If anyone has ideas of cases to refer to, please comment!
My rough idea:
Split the tribunal process, then critique the different sections:
(This is just an example!)
Jurisdiction
Formation of tribunals
General processes (told you this was a rough idea!)
Punitative measures
Case examples.
Being abit pedantic, but do you guys think we need to come up with our idea of justice?
Will post more, but have just finished work and am spaced! Please input ideas, even if it is just to laugh at mine!
Frankie
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The way I saw this was from the point of view of ad-hoc tribunals versus a permanent court.
Argument could be along the lines of a permanent court possessing greater legitimacy as the statue is voted on by all members, where as ad-hoc courts have been imposed by SC resolutions and thus possess less legitimacy and perhaps their authority is less grounded.
or something like that...i haven't actually done any reading for this yet, so i can't say any more than my immediate reaction to the question.
amanda
Hi Guys!
First I want to say that I really like the idea of blog:)
I agree with the argument that the ad-hoc Tribunals may not possess enough legitimacy. Also I would come with an argument against the int. Tribunals that, although they are a great tool to convict the individuals for the most serious categories of international crimes, they do not guarantee long-term stability and peace, for instance, let's take the example of the latest Sudan situation. If the ICTR did not teach Sudan the lesson, what would then?
I believe that the ad hoc Tribunals are great instruments providing justice but only ad hoc and they cannot replace the permanent judicial organ.
Post a Comment