Issues in International Relation

Issues in International Relation :

–     Criminal Cases

–     Cyber Crime

–     Terrorism

–     Open Trade

–     Globalization and Education (between Muslim countries and non-Muslim countries)

Terrorism

At least at this moment in international criminal law there has been the addition of a list of international crimes. All of which is a crime of aggression, the torture, and terrorism.

It was previously only known where three kinds, namely: war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

Those international crimes are products of World War II atrocities committed by the Axis. As a further result of the concept of individual criminal responsibility is known in the field of international law is a daring of the Allies. Previous use of the concept of this kind is a right that it is impossible for international law heavily influenced by positivism with a fundamental understanding on the system Westphalia. However, towage actors' international crimes' tribunal headed straight criticism from advocates of legal positivism understood, eg Hans Kelsen, citing violation of the general principles of criminal law, "not an act can be imprisoned without first set”. Regardless of all the controversy, the attitude of the international community shows will 'rise again' schools of natural law. Which then lead to the creation of a state's international human rights regime with a view to no longer repeat the disaster of World War II.

International criminal law is a branch of international human rights law; currently still in its infancy. However, this does not indicate the state of international criminal law is not clear. With the start of the establishment of the International Criminal Court (International Criminal Court) international criminal law, at least, has had a reliable institution as the locomotive of the development of international criminal law. Coupled with the strengthening the role of Non-Govern-mental Organizations (NGOs) in the human rights bodies of the United Nations (UN), for example, information on human rights violations more easily internationalized.

Terrorism as a new international crime, at least, has some conceptual problems. First terrorism although at this point in the international community there is consensus that there is an understanding that terrorism is a crime hostis humani generis or for all mankind. However, it does not make the international community more seriously deal with the issue of terrorism, which is proven by maze understanding of terrorism itself.

In the extreme acts of terror assumption is not likely to be criminalized. However, Antonio Cassese think, actually the problem is not a problem, as in many other international instruments that provide a definition of terrorism, one of which is in the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism in article 2 (1) (b) which provides a definition:

Any . . . act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing an act.

Furthermore, Cassese provides general feature of terrorism as a crime under international law which consists of three main elements:

•  These actions should be recognized, or at least have elements that can be classified in a crime in most states
• These actions are intended to spread terror by use of violence or threats directed against the state, public, or a group of people
• It must have a political motivation, ideological, religious, and not intended for the benefits of a personal nature.

Cassese argument does not solve the problem of the definition of 'terrorism'.

Due to the number of legal instruments that provide an understanding of terrorism, the maze is clear understanding of terrorism itself as an international crime. The only way out is the emergence of the actions of the international community together to agree a legal instruments (conventions) processes aimed at combating terrorism without the interests of the moment.

Another hassle in fighting terrorism matters is the determination of whether the act of terror into an international or national crime which then has implications for the jurisdiction of the judiciary?

To answer this question the following answer Cassese. First, have a widespread effect, not only against the state. Second, and perhaps most important is conducted and concentrated on the territory of a country that leads 'promotion state', 'state Toleration', or 'state acquiesce', thus the reason for the handling of international or bilateral becomes very reasonable. Third, the international community has a problem and a threat to peace. And the last one is the act implemented on a wide scale. In addition, terrorism can be used as crimes against humanity in addition to war crimes.

But the issue of fighting terrorism has yet to be one of the authority of the international court. Handling of terrorism with more emphasis on enforcement at the domestic level. The most disappointing of international criminal law in relation to the issue of combating terrorism is the delivery mechanism at the national law. Though terrorism is one of the potential candidates for the new international criminal material has been provided for in international criminal law. As we know in general the national legal system, especially as demonstrated by the Third World countries are particularly vulnerable to politicization. Maybe at the international criminal law 'fluffy-flegged' as a branch of international law the issue of terrorism to get its place in the international justice.

In early 1975, the Law Enforcement Assistant Administration in the United States formed the National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. One of the five volumes that the committee wrote was entitled Disorders and Terrorism, produced by the Task Force on Disorders and Terrorism under the direction of H.H.A. Cooper, Director of the Task Force staff. The Task Force classified terrorism into six categories.

·   Civil disorder – A form of collective violence interfering with the peace, security, and normal functioning of the community.

·     Political terrorism – Violent criminal behaviour designed primarily to generate fear in the community, or substantial segment of it, for political purposes.

·    Non-Political terrorism – Terrorism that is not aimed at political purposes but which exhibits “conscious design to create and maintain a high degree of fear for coercive purposes, but the end is individual or collective gain rather than the achievement of a political objective.”

·        Quasi-terrorism – The activities incidental to the commission of crimes of violence that are similar in form and method to genuine terrorism but which nevertheless lack its essential ingredient. It is not the main purpose of the quasi-terrorists to induce terror in the immediate victim as in the case of genuine terrorism, but the quasi-terrorist uses the modalities and techniques of the genuine terrorist and produces similar consequences and reaction. For example, the fleeing felon who takes hostages is a quasi-terrorist, whose methods are similar to those of the genuine terrorist but whose purposes are quite different.

·   Limited political terrorism – Genuine political terrorism is characterized by a revolutionary approach; limited political terrorism refers to “acts of terrorism which are committed for ideological or political motives but which are not part of a concerted campaign to capture control of the state.

·      Official or state terrorism – "referring to nations whose rule is based upon fear and oppression that reach similar to terrorism or such proportions.” It may also be referred to as Structural Terrorism defined broadly as terrorist acts carried out by governments in pursuit of political objectives, often as part of their foreign policy.