One of the major arguments against the formation of a true international criminal justice agency is the loss of national sovereignty for the countries involved. Assume you have been asked to propose a true international criminal justice system; how would you address this issue? Include in your answer the three components of the system and how each would function, where each would be based, methods for recruiting and training personnel, and what authority it would really have. Length 4 pages. Please include any references you use.
I would highly recommend you look at the US arguments against and for joining the ICC. One of the main arguments of people who do not support the US joining the ICC (International Criminal Court) is that it will mean loss of sovereignty. The arguments for the ICC obviously respond to this argument with all sorts of other reasons.
Here's some links: http://www.discourse.net/archives/2005/03/why_the_us_needs_to_join_the_international_criminal_court.html
I would also recommend you look at the ICC to get an idea as to how to answer the remaining questions. here's a link to the court website: http://www.icc-cpi.int/about.html
The following are my viewpoints, you may use them as you wish.
While some argue that a state looses its sovereignty in joining an international criminal justice agency, it can very easily be said that in fact in making the choice to join an international criminal justice institute - the choice itself allows the state to retain its sovereignty. Its not compulsion but the state's free will to join that enables it to be a part of any int'l criminal justice agency. For instance, a lot of the states that joined the ICC did if after having elections in their respective countries, so their citizens voted on it, and their political representatives voted on it in their versions of congress and parliament etc. It was thus a conscientious decision made by the people and the elected representatives of the nation - which indicates their sovereignty. Its not as if a state is not there of free will, and in that choice the state is able to retain its sovereignty. Additionally, even after a state becomes a party to an international institution, it still has the ability to shape it policies and practices. For example, the states that are part of the ICC decided on it's procedures and institutions. Thus even after joining the an international criminal justice agency states still have a voice in the way that agency will function. They are not bound to something they dont have any control over, but something that they choose to join and after they join they have the ability to alter and make changes to. Of course this choice is limited by the fact that other nations will also have a say and the majority decision may not be one that is in line with what the states wanted. However its not a dictatorship,the state retains its free will as much as we do in a democracy, we have the power to effect change by voting, however we have to concede to the majority. We retain our sovereignty b/c of our vote. Similarly states retain their ...
This job names the US arguments against and for joining the ICC.