Tuesday, October 29, 2019
Role of the International Court and Tribunals in Relation to Armed Conflict Essay Example for Free
Role of the International Court and Tribunals in Relation to Armed Conflict Essay Introduction            The volatility and persistence of armed conflicts around the world has caused the convention amongst states which aims to lessen the harm that it brought forth. The research then aimed to identify the international laws and conventions that were created in order to lessen the evils of armed conflicts. In addition, the research aimed to identify the international court and tribunals that were created in response to the said conventions and laws. A few number of cases were also presented in order to understand more the applications of international laws and consequently the workings of the international court. The research will be identifying how these laws and courts are able to protect the rights of soldiers, prisoners of wars and civilians. Background of the Study Factors Leading to Conflict            The historian AJP Taylor has described that wars are very much volatile as there are no standard systems in order to predict how one will occur. [1] Corollary with this, various psychologists have significantly related human nature in terms on the frequency of armed conflict. EFM Durban and John Bowlby have argued that man is inherently violent. Such a claim is in accordance with Hobbe’s claim that on the state of nature man is in the state of war; hence claiming that man basically has the thirst for power and dominance, while consequently actualizing such in a violent manner. Durban and Bowlby claimed that although such a violence that man experiences is repressed in a conventional society, the creation of an outlet in order to occasionally express such a violent nature is inevitable. This argument could be significantly related on how certain individuals such as for instance Hitler has displaced his hatred against the Jews.  Such is in relation to the claim why certain individuals shift their grievances to certain ethnic groups, nations or ideologies.[2] The Geneva Conventions            The Geneva Conventions of 1949 contains four separate treatises which primarily focus on protecting soldiers from sufferings that may have been wounded, sick, shipwrecked or might be prisoners of wars (POWs). In addition, the protection of civilians and their property are also taken into focus on the said conventions.[3]   The humanitarian focus of the Geneva Conventions was further expanded through the 1977 Additional Protocols.[4]   On the other hand, the details of the use of the weapons of war and the use of biological weapons are not included in the said convention as the use of the former were specified by the Hague Conventions of 1889 and 1907.            The First Geneva Conventions on August 12, 1949 necessitates that soldiers who are out of battle (i.e. hors de combat) should be protected. The Article 12 claims that equal care should be given to all people regardless of sex, race, nationality, religion, political beliefs, etc. Article 15 claims that the sick and the wounded must be protected from pillage and ill treatment. The second Geneva Conventions on the other hand caters to those sick and wounded who are on the seas. The 63 provisions focus on the armed forces who are â€Å"wounded, sick and shipwrecked, hospital ships and medical personnel, and civilians who accompany the armed forces.†[5]   The third Geneva Conventions contains 143 articles which clearly defines how prisoners of war (POWs) should be treated. According to the American Red Cross, POWs should be â€Å"†¦treated humanely, adequately housed, and receive sufficient food, clothing, and medical care. Its provisions also establish guidelines on labor, discipline, recreation, and criminal trial†.[6] Specific provisions of the third Geneva Conventions which tackled these provisions are Arts. 70-72, 123, Arts. 13-14, 16, Arts. 25-27, 30, Art. 23, Art. 17, Arts. 50, 54, Arts. 82, 84, Arts. 109, 110, Art. 118, and Art. 125. The fourth Geneva Conventions then focuses on the protection of the civilians in times of armed conflict. The 159 articles of the said conventions emphasizes the need to have civilian lives’ maintained in a normal disposition and protect them on every means of evil. [7]            As a sum, the Geneva Conventions based its arguments on the basic rational that human dignity of all individuals must be of utmost importance regardless of any instance. Necessary ways must be done in order to prevent any kind of suffering of both the combatants who have suffered wounds or any type of sickness. In addition, the rights of the rights of the POWs are also taken into utmost detail, hence preventing any kind of torture and other types of human rights violations. In addition the protection of the civilians most specially the assurance of the living a normal and quality life that is free from danger and any type of evils are also emphasized.            The 1949 Geneva Conventions paved the way for the creation of a more detailed law that focuses more on the workings of armed conflict. The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) is a response to the demand of a more thorough legal perspective in terms of conducting armed conflicts. Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC)            The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) stemmed out from customary practices of international law which required nations to comply with the set of laws that preside over the exercise of military operations in armed conflict. The acceptance of the international jurisdiction of the LOAC could be seen in the US Constitution which dubbed treaty obligations as the â€Å"supreme law of the land†, hence a part of the US law. Hence it could be implied that all individuals that are under the US law most particularly those militants who are engaged in armed conflicts are bounded by LOAC.[8] The DoDD 5100.77, DoD Law of War Program emphasizes the necessity amongst all military departments to create a program that ensures that LOAC will be observed. In addition with this, part of the treaty obligation of the US under the 1949 Geneva Conventions is the training of all military forces under LOAC and ensure that all weapons that will be used in armed conflict will be reviewed.[9] The nature of combatants are clearly defined in the LOAC. Lawful combatants are those individuals who are certified by any government authority to participate in armed conflict. In addition, a lawful combatant must be under the jurisdiction by an individual whose duty is to be responsible to his subordinates. Corollary with this, a permanent and unique emblem should be identified even in a distant such as uniforms. More importantly, a lawful combatant should be able to carry his arms obviously[10].            On the other hand, noncombatants are those people who are not certified by any government authority to engage in armed conflict. These individuals are clearly defined as civilians who are with the Armed Forces, soldiers who are out of combat i.e. POWs, wounded, medical personnel and chaplains.            In relation with this, unlawful combatants are those people who participate in armed conflict whom however are not authorized by any government authority to be such. For instance, bandits who steal from civilians are seen as unlawful combatants and may be viewed as targets that could be captured or killed. Also, unlawful combatants could also be put into trial because of violating international laws.[11]            Individuals who have undetermined status are those people which could not be categorized as a lawful combatant, noncombatant or an unlawful combatant. Undetermined individuals however are still viewed as under the protections of the Geneva Prisoner of War conventions until their status will be identified[12].            Military targets are also clearly defined in the LOAC. Such is relevant in order to limit the attacks to appropriate individuals. Military targets are defined are those individuals whose virtue of their own nature, location, purpose adds to an enemy’s capacity to engage in war. More importantly, the arrest and/or annihilation of these military targets are perceived to actualize the military objectives of the government.[13]            Regardless of the perceived goal of annihilation or capture of military targets, LOAC still takes into utmost focus the disposition of the civilian population. Attacks on places which are not justified by military necessity are against the LOAC. In addition, the attack on civilians in order to terrorize them is also against the international laws. However, LOAC considers that the civilian deaths or other related casualties could not be totally prevented in armed conflicts. Hence, the LOAC emphasizes that as much as possible, military objectives would seek to minimize such harms. LOAC emphasizes that losses on the part of the civilians must be in equal measure to the goals of the military. In relation with this, LOAC also has a provision against attacking objects that are dedicated to peaceful purposes. Medical units, vehicles for the wounded and the sick, hospital ships both for the civilian and the soldiers, safety zones as established by the Geneva Conventions, religious, cultural and charitable infrastructures, monuments and POW camps. Albeit, LOAC also made clear that if by any chance that these objects will be used for war purposes, such will not be subject to any immunity[14]. Problem Statement            Based on the laws set forth by the Geneva Conventions and the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC), the research seeks to identify what are the international tribunals and courts that are created in order to resolve the conflicts which stemmed during and/or after a particular war. In addition, the research seeks to know what are the roles that these tribunals and courts played in relation to resolving conflicts and various types of injustices.            International Court and Tribunals are created either to solve general conflicts and criminal cases or specific criminal cases of a particular country. These courts and tribunals are operational based on the laws, conventions and scope agreed upon and must be able to dispense justice in all possible cases. However, issues emerge as how international courts and tribunals handle, resolve conflicts and spend their budget. Objectives of the Study            The research aimed to: Identify the laws that were created that led to the proper and just exercise of international armed conflict. Identify various international court and tribunals that resulted due to the enactment of these laws. Identify the roles of the said tribunals and court in the exercise of justice. Identify the issues that these tribunals and court currently face. Significance of the Study            The research is relevant in order to increase the awareness of the researcher and his colleagues on the workings of international laws in terms of resolving armed conflicts. In addition, the identification of the international court and tribunals which stemmed out from these laws are also relevant not only for academic awareness and knowledge but also for a wider perspective of how armed conflict has affected various countries all over the world. Such will enable the researcher to know the quality of life of these people that could further aid him in participating in his own small way of minimizing the advent of various political leaders for war. Review of Related Literature            The research will be identifying the courts and tribunals which were created in order to resolve various conflicts and injustices that resulted because of armed conflicts. For the purpose of this paper, the research will be discussing the First Generation Tribunals i.e. Nuremberg Tribunal and the Tokyo Tribunal; the Second Generation Tribunals i.e. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), and the International Criminal Court (ICC).         The role of these courts in relation to armed conflict will be identified, discussed through its principles and cases being resolved. In addition, the issues that envelope these international courts and tribunals will also be identified. First Generation Tribunals International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg (Nuremberg Tribunal)            The Nuremberg Tribunal was responsible for the trial and prosecution of the political, military and economic leaders of Nazi Germany. The said trial was made at the Nuremberg Palace of Justice on the city of Nuremberg Germany from 1945 to 1949. Two sets of trials were made. The first was the â€Å"Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal (IMT) which was held from November 20, 1945 to October 1, 1946 which comprises of the 24 most relevant leaders of the Nazis. On the other hand, the Control Council Law No. 10 at the US Military Tribunals (NMT) on the other hand was for the lesser war criminals which included doctors and judges[15].            The first principle of the Nuremberg Tribunal claims that an individual who commits a crime that is punishable under international laws should be apprehended and punished[16]. Consequently, the second principle states that if by any chance that the law does not provide a specific type of penalty for a particular crime, does not automatically relieve the accused of the said crime that he committed[17]. The third principle on the other hand, emphasizes that being a government leader such as a head of state etc does not automatically relieve an accused of his accountability to the alleged crime[18]. In relation with this, the notion of the existence of a moral choice was cited on Principle four and as per the Tribunal should be the guiding virtue to acts that were claimed to be done due to duress from a superior[19]. More importantly, the fifth principle made it clear that the accused must be subjected to a fair trial based on the laws and evidences that will be gathered[20]. The sixth principle then defines the set of crimes that are punishable under international law, these are: crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Crimes against peace were defined as the â€Å"planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances†and the â€Å"participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under†. [21] On the other hand, war crimes are seen as the â€Å"murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity†[22]. Finally, crimes against humanity are characterized as â€Å"Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime†[23].            The principles of the Nuremberg Tribunal which are affirmed by the General Assembly are the first set of principles that were formulated in order to lessen the evils brought forth by armed conflict. The tribunal recognizes that equality of all men on the eyes of the law, as evident on the first and the third principles. In addition, the notion of impartiality and fairness are also made clear as one of the guiding principles of the tribunal in order to trial those who were accused. However, one of the criticisms against the Nuremberg Tribunal is with regard to the notion that its principles are made ex post facto or â€Å"after the fact†. Such means that the principles are made just after the Axis powers surrendered and the principles are not really adapted to any existing custom law.[24]  Critics of the Nuremberg Tribunal argue that what happens is more of a â€Å"Victor’s Justice†rather than a more impartial, neutral and just trial[25].  In relation with this, other criticism such as the accused were not allowed to appeal against the court or may also influence the selection of the judges[26].            Below is a table summarizing the decision of the tribunal on the major personalities of the Nazi Regime.[27] International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) (Tokyo Tribunal)            The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, also dubbed as the Tokyo Tribunal was created in response to the crimes committed by the leaders of the Japan Empire during the Second World War. The jurisdiction among people[28] is limited to the criminals of the Far Eastern who as members of an organization or as an individual have committed a crime that is against peace. The tribunal trialed the three types of crimes committed by Japanese leaders which are â€Å"Class A or crimes against peace, Class B or war crimes and Class C or crimes against humanity[29].  The first class of criminals is those Japanese who have waged a conspiracy in order to start the war and the other two types of criminals refer to those of the Nanking Massacre. The trials started on May 3, 1946 and were finished on November 12, 1948. The Nanking Massacre involves the thousand of deaths that resulted from the abuse of the Japanese forces. Civilians were buried alive while some become the targets of bayonet practice. In addition, some were shot in huge groups and were thrown into the Yangtze River. In addition with this, numerous women were raped, murdered and mutilated[30]. Japan has also conducted opium trafficking in China in order to weaken the latter from resisting[31]. The tribunal on Article 6 have made clear the responsibility of the accused, wherein it emphasizes that the accused official position or responsibility towards the government are not sufficient reasons in order to acquit him, unless proven so[32]. The Article 9 which states how the trial of the accused is to be conducted is somewhat similar to that of the Nuremberg Tribunal. Although Article 9 is leaning towards a fair trial for the accused, the provisions are only focusing on Indictment, Language, Counsel for Accused, Evidence for Defense, and Production of Evidence for the Defense. One could see that there are no such provisions saying that the accused is capable for an appeal or could have an influence for the selection of the judges[33]. Similarly, Article 16 describes the mode of penalty and punishment includes death or other penalties that are perceived by the tribunal to be just[34]. Second Generation Tribunals The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)            The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia or the ICTY was made on May 25 1993 by the Security Council Resolution 827 in order to trial the crimes that were made on the former Yugoslavia, more particularly on the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to protect international peace and security. ICTY is located at Hague Netherlands. [35]  The ICTY has already indicted 161 individuals who are responsible for the crimes against international and humanitarian law.[36] The conflicts that emerge on the former Yugoslavia shifted from Slovenia to Croatia and then to Bosnia which the later showed signs of genocide such as deportation and mass executions and concentration camps. In addition with this, sexual assaults and rape were also documented. In effect of this, on October 1992, the Security Council asked UN Secretary, Butros Butros Ghali to furnish an account of the violation of international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia[37]. The ICTY has four major objectives: first is to bring to justice the individuals who are accountable on the grave violations of international and humanitarian law, to dispense justice to those who are afflicted, to prevent such crimes to occur again, to do its part to restore peace and held responsible those individuals who committed such crimes of international law and humanitarian law[38]. The jurisdiction of the ICTY is limited only to individuals and not organizations and or groups, who were alleged to commit such crimes after the first of January, 1991.[39] The violations that are subject to ICTY’s jurisdiction are those violations coming from the Geneva conventions such as: â€Å"a) wilful killing; b) torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments; c) wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health; d) extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly; e) compelling a prisoner of war or a civilian to serve in the forces of a hostile power; f) wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or a civilian of the rights of fair and regular trial; g) unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a civilian; h) taking civilians as hostages†[40] Also, Violations on the Laws or Customs of War are also included such as:        â€Å"a) use of poisonous weapons or other weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering; b) wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity; c) attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings; d) seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science; e) plunder of public or private property.†[41]            Crimes against humanity which are normally done to the civilians of former Yugoslavia are also trialed. In addition with this, Genocide was also another crime that ICTY looked into.             The ICTY has also categorized into two types the criminal responsibilities of that were allegedly committed by every accused. The first type are those individuals who have a well structured plan and authority to exercise such crimes, while on the other hand, the second type of accused are those superiors who have their subordinates commit crimes which the former has no knowledge of; and / or the superiors who did not made any steps in order to punish the said subordinate who made such a crime.[42]            The ICTY also has Rules of Procedure and Evidence that were drafted and amended by its judges and provides the parameters of how proceedings in trials should undergo. The basic premise of these standards resides on the notion of fairness which establishes the innocence of the accused and the burden of proof should rest on the prosecution. More importantly, ICTY has made sure that all of the parties involved must have the capacity to present their cases and in such instances, the tribunal requires that the language of the accused will be used. The tribunal has also made clear that death penalty can not be imposed and that the parties both have the right to appeal.[43]            Corollary with this, the rules of the tribunal also provides the right for a public hearing. In addition, the right of the accused to analyze the evidences of the prosecution, present his own evidences and the right against self-incrimination is also an evidence of a fair treatment to the accused. Unlike the Nuremberg and the Tokyo tribunal, the ICTY provides a more balanced perspective in terms of dealing with armed conflict accused and criminals. In addition, the utmost relevance that is centered on the importance of the human life is also evident as death penalty is not an accepted form of punishment to those trialed as guilty of the said allegations[44]. International Criminal Court for Rwanda (ICTR)            The International Criminal Court for Rwanda (ICTR) was made on November 8, 1994 which is roughly 18 months after the ICTY was made. The Security Council adopted the resolution 955[45] in order to trial the human rights abuses that resulted the conflict of two major tribes in Rwanda that resulted to genocide[46] between January 1, 1994 and December 31, 1994. In addition with this, the neighboring states of Rwanda who have participated as well for the said genocide and other human rights violation were also subjected to the trials of the tribunal[47].   ICTR is located in Arusha, United Republic of Tanzania[48].            The domestic conflict that emerge between the Hutu tribe which is the dominating tribe in Rwanda and the Tutsi Tribe which was the minority after the country’s decolonization in 1962.  The Hutus and the Tutsi’s conflict emerge primarily out of political reasons and not really of ethnic differences. Both of the tribes shared the same Roman Catholic faith and in times intermarried.[49]            In 1960, the Belgian government organized an election in response to the Tutsi’s demand for independence. However, a huge amount of the mayoral posts were given to the Hutus and in two years span, the Hutus have supplanted the Tutsis as the local elites. At such a span of time, there has been a wide documentation of reports claiming massacres of Tutsis which further led the latter to move to near by countries. After 15 years, the killings have abated and the Tutsi refugees who have returned organized a parliamentary forced known as Rwandan Patriotic Font (RPF) which later on signed peace conventions to Arusha Peace Accords which mandated the share of powers between the Hutus and the Tutsis[50].            The rare of how the Rwandan genocide have occurred was perceived to be so fast as around 1994 around 500,000 – 1,000,000 Tutsis has been killed while 10,000 to 100,000 Hutus were killed[51]. The laws adopted by the ICTR are governed by its statute which was based from the Security Council Resolution 955, wherein the Article 14 of the Statute serves as the foundation of the judicial framework of the tribunal.  The ICTR is primarily made of three organs which are the Chambers and the Appeals Chamber, the Office of the Prosecutor and the Registry[52].            The jurisdiction of the ICTR is under the parameters of â€Å"genocide, crimes against humanity†and â€Å"violations of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II†. In relation with this, the crimes which are to be trialed are those executed between 1 January and 31 December 1994. Those crimes to be included are those within Rwanda and in the territory of neighboring states which are significantly related to the alleged crimes[53].            However certain objections were made with regards to the laws set forth by the ICTR[54]. The first objection was against the decision regarding the jurisdiction on crimes limited to July 1994 rather than December 1994. Critics claimed that such is because of the tribunal’s preference to cover earlier crimes and suspend temporal jurisdiction to retribution crimes against Hutus that were made on December. The second objection was about the penalty that was accepted in Resolution 955 which was the highest form appears to be life imprisonment. Such a statute was objected due to the argument that the Rwandan Penal Code allows the execution of death penalty.  The stand on the preference of the possibility of death penalty to be given against the leaders of the mass killings is so much important to the victims. The third objection was with regard to the limitation of the crimes to be trialed as those of concerning genocide alone. In effect of this, the killings that the Tutsi’s made after July would not be categorized as under the ICTR jurisdiction. The fourth problem is with regard to the objection of the location of ICTR in Arusha stating that the â€Å"deterrent effect of the trial and the punishment will be lost if the trial and punishment will be lost if the trials were to be held hundreds of miles away from the scene of the crime†. [55] International Criminal Court (ICC)            The International Criminal Court was created on 2002 and is a permanent tribunal to trial cases and â€Å"crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression†as per Article 5 of its Statue.[56]   There have been a couple of appeals stating that crimes such as terrorism and drug trafficking must be included on the list of crimes that the court deals into. India has made a proposal to include the creation of the weapons of mass destruction, and nuclear weapons but such appeals to the court are defeated[57].  According to Article 11, the court only has jurisdiction after July 1, 2002 which was when the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court took effect. The ICC is the â€Å"court of last resort†and will only trial cases of national origin when proved to be based on a faulty reasoning.  ICC has jurisdiction over matters wherein the accused belongs to a territory or state party that is under the national or territory of a state party. After which Article 14 states that such a case will be referred by the United Nations to the ICC. Since the court is made to function in juxtaposition of various national courts, ICC can only make take over the on the trial of certain crimes that national courts are unwilling to look into  The Article 17 of the Statute claims that â€Å"(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;    (b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute; (c) The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint (d)    The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court†[58]. Similar to the tribunals presented above, the ICC also does not excuse criminals who hold certain positions on the government office. As defined in Article 27 these individuals include â€Å"Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government†[59] In relation with this, Article 28 of the Statute claims that the superiors of those criminals are held responsible for the crimes committed by the latter.  The military commander are held liable in grounds of having or not having the foreknowledge of the criminal acts to be conducted and the failure of the commander to prevent or to report to other individuals of high position the perceived criminal acts to be executed. In relation with this, the military commander will be held responsible for the criminal acts of his subordinates, given the notion that the former did not properly exercise his control by disregarding the foreknowledge that he got, and also failure to exercise his power and control in order to prevent such acts.[60] The ICC as of April 2007 have a total of 41 countries signed the Roman Statute but a number of countries are still opposing on it. According to the Article 3 of the Statute, the official seat of the court is in Hague Netherlands; however, it may hold proceedings at almost any place[61]. The Effectiveness of International Courts and Tribunals            Barria and Roper provided an analysis on the effectiveness of the second generation international tribunals and also touching certain aspects of the effectiveness of international courts such as the ICC[62]. According to them, the assessment of the effectiveness of the ICTY and the ICTR are difficult to assess because they were established based on various rationales due to the argument that the Security Council perceived the said tribunals with a â€Å"multi-faceted mandate†[63]. Although it could be asserted that the basis for the creation of the ICTY and the ICTR are based on a specific statute such as the Resolution 955, it could be perceived that they have the two tribunals serve two different ends. The ICTR is perceived to maintain peace and order, make sure that violations against human rights and various killings will be stopped, and eventually leading on the process of national reconciliation[64]. As such, Barria and Roper argued that ICTR’s two main goals are closely similar to the ICTY, other than that the ICTR included on its mandate the task of reconciliation among the two opposing national forces.            On a closer analysis, the establishment of the ICTY and the ICTR does not necessarily provided an immediate deterrent effect on the nations and parties that are involved, however, such hopes on the deterrent nature of the court are still expected on the far future.            In addition, Barria and Roper criticized that international tribunals are not generally perceived as an avenue to maintain peace and order, however, newly established courts such as the ICC are perceived to have the capability of securing peace in the international community. Roberts, as cited in Barria and Roper have maintained that the ICTY and the ICTR are not really that successful in terms of maintaining peace and security[65]. More importantly, Shinoda as cited in Barria and Roper criticized the relationship of imposing justice on the notion of national peace and order. As such, Shinoda argued: â€Å"Does justice really contribute to peace? Should we reject unjust peace even in post-conflict regions?†[66] As such, Barria and Roper argued that ICTY was not able to establish peace and order on the former Yugoslavia as hostilities between Bosnian Serbs, Croats and Muslims still exist[67].            On the case of the ICTR, revenge killings on the part of the Tutsi tribes are still in effect, as there is no cooperation on the part of national forces within the state of Rwanda. As such, Barria and Roper argued that the success of the imposing of peace and order through the second generation tribunals will be only fully actualized if it gained support from the nations involved and the international society[68].            Another significant criticism that was raised regarding the role of international tribunals was that of Cobban wherein she asserts that international tribunals besides the argument that they failed to dispense justice have due process that are long and expensive. On the 25 indictments that the ICTR have done, more than $1 billion was the documented cost which makes every case cost around $40 million[69].  Conclusion International Court and Tribunals are created either to solve general conflicts and criminal cases or specific criminal cases of a particular country. These courts and tribunals are operational based on the laws, conventions and scope agreed upon and must be able to dispense justice in all possible cases. However, issues emerge as how international courts and tribunals handle, resolve conflicts and spend their budget. The research has identifying the courts and tribunals which were created in order to resolve various conflicts and injustices that resulted because of armed conflicts. The research has discussed the First Generation Tribunals i.e. Nuremberg Tribunal and the Tokyo Tribunal; the Second Generation Tribunals i.e. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), and the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Nuremberg Tribunal was responsible for the trial and prosecution of the political, military and economic leaders of Nazi Germany. The said trial was made at the Nuremberg Palace of Justice on the city of Nuremberg Germany from 1945 to 1949. Two sets of trials were made. The first was the â€Å"Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal (IMT) which was held from November 20, 1945 to October 1, 1946 which comprises of the 24 most relevant leaders of the Nazis. On the other hand, the Control Council Law No. 10 at the US Military Tribunals (NMT) on the other hand was for the lesser war criminals which included doctors and judges The International Military Tribunal for the Far East, also dubbed as the Tokyo Tribunal was created in response to the crimes committed by the leaders of the Japan Empire during the Second World War. The jurisdiction among people is limited to the criminals of the Far Eastern who as members of an organization or as an individual have committed a crime that is against peace. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia or the ICTY was made on May 25 1993 by the Security Council Resolution 827 in order to trial the crimes that were made on the former Yugoslavia, more particularly on the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to protect international peace and security. ICTY is located at Hague Netherlands.   The ICTY has already indicted 161 individuals who are responsible for the crimes against international and humanitarian law The International Criminal Court for Rwanda (ICTR) was made on November 8, 1994 which is roughly 18 months after the ICTY was made. The Security Council adopted the resolution 955 in order to trial the human rights abuses that resulted the conflict of two major tribes in Rwanda that resulted to genocide between January 1, 1994 and December 31, 1994. In addition with this, the neighboring states of Rwanda who have participated as well for the said genocide and other human rights violation were also subjected to the trials of the tribunal .  ICTR is located in Arusha, United Republic of Tanzania . The International Criminal Court was created on 2002 and is a permanent tribunal to trial cases and â€Å"crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression†Barria and Roper provided an analysis on the effectiveness of the second generation international tribunals and also touching certain aspects of the effectiveness of international courts such as the ICC. According to them, the assessment of the effectiveness of the ICTY and the ICTR are difficult to assess because they were established based on various rationales due to the argument that the Security Council perceived the said tribunals with a â€Å"multi-faceted mandate. Another significant criticism that was raised regarding the role of international tribunals was that of Cobban wherein she asserts that international tribunals besides the argument that they failed to dispense justice have due process that are long and expensive. References American Red Cross â€Å"FACING FEAR/6-8/Lesson Plan 8/Facts About Terrorism and War†(2001). American Red Cross, â€Å"1949 Geneva Conventions†http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a4214125673 9003e636b/fe20 c3d903ce27e3c125641e004a9 2f3 accessed 19 April 2007.  Avalon Project at Yale School, â€Å"International Military Tribunal for the Far East, (Article 5)†http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imtfem.htm accessed 20 April 2007. Barria L and Ropper S, â€Å"How Effective are International Criminal Tribunals? An Assessment of the ICTY and the ICTR, The International Journal of Human Rights September 2005, Vol. 9, No. 3, 349–368. Biddis M, â€Å"Victor’s Justice? The Nuremberg Tribunal†, History Today (1995). â€Å"Causes of War†, http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/war/causes-of-war.html accessed on 18 April 2007. Cobban H , â€Å"International Courts†, Foreign Policy (2006) 22-28. Dilip Lahiri, 17 July 1998. Explanation of vote on the adoption of the Statute of the International Criminal Court. Embassy of India, Washington, D.C. Global Policy, â€Å"Tribunal Laws Made Simple†, http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/tribunals/yugo/2004/ictyintro.htm accessed 20 April 2007. International Criminal Court. â€Å"About the Court†, http://www.icc-cpi.int/about.html, accessed on 20 April 2007 Microsoft Encarta, â€Å"War Crimes Trial†, Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2005 PICT-PCTI, â€Å"International Military Tribunal for the Former Yugoslvaia†, http://www.pict-pcti.org/courts/ICTY.html accessed 20 April 2007. Powers Rod, â€Å"Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC)†(Guide to US Military) http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac.htm accessed 19 April 2007. Puja K, â€Å"Global Civil Society Remakes History:â€Å"The Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal 2000†, Duke University, positions 9:3 Winter 2001, 611-618. â€Å"The Tokyo War Crimes Trial†, http://www.cnd.org/mirror/nanjing/NMTT.htmlaccessed 20 April 2007. United Nations, â€Å"General Information†, http://www.un.org/icty/glance-e/index.htm accessed 20 April 2007. United Nations. â€Å"Key Figures of ICTY Cases†, http://www.un.org/icty/glance- e/index.htm accessed 20 April 2007. United Nations, â€Å"General Information†, http://www.un.org/icty/glance-e/index.htm accessed 20 April 2007. United Nations, â€Å"International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda†, ictyhttp://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/rwatrib.htm accessed 20 April 2007. United Nations, â€Å"PART 2. JURISDICTION, ADMISSIBILITY AND APPLICABLE LAW†http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm accessed 20 April 2007. United Nations, PART 3. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW, Article 27†, http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/2.htm accessed 20 April 2007. United Nations, â€Å"Part 1 ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COURT, Article 3†, http://www.un.org/law/icc/statute/99_corr/4.htm accessed 20 April 2007. [1] â€Å"Causes of War†, http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/war/causes-of-war.html accessed on 18 April 2007. [2] Ibid. [3] American Red Cross, â€Å"1949 Geneva Conventions†http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a4214125673 9003e636b/fe20 c3d903ce27e3c125641e004a9 2f3 accessed 19 April 2007. [4] American Red Cross â€Å"FACING FEAR/6-8/Lesson Plan 8/Facts About Terrorism and War†(2001). [5] Ibid. [6] Ibid on page 3. [7] Ibid. [8] Powers Rod, â€Å"Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC)†(Guide to US Military) http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac.htm accessed 19 April 2007. [9] Ibid. [10] Ibid. [11] Ibid. [12] Ibid. [13] Ibid. [14] Ibid. [15] Microsoft Encarta, â€Å"War Crimes Trial†, Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2005. [16] Ibid. [17] Ibid. [18] Ibid. [19] Ibid. [20] Ibid. [21] Ibid. [22] Ibid. [23] Ibid. [24] Biddis M, â€Å"Victor’s Justice? The Nuremberg Tribunal†, History Today (1995). [25] Ibid. [26] Ibid. [27] Table taken from: Biddis M, â€Å"Victor’s Justice? The Nuremberg Tribunal†, History Today (1995). [28] Avalon Project at Yale School, â€Å"International Military Tribunal for the Far East, (Article 5)†http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imtfem.htm accessed 20 April 2007. [29] Puja K, â€Å"Global Civil Society Remakes History:â€Å"The Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal 2000†, Duke University, positions 9:3 Winter 2001, 611-618. [30] â€Å"The Tokyo War Crimes Trial†, http://www.cnd.org/mirror/nanjing/NMTT.htmlaccessed 20 April 2007. [31] Ibid. [32] Avalon Project at Yale School, â€Å"International Military Tribunal for the Far East, (Article 6)†http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imtfem.htm accessed 20 April 2007 [33] Ibid on Article 9. [34] Ibid on Article 16. [35] United Nations, â€Å"General Information†, http://www.un.org/icty/glance-e/index.htm accessed 20 April 2007. [36] United Nations. â€Å"Key Figures of ICTY Cases†, http://www.un.org/icty/glance-e/index.htm accessed 20 April 2007. [37] PICT-PCTI, â€Å"International Military Tribunal for the Former Yugoslvaia†, http://www.pict-pcti.org/courts/ICTY.html accessed 20 April 2007. [38] [38] United Nations, â€Å"General Information†, http://www.un.org/icty/glance-e/index.htm accessed 20 April 2007. [39] Global Policy, â€Å"Tribunal Laws Made Simple†, http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/tribunals/yugo/2004/ictyintro.htm  accessed 20 April 2007. [40] Ibid. [41] Ibid. [42] Ibid. [43] Ibid [44] Ibid. [45] United Nations, â€Å"International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda†, ictyhttp://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/rwatrib.htm accessed 20 April 2007. [46] Barria L and Ropper S, â€Å"How Effective are International Criminal Tribunals? An Assessment of the ICTY and the ICTR, The International Journal of Human Rights September 2005, Vol. 9, No. 3, 349–368. [47] United Nations, â€Å"General Information†, http://69.94.11.53/default.htm accessed 20 April 2007. [48] Ibid. [49] Barria L and Ropper S, â€Å"How Effective are International Criminal Tribunals? An Assessment of the ICTY and the ICTR, The International Journal of Human Rights September 2005, Vol. 9, No. 3, 349–368 [50] Ibid. [51] Ibid.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.