This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Rwanda scheme: First Rwanda flight delayed until at least 24 July
- AI-generated child sex abuse images targeted with new laws
- Academic Reference and Personal statement
- Scholarship
- Britain Under Siege: How Long Will We Tolerate Lawless Immigration?
- Cannot find funding for Cambridge, is it worth getting a loan?
- Slightly under entry requirements - Durham v St Andrews
- law work experience HELP
- Building my university application to study law
- Do Uni students go home for winter holiday?
- British teenager sentenced to one year in prison in Dubai for sex with 17 year old
- Extracurriculars that are needed for good Universities??
- English universities face autumn ‘tipping point’ as financial crisis looms
- how different are oxford admissions for international students?
- UCL, LSE OR KCL for law?
- Urgent- Do i have a chance at these Unis
- Uni of Edinbugh
- How many hours can a student work
- Law or engineering
- Discuss about restorative justices
How can countries be punished for breaking international law?
What methods can be used as a form of punishment for a country which has violated international law? Surely punishment would be difficult? I mean for example if you punished a country by cutting off trade, the people would suffer, and not those who presumably violated the law would not actually be punished. If you decided to invade the country surely that too would be against some international law? Is the only way countries can be punished be by putting leaders (or those responsible) on trial like the Nuremberg trials after Germany, or excluding said countries from organisations such as the UN? Thank to anyone who can give me a bit of clarification on this issue, which i feel is rather a pertinent one considering current affairs concerning war crimes and trial of Saddam Hussein etc.
Excellent question.
I suppose it's the million dollar question.
Yes that is a excellent question. I wonder if any one will come up with a good answer.
My answer is simple: countries cannot be punnished fairly for violating international law. The international law is just an illusion of security. What I mean by that is it's just a empty promise of guidelines that are used to deal with international relations problems.
For one example, it clearly stated in international law that invasion is illegal that solely based on the purpose of overthrowing the government. This rule has clearly been broken my George Bush, but there is no way he can be punnished for war crime, etc... If we put economical sanctions, we lose out because our countries cannot support ourselves without sufficient trade and the US is the main customer. If we invade them, they might blow up the world for the sake of it. If we sue them to court, we will never win because George Bush would eventually buy his way out of it.
I think the Law only works if a perfect superpower governs it; but there would never turn out that way. nothing is perfect in our world. in fact, nothing is ever right, we just ruin this heavenly nature; we can't help it!
(Apologies if I am talking rubbish here!)
For one example, it clearly stated in international law that invasion is illegal that solely based on the purpose of overthrowing the government. This rule has clearly been broken my George Bush, but there is no way he can be punnished for war crime, etc... If we put economical sanctions, we lose out because our countries cannot support ourselves without sufficient trade and the US is the main customer. If we invade them, they might blow up the world for the sake of it. If we sue them to court, we will never win because George Bush would eventually buy his way out of it.
I think the Law only works if a perfect superpower governs it; but there would never turn out that way. nothing is perfect in our world. in fact, nothing is ever right, we just ruin this heavenly nature; we can't help it!
(Apologies if I am talking rubbish here!)
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b52-bomb.jpg?
Hmm, I don't reckon countries can be punished for breaking international law though in all seriousness, it's just the way in which the world must work.
Hmm, I don't reckon countries can be punished for breaking international law though in all seriousness, it's just the way in which the world must work.
As Captain Chaos said. I would also add that apart from the ICC, the Security Council can establish ad hoc tribunals - like those established for the former yugoslavia - to try those who have committed crimes.
Just a couple remarks in reply to iz_a_bell:
- If international law was irrelevant then the US and the UK would not have had to justify their invasion using itnernational law before they went;
- If the US were to be taken to the ICC or the ICJ - there is no way they'd be able to 'buy' their way out; however there are issues of refusing jurisdiction with regards to the ICJ or with regards to the ICC that the act did not occur on the territory of a signatory or if those who have committed it are a signatory - I suspect the US has ratified it but I'm not sure (Its work hasn't strated properly yet anyway!).
Just a couple remarks in reply to iz_a_bell:
- If international law was irrelevant then the US and the UK would not have had to justify their invasion using itnernational law before they went;
- If the US were to be taken to the ICC or the ICJ - there is no way they'd be able to 'buy' their way out; however there are issues of refusing jurisdiction with regards to the ICJ or with regards to the ICC that the act did not occur on the territory of a signatory or if those who have committed it are a signatory - I suspect the US has ratified it but I'm not sure (Its work hasn't strated properly yet anyway!).
Tad scary it would seem then that in reality there are very few effective strategies, and even those are limited. Doesn't bode well in a world where people seem to be having less and less respect for rules. So really international law os as iz a bell said like an illusion of security I suppose it relys more on self interest-being wary of the consequences- and morality of leaders- a general feeling that something is wrong- I suppose if for example they invade another country they may lose more than they gain eg trade,political links.
I think international law is regulated by that equally smoke-like tool: political pressure.
Well this calls the question as to whether there is really such thing as 'International law'. Perhaps there is no such thing in reality and it is purely one dimension of international politics?
I think as lawyers we try to separate law completely from politics and find it hard to comprehend that there can be politics in the law; we like to think fo law as a self-contained discipline. Personally, I wouldn't go so far as to say all law is based on underlying political ideologies as Unger would, however it does play a role.
What I do disagree with though is this concpet of lawlessness on the international stage: that the law can be ignored etc. People often cite Guantanomo Bay as an example of a legal blackhole - international law powerless to do anything against the US ignoring international law. However, the fact is that Guantanomo Bay does actually have an international law basis: it is based on a treaty between the US and Cuba which Cuba can unilaterally offer. Therefore there is to an extent always an underlying current of law to any action undertaken in the international political arena even if it is simply to render legitimate actions which other nations may not agree with.
I think as lawyers we try to separate law completely from politics and find it hard to comprehend that there can be politics in the law; we like to think fo law as a self-contained discipline. Personally, I wouldn't go so far as to say all law is based on underlying political ideologies as Unger would, however it does play a role.
What I do disagree with though is this concpet of lawlessness on the international stage: that the law can be ignored etc. People often cite Guantanomo Bay as an example of a legal blackhole - international law powerless to do anything against the US ignoring international law. However, the fact is that Guantanomo Bay does actually have an international law basis: it is based on a treaty between the US and Cuba which Cuba can unilaterally offer. Therefore there is to an extent always an underlying current of law to any action undertaken in the international political arena even if it is simply to render legitimate actions which other nations may not agree with.
Hmm I was trying to stimulate discussion but seems like I killed the thread lol
No, no it's just that a tricky thing you've brought up, interesting but tricky, especially for someone like me who is only at the stage of applying to do a law degree. It brings up the question concerning the extent of the relationship between law and politics...will have to have a think on that one.
different?
What methods can be used as a form of punishment for a country which has violated international law? Surely punishment would be difficult? I mean for example if you punished a country by cutting off trade, the people would suffer, and not those who presumably violated the law would not actually be punished. If you decided to invade the country surely that too would be against some international law? Is the only way countries can be punished be by putting leaders (or those responsible) on trial like the Nuremberg trials after Germany, or excluding said countries from organisations such as the UN? Thank to anyone who can give me a bit of clarification on this issue, which i feel is rather a pertinent one considering current affairs concerning war crimes and trial of Saddam Hussein etc.
There are two explicit remedies against states;
1. Declaratory. The court says you are naughty and must not follow said course of action again
2. Damages. The court says you must pay for what you have done.
However, getting to that stage is pretty tricky. Firstly you have to establish that there has been a breach of international law. International law comes from two sources, Treaty and Custom. Treaties are farily self explanatory - two or more states sign up to an agreement which stipulates that they are bound to follow a certain course of conduct in certain situations. Custom is more prickly. Customary International Law also binds parties to it, but is not formally created. Instead, to find a rule of customary international law you look at three things: 1) Have states consistently acted in a certain manner? 2) Have they done this because they thought they had to act in such a manner/were bound to do so and 3) Have they followed this course of action over a period of time. For example, if all the states on the Caspian Sea stopped fishing there, and continued not to fish there because they felt that they were bound not to, then in future it would become illegal for them to fish there, and the other states could take a state which had restarted fishing there to court and make them stop (confusing, eh?).
Saddam Hussein could be prosecuted because he broke a customary rule on the prevention of torture and/or genocide. (In fact he is being tried by an Iraqi national court, and international law measures are not being considered). Equally, the US and UK could be prosecuted under the customary law rule against the use of military force (the only defence is self defence, Bush actually justified the war on pre-emptive self defence, a rule which does not technically exist, and is therefore illegal(nb the UK did not))
Secondly you have to find a court with jurisdiction- ie a court which both parties have agreed will here a dispute if it arises. For example, the US has refused to accept the jurisdiction of the international criminal court, so you could not seek a remedy against it there.
Cutting off trade and so on is not an explicit remedy. The UN is no court- it is simply a body which discusses issues relevant to the international community. It is claimed that, through customary international law, its ability to take action on matters is universally recognised (hence the ability of the security council to threaten military action and sanctions). The General Assembly is in fact little more than a talking shop.
Unfortunately, as few people have signed up to statutes recognising the competence of international tribunals, in more serious disputes arm twisting by the UN is often the only way to try and solve a problem. Hope thats not too confusing!!!!!!!!!
Actually, the answer is the same as what happens to any entity that breaks the law... If there are consequences in the law then these should be followed - the problem with many aspects of international 'law' is that it cannot be compared to domestic law... there are often no explicit sanctions. If you look at international law where there are sanctions in the EU legal order, then you can see how things can work. Perhaps there is not answer because there is no such thing as international law... or perhaps there is a thing such as international law, but when trying to analyse it we shouldn't use a domestic law framework.
--------------
Ok that last post of mine reads badly, but its late here in the US so extract my points and forgive the mistakes! Thanks!
--------------
Ok that last post of mine reads badly, but its late here in the US so extract my points and forgive the mistakes! Thanks!
Related discussions
- Rwanda scheme: First Rwanda flight delayed until at least 24 July
- AI-generated child sex abuse images targeted with new laws
- Academic Reference and Personal statement
- Scholarship
- Britain Under Siege: How Long Will We Tolerate Lawless Immigration?
- Cannot find funding for Cambridge, is it worth getting a loan?
- Slightly under entry requirements - Durham v St Andrews
- law work experience HELP
- Building my university application to study law
- Do Uni students go home for winter holiday?
- British teenager sentenced to one year in prison in Dubai for sex with 17 year old
- Extracurriculars that are needed for good Universities??
- English universities face autumn ‘tipping point’ as financial crisis looms
- how different are oxford admissions for international students?
- UCL, LSE OR KCL for law?
- Urgent- Do i have a chance at these Unis
- Uni of Edinbugh
- How many hours can a student work
- Law or engineering
- Discuss about restorative justices
Latest
Trending
