Search results

Does the establishment of a permanent International War Crimes Tribunal (International Criminal Court - ICC) constitute a challenge to national sovereignty? According to previous US governments and several American observers, the answer is yes. Establishing a world court that acts independently of the states that gave birth to it renders the idea of sovereignty meaningless. This article analyzes the American objections to the ICC and the conception of sovereignty and international law underlying these objections. It first considers the structure and intent behind the criminal court and attempts to unveil the logic hiding behind the idea of 'America's historical uniqueness.' It touches on the diverging US and European conceptions of sovereignty and ends up arguing that governments that stick to traditional conceptions of sovereignty and international law in the employment of their foreign policy may lose the moral legitimacy that has proven increasingly important for winning the sympathy of allies and regaining world leadership. Adapted from the source document.

The United States has had and will continue to have a compelling interest in the establishment of a permanent international criminal court (ICC). Such an international court, so long contemplated and so relevant in a world burdened widi mass murderers, can both deter and punish diose who might escape justice in national courts. Since 1995, the question for the Clinton administration has never been whether there should be an international criminal court, but rather what kind of court it should be in order to operate efficiently, effectively and appropriately within a global system that also requires our constant vigilance to protect international peace and security. At the same time, the United States has special responsibilities and special exposure to political controversy over our actions. This factor cannot be taken lightly when issues of international peace and security are at stake. We are called upon to act, sometimes at great risk, far more than any other nation. This is a reality in the international system.

The lines between conventional and unconventional conflicts become blurred. Alongside non-international and international conflicts, a third category of armed conflict is emerging: hybrid, asymmetric, and transnational conflicts which involve state and non-state actors whose legal status and classification is disputed.[1] While it's a blend of traditional and irregular tactics, hybrid warfare makes use of a wide range of tools: military and civilian; conventional and unconventional. Hybrid warfare was linked almost exclusively with non-state actors. Afterwards the concept of hybrid warfare developed in a way that is now commonly accepted to describe the interplay between conventional and unconventional means used also by governments and regular armies. For such emerging conflicts/warfare there is no legal definition, therefore leaving room for interpretation and applicable law. International law (IL) and international humanitarian law (IHL) – in particular the law of war (Geneva and Hague law) – apply in case of armed conflict. The law of war, a branch of public international law, sets the acceptable justifications to engage in war (jus ad bellum) and the limits to acceptable wartime conduct (jus in bello). The law of war regulates inter alia: declaration of war; acceptance of surrender and the treatment of prisoners of war; military necessity, along with distinction and proportionality; and the prohibition of certain weapons that may cause unnecessary suffering. [1] For a definition of the term hybrid conflict, see: Gray, C.S. (2005). Another Bloody Century: Future Warfare, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ; This study was supported by the European Social Fund (FSE) and by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT), Portugal, under research grant No. SFRH/BD/136170/2018. Abstract presented at the Unequal World Conference on Human Development in the context of Current Global Challenges, held virtually in New York on 28-29 September 2020, organized by the Unequal World Research Center in partnership with ...

Despite major changes in the system of international relations andsecurity, states are still the main actor, and hence it seems that the essence ofinternational relations today is not much changed. As the main feature of the system ofinternational relations remains constant anarchy despite the significant scale of the use ofinternational law. In order t o d etermine w hether a narchy i s s till p resent a nd l iving i ninternational relations in this article analyzes the ruling of the International Court of Justicein the case of Macedonia against Greece, adopted on 05.12.2011, as a legal act of theinstitution established by the United Nations. By defining the concept of anarchy ininternational relations and presenting a brief history of the dispute and the positions of thetwo countries, this article presents the judgment and analysis of its essence and meaning.Noting the reactions of the States parties concerned in the dispute, as well as significantactors (NATO, EU) included in the dispute, this article essentially analyzes the importanceand impact of the judgment, as a response indicator and the main thesis of the presence ofanarchy in today's international system relations. Analyzing the meaning of the judgment inthis paper comes to the conclusion that anarchy and free will of the activity of states in thesystem of international relations are still present, clearing space to create different policiesand security challenges and uncertainties.