||Globally, transnational actors have the capacity to enforce international human rights laws. Such capacity is currently in place in the global system through the intergovernmental organization known as the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC hears cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity around the world. This court is different from the World Court because it has the ability to indict individuals from any state and is not solely interstate. When the ICC was established, the intention was to end crimes against humanity by punishing perpetrators and then hoping to deter potential offenders. Trials before the ICC can be initiated in three ways: a state can surrender an individual, a special ICC prosecutor can open a trial if the crimes took place in a territory that has signed agreements with the ICC and if an individual commits crimes in a territory that is not a signatory to the ICC, the UN Security Council can then prosecute the individuals. (Goldstein & Pevenhouse, 2012) To understand the procedures and effectiveness of the ICC, specific cases can be examined. Two major ICC cases have arisen from Kenya's 200 elections. As is often the case in most democracies, serious conflicts arise between political parties of different beliefs. This conflict is more evident during election periods. Unfortunately, this conflict turned violent following Kenya's 2007 presidential elections. In these elections, the Electoral Commission of Kenya manipulated the results. It is no surprise that when this event became known, Kenyans from both major political parties were furious. But rather than directing their anger at the Electoral Commission of Kenya, the two political parties have targeted each other. Major violence broke out between the Orange Democratic Movement and the National Unity Party (Odinga,

Essay / ||Globally, transnational actors have the capacity to enforce international human rights laws. Such capacity is currently in place in the global system through the intergovernmental organization known as the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC hears cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity around the world. This court is different from the World Court because it has the ability to indict individuals from any state and is not solely interstate. When the ICC was established, the intention was to end crimes against humanity by punishing perpetrators and then hoping to deter potential offenders. Trials before the ICC can be initiated in three ways: a state can surrender an individual, a special ICC prosecutor can open a trial if the crimes took place in a territory that has signed agreements with the ICC and if an individual commits crimes in a territory that is not a signatory to the ICC, the UN Security Council can then prosecute the individuals. (Goldstein & Pevenhouse, 2012) To understand the procedures and effectiveness of the ICC, specific cases can be examined. Two major ICC cases have arisen from Kenya's 200 elections. As is often the case in most democracies, serious conflicts arise between political parties of different beliefs. This conflict is more evident during election periods. Unfortunately, this conflict turned violent following Kenya's 2007 presidential elections. In these elections, the Electoral Commission of Kenya manipulated the results. It is no surprise that when this event became known, Kenyans from both major political parties were furious. But rather than directing their anger at the Electoral Commission of Kenya, the two political parties have targeted each other. Major violence broke out between the Orange Democratic Movement and the National Unity Party (Odinga,

Navigation

« Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Get In Touch