International Law: The 5 Key Concepts You Need to Know

 Women's Right 

The S.A.S. v. France Case 

In S.S.S. v. France , a French Muslim woman brought the case to the European Court of Human Rights (EHCR), arguing against the bill that prohibited veil wearing in public places. France had approved a bill banning the wearing of clothes that covered people's faces in public places. The woman wanted to wear the niqab freely regarding her spiritual feeling and belief. However, during the hearing, she did not claim to be allowed to wear the niqab when availing identity is essential such as banks and security screening. She argued that the ban was discriminative and was infringing the right to respect an individual's private life protected under article 8 in the ECHR (Whippman et al., 371). The woman also asserted that the bill was a violation of the freedom that allows people to express their religion and belief as outlined in article 9 under ECHR. 

Despite her arguments, the ECHR unanimously agreed that the law had not violated the protected rights outlined in articles 8, 9, 10, and 14as claimed by the woman. According to court findings, the law had a legitimate objective of upholding the respect for the society's minimum requirements principle of living together (Whippman et al., 372). As a result, the court held that the bill was proportionate to the country's objective of preserving the living together principle. The principle was fundamental in protecting the freedom and right of people according to conventions in the article. 

The Approach I Would Take in the Case 

I would also reinforce the banning of full-face veils because it enhances equality between females and males. The idea of subjecting women in covering their faces denies them the freedom to exist as people. As a result, implementing the law enables women to express their individuality in public family space and in an inclusive environment that comprises all genders. Also, despite the law limiting people's freedom of expression, it is fundamentally fundamental in a democratic society to fulfill the living together principle. 

 Human Rights/Torture 

Is the "Necessity Defense" a Permissible Defense to Torture? 

The use of torture is prohibited in any circumstances. Various conventions, including the Geneva, ICCPR have put an absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel punishment (Whippman et al., 341). Therefore, the necessity defense is not a permissible defense to torture because there is no exceptional situation where the threat of war or any public emergency may justify torture. 

Should Torture Be Permissible 

Imposing torture should not be permissible since it entails the use of cruel and inhuman treatment approaches. It subjects a suspect to painful physical suffering, which can lead to death. Also, it might result in psychological torture that may lead to the development of mental disorders like depression and anxiety. 

Is "Official Position" an Excuse for Conducting Torture ? 

People in state authority positions should not abuse their power to conduct torture because it is prohibited. Those found guilty of the offense should be held accountable; failure to make them responsible may fuel further abuses and weaken the rule of law. Besides, lack of accountability on the leader's side weakens the country's authority to oppose torture and gives a ready excuse for citizens to become unwilling to observe the law. Practicing torture while in an official position undermines global respect for the rule of law. 

Is the following sound legal advice and consistent with international standards? 

As to torture, "The victim must experience intense pain or suffering of the kind that is equivalent to the pain that would be associated with serious physical injury so severe that death, organ failure or permanent damage resulting in a loss of significant body function will likely result ." 

The legal advice is consistent with the definition of torture according to international standards. The standard describes torture as an action that inflicts severe pain, either mental or physical, to the suspect for purposes of getting a confession (Whippman et al., 350). The suffering may cause death or permanent damage to the person's body organ. 

 International Humanitarian Law: Nuclear Weapons 

Court's Holdings in the Majority Decision 

The court provided various conclusions and considered other bodies of international law, such as human rights. First, the court concluded that a weapon that is deemed illegal either by custom or treaty does not become legal if used for legitimate purposes, as outlined in the United Nations Charter (Whippman et al., 389). Thus, the unlawful use of particular weapons is formulated in terms of the prohibition. Secondly, the court holds that treaties that engage fully in acquisition, manufacturing, testing, possession, and deployments of nuclear weapons should specifically explain the threat of using the guns. Failure to address the threats should therefore be seen as an intention of forecasting a future prohibition of the use of the weapons. 

Third, the court also holds that; if the recourse to weapons is not compatible with the rule and principle of humanitarian law, it should be prohibited. Therefore, when using them, nuclear weapons would be unable to differentiate between combats and civilians or between military objects and civilian objects (Whippman et al., 389). The weapons should destroy and kill indiscriminately on instances of blast, radiation, and heat. Forth, it holds that states should pursue negotiations that lead to nuclear disarmament. Lastly, it appreciated the importance of adherence to article 6 under the treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to get the correct outcome of nuclear disarmament. 

Which Holding is Most Persuasive and Which Are You Critical of? 

Making weapon manufacturing treaties accountable if they fail to address the nuclear threats to the public is one holding that the court persuasively made. However, the decision that states must conduct negotiations during weapon disarmament is critical, and judges view the concept as a complete illegalization of nuclear weapons. It is not evident that the pronouncement of atomic weapons illegal by the court can act as the suitable protection that makes all human beings safe from unimaginable sufferings that people fear. 

 International Criminal Court 

Crimes that the International Criminal Court ("I.C.C.") Currently Adjudicate 

I.C.C. has the mandate of trying people and holding them accountable for serious criminal activities that concern the international community. It adjudicates for the genocide that entails killing and destroying people based on their race, religion, nationality, and ethnicity (Whippman et al., 487). It also has jurisdiction on war crimes which involves a grievous violation of Geneva conventions and serious breaching of customs and laws. I.C.C. also adjudicates for crimes against humanity such as enslavement, extermination, torture, and forceful deportation of the population. 

Is I.C.C. Currently, Trying the Crime of Aggression? 

The I.C.C. also tries crimes of aggression that entails military occupation, invasion, annexation by force, and blockage of ports when manifested as a violation in the chapter in United Nation. The court only exercises jurisdiction over aggression crimes if they occur from an act committed by a State Party. 

Limitations on Crimes Prosecuted Before the I.C.C. in Terms of Where the Crimes Occur or the Nationality of the Person to be Prosecuted 

I.C.C. has limitations in terms of universal territorial jurisdiction; that is, it cannot prosecute or investigate criminal activities committed outside the member states. Subsequently, it cannot try non-member nationals unless they conduct illegal activity within the territory of a member state. 

An additional way that I.C.C. Exercise Jurisdiction 

I.C.C. also works in cooperation with other bodies when exercising jurisdiction. For instance, despite not being an organization of the U.N., the United Nations Security Council may refer and allow the court to handle a case that is not within its jurisdiction (Whippman et al., 488). I.C.C. also relies on cooperation worldwide for support when arresting since it does not own an enforcement body. 

Start date as to the Crimes the I.C.C. Prosecute 

I.C.C. operates on a time-bound; it only has jurisdiction on events that happened after it entered into force which is 1 st July 2002 (Whippman et al., 488). The statute provisions become into force for a new state member on the first date after the sixteenth day following deposits of instrument of approval, accession, ratification, and acceptance. 

Bush II Administration's Approach to the I.C.C., and Measures Taken to Limit the Exposure of U.S. Nationals to the I.C.C. 

The Bush Administration's approach was intentionally structured to cripple the court. The 

administration's attack not only irrevocably change the legal landscape of I.C.C. work, but it also had a significant impact on the United States credibility to enhance the achievement of human rights goals. The administrations feared that the court would pursue cases against its citizens and act as a political-driven institution. The Bush administration knowingly subjected I.C.C.'s member states to punishment and other human rights allies. It also threatened the U.N.'s effort to help nations in crisis, and the consequence would indirectly or directly legitimize I.C.C. 

Bush administrations, therefore, conducted various measures to prevent the court from exposing U.S citizens to trial. First, it submitted a letter to the U.N secretary general stating that the country did not intend to become a member party of I.C.C. Secondly, it formulated a Bilateral Immunity Agreement (B.I.A.s) which protected the citizens from becoming persecuted by the court. Although that the agreement was against the I.C.C. statutes, the administration put intense pressure and signed it. Subsequently, it also developed the American Service Membership's Protection Act of 2002 (ASPA) which inhibited cooperation between I.C.C. and the U.S (Whippman et al., 489). The act gave the president authorization to free the country and any person detained by the I.C.C. Moreover, congress formed the Nethercutt Amendment, which advocated reducing military and financial aid to states that had refused to sign. 

Do you agree with the Bush Administration's Approach or Obama Administration's Approach? 

Bush administration's approach was destructive to the human rights policy. In contrast, the Obama administration's approach was relevant and constructive. Obama administration helped the court by participating in the I.C.C.s' assembly, offering assistance when handling cases, withdrawing policies that were crippling the court, and contributing trust funds to I.C.C. victims. Therefore, U.S policy needs to strengthen cooperation with I.C.C. The impact will indicate that the country is committed to serving justice, respect human rights and the rule of laws, and will signal that it has respect for nations committed to I.C.C. principles. 

References 

Whippman, D., Dunoff, J. L., & Ratner, S. R. (2015). International Law: Norms, Actors, Process: A Problem-Oriented Approach.