Describe the Importance of International Criminal Court (Essay Sample)

Importance of International Criminal Court
Name
Course
Date
The International Criminal Court (ICC), overseen by the Rome Statute, is the single most steady, treaty based, global criminal court. The ICC is meant at assisting bring an end to impunity among offenders of the atrocities of alarm to the international community. The International Criminal Court is a self-governing foreign body and is not included as one of the United Nations organizations. ICC is found at The Hague in the Netherlands which acts as its headquarter. Though the Court’s operating expenses are funded mainly by States Parties, it also obtains charitable aids from corporations, governments, individuals, international organizations and other entities. Every society in this world has some system of social order, some method of marking and inspiring approved behavior, discouraging condemned behavior, and solving disputes. Different understandings of laws results in conflicts on what is viewed as appropriate reactions to legally appropriate circumstances. The principal purpose of ICC law is to assist society to avoid and resolve disputes in the world.
In the late 90s after the Cold War, such kind of tribunals as the ICC courts to try former Yugoslavia’s president, and the Rwandese genocide case, were the result of agreements declaring that impunity is unbearable. Conversely, since those courts were organized to try offenses committed only within a detailed time and for the period of a detailed conflict, there developed an all-purpose alarm to an extent that a sovereign, stable criminal tribunal was imperative. The international community has for many occasions sought the beginning of a permanently international court. In the 20th century, the world reached an agreement on definitions of offenses against humankind, genocide, and war crimes. The Tokyo and Nuremberg were able to deal with crimes of war, anti-peace and those against humanity committed at the time of the Second World War. In 1998 July, the international community agreed at a significant historic breakthrough when more than120 States adopted and accepted the Rome Statute, the legitimate basis for the establishment of the permanent International Criminal Court.
After the 2nd world war, the Tokyo and Nuremberg tribunals in 1948, the UN General Assembly accepted for the first time the need to form a permanent international court for specifically for dealing with the kind of atrocities that had happened. From that fact, the prerequisite for availability of that type of a tribunal has been one of the major UN’s lists of discussions. The level, kind as well as unbearable kind of violence that have so far happened in the previous decades in various parts of the world offered momentum in the struggles to establish a lasting solution for bringing to book the perpetrators of such offenses such as those committing, ethnic cleansing, sexual slavery, genocide in addition to maiming and severing the limb of those not associated to the culprit. To make the matters worse such perpetrators are individuals who have enjoyed prominent positions of powers in their particular region in their regions.
The Court has the power of bringing to book personalities rather than countries, and to charge them with the serious crimes to the global community such as Genocide, war offenses as well as offenses against humanity, and finally, the aggression crimes. A common misperception is to the effect that the International Criminal Court is capable of judging those indicted to have done those types of crimes in the previous years; but this is relatively untrue. The ICC will seriously hold jurisdiction over crimes only committed after 1st July 2002, the period the Statute was obligatory. Legal positivism is the legitimate philosophy that says that all forms of laws are nothing more and nothing less than merely the manifestation of the will of any kind of authority that created them. Thus, no rules can be viewed as expressions of greater morality or higher values to which people can petition when they are not comfortable with such laws. It is an interpretation that the law is a social creation.
The establishment of laws is basically an exercise that comes in brute force and a manifestation of power, not an effort to appreciate any loftier ethical or common goals. Consequently, from a positive viewpoint, it can be asserted that legal laws or rules are effective not because they are rooted in natural or moral law, but because they are ratified by appropriate authority and are embraced by the people as such. Legal positivism does state that the law’s advantages are incoherent, insignificant, or peripheral to the idea of law. Nevertheless, the facts of law do not establish whether a legal or a law structure indeed occurs. The presence of a legal structure in a society can be incidental from the different arrangements of governance existent, and not on the level to which it pleases ethics of justice, equality, or rule of law. Most laws that are often enforced in particular systems are influenced by the type of social values its leaders differentiate as appreciated. They may be by any circumstance be jurisdictive depictions, legal decisions, or social customs.
According to positivism definition of law can be a matter of what has been submitted. Legal positivism brings along several vital challenges to the perception that the ICC has genuinely legal establishments. It is uncertain how these international courts can impose their verdicts. These rulings are not legitimately binding; there is no worldwide “sovereign” to support the judgments of such organizations with approvals. The specialist of this court of law is questionable. There exist, in the international law, no subordinate rules, and, in particular, no rules of appreciation or rules of arbitration. In the first place, it could be perceived as a “small” revolt in global politics and international law. Conventionally, international law has shaped duties for nations only. In a different perspective, the central issue of international law has been known as the nation-state.
Nonetheless, with the establishment of the ICC, the personalities became accountable in international law. Though there has been always individual illegitimate obligation before the formation of the ICC, it was either short-term, or the particular concerned, while being answerable to the values and rules of international law, was subjected to justice by the state authorities. International legal measures were dealing with rampant cases of piracy, te Geneva Convention, the and Genocide Convention dealing with crimes against humanity and war on crime recognize the individual concern. Conversely, none of them agrees with an international authority to castigate the individuals. That is to imply, it is the ruling classes that are expected to progress against those who have done the crimes protected by the above legal documents. Though, there is no apparent evidently and steadily defined consent against the national that displays reluctance to efficiently deal with the problem concerned.
The ICC was formed for various reasons one of them being to achieve justice for all. ICC has been termed the lost connection in the global legal system. The ICC handles all of its cases between nation and not individual and without the existence of an International Criminal Court dealing with personal obligation as a prosecution mechanism, action of genocide and cruelty of human rights often go without punishment. ICC has been mandated to end impunity. The Tokyo and Nurnberg Tribunal’s judgment clearly stated that, crimes in opposition to global law are committed by men, and not by nonfigurative individuals, and hardly by punishing individuals who commit such offenses can the situation of international law be implemented, setting up the standard of personal illegitimate responsibility those who compel such actions as a foundation of International Criminal Law. Another reason for the creation of ICC was to help end disagreements. In most circumstances like those regarding ethnic conflict, violence causes more violence; one massacre is the start of another big genocide.
The assertion that at least some perpetrators of war offense or genocide might be judged, acts as avoidance and improves the chances of bringing an existing conflict to an end. The court plays a significant to solve the scarcity of Ad Hoc Tribunals. Ad hoc courts are questioning to restrictions of place and time. The delays essential in establishing an ad hoc tribunal can have adverse effects to justice. For instance, vital evidence can worsen or be damaged and the people responsible can vanish and witnesses can be intimidated or relocate. For example, thousands of refugees from the genocide in Rwanda have been murdered, but the approval of the tribunal is restricted to events that happened in 1994. Crimes committed at that time are not included.
Another role of ICC is to handle cases when National Criminal Justice Institutions are unable to act. Most countries have agreed that criminals should generally be indicated by national bodies. However, in times of discrepancies, whether global or international, such kind of a national organization are normally either unable to act, simply because some reasons. Regimes mostly have insufficient political will to put on trial their own politicians and citizens, as in the case of the Yugoslavia and national organization may have interfered with as in the case of Rwanda. The establishment of ICC has managed to discourage future war criminals. Most perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the history of the world have gone without being punishment. It is evident that the international community will not sta...