Responsibility in the Delta Community

Deltazeta has a responsibility for the destruction of the trout far owned by a Beta Company because the conflict that arose among the residents was instigated by Deltazeta. These conflicts were triggered by the introduction of laws biasing the Delta Community. For instance, the implementation of the law of teaching using the Delta language developed sentiments among the Beta Community residents, who felt that they were not recognized in the region and were just but a sideline[1]. As a result, the rivalry between the two ethnic communities developed and was perpetuated by the insurrectionist movement, the Zeta Liberation Army, which was present in the area[2]. The Zeta was focused on fighting for their rights, thereby resulting in a civil war when a coup was developed for this purpose, and in the process, the Trout farm was destroyed. It is, therefore, clear that Deltazeta’s introduction of the new laws instigated the rivalry among the communities, which led to civil wars and thereby caused the destruction of the Trout Farm. If such wars would not have happened, then the farm would not have been destroyed.

            However, Deltazeta was not responsible for the destruction of the Alpha embassy or the injuries and death that occurred to the personnel. An unknown group of people, who are said to have been sympathizing of the Zeta Liberation Army, took over the embassy, which negates the claim that Deltazeta was responsible for the destruction of the Alpha embassy. Furthermore, because the Zeta Liberation Army was not responsible for the kidnapping of the Alpha embassy personnel, which means that the attackers might have been foreign individuals[3]. Additional proof of this is by the Propaganda that Insurrectionists issued, which indicated that the destruction was done as a way of recognizing that they had taken over the ruling of Deltazeta. This shows that Deltazeta would not have been responsible for such destruction because they would not offer the propaganda in such a state. Additionally, the Liberation Army issued false information that was related to the incident rather than taking credit for the activity. It is clear from these activities that Deltazeta has no responsibility whatsoever in relation to the allegations that they destroyed the Alpha embassy. Furthermore, in the urban area where the embassy is located, the majority of the residents are the agrarian communities, who may emanate from different states and nations and thus have different motives in the area.

            Deltazeta is not responsible for the deportation of the CEO of Sigma Corporation because it is the mandate of the government to conduct such deportations. In the case, revolutionary authorities took over the management of the firm, thereby forcing Alpha personnel to move out of the organization. Furthermore, the government took over all the entities of the business and froze all of their bank accounts[4]. Members from the liberation arrested the CEO and detained him at a central hotel within the Omicron City[5]. After detaining the CEO, these members later deported him from Deltazeta. Considering their actions, it is clear that they were supported by authorized individuals within the state, meaning that Deltazeta is not responsible for the deportation.

Question 2

            Through the Diplomatic law, Beta has authority to intercede and fight for the rights of its nation. Sigma Tau was a citizen of Beta state by his birth, which means that he did not deny his participation in his hometown. Additionally, since the laws governing Beta have allowed dual citizenship, it means that the government has the responsibility of negotiating on behalf of its citizens within any of the states which they are situated[6]. Even if Sigma Tau acquired the Deltazeta’s citizenship and lost his birth-state citizenship on law, Beta did not remove the records from their country, meaning that he still remained a legal citizen of Beta.

            Therefore, Deltazeta has a responsibility regarding their connection to the death of Sigma Tau. Having acquired the Deltazeta citizenship, Sigma Tau was allowed to work within the region, which means that it was the responsibility of the government of Deltazeta to protect him and his rights as part of their citizens. Furthermore, it is important to consider the fact that Sigma Tau’s death occurred as a result of the civil wars that arose in the region and were based on the laws introduced in the region by the government[7]. Therefore, the government should have responsibility for the death and they should have compensated the death of Sigma Tau.       

Question 3

            Alpha’s government has the mandate and ability to intervene in ensuring that the issues affecting Sigma Corporation are properly addressed. This is particularly so because there is no command issued by Deltazeta concerning the issue, thereby giving Alpha a chance to intervene. Furthermore, within the Deltazeta government, there are no specific laws that legalize the move and hence no degree pertaining to the case. Deltazeta’s government is also held responsible for the harassment of some Alpha individuals that were working for Sigma Corporation[8]. Furthermore, because Sigma Corporation is partially owned by one of its nations, then Alpha has the responsibility of ensuring they intervene for the best interests of all involved parties.

            Deltazeta is not likely to have responsibility for this because it is not clear which authority was the one that primarily forced the surrender of Sigma Corporation’s entitlements, bank accounts and freezing of these items. The case reveals that they were revolutionary authorities, which were not from Deltazeta. This is an indication that the authorities involved would have been from a private sector, rather than from a government[9]. Furthermore, there are no legal documents which can show the evidence binding the activities of the government and Sigma Corporation. Therefore, no responsibility can be bound to Deltazeta.

Question 4

            The ICC has a legal jurisdiction to Mr X because Deltazeta is a party that belongs to the Rome Statute of International Criminal Court. The state has an optional declaration that is non-negotiable, which means that the international criminal court judge has the mandate to make a ruling concerning the case of Mr X[10]. The offences that Mr X can be charged with being inclusive of hatred and the incitement of individuals which led to the development of civil rivalry. Furthermore, Mr X can be charged with the formation and leading of an illegal armed group, the Zeta Liberation Army, destruction of property and its environments, conspiring with Zeta Ethnic Communities with the purpose of eliminating the Delta Community from their country, disruption of peace, development of ethnic clashes in the country and illegal acquisition of power through the civil wars.

            Beta cannot arrest Mr X and question him because the Rome stature states that only the international criminal court has the responsibility of prosecuting individuals who have committed crimes. Therefore, no state or individual organization has the responsibility of undertaking these prosecutions to individuals. As argued by Politi Mauro, the nation can only prosecute victims if they are given the mandate to arrest a president having an arrest warrant from the international criminal court[11]. After this, the members of the state can arrest the head of state once they make a visit to their state provided the above conditions are met.

Question 5

            Deltazeta argues that Alpha has responsibility for those airstrikes because Alpha offered their army in the activities without having to request for consultation with Deltazeta. In addition, the government did not take over the command of their army because they were under orders from a general who was still given orders by Alpha. These commands given by the general resulted in the destruction of a large portion of the property and lead to many deaths within the region. In addition, because the army emanated from the Alpha state, it is clear that they should be responsible for the activities which transpired and the events that lead to the destruction of property and death.

            In the even that Alpha takes responsibility for their actions, the general should be arrested and charged for instigating the violence. Launching a case concerning against humanity by Deltazeta government will be an important approach at the international criminal court. Once this prosecution is made, investigations concerning the case can be done which will help in providing an arrest warrant for the general. This will be done through the secret mission by the army, which will enable them to find the general and arrest him even if the legal procedures may fail.

Question 6

            Arbitration refers to the process through which two parties submit their disputes to a third party in the interested of finding a solution for the case, who is usually an independent party. One of the advantages of arbitration is that the arbitrator is agreed on by both parties who are confident enough that the individual will consider both of their interests and be fair to both of them. According to Quigley, John, the arbitrator can be selected on the basis of their qualifications, technical abilities and also their knowledge[12]. This is important because both parties will have an agreement on the arbitrator, thus their interests are considered mutually.

            Another advantage is that the dispute is solved much faster because both parties agree on the specific date for the intersection and resolution of the conflicts, which means that the court date is also set faster. For instance, in Virginia, the trial date is set about twelve months from the date when the lawsuit was first developed[13]. The expenses incurred in arbitration are much less because the fee for the arbitrator is split equally between the conflicting parties[14]. This means that both individuals have to contribute equally to the process of undertaking the arbitration properly. Additionally, compared to paying for the services of a witness to testify on the trial, arbitrations are much cheaper[15]. The preparation costs for the arbitration are much lower than the preparations for a trial itself, which is because of the complex procedures that are involved in the trial preparation.

            The attribution is a confidential process as compared to a trial, which is more of a public approach. The judicial proceedings are held publicly unlike in attribution where only the affected parties are involved. The benefit is that both parties are able to deal with their matters properly and thus exclude the public domain. Finally, when attribution is used, there are limited chances for a party to appeal because both individuals are directly involved in the process, hence no disputes are expected by the end of the attribution process. Also, the solution considers the mutual interest of the parties, which means that none of the conflicting individuals feels that they were not considered.

            The disadvantages of the arbitration process are many, and one of them is that there is no right to appeal for either party that are involved. According to Klabbers, Jan, both parties in an attribution do not have an opportunity to correct what they feel is enormous on decisions made by the arbitrator[16]. This means that once a decision has been made, there is no chance of appealings it is the final resolution for the conflict arising. The process is also uneconomical because the fee charged by the arbitrator depends on the intensity of the case, the individual is chosen as the arbitrator and the effectiveness of the resolution provided[17]. This means that there is a likelihood of the fee fluctuating to accommodate for the arbitrator’s needs.

            The rule of evidence does not apply in arbitration as is followed by the jury. The evidence is critical in decision making, and even if some evidence is not considered, the decision made to resolve a conflict may be biased. Lack of the opportunity for the attributor to cross-examine testimonies from witnesses is a weakness which limits the effectiveness of the decision made. Furthermore, there is no clear standard that is used by the arbitrators in their decision making and conflict resolution practices[18]. Despite the requirement to follow the law in developing their final decision, no specific approach is used to arrive at such resolutions.

Question 7

            Alpha cannot send its secret service or undercover individuals to save the kidnapped citizens from the embassy. According to Forsythe, David, the embassy still belongs to the territory of the host country, which means that Alpha does not have the jurisdiction or obligation to engage in the host state without first being given the consent to do so[19]. The principles of national jurisdiction on sovereignty state that the laws of a country are supreme and act only within its territory, thereby no other nation can supersede or try to act against these laws. Considering the theory of scope of immunity in relation to the international law, the text on the same clearly denies the application for political secrets, spies and agents of a foreign state to undertake their duties in a country that is not their home country[20]. Furthermore, agents who are sent secretly on a mission for the political purposes and may not have the necessary requirements such as a government letter of recommendation and admission of a state may be regarded as threats in their foreign countries. As a result, Alpha are unable to undertake their activities in foreign countries as this would be considered an illegal activity, which may result in the development of conflict and thus arising from political issues.

Question 8

            Zetaland can use drones and other methods to destroy the general based on humanitarian proposition because of the security of the citizens in the country. When the wellbeing and safety of a country are put at stake, the state is obliged to call for immediate action such that the cause of insecurity within its territory can be eliminated with immediate effect. This is the case involving the general and Zetaland has the mandate to send its drones to combat with the general and his army. The head of state has the duty to issue a command of this nature directly to the armed forces such that they execute their battle strategies for the nation in the interest of sustaining the security of the state and its citizens[21]. It is important that the overall activities be geared towards the protection and safety of the humans, rather than causing them any harm whatsoever[22]. According to Gray, Christine, the United States of America government exercised this approach under the leadership of the former president Barack Obama[23]. The military of the United States was given commands by the president to target Kabul, a town located in eastern Afghanistan that was the host of the Islamic militia who was causing havoc and terror to the United States. These actions were aimed at protecting the citizens from terrorist attacks that had become rampant in the United States[24]. The terror attacks targeted the United States for a variety of reasons, and this put majority of the citizens under safety concerns that hence led to the president issuing the commands. Drones were used to attack and eliminate the Islamic Militia in Kabul on September 2016, which thereby improved the security and safety of the United States[25].

Bibliography

Bassiouni, M. Cherif. “Searching for peace and achieving justice: The need for accountability.”In International Crimes, pp. 113-132. Routledge, 2017.

Bassiouni, M. Cherif, and William A. Schabas, eds. The Legislative History of the International Criminal Court (2 Vols.): Second Revised and Expanded Edition. BRILL, 2016.

Baylis, John, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens, eds. The globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations. Oxford University Press, 2017.

Born, Gary B., and Peter B. Rutledge. International civil litigation in United States courts. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2018.

Dinstein, Yoram. The conduct of hostilities under the law of international armed conflict. Cambridge University Press, 2016.

Forsythe, David P. Human rights in international relations. Cambridge University Press, 2017.

Gray, Christine. International law and the use of force. Oxford University Press, 2018.

Goldstone, Richard J., and Adam M. Smith. International judicial institutions: the architecture of international justice at home and abroad. Routledge, 2015.

Hannum, Hurst. “International law and Cambodian genocide: the sounds of silence.”In Cambodia: Change and Continuity in Contemporary Politics, pp. 175-231. Routledge, 2017.

Jurdi, Nidal Nabil. The International Criminal Court and national courts: a contentious relationship. Routledge, 2016.

Kaczorowska, Alina. Public international law. Routledge, 2015.

Klabbers, Jan. An introduction to international organizations law. Cambridge University Press, 2015.

Kofele-Kale, Ndiva. The international law of responsibility for economic crimes: holding state officials individually liable for acts of fraudulent enrichment. Routledge, 2016.

Leong, Angela Veng Mei. The disruption of international organised crime: an analysis of legal and non-legal strategies. Routledge, 2016.

Politi, Mauro. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: a challenge to impunity. Routledge, 2017.

Politi, Mauro. The International Criminal Court and the Crime of Aggression. Routledge, 2017.

Quigley, John. The genocide convention: An international law analysis. Routledge, 2016.

Richardson, Elizabeth, Pauline Spencer, and David B. Wexler. “The International Framework for Court Excellence and therapeutic jurisprudence: Creating excellent courts and enhancing wellbeing.”(2016).

Roberts, Paul, and Nesam McMillan. “For criminology in international criminal justice.”In The Criminology of War, pp. 3-26. Routledge, 2017.

Schabas, William A. The International Criminal Court: a commentary on the Rome statute. Oxford University Press, 2017.

Smith, Rhona KM. Textbook on international human rights. Oxford University Press, 2016.

Sornarajah, Muthucumaraswamy. The international law on foreign investment. Cambridge University Press, 2017.

Tushnet, Mark. “Comparative constitutional law.”In The Oxford handbook of comparative law. 2017.

Williamson, Myra. Terrorism, war and international law: the legality of the use of force against Afghanistan in 2001. Routledge, 2016.

Wood, Michael. “The Interpretation of Security Council Resolutions, Revisited.”Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online 20, no. 1 (2017): 1-35.

[1]

Tushnet, Mark. “Comparative constitutional law.”In The Oxford handbook of comparative law. 2017.

[2]

Bassiouni, M. Cherif, and William A. Schabas, eds. The Legislative History of the International Criminal Court (2 Vols.): Second Revised and Expanded Edition. BRILL, 2016.

[3]

Richardson, Elizabeth, Pauline Spencer, and David B. Wexler. “The International Framework for Court Excellence and therapeutic jurisprudence: Creating excellent courts and enhancing wellbeing.”(2016).

[4]

Sornarajah, Muthucumaraswamy. The international law on foreign investment. Cambridge University Press, 2017.

[5]

Smith, Rhona KM. Textbook on international human rights. Oxford University Press, 2016.

[6]

Dinstein, Yoram. The conduct of hostilities under the law of international armed conflict. Cambridge University Press, 2016.

[7]

Schabas, William A. The International Criminal Court: a commentary on the Rome statute. Oxford University Press, 2017.

[8]

Hannum, Hurst. “International law and Cambodian genocide: the sounds of silence.”In Cambodia: Change and Continuity in Contemporary Politics, pp. 175-231. Routledge, 2017.

[9]

Bassiouni, M. Cherif. “Searching for peace and achieving justice: The need for accountability.”In International Crimes, pp. 113-132. Routledge, 2017.

[10]

Born, Gary B., and Peter B. Rutledge. International civil litigation in United States courts. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2018.

[11]

Politi, Mauro. The International Criminal Court and the Crime of Aggression. Routledge, 2017.

[12]

Quigley, John. The genocide convention: An international law analysis. Routledge, 2016.

[13]

Jurdi, Nidal Nabil. The International Criminal Court and national courts: a contentious relationship. Routledge, 2016.

[14]

Goldstone, Richard J., and Adam M. Smith. International judicial institutions: the architecture of international justice at home and abroad. Routledge, 2015.

[15]

Kaczorowska, Alina. Public international law. Routledge, 2015.

[16]

Klabbers, Jan. An introduction to international organizations law. Cambridge University Press, 2015.

[17]

Williamson, Myra. Terrorism, war and international law: the legality of the use of force against Afghanistan in 2001. Routledge, 2016.

[18]

Wood, Michael. “The Interpretation of Security Council Resolutions, Revisited.”Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online 20, no. 1 (2017): 1-35.

[19]

Forsythe, David P. Human rights in international relations. Cambridge University Press, 2017.

[20]

Kofele-Kale, Ndiva. The international law of responsibility for economic crimes: holding state officials individually liable for acts of fraudulent enrichment. Routledge, 2016.

[21]

Baylis, John, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens, eds. The globalization of world politics: an introduction to international relations. Oxford University Press, 2017.

[22]

Roberts, Paul, and Nesam McMillan. “For criminology in international criminal justice.”In The Criminology of War, pp. 3-26. Routledge, 2017.

[23]

Gray, Christine. International law and the use of force. Oxford University Press, 2018.

[24]

Leong, Angela Veng Mei. The disruption of international organised crime: an analysis of legal and non-legal strategies. Routledge, 2016.

[25]

Politi, Mauro. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: a challenge to impunity. Routledge, 2017.