Discussion board 5 - international law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Discussion board 5 - international law - Essay ExampleThere is evidence, however, that the KP has d single very little in solving the earthly concerns temper problems. Even though the treaty was negotiated in 1997, energy-related emissions had grown 24%, and that only restrict financial resources had been provided by ontogenesis countries to assist them in reducing their emissions. Another criticism of the KP is based upon what Liverman (2008) calls climate justice (n.p.). The emissions created by developing countries make up the bulk of the total number of emissions and are more(prenominal) than vulnerable in these countries compared to the high emissions in the developed world, especially by the U.S. and by major multinational corporations. Critics of the KP have stated that it unfairly puts the burden on the west to financially rectify global warming, when developing countries are often more to blame. Therefore, the argument that the KP would have been more effective if the U.S. and China would have sign-language(a) it is weak beca give even if they had ratify it, there is no evidence that global emissions would have been significantly reduced. mayhap other protocols should be used, ones that do not penalize the west so heavily and that are more effective in what they seek to accomplish. 2. Laws of war Regardless of ones opinion regarding the Bush brasss compliance (or lack of compliance) with the international provisions governing the use of force with respect to retaliation, the use of certain weapons, the treatment of POWs and civilians, and the use of torture, all state that has signed agreements and treaties prohibiting them should adhere to them. If the United States or any other country that is a member of the UN that has signed these treaties violate them in any way, they should be held responsible. Of course, the broil is if the Bush administration actually did that. Members of the U.S. government, especially in the Bush years, insist th at they did not. That is beyond the purview of this assignment. It depends upon ones perspective and political viewpoints, and it depends on who you ask. The U.S. Supreme judiciary, in its 2006 Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld ruling, declared that military commissions for trying terrorist suspects go against both U.S. military law and the Geneva Convention (Brooks, 2006). The Bush administration held that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention did not apply to Al Qaeda combatants because its protections applied only to conflicts between states. They sound that since Al Qaeda was not a state, the Geneva Convention did not apply to them. The Supreme Court disagreed, which potentially make high-ranking Bush administration officials subject to prosecution under the federal war Crimes Act, something that did not materialize. 3. International Convention on the Prevention of the Sea by Oil This convention, also called OILPOL (http//www.internationallawhelp.com/convention_prevention_pollution_sea _oil.htm) and ratified in 1954, was the first of its kind to prevent the pollution of the sea by oil by tankers. It interdict the discharge of oil or oil mixture by tankers within prohibited zones. In 1969, amendments were made to OILPOL that created even more stringent requirements for operational discharges. This was done because the design of oil tankers had changed since 1954 to a load-on-top system (Global instruments, n.d.) OILPOL was go on amended in 1971 that imposed new standards on the construction of oil tankers. It was superseded by the 1973/78 MARPOL