HELP on Jurisdiction!!

I need a thorough discussion on the concept of jurisdiction in public international law and how it is applied on the issue of the Guantanamo detainees.

See if this can help you.

LEGAL SITUATION SURROUNDING THE GUANTÁNAMO BAY DETAINEES

http://www.asser.nl/Default.aspx?site_id=9&level1=13337&level2=13382

allow me Cass Yuan to give my two cents worth on the query:

Cassyuan: THE QUESTION HERE IS JURISDISCTION OR THE RIGHT OF THE TRIBUNAL TO HEAR, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE A PARTICULAR ISSUE. JURISDICTION UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW UNLIKE IN DOMESTIC LAWS ARE COMPLICATED AN ISSUE CONSIDERING THE FOREIGN ELEMENT INVOLVED. TO SPECIFY, THE ISSUE OF PIRACY IN THE HIGH SEAS. IF A PIRATE PILLAGE A VILLAGE IN STATE A THEN FLED THE STATE, THEN COMMITTED ROBBERY IN THE HIGH SEAS OF A VESSEL REISTERED IN PANAMA, THEN ANCHORED OF THE COAST OF SIERRA LEONE, QUESTION IS: CAN ANY OF THE COURTS OF THESE COUNTRY EXERCISE JURISDICTION THE MOMENT THE PIRATE WAS CAPTURED IN ANY OF THE STATES MENTIONED. ??

THE ANSWER IS YES BECAUSE PIRACY IS A CRIME AGAINST THE FAMILY OF NATIONS, A CRIME "HOSTIS HUMANIS" AND SO SINCE PIRACY IS A CRIME AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS, BY THE PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION, THE CAPTURED PIRATE CAN BE TRIED IN THE COURTS OF STATE A, STATE OF PANAMA AND THE COURT OF SIERRA LEONE.

NOW ON CAPTURED DETAINEES AY GUANTANAMO. FIRST, ARE THE TERRORIST DETAINED AT GUANTANAMO PRISONER OF WAR OR ENEMY COMBATANTS DEFINED UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTION ON THE LAWS OF WAR? SECOND, CONSIDER, THAT SAID DETAINEES WERE TERRORIST MEANING THEY HAVE NO FIXED STATE BY WAY OF RESIDENCE. HENCE, THEY ARE CONSIDERED NOT A POW UNDER THE LAWS OF WAR FOR THEY REPRESENT NO PARTICULAR NATION. THIRD, IF THEY REPRESENT NO PARTICULAR NATION-STATE, THEY ARE NOT, LOGICALLY, COVERED BY THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS FOR SAID INTERNATIONAL COVENANT BINDS ONLY THE SIGNATORY STATE (known as State Party) OR ANY OF ITS ADDITIONAL PROTOCOLS INCLUDING THE HAGUE CONVENTION.

THUS, THE QUESTION WAS RAISED IN THE HABEAS CORPUS CASES IN RASUL v. BUSH; HAMDI v. BUSH and BOUMEDIENNE v. BUSH AS TO WHETHER A FEDERAL APPEALS COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CAN ENTERTAIN PETITION FILED BY THE INMATES-DETAINED AT GUANTANAMO, CUBA?

The Supreme Court of the US answered that question affirmatively in the summer of 2008, but in doing so, it declined to address a number of the critical questions that define the contours of any non-criminal detention system. The US Congress could have legislated with respect to these questions and sought to define the rules, but it has not done so to date.

Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States presents an anlysis as to the query: Do International Standards Apply to Petitioner Detainees?

Amici for the detainees argue that international law entitles detainees to certain fundamental rights, even if the Constitution does not apply to them. The International Humanitarian Law Experts ("IHLE") amicus brief argues that the Geneva Conventions, which the United States played a lead role in drafting, are universally accepted. The Geneva Conventions aim to "protect[] persons who do not, or who can no longer, participate in hostilities," including prisoners of war and civilians. The IHLE brief notes in particular Common Article 3, which protects requires a "regularly constituted court" to provide judicial guarantees to those no longer engaged in hostilities. The failure of the United States to follow the Geneva Conventions "weakens the entire international legal regime and invites other signatories to disregard their own treaty obligations." By refusing to apply the Conventions to detainees, the United States harms its ability to insist that the Conventions protect Americans detained during overseas conflicts.

Other amici argue that the United States violates international standards by withholding habeas rights from detainees. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights argues that Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR") requires that detainees must have access to a court that provides basic procedural guarantees of a fair hearing to review contest the legality of their detention. "Continued detention without justification and review," the High Commissioner argues, is "inherently arbitrary." CSRTs do not qualify as "courts" under the ICCPR, and they provide insufficient review. Amici maintain that the United States ratified the ICCPR and is therefore bound by these agreed-upon international obligations.

Amici for the government, however, counter that the ICCPR creates no obligations in United States federal courts, and is not applicable to nations' leased territories. Furthermore, in response to assertions that the United States is violating Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, the government and amici argues that Article 3 does not apply to the Guantanamo detainees. Because Article 3 only applies to serious internal conflicts like civil wars, and does not apply to conflicts involving global terrorist groups. The ACLJ also indicates that international obligations of the Geneva Conventions should not interfere with a state's internal affairs. Furthermore, the government argues, the United States has not breached any international laws because it has provided the detainees with adequate due process rights. In fact, the government argues, the detainees have "greater procedural protections and statutory rights to challenge their wartime detentions than any other captured enemy combatants in the history of war." The government maintains that if the Geneva Conventions do apply, the Court should look to the standard under Article 5, which validates the substitution of CSRTs for habeas rights.

This is my view on the matter.

Thanks for the opportunity.

Atty Karl Rove

Thank you so much for the input Atty. It really really REALLY helps my case in understanding the situation since I have an oral exam with my law professor (I'm not a law student though!) tomorrow.

Maraming salamat po talaga I owe you big time and I really can't thank you enough.

dont mention it Cass Yuan, and good luck to your oral examination and other future endeavors.

How many account do you have to make to talk to yourself Paperchase, Karl Rove etc!

Thank you again and I really appreciate the help!!!