No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua: (Nicaragua v. USA)
The prosecution of genocide is a crucial aspect of international law, aiming to hold accountable those responsible for the most heinous crimes against humanity. However, when it comes to politically powerful states, the challenges in achieving justice are particularly formidable. This paper explores the intricacies involved in prosecuting such states for genocide through the lenses of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ). By examining the historical context, political influence, jurisdictional constraints, enforcement challenges, and perceptions of selective justice, this study highlights the significant barriers faced by international courts. Additionally, it analyzes the strategies employed by powerful states to delay or derail proceedings and reflects on the implications for global justice and accountability. Through comparative case studies, this paper underscores the need for reforms and stronger mechanisms to ensure that international justice is not compromised by political power. The goal is to provide a comprehensive understanding of the complexities in prosecuting genocide and to propose recommendations for enhancing the effectiveness of the ICC and ICJ.
Keywords: genocide, International Criminal Court, ICC, International Court of Justice, ICJ, political power, international law, prosecution challenges, state sovereignty, jurisdiction, enforcement, selective justice, international justice, accountability.
Note: Verbatim GPT-4o.
Given the mass uprising and resistance in Libya, the international community intervened on humanitarian grounds in early 2011. Consequently, long-ruling leader Muammar Qaddafi’s regime was overthrown. However, the Libya’s crisis posed threat to international peace and security that is of increasing concern. In this context, this paper focuses on humanitarian intervention in Libya by the international community post 2011. It discusses various legal aspects of the emergency situation in Libya. It examines the nature of violence carried out by governmental regime and addresses the conflicting events as well as imposition of various obligations on people in Libya, e.g., the applicability of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and legal aspects of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions. Further, it analyses the question of jurisdiction of International Criminal Court (ICC) in this regard. Based on analysis of the UNSC Resolutions and situation in Libya, the paper analyses the national security of Pakistan in order to ascertain growing and contemporary challenges. The argument developed throughout this article is that all sort of revolutionary violence in Libya is not legally justified under norms of international law and effective implementation of the UNSC resolutions is considerable in relation to protection of the civilians on humanitarian basis. Nevertheless, humanitarian Intervention must comply with norms of International law in all situations. In terms of security of Pakistan, it argues that Pakistan actively seeks a peaceful international order and there is further need of improvement in national security to overcome contemporary challenges. The paper concludes that growing violence in Libya has demanded altruistic comeback from international communal.
‘War’ as we have known and understood it until the 20th century – conflicts involving kinetic weapons such as bullets, missiles, machine guns, tanks, ships, aircraft carriers, submarines and fighter jets – is rapidly being influenced and complemented (but not replaced) by a new 21st-century cyberwar era involving Internet-based technologies. The UN Charter represents one of the primary sources of international law concerning the security of the international community, which urges states to refrain from the ‘use of force’. But does the UN Charter, specifically Article 51 (known as the ‘collective self-defense’ provision) provide justification for the ‘use of force’ in certain, limited circumstances, when it is necessary for a state to defend itself against certain cyberwar tactics? This article argues that it does, and second, suggests language to revise Article 51 of the UN Charter to reflect better the rise of cyberwar tactics by both state and nonstate actors in the 21st century.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.