The modern concept of human rights is rooted in the experiences of ‘legal lawlessness’ when crimes were committed with the authorization of the law, and when some human beings were denied their status as such. An answer to these experiences was the emergence of the international human rights law 2. The main aim of this branch of international law is to prevent broad violations of fundamental rights from recurring in the future. Appreciating the worth of every human being, the international community decided to eliminate elements that could destroy the individual person, but also to create the conditions that would enable him or her to develop and flourish 3. Accordingly, the Preambles of Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that the
For countries emerging out of conflict or countries that are transitioning into a democracy, the most significant issue these countries face is how to encourage different conflicting groups to coexist peacefully after years of conflict. The most advocated means of ensuring that these groups co exist peacefully is the use of truth commissions. Truth commissions are bodies that are established to investigate past violations of human rights in a particular country. These violations include violations by the government, the military, and other armed opposition forces. Truth commissions have four main characteristics and these include the focus on the past, investigation of a pattern of violations over a specific period of time, are temporary commissions
It is up to domestic jurisdictions to deal with persons who have committed a crime in such a context. However, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has concluded, in an important decision, that the more egregious crimes committed in a non-international armed conflict are to be considered as international crimes. Therefore, international rules do apply in the trial of a person prosecuted for a crime committed in a non-international armed conflict. This means that acts of terrorism committed in a non-international armed conflict may indeed be equated with grave breaches as defined by the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The same rules regarding the jurisdiction of States or the ICC are
The court held that “in international law it is firmly established that, as also diplomatic and consular agents, certain holders of high-ranking office in a State, such as the Head of State, Head of Government and Minister for Foreign Affairs, enjoy immunities from jurisdiction in other States, both civil and criminal.” However, in Pinochet, the court took a narrow approach towards personal immunity. (find footnote) It was in this case that the House of Lords scrutinized immunity ratione materiae and noted that “though a former head of state enjoys no immunity ratione personae, he or she may continue to enjoy immunity ratione materiae (i.e., “immunity in relation to acts done as part of his official functions when head of state”). This subject-matter immunity “applies not only to ex-heads of state ... but to all state officials who have been involved in carrying out the functions of the state.”(find
There are cases in which laws are servants only to themselves, effectively rendering legitimacy as non-existent. Legitimacy is needed in order to oversee laws, and to ensure that they are servants of their inherent purpose, which is to benefit the citizens which they govern. The current international law sometimes fails to correspond to impending global needs, especially in the case of humanitarian concerns. So, legality is a concept concept which corrects the shortcomings of international law. Such was the case in Kosova, when international law prevented an intervention from the international community, clearly manifesting the large gap between legitimacy and legality and effectively putting hundreds of thousand civilian lives in danger.
At common law, there exists a number of fundamental rights for those being questioned by police. In this regard, the emergence of the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to silence represents a ‘landmark event in the history of Anglo-American criminal procedure.’ As we shall see, these principles are intrinsically linked to the presumption of innocence and burden of proof. Policy makers in Northern Ireland contended that defendants were afforded too much of an advantage by virtue of these rights and that dealing with the ‘wall of silence’ in the interviewing of terrorist suspects necessitated the curtailment of these rights. After a short discussion on the history of these concepts, the focus in the second part will primarily
Besides, the International Committee of the Red Cross is regarded as the “guardian” of the conventions and various other treaties that constitute international humanitarian law. It cannot act as either policeman or judge as the act only belongs to governments, the parties involved in the international treaties, who are required to prevent and end the violation of the International Humanitarian Law. It further provides that civilians under the enemy forces must be given treatment that is humanely in whatever situations they faced in order to serve justice and equality. These civilians must be protected at all times against all forms of violence and cruel treatment, such as killing or torturing. Moreover, in cases of prosecution, these people
It thus obliges state to carry out investigations in matter of enforced disappearances and to prosecute those who are found guilty of it. Analysis: Considering the international instruments relating to torture, forced disappearances and extra-judicial killings, it is perceptible that India is under an obligation under international law to punish the perpetrators of Human Rights violations. Though India has not ratified CAT and CPAPED, but it is still bound by their provisions. The prohibition of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment contained in CAT is a jus cogens principle in international law. This was first time held in the case of ‘Prosecutor v. Furundzija ’ by United Nations International Criminal Tribunal and torture was made a crime of Universal Jurisdiction, punishable in any state irrespective of the nationality of the victim or place of
JUDICIAL REVIEW IN INDIA Meaning Judicial Review is the power of the judiciary to review the actions taken by the legislature and the executive organ of the government and decide whether or not the actions taken by the legislature and the executive are in conformity with the Constitution. If the enactments done by the legislature and the executive are found unconstitutional then the judiciary has the power to declare those acts illegal, unconstitutional and invalid ( null and void) after which they cannot be enforced by the government. Origin of Judicial Review The judicial review is one of the very important contributions of the USA to the political theory. The origin of the judicial review has been result of a judicial decision and the continuance
The article appeared on the IOL website and is titled, ‘treat Zuma equally before law or else.’ The article was written by Eusebius McKaiser, a columnist for the website. The article deals with the issue of the unconstitutional actions of President Jacob Zuma. The author remarks on how president Zuma has failed in following the constitutional values of South Africa, by being charged for corruption in 2009. The author also highlights arguments for and against the prosecution of Jacob Zuma. The author explains in detail the process of prosecution and the success the National Prosecuting Authority, the authority tasked with criminal prosecutions in South Africa, will achieve in prosecuting Jacob Zuma of corruption charges.