The necessary themes in this context will include a discussion of the general doctrine of non intervention and then go on discuss the legal aspects of the use of armed force and how the world peace and security legislation prevents and regulates such behaviour by a state. The question then goes on to ask if there is a difference in the national and international repercussions for a state embarking upon the use of armed force or the divide is merely an arbitrary one .After definitions and analysis the essay then discusses the application or rejection of these laws in the light of recent and historical events.
From the perspective of international law the sovereignty of the states confers upon them a right to conduct their affairs free from the interference from other states.This is also known as the doctrine of non-intervention in the sovereign affairs of the other states. In Nicaragua v United States1( The existence in the opinio juris of states of the practice of non-intervention is backed by established practice.It has moreover been presented as a corollary of the principle of the sovereign equality of the states.
“dictatorial interference by a state in the affairs of another state for the purpose of maintaining or altering the actual condition of things ….Intervention can take place in the external as well as the internal affairs of a state….But it must be emphasised that intervention proper is always dictatorial interference not interference pure and simple” 2
“the court can only regard the alleged right of intervention as the manifestation of a policy of force such as has in the past given rise to most serious abuses and such as cannot whatever be the present defects in international organisation…find a place in international law ….”
It should also be noted that before the First World War there was not much of an international effort to regulate and prevent ...
Cite this document
(“International Criminal Justice, War Crimes and Aggression Essay”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/miscellaneous/337934-international-criminal-justice-war-crimes-and-aggression
(International Criminal Justice, War Crimes and Aggression Essay)
“International Criminal Justice, War Crimes and Aggression Essay”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/miscellaneous/337934-international-criminal-justice-war-crimes-and-aggression.
1.0 Introduction The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a product of a century-long search for an international entity that could bring perpetrators of crimes that cannot be handled by a national court to justice, for one reason or another. The ICC, however, is not merely a tribunal that tries specific crimes, but an international entity that carries with it the responsibility of promoting peacebuilding and perpetuating global governance as part of an international coterie of entities that the responsibility is attached to.
The paper has been divided by sub headlines for the better understanding f the subject.
Reconciling peace and justice in the aftermath f a criminal regime invariably presents difficult choices that can be resolved only within the context f each historical experience.
This essay will thus require the discussion of war crimes and wars of aggression in the context of the international law and its limits in allowing the use of force at and international and national level. The necessary themes in this context will include a discussion of the general doctrine of non intervention and then go on discuss the legal aspects of the use of armed force and how the world peace and security legislation prevents and regulates such behaviour by a state.
Any violation that comes under the international war law can be called as a war crime. If a person or persons does not stick to the rules of the war, then these people are also committing a war crime. Rules like not attacking those displaying a peace flag should be adhered to.
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.'
For example, Andrew Altman, Christopher Wellman, and Larry May have sought to defend the legitimacy of international criminal law by examining the moral right of international courts to punish certain classes of criminals. (Larry, 2005; Andrew 2004: 35-67; Allen, 2004) Each has offered different arguments to justify "how international criminal prohibitions can legitimately pierce the sovereignty of a state so as to permit an international tribunal, or a court of another state, to prosecute crimes committed wholly within the state's territory." (Elizabeth, 2000; 259) However, each assumes that these crimes should be punished and fail to offer a moral rationale for international justice as suc
According to Hardt and Negri (2004), the present world order is characterised by a global state of war which produces civil war across the countries. The legal validity of concepts of genocide and crimes against humanity could only be examined from this background.
, that the modern-day international armed conflicts occur well beyond the traditional definition of geographical boundaries of a particular nation and occur not only between two different states but also, in fact, includes conflicts between parties within such states. The