scholarly journals International law enforcement organizations: legal status and features of their functioning for preventing and countering transnational crime

2021 ◽  
pp. 216-220
Author(s):  
Iryna Legan ◽  
Viktoriia Tychyna
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Transnational Crime

scholarly journals PENEGAKAN HUKUM TERHADAP PELAKU TINDAK PIDANA LINTAS NEGARA MELALUI PERJANJIAN EKSTRADISI (SUATU CATATAN MENARIK UNTUK DISKUSI)

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefanus Reynold Andika
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Organized Crime ◽  
Transnational Crime ◽  
Transnational Organized Crime ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government

The establishment of an extradition treaty between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and other countries is a strategic effort in order to increase cooperation in the field of law enforcement and the implementation of justice. With the formation of the extradition treaty, the perpetrators of crimes that are being sought and fleeing the country cannot escape easily from lawsuits. Although the extradition issue is basically seen as part of international law, the discussion cannot be emphasized only in terms of international law. Many things are not further regulated in extradition agreements, especially if the problem is a domestic problem of each country. This article discusses Law Enforcement Against Transnational Criminals through Extradition Agreements. This research is normative juridical and prescriptive. The results of the study conclude that Law Enforcement Against Transnational Crime Actors under the provisions of the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC) is not fully implemented in the Indonesian legal system. Based on data until the 2017 period, it can be concluded that the implementation of extradition in Indonesia based on the provisions of UNTOC is still not fully implemented.

Part IV Activities of Organizations, Ch.10 Counterterrorism and Transnational Crime

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cockayne James
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Institutions ◽  
International System ◽  
Transnational Crime ◽  
Shared Understanding ◽  
System P ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Will ◽  
Governance Arrangements

Economic globalization has facilitated transnational criminal and terrorist activity since the mid-nineteenth century, thus incentivizing closer international law enforcement cooperation. This chapter explores the history of that cooperation, the contours of which are shaped by the interaction of the institutions of sovereignty and the reality of power in the international system. It argues that international law enforcement cooperation to counter terrorism and transnational crime takes two independent, but interacting, forms: firstly, the use of existing international institutions to define behaviour as criminally deviant and to repress it, even against the will of some states; and, secondly, the formation of transgovernmental policing networks, and, more recently, collaborative multisectoral governance arrangements — both notionally apolitical, but inherently reflective of a shared understanding of criminally deviant behaviour. The interplay of these two approaches follows the contours defined by juridical sovereignty and power in the international system.

Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 399-413
Author(s):  
Rizal Abdul Kadir
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Caspian Sea ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
The Caspian Sea ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The United Nations

After twenty-two years of negotiations, in Aktau on August 12, 2018, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Iran, Russia, and Turkmenistan signed the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea. The preamble of the Convention stipulates, among other things, that the Convention, made up of twenty-four articles, was agreed on by the five states based on principles and norms of the Charter of the United Nations and International Law. The enclosed Caspian Sea is bordered by Iran, Russia, and three states that were established following dissolution of the Soviet Union, namely Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan.

scholarly journals Selling international law enforcement: Elite justifications and public values

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 205316802095678
Author(s):  
Melissa M. Lee ◽  
Lauren Prather
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
Public Support ◽  
International Order ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Public Values ◽  
Norm Enforcement ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Law ◽  
Order Increase

International law enforcement is an understudied but indispensable factor for maintaining the international order. We study the effectiveness of elite justifications in building coalitions supporting the enforcement of violations of the law against territorial seizures. Using survey experiments fielded in the USA and Australia, we find that the effectiveness of two common justifications for enforcement—the illegality of a country’s actions, and the consequences of those actions for international order—increase support for enforcement and do so independently of two key public values: ideology and interpersonal norm enforcement. These results imply elites can build a broad coalition of support by using multiple justifications. Our results, however, highlight the tepidness of public support, suggesting limits to elite rhetoric. This study contributes to the scholarship on international law by showing how the public, typically considered a mechanism for generating compliance within states, can impede or facilitate third-party enforcement of the law between states.

scholarly journals The Potential Impact of Indigenous Rights on the International Law of Nationality

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 115 ◽  
pp. 135-139
Author(s):  
Kirsty Gover
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Indigenous Rights ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Potential Impact ◽  
Human Rights Norms ◽  
Domestic Law ◽  
Court Of Appeal

International law has long recognized that the power of a state to identify its nationals is a central attribute of sovereignty and firmly within the purview of domestic law. Yet these boundaries may be shifting, in part due to the effect of international human rights norms. In 2011, citizenship scholar Peter Spiro asked, “[w]ill international law colonize th[is] last bastion of sovereign discretion?” Ten years later, this essay reframes the question, asking whether the international law of Indigenous Peoples’ rights will “decolonize” the discretion, by encouraging its exercise in ways that respect and enable Indigenous connections to their traditional land. It considers this possibility in light of two recent cases decided by courts in Australia and Canada, both of which ascribe a distinctive legal status to non-citizen Indigenous persons: Love v. Commonwealth, Thoms v Commonwealth (“Love-Thoms,” Australian High Court) and R. v. Desautel (“Desautel,” British Columbia Court of Appeal, currently on appeal before the Supreme Court of Canada). In each case, the court in question recognized that some Indigenous non-citizens have constitutional rights to remain within the state's territory (and perhaps also a correlative right to enter it), by virtue of their pre-contact ancestral ties to land within the state's borders.

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

1997 ◽  
Vol 91 (3) ◽  
pp. 493-517
Author(s):  
Marian Nash (Leich)
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Hong Kong ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
People’S Republic Of China ◽  
People's Republic Of China ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
The Government ◽  
Contemporary Practice

On March 3,1997, President William J. Clinton transmitted to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification as a treaty the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Hong Kong for the Surrender of Fugitive Offenders, signed at Hong Kong on December 20,1996. In his letter of transmittal, President Clinton pointed out that, upon its entry into force, the Agreement would “enhance cooperation between the law enforcement communities of the United States and Hong Kong, and … provide a framework and basic protections for extraditions after the reversion of Hong Kong to the sovereignty of the People’s Republic of China on July 1, 1997.” The President continued: Given the absence of an extradition treaty with the People’s Republic of China, this Treaty would provide the means to continue an extradition relationship with Hong Kong after reversion and avoid a gap in law enforcement. It will thereby make a significant contribution to international law enforcement efforts.The provisions of this Agreement follow generally the form and content of extradition treaties recently concluded by the United States. In addition, the Agreement contains several provisions specially designed in light of the particular status of Hong Kong. The Agreement’s basic protections for fugitives are also made expressly applicable to fugitives surrendered by the two parties before the new treaty enters into force.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document