I hope this makes sense - I have confused myself by reading too much about my topic :) When I cut and paste it looks messy on the blog- My papers are always very neat and orderly so excuse the ugly font, lack of bold and italics.
Extraterritoriality or immunity from regional laws poses discord among nation states. The United States has expanded its jurisdiction of judicial power which conflicts with the jurisdiction of the international courts. Congress has enacted statutes that expand the reach of the United State’s criminal code. This system of regulation criminalizes the conduct of United States citizens abroad in certain circumstances. At the same time, our government (most notably the executive branch) refuses to submit those same American citizens, for the same offences, to the jurisdiction of the international courts.
The International Court of Justice or World Court is the court of the United Nations which was formed on the basis of worldly cooperation in the international areas of security, humanity, economy and international law. Those countries belonging to the United Nations are under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the objective of the International Court is to represent each sovereign state when needed to find an end to any conflict that may arise between the two. Though these states fall under the International Courts jurisdiction, they do not have to submit to its jurisdiction nor abide by its rulings. When a state deems the charged offence, one of a national or internal nature then the state would chose not to submit to the jurisdiction of the International Court.
The Military Extraterritorial jurisdiction Act or MEJA was passed in 2000 which held non-military, United States civilians working abroad and alongside United States military, United States military contractors and civilian employees of the United States Department of Defense to the same standards and laws as if the offence was committed in the jurisdiction of the United States.
This paper will review relations and conflict between the United States and the International Court on issues such as:
A. MEJA
B. Our views of realism vs. functionalism : We like the idea of functionalism or institutionalism in international law, but only when it comes to other states, we want to maintain self-governing power which is realism
C. State equality: In the international community all states are self-governing and fall under the codes of the International Court of Justice. Every state that is except the United States. The United States view of exceptionalism has made for particular negotiations in international law. This perception leads to conflict in the international system.
The perception of exception: Why?
US history
geography
US entitlements of citizens by government
the role of our government in our everyday lives
US military / relative power
D. Because of the way our government has been established- officials elected by the people who represent them and their desires, the US is intolerant toward being governed in any way by other states or state actors. US power is evenly distributed among the fifty states and through each representative- this works very well for the US as a sovereign state but it suppresses the US in terms of taking part in a global community of common law.
E. The United States has monopolized the jurisdiction to persecute criminal conduct committed by
United States citizens outside the territorial boundaries of the United States.
Sources:
Books/ Essays in Books:
Anghie, Antony, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law . New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Dratel, Joshua L., Greenburg, Karen J. The Torture Papers: the Road to Abu Ghraib. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Raustiala, Kal, Does the Constitution Follow the Flag? Territoriality and Extraterritoriality in American
Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, 3 – 127.
Sean D. Murphy, “The United States and the International Court of Justice: Coping with Antinomies” in
The Sword and the Scales. ed. P. R. Romano. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 46 – 97.
Journal Articles:
Detter, Ingrid, “The Problem of Unequal Treaties.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly,
Vol. 15, No. 4, October 1966.
Steyn, Johan, “Guantanamo Bay: The Legal Black Hole.” The International and Comparative Law
Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 1, January 2004.
Newspaper Article:
DeYoung, Karen. (October 14, 2008). Lacking an Accord On Troops, U.S. and Iraq Seek a Plan B. The
Washington Post.
Power Point Presentation:
Margolies, Daniel. (2010). Extraterritoriality, Empire, and Exception: U.S. Foreign Policy in Asia from
1844 to the Present [Power Point slide hard copy]. Retrieved from Dr. D. Margolies on 22 September 2010.
Various legal Documents:
(I am not sure how to cite these)
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 65 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 14
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 78 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 22
- International Convention on the regulation, Oversight and monitoring Of Private Military and Security Companies: Office of the United nations: 13 July 2009
- Department of justice Press Release: Two Individuals charged with Murder and Other Offences Related to Shooting Death of Two Afghan Nationals in Kabul, Afghanistan, 7 January 2010
Extraterritoriality or immunity from regional laws poses discord among nation states. The United States has expanded its jurisdiction of judicial power which conflicts with the jurisdiction of the international courts. Congress has enacted statutes that expand the reach of the United State’s criminal code. This system of regulation criminalizes the conduct of United States citizens abroad in certain circumstances. At the same time, our government (most notably the executive branch) refuses to submit those same American citizens, for the same offences, to the jurisdiction of the international courts.
The International Court of Justice or World Court is the court of the United Nations which was formed on the basis of worldly cooperation in the international areas of security, humanity, economy and international law. Those countries belonging to the United Nations are under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the objective of the International Court is to represent each sovereign state when needed to find an end to any conflict that may arise between the two. Though these states fall under the International Courts jurisdiction, they do not have to submit to its jurisdiction nor abide by its rulings. When a state deems the charged offence, one of a national or internal nature then the state would chose not to submit to the jurisdiction of the International Court.
The Military Extraterritorial jurisdiction Act or MEJA was passed in 2000 which held non-military, United States civilians working abroad and alongside United States military, United States military contractors and civilian employees of the United States Department of Defense to the same standards and laws as if the offence was committed in the jurisdiction of the United States.
This paper will review relations and conflict between the United States and the International Court on issues such as:
A. MEJA
B. Our views of realism vs. functionalism : We like the idea of functionalism or institutionalism in international law, but only when it comes to other states, we want to maintain self-governing power which is realism
C. State equality: In the international community all states are self-governing and fall under the codes of the International Court of Justice. Every state that is except the United States. The United States view of exceptionalism has made for particular negotiations in international law. This perception leads to conflict in the international system.
The perception of exception: Why?
US history
geography
US entitlements of citizens by government
the role of our government in our everyday lives
US military / relative power
D. Because of the way our government has been established- officials elected by the people who represent them and their desires, the US is intolerant toward being governed in any way by other states or state actors. US power is evenly distributed among the fifty states and through each representative- this works very well for the US as a sovereign state but it suppresses the US in terms of taking part in a global community of common law.
E. The United States has monopolized the jurisdiction to persecute criminal conduct committed by
United States citizens outside the territorial boundaries of the United States.
Sources:
Books/ Essays in Books:
Anghie, Antony, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law . New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Dratel, Joshua L., Greenburg, Karen J. The Torture Papers: the Road to Abu Ghraib. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Raustiala, Kal, Does the Constitution Follow the Flag? Territoriality and Extraterritoriality in American
Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, 3 – 127.
Sean D. Murphy, “The United States and the International Court of Justice: Coping with Antinomies” in
The Sword and the Scales. ed. P. R. Romano. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 46 – 97.
Journal Articles:
Detter, Ingrid, “The Problem of Unequal Treaties.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly,
Vol. 15, No. 4, October 1966.
Steyn, Johan, “Guantanamo Bay: The Legal Black Hole.” The International and Comparative Law
Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 1, January 2004.
Newspaper Article:
DeYoung, Karen. (October 14, 2008). Lacking an Accord On Troops, U.S. and Iraq Seek a Plan B. The
Washington Post.
Power Point Presentation:
Margolies, Daniel. (2010). Extraterritoriality, Empire, and Exception: U.S. Foreign Policy in Asia from
1844 to the Present [Power Point slide hard copy]. Retrieved from Dr. D. Margolies on 22 September 2010.
Various legal Documents:
(I am not sure how to cite these)
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 65 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 14
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 78 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 22
- International Convention on the regulation, Oversight and monitoring Of Private Military and Security Companies: Office of the United nations: 13 July 2009
- Department of justice Press Release: Two Individuals charged with Murder and Other Offences Related to Shooting Death of Two Afghan Nationals in Kabul, Afghanistan, 7 January 2010
Extraterritoriality or immunity from regional laws poses discord among nation states. The United States has expanded its jurisdiction of judicial power which conflicts with the jurisdiction of the international courts. Congress has enacted statutes that expand the reach of the United State’s criminal code. This system of regulation criminalizes the conduct of United States citizens abroad in certain circumstances. At the same time, our government (most notably the executive branch) refuses to submit those same American citizens, for the same offences, to the jurisdiction of the international courts.
The International Court of Justice or World Court is the court of the United Nations which was formed on the basis of worldly cooperation in the international areas of security, humanity, economy and international law. Those countries belonging to the United Nations are under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the objective of the International Court is to represent each sovereign state when needed to find an end to any conflict that may arise between the two. Though these states fall under the International Courts jurisdiction, they do not have to submit to its jurisdiction nor abide by its rulings. When a state deems the charged offence, one of a national or internal nature then the state would chose not to submit to the jurisdiction of the International Court.
The Military Extraterritorial jurisdiction Act or MEJA was passed in 2000 which held non-military, United States civilians working abroad and alongside United States military, United States military contractors and civilian employees of the United States Department of Defense to the same standards and laws as if the offence was committed in the jurisdiction of the United States.
This paper will review relations and conflict between the United States and the International Court on issues such as:
A. MEJA
B. Our views of realism vs. functionalism : We like the idea of functionalism or institutionalism in international law, but only when it comes to other states, we want to maintain self-governing power which is realism
C. State equality: In the international community all states are self-governing and fall under the codes of the International Court of Justice. Every state that is except the United States. The United States view of exceptionalism has made for particular negotiations in international law. This perception leads to conflict in the international system.
The perception of exception: Why?
US history
geography
US entitlements of citizens by government
the role of our government in our everyday lives
US military / relative power
D. Because of the way our government has been established- officials elected by the people who represent them and their desires, the US is intolerant toward being governed in any way by other states or state actors. US power is evenly distributed among the fifty states and through each representative- this works very well for the US as a sovereign state but it suppresses the US in terms of taking part in a global community of common law.
E. The United States has monopolized the jurisdiction to persecute criminal conduct committed by
United States citizens outside the territorial boundaries of the United States.
Sources:
Books/ Essays in Books:
Anghie, Antony, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law . New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Dratel, Joshua L., Greenburg, Karen J. The Torture Papers: the Road to Abu Ghraib. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Raustiala, Kal, Does the Constitution Follow the Flag? Territoriality and Extraterritoriality in American
Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, 3 – 127.
Sean D. Murphy, “The United States and the International Court of Justice: Coping with Antinomies” in
The Sword and the Scales. ed. P. R. Romano. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 46 – 97.
Journal Articles:
Detter, Ingrid, “The Problem of Unequal Treaties.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly,
Vol. 15, No. 4, October 1966.
Steyn, Johan, “Guantanamo Bay: The Legal Black Hole.” The International and Comparative Law
Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 1, January 2004.
Newspaper Article:
DeYoung, Karen. (October 14, 2008). Lacking an Accord On Troops, U.S. and Iraq Seek a Plan B. The
Washington Post.
Power Point Presentation:
Margolies, Daniel. (2010). Extraterritoriality, Empire, and Exception: U.S. Foreign Policy in Asia from
1844 to the Present [Power Point slide hard copy]. Retrieved from Dr. D. Margolies on 22 September 2010.
Various legal Documents:
(I am not sure how to cite these)
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 65 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 14
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 78 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 22
- International Convention on the regulation, Oversight and monitoring Of Private Military and Security Companies: Office of the United nations: 13 July 2009
- Department of justice Press Release: Two Individuals charged with Murder and Other Offences Related to Shooting Death of Two Afghan Nationals in Kabul, Afghanistan, 7 January 2010
Extraterritoriality or immunity from regional laws poses discord among nation states. The United States has expanded its jurisdiction of judicial power which conflicts with the jurisdiction of the international courts. Congress has enacted statutes that expand the reach of the United State’s criminal code. This system of regulation criminalizes the conduct of United States citizens abroad in certain circumstances. At the same time, our government (most notably the executive branch) refuses to submit those same American citizens, for the same offences, to the jurisdiction of the international courts.
The International Court of Justice or World Court is the court of the United Nations which was formed on the basis of worldly cooperation in the international areas of security, humanity, economy and international law. Those countries belonging to the United Nations are under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the objective of the International Court is to represent each sovereign state when needed to find an end to any conflict that may arise between the two. Though these states fall under the International Courts jurisdiction, they do not have to submit to its jurisdiction nor abide by its rulings. When a state deems the charged offence, one of a national or internal nature then the state would chose not to submit to the jurisdiction of the International Court.
The Military Extraterritorial jurisdiction Act or MEJA was passed in 2000 which held non-military, United States civilians working abroad and alongside United States military, United States military contractors and civilian employees of the United States Department of Defense to the same standards and laws as if the offence was committed in the jurisdiction of the United States.
This paper will review relations and conflict between the United States and the International Court on issues such as:
A. MEJA
B. Our views of realism vs. functionalism : We like the idea of functionalism or institutionalism in international law, but only when it comes to other states, we want to maintain self-governing power which is realism
C. State equality: In the international community all states are self-governing and fall under the codes of the International Court of Justice. Every state that is except the United States. The United States view of exceptionalism has made for particular negotiations in international law. This perception leads to conflict in the international system.
The perception of exception: Why?
US history
geography
US entitlements of citizens by government
the role of our government in our everyday lives
US military / relative power
D. Because of the way our government has been established- officials elected by the people who represent them and their desires, the US is intolerant toward being governed in any way by other states or state actors. US power is evenly distributed among the fifty states and through each representative- this works very well for the US as a sovereign state but it suppresses the US in terms of taking part in a global community of common law.
E. The United States has monopolized the jurisdiction to persecute criminal conduct committed by
United States citizens outside the territorial boundaries of the United States.
Sources:
Books/ Essays in Books:
Anghie, Antony, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law . New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Dratel, Joshua L., Greenburg, Karen J. The Torture Papers: the Road to Abu Ghraib. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.
Raustiala, Kal, Does the Constitution Follow the Flag? Territoriality and Extraterritoriality in American
Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009, 3 – 127.
Sean D. Murphy, “The United States and the International Court of Justice: Coping with Antinomies” in
The Sword and the Scales. ed. P. R. Romano. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 46 – 97.
Journal Articles:
Detter, Ingrid, “The Problem of Unequal Treaties.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly,
Vol. 15, No. 4, October 1966.
Steyn, Johan, “Guantanamo Bay: The Legal Black Hole.” The International and Comparative Law
Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 1, January 2004.
Newspaper Article:
DeYoung, Karen. (October 14, 2008). Lacking an Accord On Troops, U.S. and Iraq Seek a Plan B. The
Washington Post.
Power Point Presentation:
Margolies, Daniel. (2010). Extraterritoriality, Empire, and Exception: U.S. Foreign Policy in Asia from
1844 to the Present [Power Point slide hard copy]. Retrieved from Dr. D. Margolies on 22 September 2010.
Various legal Documents:
(I am not sure how to cite these)
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 65 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 14
- Case: 2:10-cr-00001-RGD-FBS Doc. 78 Filed 05/19/10 p. 1- 22
- International Convention on the regulation, Oversight and monitoring Of Private Military and Security Companies: Office of the United nations: 13 July 2009
- Department of justice Press Release: Two Individuals charged with Murder and Other Offences Related to Shooting Death of Two Afghan Nationals in Kabul, Afghanistan, 7 January 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment