Suchergebnisse

Rather than use ad hoc international tribunals or permanent international courts to conduct prosecutions against people accused of committing war crimes, it is contended that such trials should take place within the legal systems of the nations in which such individuals possess citizenship. It is contended that most countries would demonstrate strong resistance to handing over suspected war criminals to international tribunals or courts. Rather than identify single individuals as responsible for committing war crimes, it is suggested that offending nations must be held collectively responsible for war atrocities perpetrated by its citizens. Consequently, it is maintained that permitting offending nations to hold such proceedings would allow offending countries to maintain sovereignty & force them to reconcile relations with victimized groups by acknowledging their collective responsibility for war crimes. Moreover, it is claimed that the proposed alternative would sidestep offending nations' frequent disapprobation of decisions passed down from international tribunals & courts. J. W. Parker

Argues that while J. Angelo Corlett (2000) makes a good argument for the moral right to secession, he is wrong to recommend constitutional provisions for secession. Secession is a right only in that it derives from the violation of the right to life, liberty, & property. It is argued that secession becomes a reasonable response only if these moral rights are violated, there is no hope that future political decisions will bring an end to the violations, & it is planned to include a minimal use of violence. How circumstances in Kosovo have demonstrated the danger that secessionist movements pose to democracy is also considered. 3 References. D. Weibel