“International War Crimes Tribunals” provides a comparison between a war crime tribunal and a basic tribunal. In your own words, what are the benefits or drawbacks of the two?
Below is a Sample Solution.
Remember! This is just a sample. You can get a custom paper from one of our expert writers.
War crime tribunal deals with atrocities of higher magnitude while basic tribunal, on the other hand, deals with atrocities of lower magnitude as compared with war crime tribunals.
War crime tribunal has a higher jurisdiction on dealing with war crime than basic tribunals which has limited jurisdiction to deal with some specific crimes over specific part.
War crime tribunal usually imposes more punishment on those who are found culpable than basic tribunal whose punishment is not severe as compared to war crime tribunals.
War crime tribunal is supported globally while local tribunals are supported locally. The reason why war crime tribunals are supported globally is that it usually tries atrocities of the highest magnitude.
War crime tribunals are less likely to be influenced by the local politics, making the outcome to be essential but for local tribunals, they are always easily influenced impacting negatively on the outcome.
Benefits of the two
Promoting justice – The two tribunals promotes justice by ensuring that violators are made to be accountable for their act (Schabas, W., 2012).
Promoting peace – By making those found culpable to be responsible for their acts, then that is promoting peace as peace avoid acts that land them on problems.
Ending war crime – When those found to be responsible are punished, it usually acts as a deterrent factor to be would be offenders.
Promoting peaceful coexistence – By punishing offenders and facilitators of war, peaceful coexistence is achieved as people get reprieve.
Reference
Schabas, W. (2012). Unimaginable atrocities: justice, politics, and rights at the war crimes tribunals. Oxford University Press.
The ICC depends on a standard of complementarity. This implies the ICC can just act when a national court can’t or unwilling to complete an indictment itself in light of the fact that the ICC was not made to supplant the expert of the national courts. Be that as it may, when a state’s legitimate framework breakdown or when an administration is a culprit of egregious violations, the ICC can practice ward.
The universal criminal tribunals in Rwanda and previous Yugoslavia can just attempt people who perpetrated violations against mankind in those regions over a particular timeframe. The International Criminal Court, then again, can control on all wrongdoings carried out against mankind paying little respect to its area insofar as they have happened after July 1, 2002. The part of the International Court of Justice is to decide on contentions that happen between governments. Not at all like the International Criminal Court, it doesn’t the power to try people.