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

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