http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21295351-2703,00.html
Analysis: Serbia verdict may lead to peace
* February 27, 2007
OF all the possible judgments available to the International Court of
Justice, the one it delivered last night is the most likely to encourage
peace between Bosnia and Serbia.
The court, throughout this landmark case, has said that it would be
guided entirely by law and not by the explosive politics of the region.
Those braced for turmoil will be relieved that the verdict gives
something to either side and disappoints them equally.
The court held that Serbia had not committed genocide during the 1990s
war, but that it had violated the obligation to prevent genocide in the
1995 massacre in Srebrenica. It ruled that Serbia should immediately
hand over General Ratko Mladic, indicted for genocide, for trial by the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, but also that
Serbia did not have to pay compensation to Bosnia.
Provided that Serbia does, indeed, hand over Mladic, this judgment will
allow Serbia’s integration into Europe, glacial though that process is,
while giving Bosnia formal recognition of the atrocities it suffered.
The admission by Boris Tadic, the Serbian President, that his country
faced “dramatic consequences” if it failed to comply is welcome.
Those are the pragmatic implications; the more difficult question is
whether this case has served a useful purpose. The case, brought by
Bosnia against Serbia, was the first time that a state was held to
judicial account for genocide. The ICJ, set up 61 years ago to hear
disputes between countries, has been more accustomed to ruling on
maritime or boundary disagreements. In humanitarian law, it has so far
been overshadowed by courts that try individuals for crimes, such as the
International Criminal Court and the ad-hoc war crimes tribunals for
Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
Those who have criticised the principle of bringing a war crimes case
against a state have argued that the notion of state responsibility is
empty. Establishing genocide, for example, generally rests on showing
intention, but people, not states, have intentions, they argue. Others
add that the principle offends the trend of half a century towards an
emphasis on individual responsibility and rights, and rests on a
discarded notion of collective guilt.
The counter-argument holds that the machinery of states should be held
responsible, as well as individuals, because people are represented by
their state. Others add that to hold only a few officials responsible
casts the net too narrowly, and also that if the state is held
responsible then it doesn’t mean that its people are collectively
guilty, but that they are collectively responsible, for reparations, for
example.
The court did side firmly with the principle that “states can be held
responsible for genocide”, but it set the bar for demonstrating
responsibility very high. Although it ruled that the Srebrenica massacre
amounted to genocide, it did not uphold Bosnia’s claims that Serbia was
responsible. Bosnia had failed to show that Serbia intended this, it
said; or that Serbia controlled the Bosnian Serb army and paramilitary
units that carried out the massacre. It also rejected Bosnia’s argument
that even if a line of control could not be shown, the pattern of
atrocities, helped by Serbian weapons and money, was tantamount to
Serbian responsibility.
A sane and useful ruling, then, and whatever the court says about the
purity of its motivation, one that is, in pragmatic terms, likely to be
the happiest outcome.
Ghost town
— Srebrenica was a Muslim enclave in Serb-held territory
— In 1991 it was 75% Muslim, 25% Serb
— Declared UN “safe area” in April 1993
— 600 Dutch peacekeepers were defending the town when Bosnian Serb
forces massed near by in April 1995
— They moved in and killed more than 8,000 Muslims over three days in July
Source: Times archives
+++
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
See what's inside the new Yahoo! Groups email.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/0It09A/bOaOAA/yQLSAA/TySplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.intellnet.org
Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods,
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,'
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
