Inter-state treaties and international morality

Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs) [formerly Tiny and Small Scale Industries (SSIs)] are recognized as the main contributors in socio-economic advancement of any country especially the developing one like India. But due to some controllable and/or uncontrollable factors, MSEs cannot get themselves free from sickness. Sickness in MSEs expands its steps in all states in India amongst which West Bengal (WB) is specially notable mainly due to the continuous degradation of Micro and Small Engineering Enterprises of the then Birmingham/Sheffield of the East, Howrah. In WB, Howrah is considered to be the most incipient sickness-prone district for MSEs. Government effort to locate the probable causes of sickness of MSEs has exposed that in India, lack of demand of the product of MSEs in market is the most sever one, while in WB, marketing problem holds the maximum severity, followed by lack of demand which is also partially due to the marketing problem. The present paper aims at identifying how far the major responsible causes in marketing related area are liable in bringing about sickness in Micro and Small Engineering Enterprises.

Download Full-text

Historical Development

10.1093/oso/9780198819868.003.0008 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Kubo Mačák

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Historical Development ◽

General Trend ◽

Armed Conflicts ◽

Fundamental Transformation ◽

State Actors ◽

The Law ◽

State Relations ◽

Inter State ◽

State Territory

This chapter traces the development of the law of belligerent occupation in order to identify trends relevant to the regulation of internationalized armed conflicts. It observes that despite the general grounding of this body of law in a state-centric paradigm, several isolated developments have contemplated the possibility of non-state actors becoming belligerent occupants of a portion of state territory. Moreover, the chapter highlights that the law of belligerent occupation has undergone a fundamental transformation as part of a general trend of individualization and humanization of international law. Therefore, it is no longer simply a brake on inter-state relations and a protector of states’ interests and institutions. Instead, the law has gradually brought individuals’ interests to the fore, putting persons before institutions and individuals before states. Overall, the chapter uncovers the historical reasons that support an extensive view of the applicability of the law of occupation to modern internationalized armed conflicts.

Download Full-text

Was He Guilty?

10.1093/oso/9780198833857.003.0018 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

William A. Schabas

Keyword(s):

The Netherlands ◽

Laws Of War ◽

International Morality

The trial might well have taken place were it not for a variety of unforeseen circumstances. For example, the Dutch might have agreed to the Kaiser’s surrender and the Kaiser might even have agreed to the trial. Other options would have been a trial in absentia or a trial in the Netherlands itself. Had a trial been held, the enigmatic charge of an ‘offence against international morality and the sanctity of treaties’ would have required interpretation. Many considered that it would have covered not only violations of the laws of war within the conflict, but also the launching of the aggressive war. This would have necessitated proof that Germany was actually responsible for starting the war, and a possible inquiry into the conduct of the European Powers over several years prior to 1914, something for which the British and the French had little enthusiasm.

Download Full-text

The Trial of the Kaiser

10.1093/oso/9780198833857.001.0001 ◽

2018 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

William A. Schabas

Keyword(s):

Criminal Justice ◽

International Criminal ◽

International Criminal Tribunal ◽

International Criminal Justice ◽

World War ◽

Treaty Of Versailles ◽

The First World War ◽

International Morality ◽

First Time ◽

First World

Today’s elaborate system of international criminal justice originates in proposals at the end of the First World War to try Kaiser Wilhelm II before an international criminal tribunal. In the weeks following 11 November 1918, the British, French, and Italian Governments agreed on a trial. Lloyd George campaigned for re-election on the slogan ‘Hang the Kaiser’. The Kaiser had fled to the Netherlands, possibly after receiving signals from the Dutch Queen that he would be welcome. Renegade US soldiers led by a former Senator failed in a bizarre attempt to take him prisoner and bring him to Paris. During the Peace Conference, the Commission on Responsibilities brought international lawyers together for the first time to debate international criminal justice. They recommended trial of the Kaiser by an international tribunal for war crimes, but not for starting the war or violating Belgian neutrality. The Americans were opposed to any prosecution. However, President Wilson changed his mind and agreed to trial for a ‘supreme offence against international morality’. This became a clause in the Treaty of Versailles, one of the few that the Germans tried to resist. Although the Allies threatened a range of measures if the former Emperor was not surrendered, the Dutch refused and the demands were dropped in March 1920. The Kaiser lived out his life in a castle near Utrecht, dying of natural causes in June 1941. Hitler sent a wreath to the funeral.

Download Full-text