However, the fact that determinists also believe that there is no such things as human responsibility makes it difficult for us to accept. The logic may be adequate in the theory, yet it goes against the human disposition to assign blame. The next step would be to deny regret since the individual had no choice in doing what he did. The theory seems to have put the 'human' out of 'human action', leaving humans as some sort of pawns of destiny. Moreover, our 'actions' might also lack our 'doing something' since they are just results of conditions and events (Solomon, 2002).
Kelsen defines law as a type of norm. Therefore, it is subject to a normative order, which makes the “the specific meaning of an act of will directed at a definite human behavior”. Afterwards, Kelsen prescribes two conditions, which if fulfilled by any legal norm, it “is” a proper positive norm. The first condition is that: this norm should be “posited” to be created by an act of a human being, subsequently, any norm created by a god, by nature or by a superhuman being is not “positive” law. The second condition is: the legal norm must be effective which means that people should obey the legal norm and if not obeyed at least applied to them.
Lord Denning started his reflection on Equity’s role with the examination of the relation between law and society: when the rules are given the force of law, they must be obeyed because they are law and not because people accept and agree with the reasons on which they are founded. It is important to understand that the rule is the rule and not the reason for it. A reason can cease to be valid, but the rule will still be
As Kirsch points out, it is a ‘court of last resort’, which respects states’ sovereignty as if a country is able to exercise justice itself the ICC is not to intervene . Thus, it is not imposing a Western model worldwide, nor a victors’ justice, as in Nuremberg. Besides, the disparities of power between states do not affect the ICC as more powerful states do not have more influence on its functioning. For instance, as Koh points out when referring to the ambivalence of the United States (US) toward the ICC, the hostility of the US toward the Court did not make it unable to develop itself. Indeed, ‘In 2002, Under Secretary of State John Bolton announced that the United States did not intend to become a party to the treaty.
International law can be seen as basic principles of morality that unite nations of diverse backgrounds. In order for these principles to be abided as law, it is important that each state retains its individual sovereignty. If, and only if state consent is taken into consideration when finding a common ground for international approaches, can a fair agreement be reached. In this paper I will argue that Andrew Guzman is correct when he claims that state consent is a fundamental principle in international law that creates legal obligations for states. Hence, in this paper I will discuss how treaties such as NATO and the persistent objector rule in customary law prove that Guzman’s claims are right.
Complete evidences means it is something to proof that the truth of the past is a valid points and it must be clearly proven by the professionals who is the historian. Hence, it is considered as an important thing in preserving the autonomy. Without complete evidences, it will eventually deny the autonomy of such facts and it would not be accepted based on its validity especially in the writing of history. Moreover, the validity of evidence is often regarded as a very important backbone in writing an essay as it shows how valid are the evidences in giving support for the statement given. Hence, evidences plays an important role in providing supportive statement and thus, the autonomy of history will safely preserved.
• The supremacy of the constitution and the rule of law, meaning no one is above the law. Before the interpretation can take place, there must be two approaches that needs to be taken into cognisance and they are: the literal (text based) approach and the purposive (text-in-context) approach. The process of interpretation in terms of the lateral approach must consider the primary rules of the interpretation, in other words, if the meaning of the word is clear and straight to the point, it should be placed into effect, it must be paralleled with the legislator’s intention. If the plain meaning of the word is unclear, vague or misleading or if a strict literal interpretation of a word would result in absurd results, then the court can diverge from the literal meaning to circumvent such an absurdity. This is also known as the golden rule of the interpretation.
justified and controlled discretionary power with proper system of checks and balances in place to eliminate any tendency towards arbitrariness. The Indian Constitution has imbibed the spirit of Rule of law to its core as the golden thread binding the Constitutionalism. As Preamble and various provisions such as Part III of Constitution contains Rule of Law as a basic element. The judicial attitude in India is also coherent with the spirit of Rule of law with the judiciary actively upholding the essentials of Rule of law by effectively protecting the rights of citizens against the oppressive and capricious powers of the State. At the same time
Human rights are universal legal safeguards and actions against individuals and omissions that interfere with fundamental freedoms, entitlements and human dignity. They provide rules for the minimum legal protection and freedoms and govern the relationship between an individual and the State. Nevertheless, before the creation of the United Nations, individuals and their rights were not a major concern of international law. The protection of Human Rights has become of great importance in the aftermath of the catastrophe of the world wars and the Holocaust. The creation of the United Nations in 1945 under the United Nations Charter has led to more consideration for human rights but this organization has not been created for the purpose of protecting human rights.
Having sovereignty means that a state enjoys sovereign equality regardless of economic, political, and social differences. As a consequence, states have the right to decide on how to develop its political, cultural, economic or social systems. States have their own jurisdiction within their territory and it is their duty to ensure that the conditions prevailing in its territory do not go against international peace and order. However, sovereignty is always affiliated with the consent of a certain state that is, if it does not give its consent, it would not be bound by any rules of international law. In accepting the limitations which sovereignty imposes on international law, it is vital to take account of whether these limitations can really weaken the effectivity of international law in general.