Compare the roles of international and domestic courts in protecting human rights. - HSC - SSCE Legal Studies - Question 23 - 2014 - Paper 1

International courts play a crucial role in protecting human rights by prosecuting individuals who commit grave violations. For instance, the International Criminal Court (ICC), established in 2002, addresses crimes against humanity and war crimes. If national courts fail to prosecute offenders effectively, the ICC can step in, as seen in the cases of Lubanga in 2012 and Katanga in 2014. In these situations, the ICC highlights that national jurisdictions might lack the capacity or will to prosecute significant human rights violations, thus ensuring accountability on an international level.

In contrast, domestic courts are essential for the day-to-day enforcement of human rights within their jurisdictions. They handle cases involving alleged human rights violations against individuals. However, the effectiveness of domestic courts often depends on their independence and impartiality. For example, in the case of R v Wei Tang in 2008, the court's decision to prosecute without a legislative ban on human rights abuses illustrated the challenges domestic courts may face.

While international courts provide a safety net for victims of serious human rights violations, they rely on domestic courts to address more localized issues. Victims often seek domestic remedies first; if those are ineffective or non-existent, they may turn to international tribunals. Therefore, both types of courts serve complementary roles in the human rights protection framework, with international courts stepping in when domestic mechanisms fail.