US V. CANADA: CASE CONCERNING INTERVENTION IN TANGOON

US v. Canada: Case concerning intervention in Tangoon



US v. Canada: Case concerning intervention in Tangoon

Background

The case that is being discussed was jointly submitted by the Canada and United States under International Court of Jurisdiction. This relates to the arising dispute between Canada and United states.

Canada's Apprehension, Detention, and Proposed Surrender to the ICC of Ishmael Balthasar and Clyde Barrett Are Lawful

The humanitarian intervention was necessary to save the lives of the Tangoon and Samutra's citizens. Tangoon's failure to assist its citizens was a gross violation of their human rights, therefore, does not enjoy the privileges of immunity under the Rome Statute. Therefore, Canada's intervention was consistent to act in accordance to the States Responsibility doctrine and uphold the purposes of the UN Nations (UN) Charter to prevent the situation in Tangoon from turning into a Kosvo, Liberia, or Somalia.State Immunity is not a Sovereign State Right under the International legal Order

Sovereignty is the right of a state to have independent authority over its territory. However, State territory immunity is not an autocratic state right under the international legal order. While sovereignty remains protected under international law, a State cannot hide under the cloak of its sovereignty in order to refuse to cooperate with the community of States in bringing wrongful acts to justice. Therefore, there are some exceptions to territory sovereignty that justify the use of force and intervention, specifically acting as a matter of necessity, such exceptions includes humanitarian and human rights violations, and also jus cogens. Therefore, practicing of immunity granting to the foreign states leads towards the rise of customary International Law, such law is not against the state that amounts to the violation of human rights.

Under The Rome Statute, the International Criminal Court Has Jurisdiction to Review the Allegations of Crimes against Humanity

The Rome Statute establishes that a party submits itself to the Court's jurisdiction by committing one or more serious and core international crimes, including Crimes against Humanity, Article 5. This affirm that even the top serious concerns of crimes as a whole to the international community should not be send free and should be punished, where as measures should be taken at the national level for their effective prosecution and by increasing the international corporation. However, the Rome Statute's power can be limited under the principle complementarily i.e. first comes the national jurisdiction and the second are the jurisdiction of ICC's. Hence, the Court authority to prosecute under Rome Statute can be expressly limited to State parties.

However, the International Criminal Institutions and National Courts have concurrent jurisdiction over the most serious crimes in violation of international criminal law and humanitarian law. The Tangoon government will not persecute their beloved leader; therefore, the ICC must assist with justice. In Pinochet cases, the former head of a state of a foreign country can be held accountable for acts of torture and human rights violations committed while he was in his post. The courts held that in Pinochet, the head of state lost his immunity due to ...