Where is R2P grounded in international law? Anne-Marie Judson A ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

This situation also constituted “a threat to international peace and security” and therefore the Security Council was obligated to bring those responsible to justice and to restore peace. Security Council Resolution 955 (1994) was adopted and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda was established. In the Annex, the prosecutors of the International Tribunal for Rwanda were given the power to prosecute crimes against humanity, which constituted a systematic and widespread attack against the civilian population. These acts were constituted in Article 4 as acts “common to the Geneva” protocols, once again showing that crimes against humanity could only be prosecuted as ‘war crimes’. 310 In regards to standing on its own as a distinct and separate law, crimes against humanity do not yet have this advantage and therefore can only apply in circumstances that are within the jurisdiction of war crimes. It therefore raises serious concerns over the application of R2P in regards to citing crimes against humanity as a reason for intervention into the internal affairs of a state that is not currently in a conflict between two parties or more. The requirement that is inherent in humanitarian law is that there are two parties or more in conflict or war with each other, not the state against its citizens. This also raises other concerns for situations that do not strictly speaking constitute a war or a conflict. This includes political uprisings against a state, or a similar situation whereby the state is not in direct conflict with a warring party but the very citizens that it is responsible for protecting. These questions will be further clarified in Chapter 4 on Application and State Derogations in international law. 310 United Nations. (1994). United Nations Security Council 3453rd plenary meeting on 8th November 1994 (S/RES/955) see also the letter of the Secretary-‐General on 1 st October 1994 (S/1994/1125) as well as (S/1994/879), (S/1994/906) and (S/1994/1157) Annex i and annex ii) 94
SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 3 This research shows that there is jurisdiction under the Charter of the United Nations and the International Court of Justice Statute for violations against peace and security and international law. This jurisdiction applies to threats to the peace and violations of these which have been shown to include genocide and war crimes under the ICTY and ICTR. The rule of law showed that states are bound to each other through signing the Charter and the ICJ Statute in that they have responsibilities and duties in international law to prevent and protect their citizens from harm. The Vienna Convention showed the application principles on treaties and contracts between states. It showed that the state was limited in its actions by its obligations in international law. These obligations were shown as preventative tools in that the state had to implement the treaties in good faith into local jurisdiction and education to fulfill the conditions of the contract. If they did not it could be seen as a violation of international law in principle. Other states could withdraw their commitment to the Treaty on behalf of the violation. Customary laws were shown also as prevention tools in that the obligations of each state to the Treaty provided instructions to comply with the rules of prosecution in one’s own courts in regards to grave crimes. It also provided application rules in regards to implementing the Conventions, Statutes and Treaties into local legislation, military programmes and local education. In terms of individual definitions, ethnic cleansing was shown to have distinctive reference to race, based on discrimination, and it could be considered under apartheid or genocide. War crimes and genocide were firmly grounded in international law providing detailed information on their application. On the other hand research showed that the application of crimes against humanity had failed under the Nuremberg and the Tokyo Trials. The establishment of the Tribunals of the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda also showed that the terminology could not yet be distinctively applied as customary international law on its own. This raised questions of applicability and legal standing in relation to R2P application. The question was raised regarding applicability in circumstances that cannot be defined as war crimes where there must be two parties or more to a conflict to be defined under war crimes. This question was left unanswered in Chapter 3 and further clarification of these questions will be provided in Chapter 4. 95
Page 1 and 2:
Where is R2P grounded in internatio
Page 3 and 4:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Firstly I would li
Page 5 and 6:
3.0.6 What factual relationships mu
Page 7 and 8:
INTRODUCTION - Treaties are not emp
Page 9 and 10:
frameworks to intervene in a state,
Page 11 and 12:
HOW DOES INTERNATIONAL LAW LINK IN
Page 13 and 14:
intervention 4 and agrees more alon
Page 15:
International Commission on State S
Page 18 and 19:
considered jus cogens. 21 They did
Page 20 and 21:
World Summit outcome document on R2
Page 22 and 23:
of states is, in fact, the entire d
Page 24 and 25:
Treaties (1969) now considered as c
Page 26 and 27:
JURISPRUDENCE AND THE CODIFICATION
Page 28 and 29:
Amador realised in the 1950s that i
Page 30 and 31:
international organisations he said
Page 32 and 33:
within the secondary category, it d
Page 35 and 36:
CHAPTER 2 - RIGHTS, DUTIES, AND RES
Page 37 and 38:
any obligation of whatever origin g
Page 39 and 40:
diplomatic and consular staff. 97 T
Page 41 and 42:
The state itself is not necessarily
Page 43 and 44: of international law, the conduct o
Page 45 and 46: not the receiving state. Situations
Page 47 and 48: that have been integrated to preven
Page 49 and 50: planning and supervision of militar
Page 51 and 52: obligation of that state”. 135 Th
Page 53 and 54: This shows that a breach is not lim
Page 55: The omission or failure to act ties
Page 58 and 59: nature by conjointly agreeing to bo
Page 60 and 61: or violation of international law t
Page 62 and 63: etween the reserving state and acce
Page 64 and 65: WHAT IS INTERNATIONAL CUSTOMARY LAW
Page 66 and 67: against Women (2005). In addition s
Page 68 and 69: THE CRIME OF ETHNIC CLEANSING The R
Page 70 and 71: extends to ensuring that political
Page 72 and 73: This convention seeks to ensure tha
Page 74 and 75: towards a group as such, required b
Page 76 and 77: are protected under this convention
Page 78 and 79: convention or not. This responsibil
Page 80 and 81: to body or health, as well as compe
Page 82 and 83: No propaganda or pressure is allowe
Page 84 and 85: intention as outlined is to dispers
Page 86 and 87: military objectives at all times. R
Page 88 and 89: military warfare then the civilian
Page 90 and 91: the Geneva conventions, constitutes
Page 92 and 93: crimes against humanity, the acts r
Page 97 and 98: CHAPTER 4 - APPLICATION AND STATE D
Page 99 and 100: that the present Covenant does not
Page 101 and 102: provisions are also included. 319 D
Page 103 and 104: other media. 331 During a state of
Page 105 and 106: institutions. 340 It says that inte
Page 107 and 108: of an apprehension of potential dan
Page 109 and 110: place between two parties, and the
Page 111 and 112: eformation under Article 13 covers
Page 113 and 114: France declared a state of emergenc
Page 115 and 116: means that it would be illegal to i
Page 117 and 118: DISCUSSION - WHERE DO WE GO FROM HE
Page 119 and 120: egional organisations as appropriat
Page 121 and 122: peace. It would appear that there w
Page 123 and 124: CONCLUSION At first glance R2P appe
Page 125 and 126: instructions but nevertheless actin
Page 127 and 128: were found to be a part of war crim
Page 129 and 130: BIBLIOGRAPHY (PRIMARY RESOURCES) In
Page 131 and 132: BIBLIOGRAPHY (PRIMARY RESOURCES) Un
Page 133 and 134: BIBLIOGRAPHY (SECONDARY RESOURCES)
Page 135 and 136: TABLE OF LEGAL CASES All cases can
Page 137 and 138: MULTILATERAL TREATIES, AND OTHER DO
Page 139 and 140: 4. Resolution 1894 - S/RES/1894 (20
Page 141 and 142: Injurious or to have Indiscriminate
Page 143 and 144: Hague III - Adaptation to Maritime
Page 145 and 146:
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA United Nati
Page 147 and 148:
INTERNATIONAL COURTS INTERNATIONAL
Page 149 and 150:
INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION YEAR B
Page 151 and 152:
UNITED NATIONS DIGITAL RESOURCES UN
Page 153 and 154:
CONVENTION ON THE NON-APPLICABILITY
Page 155 and 156:
SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS BY YEA
Page 157 and 158:
SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS - ARME
Page 159 and 160:
2001 http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2
Page 161 and 162:
MAINTENANCE OF INTERNATIONAL PEACE
Page 163 and 164:
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA - Please not
Page 165 and 166:
UNSC Resolution 1256 (1999) http://
Page 167 and 168:
BURUNDI UNSC Resolution 1959 (2010)
Page 169 and 170:
DEMOCRATIC PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF KORE
Page 171 and 172:
IRAQ 2011 UNSC Resolution 2001 (201
Page 173 and 174:
LIBERIA 2011 UNSC RESOLUTION 2008 (
Page 175 and 176:
MIDDLE EAST 2011 UNSC Resolution 20
Page 177 and 178:
RWANDA - Please note access is limi
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
SIERRA LEONE 2011 UNSC RESOLUTION 2
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
YUGOSLAVIA (former Yugoslavia) Plea
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
DEROGATIONS OF STATES UNDER ICCPR 1
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197:
show all

Where is R2P grounded in international law? Anne-Marie Judson A ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?