Additional Notes for Group 3 Speakers: Jurisdiction: Eichmann vs. Attorney- General of Israel; Ker vs.

Illinois MANNER OF ARREST DOES NOT AFFECT JURISDICTION- From a point of view in the law of nations, since the crimes that were attributed to Evez and other JAPS members have been condemned publicly by the civilized world, by virtue of the principle of universal jurisdiction, every country has the right to try them. Therefore in bringing Evez and other JAPS members to trial, Ralantor functioned as an organ of international law and acted to enforce the provisions thereof through its own law. It is immaterial that crime committed is outside Ralantors territory, the moment the latter is vested with criminal jurisdiction both according to local law and the law of nations, the court is not bound to investigate the manner and legality of arrest and detention. ICJs Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons (1996) Prohibition of the use of force (Art. 2 Par. 4, UN Charter) is to be considered in the light of: -Art. 51, UN Charter: Inherent right of individual or collective self defense if an armed attack occurs. Art. 51 are subject to certain restraints namely: The conditions of necessity and proportionality, submission to which is a rule in customary international law. -Necessity is justified because the acts of Mabi Evez and other JAPS members is considered as a threat to national security and public peace of Ralantor. Moreover, Ralantor appealed to Alantina first before resorting to force. It may be perceived that it has tried all means possible to settle the dispute but to no avail, hence, Ralantors act is justified. N.B: What is meant by does not include pain or suffering arising only from , inherent in or incidental to lawful actions.? -There is no precise definition given in the ICCPR. Neither the ICJ nor any other international tribunal has applied the exception set forth in Art. 1(1) of ICCPR. It is logical from the plain reading of the text itself that lawful actions are those orders that are promulgated by a competent authority. In the present case, Pursuant to the power given by the 1984 Act to President Podens, his acts are deemed to be lawful and thus, to promulgate the latters order, pain or suffering that may arise or is incidental to the said order are deemed justified under the ICCPR. -An element of Torture as defined in Art. 1(1), ICCPR is that the intent for inflicting severe pain and suffering is to: Inflict punishment on an individual or Extort confession or inflict any kind of discrimination. Ralantors purpose is to apprehend the terrorists. Since it is not one of those mentioned, hence, it would not constitute torture.