Respond or react to the answer to the question below:

In Chapter 8, you read about international adjudication ("transitional justice").One critique that your textbook mentions is "International processes have come under scrutiny as most international justice mechanisms were created based on Western conceptions of justice." Notably, even "Western conceptions of justice" vary significantly. Let's consider how adjudication on an international level differs from on a national level.We will use our own system as an illustrative example.

US:

A) Under our US system of checks and balances, the judiciary is intended to interpret the laws made by our elected legislature.

B) When judges go beyond the scope of interpretation it is called "judicial activism."

C) Within the US there are means for enforcing judicial decisions.

D) Our system uses the "common law" system, where case law and precedent are of great importance and there is substantial case law backing decisions.

E) Access to judiciary is culturally expected.

VS.

International:

A) Laws applied do not originate from directly elected legislature, but from international laws that often attempt to incorporate varying legal systems.

B) Judicial activism is not uncommon in international decisions.

C) Decisions from international adjudications may lack means of enforcement.

D) In contrast to our common law, many other countries use a system called "civil law" that relies heavily on codes.

E) Some countries are reluctant to use courts- it is a very Western proposition.

1.With those differences listed above, do you believe adjudication is less effective or more effective on an international level than it is on a national level?

2.In the US particularly, checks and balances and constitutional rights are of paramount importance.Do you believe that International adjudication is still a viable conflict management strategy?Why or why not?

ANSWER:

1. With those differences listed above, do you believe adjudication is less effective or more effective on an international level than it is on a national level?

- The effectiveness of adjudication on an international level compared to a national level varies based on several factors, including enforcement mechanisms, the nature of the legal systems involved, and the context of the disputes being resolved. At the national level, courts have robust enforcement mechanisms backed by state authority, which ensures that rulings can be implemented effectively. The U.S. system, for instance, allows for interpretation and adaptability through judicial review, although concerns about judicial activism can spark debates regarding the legitimacy of certain rulings. Additionally, cultural expectations surrounding access to the judiciary foster public trust and reliance on domestic legal systems for resolution. In contrast, international adjudication relies on treaties and customary international law, which often do not have uniform acceptance or enforcement, leading to potential challenges in implementing decisions due to the absence of a centralized enforcement authority. International courts also navigate diverse legal systems and cultures, complicating case resolutions and reducing outcome predictability. Moreover, there is a cultural reluctance in some nations to engage with international courts, as parties often prefer diplomatic solutions over legal ones. Consequently, while national adjudication generally offers more effective and enforceable resolutions, international adjudication plays a crucial role in addressing conflicts in a diverse global context. Ultimately, neither system can be deemed universally "more effective," as the effectiveness of adjudication largely depends on the nature of the disputes and the circumstances surrounding each case (Butcher & Hallward, 2020, Chapter 8).

2. In the US particularly, checks and balances and constitutional rights are of paramount importance. Do you believe that International adjudication is still a viable conflict management strategy? Why or why not?

- Butcher and Hallward (2020) discuss that international adjudication remains a viable conflict management strategy, even within the context of the robust checks and balances and constitutional rights found in the U.S. system. In an increasingly interconnected world, many conflicts cross national boundaries and require international legal frameworks to address issues such as trade disputes, human rights violations, and environmental concerns. International courts provide a mechanism to manage these conflicts through established legal norms and principles, promoting the rule of law on a global scale. By offering a forum for resolving disputes based on legal principles rather than power dynamics, they encourage states to adhere to international norms and treaties, fostering stability and cooperation. Additionally, international courts serve as peaceful alternatives to armed conflict, providing structured processes for dispute resolution that can reduce tensions and clarify complex situations. They also contribute to the evolution of international law by establishing legal precedents and clarifying ambiguous standards, thereby improving the legal framework within which states operate. Furthermore, international courts can offer a platform for smaller or less powerful states to assert their rights and seek justice on equal footing with more powerful nations, addressing global inequalities. However, challenges such as enforcement issues, cultural differences, and the necessity of political will can complicate their effectiveness. Ultimately, while these challenges exist, international adjudication remains a crucial tool for conflict management, particularly for addressing transnational issues. Its viability hinges on the continued commitment of states to respect the rule of law and engage in cooperative legal processes.

References:

Butcher, C., & Hallward, M. C. (Eds.). (2020). Understanding international conflict management. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429448164