(1) Self-determination
A group within a state does not have a right to become a new state, even if the majority of its inhabitants desire that. Because of the lack of express provisions in international treaties, the sovereignty of a state is based on the right to dispose a state’s territory. If a group within a state has a right to become a new state if the majority of its inhabitants desire that, there will be a violation of a nation’s sovereignty rights and will cause instability, which would contradict the idea of a “State,” and jeopardize the interests of the global society (DRW, pp. 119). For example, in the Aaland Islands’ case, Aaland Islanders could not separate the islands from Finland because the islands is a sovereign state (DRW, …show more content…
The Court examined whether the use of nuclear weapons should be prohibited to prohibit genocide. The Court referred to the definition of genocide in the Article II. In the Article II, genocide is a killing act with intention to destroy “ national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” The Court concluded that if nuclear weapons were used to target a specific group, then the use of nuclear weapons should be prohibited in order to prohibit genocide (DRW, pp. 501).
b. The Court examined whether the use of nuclear weapons should be prohibited due to human rights and environmental concerns. Although the UN Charter does not specify the permission or the prohibition of the use of any specific weapon, it states that a weapon is already illegal. It will not become legal when it is used with any proper reason. Other international customary and treaty law does not indicate any authorization of the use of nuclear weapons. The Court hence concluded that the unlawfulness of the use of nuclear weapons is “formulated in terms of prohibition (DRW, pp. …show more content…
demanded to include “an exemption from ICC jurisdiction for any peacekeepers provided by states not party to the ICC Statute” in the renewal of the mandate peacekeeping operations from the Security Council. When a revelation in 2004 weakened the U.S. argument, the U.S. withdrew some of the nation’s peacekeepers from UN missions in countries that did not sign Article 98 (DRW, pp. 621).
(iii) The United States had agreements with some states that ensure those states will not turn U.S. nationals over to the ICC. The United States stated that, based on Article 98 of the Rome Statute, under the international agreements, the Court is required to obtain the consent of the sending State for the surrender of its nationals (DRW, pp. 621).
(iv) Former President Bush helped the enact of the American Servicemembers Protection Act. The act stated that the U.S. would not work with the work of the ICC and would not join UN peacekeeping operations which may increase the exposure of U.S. forces to ICC jurisdiction, would not give military aid to states who are parties to the ICC Statute but did not sign the Article 98 agreement, and would free U.S. forces that are held in custody under ICC via “necessary and appropriate action” (DRW, pp.
A group within a state does not have a right to become a new state, even if the majority of its inhabitants desire that. Because of the lack of express provisions in international treaties, the sovereignty of a state is based on the right to dispose a state’s territory. If a group within a state has a right to become a new state if the majority of its inhabitants desire that, there will be a violation of a nation’s sovereignty rights and will cause instability, which would contradict the idea of a “State,” and jeopardize the interests of the global society (DRW, pp. 119). For example, in the Aaland Islands’ case, Aaland Islanders could not separate the islands from Finland because the islands is a sovereign state (DRW, …show more content…
The Court examined whether the use of nuclear weapons should be prohibited to prohibit genocide. The Court referred to the definition of genocide in the Article II. In the Article II, genocide is a killing act with intention to destroy “ national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” The Court concluded that if nuclear weapons were used to target a specific group, then the use of nuclear weapons should be prohibited in order to prohibit genocide (DRW, pp. 501).
b. The Court examined whether the use of nuclear weapons should be prohibited due to human rights and environmental concerns. Although the UN Charter does not specify the permission or the prohibition of the use of any specific weapon, it states that a weapon is already illegal. It will not become legal when it is used with any proper reason. Other international customary and treaty law does not indicate any authorization of the use of nuclear weapons. The Court hence concluded that the unlawfulness of the use of nuclear weapons is “formulated in terms of prohibition (DRW, pp. …show more content…
demanded to include “an exemption from ICC jurisdiction for any peacekeepers provided by states not party to the ICC Statute” in the renewal of the mandate peacekeeping operations from the Security Council. When a revelation in 2004 weakened the U.S. argument, the U.S. withdrew some of the nation’s peacekeepers from UN missions in countries that did not sign Article 98 (DRW, pp. 621).
(iii) The United States had agreements with some states that ensure those states will not turn U.S. nationals over to the ICC. The United States stated that, based on Article 98 of the Rome Statute, under the international agreements, the Court is required to obtain the consent of the sending State for the surrender of its nationals (DRW, pp. 621).
(iv) Former President Bush helped the enact of the American Servicemembers Protection Act. The act stated that the U.S. would not work with the work of the ICC and would not join UN peacekeeping operations which may increase the exposure of U.S. forces to ICC jurisdiction, would not give military aid to states who are parties to the ICC Statute but did not sign the Article 98 agreement, and would free U.S. forces that are held in custody under ICC via “necessary and appropriate action” (DRW, pp.