However they do have the ability to make suggestions to possibly amend the law through highlighting flaws. The judiciary cannot make judgments past the jurisdiction of the law even in interests of natural justice. A strong example of this was the Belmarsh Case, where judges believed the system of holding foreigners against the will under the anti-terrorism act contradicted with human rights. This law was subsequently changed. This could pose some doubt as to the judges power, as although they can not officially change laws, they clearly have the power to suggest changes with ease, and some could argue that despite Lord Neuberger’s claims, they do indeed undermine parliamentary sovereignty through their suggestion of changes.
They are able to take away our freedom, investigate our private lives, monitor our actions and use the information they find out against us if necessary. These powers must be carefully controlled to avoid abuses by the state and its public services against individual members of the public. During a democracy they must always be checks and balances on power in order to ensure that no one single agency or service has power over the public that cannot be challenged. Commonly speaking the public services operate with the consent and cooperation of the public and are respected and respectful. Despite the fact even in a country like the UK with highly trained and knowledgeable officers, a breach of human rights may still occur.
In the vigilantism cases, although we could all relate to the frustration involved for the actors, we all agree that one must stay within the bounds of the law to seek out justice. The next discussion involved civil disobedience and we found that we agreed that civil disobedience has been helpful historically to help change the laws and improve our society. However, the general consensus on civil disobedience was also that the acts of disobedience must be done in a peaceful manner for the acts to be effective. The final acts of crimes among professionals had another anonymous decision. Our team found that we did not agree with those professionals who chose to commit crimes.
The reason for this is that not all states can agree on whether or not capital punishment is criminal in and of itself. Another important controversy within the subject is this: Regardless of whether or not the death penalty itself should be enforced, if it is going to be, then is it right to publicize the criminal’s execution, or should it remain private? The subject of privatized versus publicized executions is still a hot debate for most. Those who are in support of public executions have valid reasons, as do those who are against them. Both sides have been pretty stubborn in their views, the reason why we haven’t reached a decision as a whole.
Legality of Humanitarian Intervention Keywords: Humanitarian intervention, human rights, Just War theory, Thomas Aquinas Moral dilemma: Humanitarian intervention is the most controversial element of international relations theory - It is fought with difficulty and is not susceptible to easy answers Intervention is an intersection of two competing ethical demands, on the one side you have the prohibition of the use of armed force against another state and on the other you have the objective of stopping mass violations of human rights and humanitarian law Legality: Determined by treaties and customs, notion of legality is intended to be objective and universal, all actors are subject to it deciding whether an act is lawful remains a legal question addressed by legal experts Legitimacy: Far less objective, synonymous with morality and justice, Concept of legitimacy is less precise than legality There's no test for legitimacy or methodology for doing it, idea of legitimacy is a multidisciplinary concept: Moral, Philosophical, Political and Legal principles are involved It is up to the individual to decide whether a specific act is justified Problems: When legitimacy and legality come into conflict When something is deemed legitimate but is prohibited by law Without international endorsements by the Security Council of the UN(which creates a sense of consensus as a result of a successful political process on what is seen as legitimate) tensions between law and legitimacy may weaken legal rules that are necessary for the survival of states Legal treaties and papers can not always provide sufficient legality/justification on moral issues Legalist Paradigm: 1 There exists and international society of independent states 2 International society has a law that establishes the rights of
An example is when the Miranda Doctrine is not observed upon arresting, the right of self-incrimination may be invoked so as for the evidences against the defense be inadmissible. In order for the Miranda Doctrine to be validly executed, such must be stated in the presence of the counsel for the defense. Such doctrine may be waived, but must be made with utmost knowledge of its consequences (Israel et al, 1993). Although both Fifth and Sixth Amendments embody significant rights for the citizens, it still has differences, one of which is that pertaining to the inquiries pertaining to the case is not allowed in the Fifth Amendment. The Sixth amendment protects the accused upon the case against him.
With this power comes a great amount of responsibility that can be correlated to abuse. Depending on who you ask the primary purpose of this agency is to protect and serve the general population. Force and even deadly force can be used in situations whenever the use of such is reasonable and prudent. The question is what is considered to be reasonable in reference to use of force? This question is yet to be answered; however, most people agree that it depends on the situation.
Best ways to deal with prejudice: Prejudice is a fixed opinion about a certain group without examining the facts fairly and rationally. Prejudices about ethnicity, sexuality, religion, class and gender have occurred since the beginning of civilisation and still occur to this very day. History has shown that prejudice can be a dangerous thing. So what is the best way to deal with it? Legal action and social integration, with is very diplomatic as oppose to negative actions such as forcing change through violence.
Hence when the purpose is not met then there is definitely a need for corrective measures. And this cannot be met if laws were meant to be rigid or fixed. The basic ultimatum of a law is to ensure that under all circumstances it serves its basic purpose. when a law does not seek to know the circumstance or the situation under which it has been over ruled, it cannot determine if a certain case has been found guilty. The reason being human activities are very much dependant on what he or she was subjected to at that instance.
The rise of nuclear states, the expansion of covert operations in other territories and of course the growing destabilisation of areas such as North Africa are problems which perhaps are not best met by the current approach of international law to use of force. Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter concerns itself with the suppression of acts of aggression. It reads “all Members shall refrain...from threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.” However Article 2 (4) is subject to Article 51 which provides for the exercise of “the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member state.” It is this right of self defence, along with the principle of invitation for peacekeeping force’s assistance, which delineates the border between legitimate and illegitimate uses of force. The restrictive interpretation of Article 51 would be the accepting “armed attack” as the definition of a threat though considerable debate has raged over the meaning of these words, not least in