International Relations November 17 INTERNATIONAL LAW Laws that apply to state actors and across borders Based on STRONG INT NORMS These CHANGE Reciprocity SERIOUS INHERENT PROBLEMS in concept BIGGEST PROBLEM: ENFORCEMENT Difference between domestic and int?l law WHO ENFORCES AND WHY? EXTRA TERRITORIALITY JURISDICTION-when does International law have jurisdiction SOURCES OF INT?L LAW The two most important sources Treaty- signed, bilateral, multilateral, open: building block of Int?l law Pacta Sunt Servanda- treaties should be obeyed Custom- must be accepted as a custom by states- often lead to treaties Opinio Juris- Custom should lead to treaty- stronger law A TWO ADDITIONAL SOURCES: legal scholarship and legal principles Legal positivism- positive law- WRITTEN, CODIFIED, SIGNED CAMBODIA and UNTAC Case Study History of Cambodia: Indep. 1954, Sihanouk (to this day) 1970, Sihanouk too LEFTIST for Cambodia Military- overthrow in a coup- exiled? New leadership creates fertile ground for KHMER ROUGE April 1975 Phnom Penh falls 1975-78 Khmer Rouge, Cambodia Year Zero ? GENOCIDE 1978-1979 Vietnam takes over Cambodia-throws KR out Civil War in Cambodia from 1980?s doesn?t end-gets worse until 1989-PEACE talks begin Need to have a settlement, but NEED PEACEKEEPERS Results in UNTAC MISSION: United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia, 1991-93 International Court of Justice, PCIJ- Former, ICJ- Current But the WORLD COURT is not the most effective organ of the UN ICJ or WORLD COURT: Functions only for states Arbitration body, more than a court to hear CRIMES 15 justices, 9 year terms Optional clause- Nicaragua vs. US- doesn?t work so well Article 36(2) of the court?s statute, known as the Optional Clause, allows states to make a unilateral declaration recognizing ?as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes.? LAWS OF WAR, WAR CRIMES Jus ad bellum?Just War doctrine?laws to go to war self-defense, etc. JUST WAR Jus in bello- War Crimes?laws IN war What you cannot do in war: POW?s, Civilians, Proportionality, etc. Evolves over time role of civilians, technology, bombs, ?smart? weapons, genocide, crimes against humanity End of WWII shows the need to prosecute these crimes: Nazi Germany- genocide, holocaust, Japan, Bataam Death March, etc Tribunal System Develops from need: Germany, Japan, WHO commits war crimes? INDIVIDUALS, not states Nuremburg, Tokyo War crimes tribunals Appear successful, use Int?l Law as backbone NEW and controversial There ARE PROBLEMS Victor?s Justice- what about crimes committed by winners? Ad hoc? NO STANDING COURT- makes one for every new case Fair? Doenitz case? Cold War changes this- no tribunals Tribunals and call for a new court Post Cold War: failed states-Rwanda, Yugoslavia GENOCIDE- prosecute via Tribunals UN Creates: ICTY(for Yugoslavia), ITCR(for Rwanda) Tribunals have jurisdiction over INDIVIDUALS In Yugoslavia: ICTY Mladic, Karadzic, Milosevic In Rwanda: ICTR Akeyesu case, Rwanda nuns STILL ad hoc. What about other states? US State Dept, among others, ask for PERMANENT COURT to hear cases in these matters AGAINST INDIVIDUALS International Criminal Court (ICC) Rome statute 1999- read for what it covers in terms of crimes Covers: CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY GENOCIDE WAR CRIMES CRIMES OF AGGRESSION (although this is still unclear) Ratification of the ICC- who signs, who ratifies (treaty ratified by 60 states 2002) *IT exists *Currently 105 members: All of Europe, Latin America, Japan, Korea Non members- Iran, Iraq, India, Pakistan, US, Russia, China US and the ICC- what is the problem: US signs Rome Statute, but fails to ratify (Clinton never intends to push to ratify). Bush pulls US signature off the document 2002 SOFA- Status of Force Agreements-READ ARTHUR ROVINE, ICC and SOFAS Complimentarity- what does it mean? What does it mean? 2 reasons why US won?t sign Possibility that Americans could be brought before the court. If the court can prosecute Americans, it shouldn?t exist ICC vs. Tribunals Major differences between ICC and Tribunals What is the advantage of the ICC? What are the problems with tribunals? Victors justice Ad hoc Not standing, no clear positive law Deals with individuals, deals with new crimes,- humanitarian US wants tribunals- can be determined by NSC- US POWER Facing serious problems: Sudanese case: 2005 UNSC Understand: ICC is based on COMPLEMENTARITY, based on US Law, UCMJ (know this- Uniform code of Military Justice) US Does investigate, prosecute, convict, and sentence EXTRATERRITORIALITY IS RESPECTED HUMAN RIGHTS Post WWII, need to clearly address HUMAN RIGHTS United Nations creates a committee, produce the: UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Eleanor Roosevelt-1948 Truly universal in coverage and application Hard to implement-not enforceable BUT a UNIQUE STATEMENT OF CLARITY 30 ARTICLES, SPECIFY HUMAN RIGHTS TO ALL PEOPLE Comprehensive, universal (including Article 24-Right to Vacation!) What are human rights, who gets them? http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html Three views of Human Rights Universal Rights: JackDonnelly Based on ALL rights for ALL PEOPLE Component of human dignity BASIC RIGHTS: Henry Shue Privileges certain rights as necessary for any rights Security, subsistence, and POLITICAL (US position) CULTURAL RELATIVISM: culture matters to ID rights Cultural exceptionalism: US, Islam, etc. Death penalty, FGM, etc States USE culture for their purposes HUMAN RIGHTS ARE SUBJECT TO STATE INTEREST Human Rights and the Cold War Cold War makes ?universal? difficult to enforce ?Basket Approach? Covenants on Human Rights Civil and political?US Economic, social, and cultural rights?USSR Each side uses human rights in their own political and strategic interest- NOT the point of the UDEC Human rights remain deeply embedded in state interest: War on Terror, Cold War, torture, etc. RECAP
Want to see the other 5 page(s) in November 17.docx?JOIN TODAY FOR FREE!