International Law Affect State Behavior? Term Paper

Pages: 5 (1450 words)  ·  Bibliography Sources: 5  ·  File: .docx  ·  Level: College Senior  ·  Topic: Business - Law

The Eichmann case represents a rationalization of human rights violation based on the need to uphold and emphasize cultural values. At a time when Israel was seeking to establish itself as a state, and gain the confidence of Israeli citizens, (as well as the sympathy and support of the global public), Eichmann's due process was not as important as vindication.

Israel's decision to break international law is likely to have been caused by the difficulty related to capturing and extraditing an individual responsible for committing war crimes. An international criminal law would probably have played a very important role in this situation, with Eichmann being judged for the crimes he committed without anyone having to interfere to impede his conviction. The Israeli authorities did not want to risk Eichmann being set free or being in a position that he could exploit (Posner). Although one might find it difficult to understand this state of affairs, the U.S.' general perspective in regard to a criminal court can easily clarify matters. The superpower's representatives have expressed their specific lack of support for the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC is meant to judge individuals who have committed heinous human rights violations. However, their set of laws contradicts those related to the concept of human rights (Ralph, 2007).Buy full Download Microsoft Word File paper
for $19.77

Term Paper on International Law Affect State Behavior? Assignment

American resistance to joining the ICC is primarily fueled by political factors and security issues. The ICC's jurisdiction would contradict some of the fundamental rights in the U.S., such as the one concerning the right that U.S. citizens have to bear arms. The adoption of global gun control legislation by the American government, enforced by international law would certainly affect people in the U.S., as they would no longer have the right to carry weapons. Accepting jurisdiction of the ICC would mean that the U.S. would no longer be capable of exercising full authority over criminals and trials within the country's borders (Alonso, 2003)

The 9/11 events of 2001 made America's perspective on international law even more complicated. The U.S. preferred to go to war instead of starting an investigation that would require a lot of time and that would probably generate little or no information. The Bush Administration considered that subjecting to international law would basically mean that the country's sovereignty would be questioned. The American War on terrorism would likely have proceeded differently if the country's leaders were to have acted in accordance with international law (Ralph, 2007).

Governments that consider international law to be relatively unimportant are principally the ones refusing to respect international law. Depending on the ideological principles present in some states, they will be more or less willing to act in agreement with legislations imposed by international law. Liberal democracies, for example, can easily consider an international law to contradict some of the values that they uphold. The public international law of money is one of the most debated international legislations, as most governments are reluctant to adopt it because it limits their self-governing, decision-making position. Institutions like the International Monetary Fund have the purpose of providing "a framework that facilitates the exchange of goods, services, and capital among countries" (Simmons, 2000)

By maintaining sovereignty, governments have the advantage of choosing the types of transactions they conduct. Authorities in some countries prefer to have control over the money that enters and leaves their territories and hence want to have the right to intervene "to conserve foreign exchange in whatever ways they consider appropriate" (Simmons, 2000). The IMF mainly intends to prevent such activities from taking place, as it acknowledges the fact that they directly hinder the expansion of free foreign-exchange markets (Simmons, 2000).

All things considered, international law is essentially meant to guarantee the well-being of people from around the world. However, by accepting legislation proposed by this regulation system, some countries risk losing a series of advantages. In trying to realize what is best for their state, leaders come across ethical dilemmas, since they potentially eliminate several privileges from their citizens when they accept international law.

Many countries although supporting strongly the values and rules of international law, often break or circumvent these rules in order to reach their cultural or economic goals. Some countries do so only after taking a large number of variables into consideration, and some break these rules out of a political impulse that often does [END OF PREVIEW] . . . READ MORE

Two Ordering Options:

Which Option Should I Choose?
1.  Buy full paper (5 pages)Download Microsoft Word File

Download the perfectly formatted MS Word file!

- or -

2.  Write a NEW paper for me!✍🏻

We'll follow your exact instructions!
Chat with the writer 24/7.

To What Extent Does International Law Affect State Behavior Methodology Chapter

International Law Assess the Legality Seminar Paper

Problem of International Law and Its Enforcement Essay

Is International Law Really Law? Term Paper

Laws Affecting the Human Resources Industry Term Paper

View 200+ other related papers  >>

How to Cite "International Law Affect State Behavior?" Term Paper in a Bibliography:

APA Style

International Law Affect State Behavior?.  (2011, August 12).  Retrieved April 3, 2020, from

MLA Format

"International Law Affect State Behavior?."  12 August 2011.  Web.  3 April 2020. <>.

Chicago Style

"International Law Affect State Behavior?."  August 12, 2011.  Accessed April 3, 2020.