The second reason for that is that the idea Peacemaking is a philosophy and it is not a viable criminological theory because it cannot be analyze and empirically tested. Martin (2001) opposes that the word ‘theory’ in peacemaking did not do this philosophy any justice in regard to descriptive and applied purposes. The issue with peacemaking as a theory is that the ideas of the peacemaking philosophy has it fundamental background to spiritual revolutions, connectedness, service and empathy for others, awareness, and peace are defined narrowly by academicians. Criminology has been publicized as an unbiased science, a means of accurately measuring crime and ways to deal with crime. Additionally, criminologists find it tremendously repulsive to hypothesize such philosophies as connectedness and spirituality.
An issue in theoretical basis on what should prevail or which is supreme between International Law or Municipal Law (national law) is usually presented as a competition between monism and dualist. But in modern approach there is now the theory of coordination or is also called Harmonization theory that rejects the presumption of the other two theoretical concept, monism and dualism. The monist view asserts the international law’s supremacy over the municipal law even in matters within the internal or domestic jurisdiction of a state. While it is true that the international law defines the legal existence of states as well of the validity of its national legal order, the dualist asserts the international law is an existing system that is completely separated from municipal or national law. That dictates the
Watson argues against the notion that the interactions between the independent states in IR is far from possibility. He says the existence of a dominant power always exercise hegemonial authority thereby creating a norms under which independent states interact with each other. This conceptual framework of states existing under certain prescribes norms finds relevant in the contemporary IR more likely after the Treaty of Westphalia. This hegemonic world order needs to be explained from an approach which best predicts events and affairs in the international system. Looking at the larger factors concerning
Constructivists suggest that concepts such as “state” and “sovereignty” that shape our understandings of world politics and that animate our theories are, in fact, socially constructed; they are not given. Nor are they permanent. Even our understanding of “security” evolves. Traditional international relations theories used to understand security strictly in terms of preventing violence or war among states, but in today’s world “human security”—a relatively new concept—seems at least as problematic. Moreover, a wider range of phenomena have become “securitized,” that is, treated politically as dire threats warranting
One of the biggest problems resulting from the Articles of Confederation was that there was no means to enforce unity amongst the states. This
Lastly, Eurasia does not agree to the International Court of Justice jurisdiction over this case, so it has no right to sue the country. Countries must agree to decide matters within the ICJ and Eurasia does not accept. In this case, Eurasia has more of a case than
If any of the state’s laws is in direct violation of the United States Constitution, then it is deemed those statues are not valid. Judges in every state must adhere to these and abide by them. Thus, it is important to our country because it decides if a state’s laws are constitutionality sound or if it is contradictory to the U.S. Constitution in any manner. We have the highest court in our land, the Supreme Court, to decide these issues
This typology of institution interaction is bifurcated in that two alternate principles delineate the shared competence. Within the context of the first principle the exercise of jurisdiction by a domestic court is made contingent on the absent of adjudication by an international legal entity. Such, was the case, as regards the relationship between the ICTY and ICTR and the domestic criminal jurisdictions of both Rwanda and Yugoslavia. The statutes of both tribunal stipulate that the tribunals shall share, with national courts, concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute alleged perpetrators of core crimes, but the tribunals shall have primacy over the respective national courts. This concept is now widely known as the principle of primacy.
The Articles of Confederation provided the United States with a predominantly ineffective government that could not deal with problems at home and abroad. The country was unable to regulate commerce and effectively deal with foreign nations from 1781 to 1789. Although there were some advantages to the first constitution, the issues caused by the document greatly outweighed the benefits. The Articles of Confederation limited America’s ability to deal problems within its own borders and with foreign nations. The United States, under the Articles of Confederation, did not have the ability to properly deal with the problems arising within the borders of the country.
My Judicial Philosophy: Minimal Extrapolation Non-Originalism The two main prevailing legal philosophies when it comes to constitutional interpretation are originalism and non-originalism. Originalists believe in interpreting the constitution based directly on the framers’ intent when writing it and other Amendments while non-originalists view the Constitution in the context of the time it is applied, referring back to the spirit of the framers’ intent, not the intent itself. Both these ideologies alone are seriously flawed and no one would ever argue that historical intent alone or modern context and consequences alone would lead to smart legal opinions. The intent of the Second Amendment, for example, was derived from the Lockean ideals
However, by excluding subversive advocacy and substantive due process in any case creates a problem in legal reasoning. Bork fails to realize that it is important for an individual to claim their right is violated in any circumstance under the Constitution, since he renders that procedural due process plays a more practical role over substantive due process. Subsequently, the Charter of Rights is intended to operate as a limitation upon the powers of the State. Bork’s judicial review is referring to the way Courts should be principled. In his view, if the judiciary is inconsistent with their theory of ruling of the majority, he claims the supremacy of Court will become “illegitimate” (1971).
Both of the methods mentioned above are not helpful because they require inferences or distant connections in order to be a logical argument. In Atkins v. VA, the majority was unable to use the state legislatures to support their claim of a nation consensus, therefore the Court spun the contradictory information to suggest there is a
Courts prove unsuccessful in achieving social change due to the constraints on the court’s power. Rosenburg’s assessment that courts are “an institution that is structurally challenged” demonstrates the Constrained Court view. In this view, the Court’s lack of judicial independence, inability to implement policies, and the limited nature of constitutional rights inhibit courts from producing real social reform. For activists to bring a claim to court, they must frame their goal as a right guaranteed by the constitution, leading to the courts hearing less cases (Rosenburg 11). The nature of the three branches also creates a system of checks and balances in which Congress or the executive branch can reverse a controversial decision, rendering the Court’s impact void.