summit Outcome) accessed 02 February 2014. Read More