Download file to see previous pages...
There are several reasons for this inability of national institutions, such as, first, the absence of political will to prosecute their own citizens or high ranking officials. This situation was witnessed in the former Yugoslavia. Second, these national institutions could have been destroyed, as was the situation in Rwanda. In the absence of justice there cannot be peace, without law no justice, and when there is no court to decide what is just and lawful there can be no meaningful law (United Nations, 1999). An international criminal court achieves justice for all, ends impunity, helps in ending conflicts, remedies the defects in ad hoc tribunals, provides an alternative to national criminal justice institutions that are unable or unwilling to act, and to acts as a deterrent for future war criminals.
In reality, the ICC has not achieved greater success than the ad hoc tribunals that it supplants. Akin to the tribunals of Rwanda and Yugoslavia, the ICC does not act swiftly. Moreover, it is devoid of a system for enforcing its decisions. This makes it dependent upon governments to arrest and present perpetrators before it. Albeit, the ad hoc tribunals had this defect, they were able to rely on a UN Security Council resolution requiring international cooperation in executing the arrest warrants. In addition, the ICC is devoid of forceful checks on its authority (Schafer & Groves, 2009). Theoretically, the nations that had ratified the Rome Statute were to control the ICC; however, this has not been realized in practice.
Schafer, B. D., & Groves, S. (2009, August 18). The U.S. Should Not Join the International Criminal Court. Retrieved May 17, 2015, from The Heritage Foundation:
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
International organizations promote humanitarian principles of law and legal policymaking, to ensure that the rights and freedoms of all individuals are not violated. However, even international agreements and complex policies do not always work for the benefit of peace and stability in the world.
United States and the International Criminal Court
The US has been an influential campaigner for the international rule of armed dispute since the organization of international humanitarian regulation. I Evidence demonstrates that United States policy has enormous impacts on the ICC implementation and success in different global states.
No one is immune from serious human rights violations. Just as some innocent people are today's victims, we may be tomorrow's victims. Just as their basic universal human rights have been violated today, our same basic, universal human rights may be violated tomorrow.'
Beforehand he has contributed in several International justice-associated developments as the Director of the International Justice Program of the Lawyers Board for Human Rights in New York, together with Rome Diplomatic Conference taking place at the ICC.
The origins of the international criminal court derive from the end of World War I. Cassese (2008) states that the purpose of the court was to charge and then attempt to prosecute individuals such as prominent politicians, who allegedly committed heinous crimes against
ICC was formed in 2002 following the ratification of the agreement made by approximately 60 countries. It has its headquarters in The Hague and Netherlands and acts as a last resort in prosecuting heinous offenses where national
The major failure of the League was the lack of all countries to join the program, and hence it lacked effectiveness (Bertrand, 2007).
After World War II, yet another international body was formed to try and promote peace it was known as
5 Pages(1250 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic International criminal court for FREE!