The of Kawakita versus the United States. Write a 1750 word paper answering; International Court of Justice has ruled that “in the absence of a specific permissive rule to the contrary, a state may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another state. A government’s investigation in the territory of another state, for the purpose of gathering evidence for the prosecution of a crime, would be considered an exercise of power there.” see Serbia and Montenegro v. United Kingdom (1999) and Yugoslavia v. Spain (1999). Though the World Court has added exclusion that a trial at home for a crime committed in other state do not require consent from another state if the perpetrators of crime can be brought before a local court, this kind of legal instruments can only be implemented by bilateral treaties.
The International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings .approved by United Nations General Assembly in 1997 that reflect the opinion of the U.N. membership for tackling act of terrorism and bombings goes a step ahead for the matters of territorial jurisdiction and states that jurisdiction to prosecute in such cases is not necessarily limited to the territorial state or the state of the perpetrators nationality.
In this case, U.S. may argue that the case falls within the scope of the UN convention on terrorism but this argument does not hold legal validity as the case in question occurred before this convention and both the state have not accepted the convention.
As both U.S. and the Saudi Arabian Government have not ratified this charter, the United States’ power to prosecute the perpetrators of the truck bombing of an apartment building in Saudi Arabia are limited and depends upon the mutual bilateral understanding of the two states. .
The scope of international laws in preserving cultural heritage is very limited. The destruction of two ancient statues of the Buddha called Bamiyan by the Taliban in an attempt to cleanse the country of Afghanistan of what they .perceived as Hindu heresy has again raised several questions about the preservation of cultural heritage. It has also initiated a fierce debate over the subject of cultural property ownership. .