International courts Essay Example for Free

International courts Essay Disputes are part of human existence. It is a normal occurrence. The earliest records one can find regarding quarrels between neighbors and the resolution of the same via third party intervention can be found in the Bible. Moses the old patriarch acted as an arbiter when two people could not resolve their issues. As civilizations developed, when Moses’ people were able to build more complex governments – the courts and the tribunals were also improved upon. In the modern times the system of settling disputes evolved into an art form. In America one has a very complicated way of resolving issues between two parties. It is already a great improvement from those used in the ancient world. Instead of a sole judge or king deciding over a case there is now a jury, a group of people who will work collectively as a whole and judge the matter so to speak. Now, all the previous discussion are all about settling disputes between two individuals or a group of people against a person and vice versa. This is also about a third party stepping in between two groups who could not settle their differences out of court. Finally, all the above are about the problems of individuals or groups of individuals that were addressed as citizens or as organizations within the bound of a political system or a geo-political nation. What if the disputes happened not between citizens within a country but a disagreement between two nations? Who will come in as a third party that will be reputable for each nation? This paper investigates the role of International Courts and the role it has to play in the ever increasing problem of global conflict. History According to Boris Kolba, international law and international courts is an old idea. He added that 17th century Dutch statesman Hugo Grotius, considered to be the â€Å"Father of International Law† argued, â€Å"†¦that all nations should follow one set of rules† (Kolba, p. 10). Those who were convinced on the practicality of Grotius’ ideas finally made decisive actions beginning in 1864 and Kolba wrote: In 1864, a group of nations met at Geneva, Switzerland, at the urging of Henri Dunant, one of the founders of the International Red Cross [†¦] It produced a set of rules for nations at war called the Geneva Convention [†¦] Only twelve nations signed the convention at first. Then in 1899 and 1907, delegates met at The Hague in the Netherlands [†¦] These conferences produced more rules, moving beyond war to cover how nations cold stay at peace. (p. 10) The United Nations. At the end of the Second World War, it was apparent that nations of the world must unite in dealing with international disputes so that it will not again result in a costly and devastating war. The first thing that was established was the United Nations and what followed suit is a more formal system of dealing with international problems. According to Mohamed Amr, to be a member of the UN automatically makes one a member of the International Court of Justice or ICJ. Referring to the Charter that established the UN, Sameh remarked that, â€Å"Article 92 of the Charter [†¦] reflects the constitutional position of the Court within the UN. It provides that the ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the UN [†¦] member states of the UN are ipso facto parties to the Court’s Statute† (p. 24). Simply put, if a country wants to enjoy the benefits and privileges as a UN member then that nation must also adhere to a basic condition as a member state and that is to honor the International Court of Justice. G. A. Knoops agrees with Amr and he said that the UN would establish international criminal tribunals as subsidiary judicial organs to fulfill its role as a guardian for international peace. Knoops added that: Clear examples of these enforcement measures are the establishment of international tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda [†¦] These tribunals have primacy over national courts (primary jurisdiction) concerning individuals suspected of perpetrating international crimes. The Security Council can compel UN member states to cooperate with the tribunals through use of its Chapter VII powers. (p. 7) Comparison Knoops made an interesting argument about the primacy of the UN’s International Court of Justice over that of national courts. It is therefore necessary in the study of International Courts to make a comparison to that of Civil Courts. Kolba provided the information as seen in the following: A Civil Court †¢ helps people settle their differences without fighting †¢ offers rules for people with disputes to follow †¢ takes time, giving people a chance to settle their arguments †¢ makes a decision that most people respect †¢ strengthens the rule of law The International Court of Justice †¢ helps nations settle their differences without going to war †¢ offers rules for nations with arguments to follow. †¢ takes time giving nations a chance to resolve their own disputes †¢ makes a decision that much of the world respects †¢ strengthens international law There is actually not much difference on how both systems work. The only difference is in terms of scale and instead of individuals what is being dealt here are relations between two countries. Moreover, if the disputes between two people could not be resolved amicably then the worst possible scenario could be personal vendetta that would probably result to violence. In case of disputes between two nations the catastrophic result could probably be a full-scale war. Kolba gave this riveting account on how an international incident can easily escalate into national disputes that could in turn lead to war. He wrote that in 1946, year after World War II, sea lanes were still unsafe for travel due to the numerous mines laid there by armies of the recently concluded global war: That year, four of Great Britain’s warship were sailing in the Corfu Channel off the coast of Albania [†¦] The warships struck at least one mine. The explosion badly damaged a ship, killing forty-five sailors and officers. Great Britain claimed Albania must have known the mines were there (and) blamed Albania for the damage and deaths. The unfriendly Albanian government said it was not responsible. (p . 4). The situation was tense. And the presence of British warships in the area added more tension to an already volatile atmosphere. Great Britain could have launched an attack, punishing Albania. Kolba however pointed out that in this case the rationale mind prevailed as the two nations saw the futility of war, â€Å"†¦the nations did not go to war. Instead, they went to court. Their dispute became the first case to be resolved by the International Court of Justice, the world’s most important international court† (p. 5).