Conundrums of Paternalism in International Criminal Justice

The Statute of the United Nations promotes a very disastrous image of the inequality of arms. If we conclude that the inequalities in Chapter VII of the Charter must be respected because states have given their consent, we can argue that the extraction of information through the use of torture is lawful since victims of torture have confirmed this statement. Ultimately, the contemporary modern bodies of international criminal justice and human rights are chained to a system of paternalism that has gradually infringed upon an independent taboo norm of dignity, which in turn represents the decree of immorality by a superior order. Paternalism is the successor to the traditional colonial rules of control and intends to guide governments as to what to do when it comes to their natural resources, security, and international legal personalities. Therefore, paternalism represents control through sanctions and resolutions. Paternalism also monopolises the basic principles of the legal discipline to promote political, military, and economic interests. The author coins new phrases 'human-snaking rights' and 'snaking justice' to express how paternalist governments impose rules and inject their dangerous, venomous fangs into legal and political resolutions against other governments. These resolutions function like saws because it does not matter which direction a member state chooses, since they will ultimately be cut into pieces. The veto of paternalism is a conundrum that poses a potential existential threat to international criminal jurisprudence when it comes to serious questions of criminal justice. Paternalism imposes its decisions on groups, governments, prosecutors, and judges of international criminal courts. Those who fail to listen are sanctioned through various means.