You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
International Law - war on terrorism
Pages 8 (2008 words)
The sp-called "war on terrorism" has raised new questions as to the extent to which countries must adhere to their treaty agreements, convention signings and general principles of lawful practice. A number of countries, including the United States, have claimed the right to essentially rewrite their treaty obligations and even their own laws under, in the case of the US, the guise of "executive authority" in time of war…
Second, the role of the Italian government in the transfer of the prisoners. Third, the role of the Italian prosecutors in indicting members of its own government and fourth, the degree to which the United States should acquiesce to the Italian prosecutors and turn over the CIA agents for trial.
Dealing with the first section, it should initially be stated that the United States does have a duty to obey international law and treaties that it is a signatory to (Shaw, 2003). The fact that the United States is seen as the world's only super-power with supposedly overwhelming power (although the current Iraq debacle would put this in a problematic light) does not imply that it should ignore international laws because it can. Indeed, the very idea of "international law" was created in order to stop countries from doing what they wanted to when they had the power to do so - the prime examples being Germany and Japan during WWII. The more powerful the country, the more it should be seen to adhere to both the letter and the spirit of the law. It is with this background that the role of the United States should be seen.
The United States is a signatory to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed in 1948. ...
Not exactly what you need?