Ciara Farrell : ICC Response

 After reading the arguments for if the International Criminal Court is necessary I think there were a lot of good points made. I believe that Elena Baylis makes the strongest argument and I was persuaded most by what she had to say. Baylis argues that the ICC was put into place to play a limited role in the courts, if courts would or could not act. She agrees we need to restore its original purpose and stop the court from all it is doing right now which ultimately has not been very effective. National and regional justice systems are more familiar with what is happening in their specific area and would be able to help more. If we help out those systems and rebuild them to have power and actually work in all places then they would have a greater and more effective change in the court system. It is also clear that there are many countries, cases, and issues for the ICC to deal with on a global scale and taking away some of that pressure and making it more national and regional will result in more cases being correctly dealt with. 

With the caseload they are currently facing they are unable to attend to it, leaving it mostly ineffective and not doing what it has set out to do. Baylis argues how this also takes away their credibility. People are now not trusting the ICC as much because they have been poorly trying to solve cases and now have an abundance of cases that have yet to be dealt with. Sending these cases to a smaller justice system would allow more time for the ICC to deal with the issues they are meant to as well as allow the cases to be handled in a manner where they are being addressed in an area that is familiar with the incident. National courts should handle the crimes they were meant to, which are now passed to the ICC. If things fell back into place in their original intent and more regional systems were in place, the ICC could do what it is needed for which is limited action. 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Currency Manipulation of the 21st Century: China and the US

                           Currency Manipulation of the 21st Century: China and the US Now more than ever, countries feel tempted to engage in a ‘currency war’ and go back and forth trying to devalue their currency in efforts to encourage exports. The two largest economies, China and the United States, seem to be in a long, bitter trade dispute as the trade relationship is significantly imbalanced. From tariffs to currency, trade tensions are clearly escalating with both sides slapping substantial tariffs on each other’s goods. Currency manipulation (arguably the world’s most protectionist international economic policy) refers to the concept of countries artificially lowering the value of their currency to achieve an unfair competitive advantage (Forbes). The U.S. Dollar is the most popular reserve, and everyone wants a stake in our economy. Unlike many other countries, China does not ha...
Read more

Kevin Yin's Blog #5

  To be honest, it has been a long time for me – a Chinese social media and news reader, not hearing any information about the follow-up of the Ukraine and Russia crisis on Chinese websites. Yes, you can’t find a lot of information about the invasion on Chinese news websites. If you do, then the news may be connected with the following reaction of European countries towards Russia, like the sanctions and changes in foreign policies. Some of the news writers did actually defame some of Ukrainian Defiance for some bad activities. It is quite clear for other people to understand the attitude of China towards the crisis. How about other Asian countries? Although I don’t want to be mean at this point, I have to indicate that the attitudes of many “second-tier power” countries are not that genuine. If we rationally consider the situation and the nature of politics, we must admit that it is not clever to think in either only a humanitarian angle or only a political angle. We need to comb...
Read more

Ciara: blog post #5

  The fear of an action might be powerful enough to scare off another party, or cause them to fear the lengths others are willing to go. As Kenneth Waltz argues in “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb: Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability” allowing more countries to obtain nuclear defense would put international relations at a general deterrence from the nuclear wars that could start. Deterrence is a strategy that can be used in order to prevent another party from undertaking an action through coercion. Many times this works as a method to keep two parties from destroying each other, or to allow a smaller army to scare off a larger one to show the lengths they would go. Nuclear deterrence can be the ultimate way of scaring off other parties as it is the strongest weapon that could potentially cause complete destruction. Even if a nuclear power is relatively small and compared to other nuclear powers would seem less threatening, once they cross the threshold they are using deterrence (Wa...
Read more