Alternative Providers and Competitors of Melbourne Mustangs - Literature review Example

? Article review of 'Universal Jurisdiction, Universal Prescription? Article review of 'Universal Jurisdiction, Universal Prescription? The article, Universal Prescription, Universal Prescription? Authored by Charles C. Jalloh, explores a range of issues that connect to the competing perspectives on the universality principle as understood and applied by the African Union (AU) and the European Union (EU). Generally, it might be argued that the article is sufficiently comprehensive as it incorporates both the concepts and cases that determine the differences in the perspectives adopted by the two continents. The article provides details of the major points of differences in a way that shows how many African countries find the universality principles out of favor with their own legal systems. Essentially, some of the issues explored by the article could be understood from the perspective of the historical differences that have affected African countries in their attempt to ratify some of the international legal principles. The article explores a range of issues that connect within international jurisdiction in ways that demonstrate the differences in approaches adopted by European and African countries. On this matter, it becomes necessary to consider the fact that most of the issues that relate to international legal practices have elicited sharp divisions in African countries, which have tended to demonstrate the fact the universalist practices are essentially biased. Basically, some of the issues raised in the article tend to promote the assumption that the international legal practices were specifically developed as tool of western powers to influence the governance of African States. The article uses specific provisions in international laws relating to matters of immunity and culpability to demonstrate this fact. Case examples of countries such as France and Switzerland show that the application of the universality principle in its narrow sense and understanding fails to connect the issues with the fundamental applications as they relate to issues of law in a universal context. The merits of this argument could be assessed from the point of view of the differences in culture which affect the manner in which different societies perceive the aspect of law. The author points out that the development of the legal structures on which some of the tenets of international law are based is essentially biased in favor of the western countries. According to the author, some of the differences that attend to the application of the rules of international law are essentially manifest in the contestations that various countries attach to the rulings and applications of various countries. In this regard, it becomes necessary to assess the manner in which various countries have attempted to redefine the articles and concepts of international practice to suit some specific realities in their home countries. The author makes the case of various aspects of the law in a manner that attempts to explore the unworkable parts and the mismatch with realities that occur in the African continent. The aspect of criminality acquires new meaning when removed from local interpretations and applied in accordance with western concepts. The article cites cases such as the Rwandese massacre in which the failure by the international community to come to terms with the ethnic and cultural factors that connect to the issue have occasioned misinterpretations of the international legal practices. The central argument of the article is that the universality principle only serves the interests of western powers. The argument fosters the impression that the international law was mainly created to entrench their control and influence over the African states. The article explores the problematic application of matters of immunity in ways that seek to illustrate the unclear issues that make it difficult for countries to approach the subject from a common platform. In essence, many of the issues that apply within the issue could be developed from the perspective of the main challenges the make it difficult for some African countries to protect their senior officials from a generalized application of the laws. One of the cases cited in the article involves the treatment of a Rwandese top official Kabuye. According to the article, it was difficult for the country to protect Kabuye because the law did not expressly distinguish between the private protection and the public protection. This particular case has been used to demonstrate the different ways in which the Universal Jurisdiction can be applied in different forms to suit different contexts. The author uses the Rwandese case to show that certain laws and practices as understood within the general context do not sufficiently connect to realities of culture and the differences in political systems across the continental divide. The matter of the United States interpretation and application of the laws is also explored in a range of ways that connect to the matters of immunity. The US refusal to ratify certain aspects of the universal legal practices has been used by the author to demonstrate the challenges involved in the applications. Generally, the article makes the point that various issues concerning international legal practices do not favor the international policies and practices undertaken by the United States. The disconnection between international policies and practices has been used in the article to demonstrate the fact that the local and international perspectives often fail to apply because on some of the basic issues that determine the stability and progress of certain countries. In order to protect certain strategic interests, countries such as the United States often switch from an internationalized application of the laws to purely customized perspectives. The challenge, according to the author is that some countries are not permitted by the structures to adopt similar approaches such as those applied by the United States. Similarly, it is necessary to consider the fact that certain practices promoted by the fact that international law as developed and practiced by some countries are based on the assumption that African countries are incapable of prosecuting crimes of an international nature. According to the author, this assumption makes it difficult for the countries to apply the required practices that should operate under normal practice. African countries, according to the author, have often demonstrated interest in prosecuting international crimes to the same degree as that of international institutions. The argument developed by the author shows that many African states face the challenge of applying international practices as understood within the principles and practices of international practices. Some of the issues that connect to the matters of principle have been designed in ways that demonstrate the need for the international practices that connect sufficiently with the law. Some of the issues that connect within international practice have been considered as biased against the development of African legal systems. The tone of article appears to critique the methods and application of the laws that apply within the context of international practice. The article appears to be well-resourced as it uses a range of cases to build its central argument. I can observe that some of the issues that relate to international practices often involve the practice of universal contexts that tend towards the practice of Eurocentric ideals. In this manner, it becomes appropriate to notice that most of the issues often relate to matters of historical relevance. International laws usually involve the application of systems and methods in ways that seek to promote the aspect of interconnectedness within world cultures and other issues of general interest. On this matter, the article sufficiently explores the basic components in ways that shed sufficient light on the discontent that informs the reaction by African countries to universalist practices as understood within international practice. The article consists of vast information in respect to the issue of universal jurisdiction and universal prescription. The information in the article by Jalloh addresses the issues of Africa in an appropriate and resourceful manner. It brings into limelight the reasons why universal jurisdiction is justifiable while arguing that the courts from other foreign countries should also act in accordance with standards of ‘immunity under state equity, and state sovereignty. The courts in the international perspective especially those that are members of the European Union, according to the author, should be sensitive to Africa interests. Some of the powerful nations especially in the west appear to be biased when it comes to matters concerning the issue of indicting the weaker nations in Africa (Jalloh, 2010). The international legal system should apply equity in when it comes to implementing the law. The law should be applied with equal standards to both the weaker and the powerful nations. The article highlights that the African Union was formed with the sole agenda of integrating Africa and foster economic and political development. As a result, the supreme organ of the Africa Union is focused on formulation policies that are to be adhered to by the member states. Among the critical police that the members have adopted include recognizing the international law in matters regarding international offences such as terrorism, piracy, and impunity. These offences in regards international law result to crimes against humanity. Despite the efforts by the members of the Africa Union to adhere to the international legal framework, the members of the European Union have taken an opposite direction to send signals that indicate that the international court system is after the Africa leaders (Jalloh, 2010). The international court based in the Hague has been highly criticized by the African leaders since the internal community has abused and misused the international court. As a result the implementing international legal system has been put at jeopardy and therefore cannot maintain peace, and security in Africa and across the globe. That has resulted to several African government rioting against the international jurisdiction, even though the members of the affluent society in the west do not mind about the African governments’ arguments. Opposition by the Africa leaders against the inequality in application of the international jurisdiction is primarily based on a number of issues, to begin with there has been formal complaints against the international jurisdiction by some African countries in regard to misuse of the international criminal jurisdiction. The article highlights the essence of scholars to consider the customs of the respective regions when developing the tools and strategies employed in developing the international jurisdiction. In so doing modern international jurisdiction will eventually consider the norms between the African nations and those in European Union, and eventually develop a legal framework that is free from impunity. The Africa Union member states will continue to oppose the international jurisdiction as long as the they perceive that the law remains biased and that eventually affects the diplomatic relations between the two regions. In another perspective, the members of the European Union should remain sensitive to issues of African countries since they are emerging economies that are yet to attain the developed status. Though most members of the African Union are working hard to be democratic and ensure justice as defined by the international court, the members of European Union passed through the same status and should not use some tools of the international jurisdiction to intimidate the African Union members. The article highlights that the highly used tool of the international jurisdiction is the international criminal court in Netherlands where majority of those indicted are members from the Africa Union. Therefore, it appears that the weak African nations are being targeted by their super rich colonial masters. Through that they appear to employ their wealth to extend their colonialism principles through neocolonialism. The article highlights the latest case of whereby the international court has ordered a warrant of interest for President Omar al Bashir of Sudan. Most African states have retaliated against the arrest of Bashir. Most African states view that the arrest of the Bashir is likely to result to more bloodshed in Sudan. On the other hand, the members of the European Union have the perception that arresting basher will be a lesson to other leaders who have been linked, either directly or indirectly to crime against humanity. Criticism To begin with, the article is not updated. The article was written in 2010, therefore does not have the latest statistics and information about Africa. In the introduction, the article highlights that the African Union consists of 53 member states, however, presently, the African Union has 54 states after South Sudan became the latest member to join the union. That calls for the author to update this scholarly article to ensure that it remains relevant. Other information provided in the article that needs to be updated regards to the issues of indications, like the case of the perpetrators of the Rwanda Genocide among others. These cases have proceeded and taken new directions that the author, Jallow, needs to update the article to make it more credible. Another issue with the article is the use of the endnotes that appear at the end of the page. Though it is prudent for the writer to reference the article accurately and accurately, the author should have employed other referencing style because the footnotes are so many, and in some instances, they appear to almost take half of the page. That indicates that, though the article by Jallow appears to be 66 pages, the actual content is almost 60% of the actual article. Another issue with the article is the usage of subheading. The article has few subheadings and that makes it very complicated for the reader to understand it. The author should use more subheading rather than having a single subheading running for more than 5 pages as displayed in the case of subheading 3.2.1 (Denial of Immunity to High Ranking African Officials and the Rose Kabuye Affair) that runs from page 29 to 42. Irrespective of the few critics, this article is brilliantly written and adheres to the requirement of an academic article. This article that is written in a lucid language which is easily understood by the law students. The article has rich information in regards to issues pertaining universal jurisdiction, and African Union perception of the international legal framework. The article clearly defines international jurisdiction and the African Union questions in respect to the administration of the universal jurisdiction. In a exceptional cases studies about what has happened overtime, and the justification by the African leaders to oppose the universal jurisdiction. The article clearly displays that the African leaders are not the only leaders who have been targeted by the international criminal court. There are leaders from other regions like Argentina, USA, China, Israel, Cuba, among others who have also been targeted. The issues of immunity are immeasurably evaluated and it is evident though the western countries have appeared to have exerted unnecessary pressure on the African countries, it was inevitable since crimes against humanity should not be tolerated in the 21 century. Crimes against humanity are most common in African states where most leaders are tyrants, like Robert Mugabe who has ruled Zimbabwe for the since 1980. Though the colonialists who are presently superpower have a reason to be interested in the welfare of the colonies, the issue of impunity needs to be addressed. The article calls for the members of the European Union to revise the International legal framework in order to guarantee equality in jurisdiction of the international law. The states sovereignty and state equity are critical issues that need to be addressed by the modern international law to ensure that the international law guarantees international security and peace. Otherwise, the diplomatic relations will be infringed in case the members of the international court remain insensitive to African Union Issues. The extent to which foreign powers should go towards the safeguarding the human rights of oppressed people outside their territorial jurisdiction can be assessed from a variety of factors. These factors revolve around the issues of universality of human rights, concepts of globalization, ethical considerations and the underlying legal concerns. There is always the question of universalism or the territorial scope of human rights. If human rights are to be understood as a timeless and space less concepts then it means that the systems and structures that protect them must be equally timeless and spaceless. What this means is that where there are gross violations of human rights without internal structures to mitigate the suffering of victims, alternative forces have the right and duty to intervene and correct the situation. It must be understood that governments that tend towards gross violation of human rights are necessarily despotic in nature. This aspect of their being means that they must systematically destroy systems that are structurally opposed to their ideals of violence and philosophies of oppression and suppression. In time therefore there is left no meaningful forces within the despotic system to safeguard the rights of the citizens. The absence of a corrective mechanism means that the violations will go on as long as the oppressor lasts. This situation therefore warrants the intervention of foreign powers to protect, restore, and sustain human rights. Moreover in situations where some of the despotic governments refuse to be party to international protocols that bind them towards the protection of human rights only external forces can move in to alleviate the suffering of the citizens. The provisions of international human rights as contained in the United Nations charter for human rights have inbuilt systems that encourage self –regulation of countries in the process of protecting human rights. Countries that fail to be part of these provisions leave vacuums in their governance structures so that there can never be opportunities for self-regulation. When human rights violations set in, foreign powers have the obligation to actively intervene and rescue the suffering population. References Jalloh, C., C. (2010). Universal Jurisdiction, Universal Prescription? A Preliminary Assessment of the African Union Perspective on Universal Jurisdiction. Legal Studies Research Paper Series. PDF Read More