Aborias Local Law - Assignment Example

Name Affiliate Institution International Law Question 1 Drug trafficking is a criminal offence in many countries and may lead to imprisonment for a minimum of ten years. The traveler becomes liable to Aboria’s local law, when he arrives their. Once arrested, the Australian Consular cannot be able to get the suspect out. The Australian Consular can only visit the victim in jail, provide him with a list of local attorneys, notify his/her family members, protest against mistreatment or abuse where necessary, intercede with local authorities to ensure that every right than the victim possesses under Aboria’s local law, and international human law is fully observed. I will advice Australia that they have no obligation and cannot demand the victim’s immediate release, represent him at trial or pay his legal fees/ fines. Generally, the extradition fees are paid by the requesting country, which is the prosecutor. This may later be passed on to the suspect, once she is brought to their jurisdiction. The Island of Martinique has the responsibility of paying for Susie’s extradition. Every time Susie crossed the border, she became liable to the constitution of that country she was in. Canada has a right to deny her bail if that is what the Canadian constitution requires. Australia can also decline to issue Susie with a passport, either due to the illegal drug trafficking, or the extradition. Susie has the right to be treated in accordance with the international human rights, and with respect to the rights of foreign prisoners, as engraved in the Canadian prison. Question 2 Separate extradition processes may exist for every extradition requests between Newcastle and Australia. The Warrants scheme is administered by the prosecuting authority and police force of Australia and Newcastle. When the Australian Federal police receive the arrest warrant through the Newcastle police, mostly from a Liaison officer located in Australia, the process begins. A commonwealth director of public prosecution may endorse a magistrates’ warrant if the application is in a statutory form. If Peter Zoltan was in or on his way to Australia, then the Australian Federal police would arrange for his arrest. Newcastle may deport Zoltan so that a magistrate in Australia decides whether this person shall be surrendered to Hungary or not, based on Australia’s constitution. The magistrate may deny the extradition process if he/she finds that 1) The offense is trivial 2) The accusation wasn’t made in good faith 3) A long period elapsed after the offense was committed 4) Where surrendering the person would be unjust, oppressive and too severe a punishment. The decision is reviewed by the Federal court or Supreme Court within 15 days. It can then be appealed within 15 days. All this can still matter after 60 years where human rights violations were committed and in place of special arrangements and treaties. Question 3 There are 17 listed organizations, including: 1) Abu Sayyaf Group 2) Al-Qa’ida (AQ) 3) Al-Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) 4) Al-Qa’ida In the Arabian Peninsula AQAP() 5) Al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI) 6) Al-Shabaab 7) Ansar al-Islam 8) Hamas’s Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades 9) Hizballah External Security Organization 10) Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan 11) Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) 12) Jamiat ul—Ansar 13) Jamaah Islamiyah (JI) 14) Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) 15) Lashkar-e-Tayyiba 16) Lashkar-e Jhangyi (LeJ) 17) Palestinian Islamic Jihad The offenses that can be committed in relation to terrorists include planning, funding and carrying out terrorism acts. In the Criminal code, under div 102, it’s an offence to involve directly in activities of, recruit for, be a member of, receive or provide training for, provide funds, or receive funding for, or support to, a terrorism organization. Question 4 Article 51 identifies that their must be an armed attack before a country invokes the right to self defense. Similarly, there was no instant need of defense in U.S.A. The alternative means that would lead to international peace, (which is the objective in article 51), would be to resort to an international criminal investigation, and a peaceful negotiation for those responsible to surrender. Article 51clear states that the Security Council shall attempt to maintain peace and security before an attack was the resort. The attack in the U.S was from a non state actor of Afghanistan and not Afghanistan as a state on its own. The question of whether the Afghanistan government partially or fully aided the terrorists is eminent. Given this uncertainty, the U.S government abused article 51 by using full force without knowing the level of assistance that the Afghanistan state could have or have not given to the non-state terrorist. Even if the Afghanistan state had undertaken an armed attack against the U.S, the question of necessity would still arise to qualify the self defense measure under international law. The civilian deaths in Afghanistan make the self defense act un-proportional. The strikes by the U.S were not justified under the U.N Charter. Question 5 Article 13 of the Geneva Conventions 1949, states that civilians need to be protected from the dangers arising from military operations, and issues several rules to govern this protection. Civilians must never be the object of attack. Starving civilians as a combat method is also prohibited. The additional protocols of 1977 implement the humanitarian law, which is part of the international law that governs the conduct of armed confrontations, and limits the adverse effect on civilians. This is because civilians are not directly taking part in the conflict. By protecting health and aid workers, this convention aims at ensuring that civilians get assistance to relief food and medication. The UN Security Council accepted that the Israeli settlements in occupied territories violated international law. The Geneva Convention (Article 49(6)) prohibits occupying powers from transferring a part of its civilians into a territory it occupied. The court perceived that such a move had the objective of protecting the occupied settlement over the safety of civilians. The high civilian deaths in Afghanistan were unaccepted. The civilians were defenseless from the airstrikes. U.S was fighting away from its homeland making its civilians safe but causing the death of many innocent Afghanistan and Pakistan civilians. For such reasons did the Convention prohibit acts of violence as a primary purpose for threatening the civilian population. Question 6 Australia may issue protection Visas (Class XA) or (Subclass 866) to people who it has protection obligation under Australian migration law and satisfied health/ security requirements. Australia can only have such obligation under the complementary protection criteria or the refugee convention. Mrs. Ali may not fall under the refugees’ convention criteria. Although she is owed protection because she is outside her country and is unwilling to return, due to well-founded fears of persecution for her political opinion, and association with the official opposition, the only predominant reason is gender, and this is not among the five grounds for claiming persecution in Australia. Mrs. Ali may fall under the complementary protection criteria since she is owed protection because there is sufficient information to believe that returning her to the Muslim country posses a real risk that she will suffer harm by powerful people in the ruling party for associating with Mrs. P, and by her in laws. Mrs. Ali may fail in her Protection Visa application because family violence is often considered by definition to be domestic and private, but succeed due to the introduced ‘complimentary protection’ regulation. Although in cases where the cause of persecution is on a wide scale in the applicant’s home country the refugee convention applies, it disregards a similar reason for domestic violence, with over 50% women suffering in her home country. Furthermore, her state is unwilling and unable to protect her and people like her from domestic persecution. The convention doesn’t include family violence as persecution. However, the vulnerability of her risks may see her application going through. Question 7 The principle of equality and non-discrimination rights cut across both Article 2 of ICCPR and Article 2 of ICESCR. Both of them prohibit discrimination on ten grounds including race, language, sex, property, other opinion, religion, color, national/ social origin, birth or other status. However, they differ on the o their implementation processes. CESCR only encourages countries to do the best they can to provide these rights. In Article 2, CESCR states that the state only has to ensure the realization of social, economic, and cultural rights to its maximum. In Article 2 CCPR, postulates that states have to provide effective remedies for the realization of rights, this is through legislative, administrative and judicial mechanisms. The different standards are inappropriate because they disorient the common objective. Third generation human rights go beyond mere civil and social rights. This is expressed in progressive documents of the international law. Many people disregard third generation human rights as rights because some states lack the necessary resources to safeguard the duties implied by their citizens, since where there is a right, there is also a duty. The enforcement of human rights is often through legislation, administration and judicial mechanisms. It is not effective. The shortcomings include the failure to establish a coherent overall structure, conceptual and jurisprudential weakness and failure to put in place state versus individual accountability. Human rights may conflict with territorial sovereignty because each state wants to establish its own set of human rights. Unifying these distinguished sets of rights into one may end up impossible. Setting up international human rights to be recognized by these states may also be conflicting due to the different ideologies and beliefs in existent in individual states. Extensive violations of human rights may call for military intervention but this is not justified, because military intervention can not be humanitarian and it defies the principle of sovereignty. The effect of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter is to protect the sovereignty of individual states. Military intervention is commonly justified in international law to restore democracy. Read More