Evaluate the effectiveness of the domestic and international legal systems in dealing with international crime.

Crimes against the international community: these are crimes, so recognised because of their heinous nature, by the majority of countries in the world and are ratified by numerous conventions and treaties e.g. genocide. Transnational Crimes: these are crimes which involve breaking the law in more than one country. These crimes cross national borders, e.g. drug trafficking, people smuggling.

Dealing with international crime

Domestic and international measures and limitations International crime presents particular problems. Ease of travel between nation states and technological developments have made it increasingly difficult for such crimes to be investigated. Further, enforcement is an issue, due to the notion of state sovereignty which limits the jurisdiction of a domestic countrys laws and legal system. Attempts to tackle these issues include the Federal governments child sex tourism legislation Crimes ( Child Sex Tourism) Amendment Act 1914 CTH which gives jurisdiction to Australian courts to prosecute offenders who commit child sex offences overseas. Important measures for dealing with international crime include: extradition, INTERPOL and mutual assistance.

Extradition plays an important role in the context of international crime. It is the process of returning to a jurisdiction a person who has either been convicted of a crime in that jurisdiction or accused of committing a crime, and has subsequently left the jurisdiction. In Australia, extradition of offenders occurs between states and also between Australia and other nation states. The relevant act is the Extradition Act 1988 Commonwealth. To extradite an offender from overseas, Australia must have an extradition agreement with the nation state where the offender currently resides. Extraditable offences must be punishable under the laws of both nation states and must be regarded as serious offences by both nations and carrying a term of imprisonment. The prosecution in making the extradition application in the foreign court must be able to establish in application a prima-facie case against the accused and that the accused will receive a fair trial. Extradition agreements can be bi- or multi-lateral in nature. Recent examples of persons who have been extradited to Australia to stand trial include the 2006 extradition of Gordon Wood to stand trial for the 1995 murder of Caroline Byrne and the Queensland governments extradition of Dr Patel (nicknamed Doctor Death) in relation to manslaughter charges arising from his alleged malpractice while a surgeon at Bundaberg Hospital.

INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) is the worlds largest policing organisation, with 188 member nations. It aims to facilitate co-operation in law enforcement between member nations with the aim of deterring and combating international crime. Mutual assistance is the term used to describe the request by one government to another for assistance with regard to criminal investigations and prosecutions. Such requests can only be made by the Australian government and are done so at the request of a law enforcement agency like the Federal Police. This process allows nations to obtain assistance with such matters as executing warrants in a foreign country or obtaining testimony from a witness who may reside in a foreign jurisdiction. The ability of international law to prosecute individuals, as compared to nation states, for breaches of international law, is a relatively recent development. Since the Nuremberg Tribunal on War Crimes (1946), which was established to prosecute Nazi war criminals, there have been various ad hoc tribunals established to hear crimes arising out of specific wars and conflicts, e.g. 1994 International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) established by the United Nations to deal with the genocide crimes in Rwanda. This court was established in Arusha, Tanzania and in 2006 became the African Court on Human Rights and Peoples Rights.

International Criminal Court (ICC): The ICC was established by the Treaty of Rome (1998) and commenced operation in 2002. It issued its first arrest warrants against Ugandan Warlords for crimes against humanity and war crimes in 2005. The significance of the ICC is that it is a permanent international criminal court dealing with individuals who perpetrate international crimes, e.g. war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, acts of aggression. It can impose penalties ranging from fines to life imprisonment. Not all nations have become signatories to the Treaty of Rome nor do they consent to the jurisdiction of the ICC, most notably the United States. Accordingly, as it does not have universal jurisdiction and cannot compel extradition, the ICC must rely on the support of signatory nations to ensure that persons indicted to stand trial do indeed appear before it. This can prove problematic as can be seen in the ICCs current indictment of Omar Al Bashir (President of Sudan) for alleged war crimes arising out of his involvement in the conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan. The ICC cannot force Omar Al Bashir to appear before it. However, notwithstanding such problems, the establishment of the ICC is still a giant leap forward in terms of the international communitys commitment to addressing the growing number of cases involving gross human rights violations. The developing notion of individual responsibility under international criminal law is a positive development.

http://www.globaltvcalgary.com/iccs+arrest+warrants+ineffective+experts+say/300071/story.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Elimination_of_All_Forms_of_Racial_Discriminati on

When dealing with international crime, courts also have been ineffective in areas on compelling extradition. Although the international criminal court aim is to perpetrate international crimes and is capable of imposing penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment, not all nations have become signatories to the treaty of Rome which was established in Rome 1998 which abides the signatories to abide to the jurisdiction of the ICC. Particularly the United states, and because of this it does not have universal jurisdiction and cannot force extraditions. An example of this is Omar Al Bashir who was the president of Sudan, he was alleged for war crimes and indicted by the ICC due the conflict of the Darfur region of Sudan. This was the first time the ICC had issued such a warrant for a sitting head of state. The ICC was hopeless in this instance, as Sudan was not a signatory and could not force Omar Al BAshir to partake in the ICC. For the ICC to be effective it must rely on the support of the nations that have become signatories. Thus this warrant is still outstanding. Even the second time that the ICC had issued such a warrant , on Moammar Gadhafi, problems such as the prolonged time to put an arrest warrant as it took three months alone for the ICC to communicate the UN security force. Although of this flaw in the system the ICC has still been considerable affective in terms of helping solve many war crimes and human rights violations.

Treaties are also considered to be ineffective when dealing with international crime. Such treaties like the 'treaty of rome' which allows the signatories of the treaty to be perpetrated and indicted in the International Crime Court, rely solely on its power over the signatories. however this treaty lacks signatories espeically that of the United states, and those that have not signed it, the ICC cannot force extraditions. With International Human right treatiess such as the International Coneenatn on cevil and politiocal rights, and the Convenation on the Elimination fo All forms of Racial Discriminator, which aim was for intenational machinery to monitor and help ensure that human rights were implemented. However statistics show that the Convention has faced persistent problems with reporting since its inception, with parties frequently failing to report fully, or even at all. As of 2008, twenty parties had failed to report for more than ten years, and thirty parties had failed to report for more than five. One party, Sierra Leone, had failed to report since 1976, while two more Liberia and Saint Lucia had never met their reporting requirements under the Convention. The lack of reports signify that the implementation of human rights and the purpose of monitoring is ineffective and needs to be reviewed, currently these committes are revieweing these parties and regarding whether to implement reporting requirements. This strategy has not been fully implemented yet and is still under review. International legal system as well as domestic show results of not administrating and reviewing internation crime effective, and reforms should be suggested to courts and treaties, as both show significant issues and problems in its effectiveness to deliver justice and adequately dealing with the prosper of international crime.