List of Current Proceedings

1999 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 437-449
Author(s):  
Thomas Henquet
Keyword(s):  
Federal Republic ◽  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
Republika Srpska ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

The accused is charged with both individual criminal responsibility and superior criminal responsibility for crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and violations of the laws or customs of war. All crimes were allegedly committed at the Sušica camp in the municipality of Vlasenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992. Given the inability of Bosnia and Herzegovina to execute the arrest warrant and the non-co-operation by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Republika Srpska, an international arrest warrant was issued to all states, pursuant to Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. The accused remains at large.

Individual criminal responsibility for violations of international humanitarian law committed in non-international armed conflicts

1998 ◽  
Vol 38 (322) ◽  
pp. 29-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Graditzky
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
War Criminals ◽  
War Victims ◽  
Second World ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

Two prominent events that occurred midway through this century had a great impact on international criminal law. The first milestone in this area was the trials of the major war criminals held in Nuremberg and Tokyo in the wake of the Second World War. They highlighted the principle of individual criminal responsibility for certain serious violations of the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict; the terms “crimes against the peace”, “war crimes”, and “crimes against humanity” found formal recognition. The second event, following closely on the first, was the adoption of the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the protection of war victims. These instruments established a specific framework for the prevention and punishment of the most serious violations of the provisions they contain; the technical term “grave breach” was coined.

scholarly journals Prosecution in the Radovan Karadzic case – ICTY IT-95-5/18

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 235-257
Author(s):  
Meldijana Arnaut Haseljić ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Effective Control ◽  
Civilian Population ◽  
The Right ◽  
Republika Srpska

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has filed an Indictment (originally July 25, 1995, and an operational Indictment on October 19, 2009) against Radovan Karadzic, the former President of Republika Srpska and Commander-in-Chief of the Army of Republika Srpska. After many years of hiding in Serbia, Karadzic was arrested on July 21, 2008, and transferred to the ICTY on July 30 of that year. The trial began on 26 October 2009. Radovan Karadzic is charged for genocide (Counts 1 and 2); crimes against humanity: persecution (count 3), extermination (count 4), murder (count 5), deportation (count 7), inhumane acts - forcible transfer (count 8); and violations of the laws or customs of war: murder (count 6), terrorism (count 9), unlawful attacks on civilians (count 10), hostage-taking (count 11). Radovan Karadzic has been charged with individual criminal responsibility in accordance with Rule 7 (1) of the Statute of the International Tribunal through his participation in several joint criminal enterprises (JCEs). According to the Indictment, no later than October 1991 to November 30, 1995, Karadzic participated in a JCE aimed at the permanent removal of Bosniaks and Croats from certain areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina; from April 1992 to November 1995, he participated in the JCE to launch and conduct a campaign of sniping and shelling of the civilian population of Sarajevo, aimed at spreading terror among the civilian population; from July 1995 until 1 November 1995, he participated in the JCE of the elimination of Bosniaks in Srebrenica, by killing men and boys, as well as forcibly expelling women, children and the elderly from the area; and for participated in the JCE of taking members of the United Nations hostage during May and June 1995. Pursuant to Article 7 (3) of the Statute, the Indictment charges him with superior responsibility because he knew or had reason to know that forces under his effective control were being prepared to commit crimes or have already committed them, and has not taken measures to prevent the commission of crimes or to punish the perpetrators of those crimes. On June 11, 2012, Karadzic filed a motion for acquittal on all counts of the Indictment. Pursuant to Rule 98bis, on 28 June 2012, the Trial Chamber rendered a Decision dismissing the motion for acquittal on ten counts of the Indictment, but acquitted Count 1 of the Indictment relating to genocide committed in certain municipalities of Bosnia and Herzegovina: Bratunac, Foca, Kljuc, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Vlasenica and Zvornik. This count of the Indictment alleges that Karadzic is responsible for the genocide as a superior, and that in agreement with others he committed, planned, instigated, ordered and/or aided and abetted the genocide. Following the Prosecution's appeal against the decision to exclude Count 1 from the Indictment, on 11 July 2013 the Appeals Chamber quashed the Trial Chamber's decision and returned Count 1 of the Indictment charging Karadzic with genocide in the said municipalities, and the proceedings continued before the Trial Chamber. The Trial Chamber's verdict against Radovan Karadzic was handed down on March 24, 2016, sentencing him to 40 years in prison for genocide, crimes against humanity, and violations of the laws or customs of war. In 6,073 paragraphs is explained the role of the RS Army, as well as police structures, territorial defense, and regional and municipal authorities and other participants in joint criminal enterprises. The forms and methods of committing crimes committed in the municipalities of Bijeljina, Bratunac, Brčko, Foča, Rogatica, Sokolac, Višegrad, Vlasenica and Zvornik in eastern Bosnia are described; Banja Luka, Bosanski Novi, Ključ, Prijedor and Sanski Most in the Autonomous Region of Krajina (“ARK”); Hadžići, Ilidža, Novi Grad, Novo Sarajevo, Pale and Vogošća in the area of Sarajevo, and precise ways of carrying out a comprehensive joint criminal enterprise, but also joint criminal enterprises related to Srebrenica (genocide), Sarajevo (terrorizing citizens with sniper fire and shelling), and hostage-taking (UNPROFOR international peacekeepers). The first-instance verdict found Karadzic guilty of 10 of the 11 counts in the indictment. Both the Prosecution and the Defense for the Accused appealed the Trial Chamber's judgment, and the second-instance proceedings continued. On March 20, 2019, the Appeals Chamber issued a final verdict sentencing Radovan Karadžić to life imprisonment. The verdict found him guilty of persecution from a territory that Bosnian Serbs considered to be claiming the right, sniping and shelling of Sarajevo, taking UNPROFOR members hostage and genocide in Srebrenica. Both Trial and Appeals Chambers acquitted Karadzic of genocide committed in seven Bosnian municipalities (Bratunac, Foca, Kljuc, Prijedor, Sanski Most, Vlasenica and Zvornik) committed in 1992.

Remarks by Mark Ellis

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 79-88
Author(s):  
Mark Ellis
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

At 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, May 7, 1994, the first trial under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) began. Dusko Tadić was charged, on the basis of individual criminal responsibility, with grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, violations of the laws or customs of war, and crimes against humanity. Tadić escaped only the charge of genocide.

Sexual Violence in Decisions and Indictments of the Yugoslav and Rwandan Tribunals: Current Status

1999 ◽  
Vol 93 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly D. Askin
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Additional Protocol ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was established in 1993 to prosecute war crimes committed during the Yugoslav conflict; the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) was established in 1994 to prosecute war crimes committed during the Rwandan civil war. The Yugoslav Tribunal has the competence to try alleged offenders for crimes enumerated in Articles 2-5 of its Statute, namely, grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, violations of the laws or customs of war, genocide, and crimes against humanity. Similarly, the Rwandan Statute accords the Tribunal authority to try defendants for crimes enunciated in Articles 2-4, namely, genocide, crimes against humanity, and violations of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II. Article 7, paragraphs (1) and (3) of the ICTY Statute and Article 6, paragraphs (1) and (3) of the ICTR Statute grant jurisdiction to these ad hoc Tribunals to try the accused for individual criminal responsibility on the bases of individual culpability and superior authority.

Individual Criminal Responsibility in International Human Rights Law: The Contribution of the International Criminal Court

1970 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Mohammed
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
The Road ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

The road to developing an international institutional capacity to prosecute crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide has been a long one, and has in many ways concluded with the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC). By looking at the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), as well as the ICC, this paper traces the evolution of the concept of individual criminal responsibility to its present incarnation. It argues that while the ICC presents its own unique ‘added value’ to the prosecution of international criminals, its application of justice continues to be biased by the influence of powerful states.

Arbitral Tribunal for Dispute Over Inter-Entity Boundary in Brcko Area: Award in the Republika Srpska V. the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

1997 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 396-437 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
Boundary Line ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
Republika Srpska

In the Dayton Accords, signed 14 December 1995, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Federation) and the Republika Srpska (RS) agreed to establish an Inter-Entity Boundary Line (IEBL) and agreed to final and binding arbitration on the allocation of control over the Brcko area; composition of arbitral tribunal; application of UNCITRAL rules of procedure and of relevant legal and equitable principles

Individual Criminal Responsibility for the Financing of Entities Involved in Core Crimes: Aiding and Abetting

2021 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Ausserladscheider Jonas ◽  
Dire Tladi
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

War crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and the crime of aggression could not be perpetrated without those who finance them. This article examines the basis for criminal liability in international criminal law (ICL) for persons who finance entities that perpetrate core crimes. Despite the need for clear rules, neither international courts nor scholars agree upon (i) whether liability exists for individuals who finance entities that perpetrate core crimes; and (ii) if so, the circumstances under which such liability exists. This article argues that an individual who finances an entity that perpetrates a core crime should be held criminally liable under customary international criminal law as an aider and abettor. The objective of this article is to clarify the rules that would enable international courts and tribunals to identify the extent to which individual criminal liability attaches to the financing of core crimes, as well as the legal basis for such liability. By clarifying the criminal accountability of individuals who finance entities that perpetrate core crimes, this article also seeks to clarify the mental elements of the mode of liability of aiding and abetting.

The ICJ Armed Activity Case – Reflections on States' Obligation to Investigate and Prosecute Individuals for Serious Human Rights Violations and Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions

2009 ◽  
Vol 78 (4) ◽  
pp. 581-598 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thordis Ingadottir
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
National Level ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

AbstractIn the Armed Activity Case, the International Court of Justice, found Uganda in breach of various international obligations. In establishing the state responsibility of Uganda, the Court concluded that in the Democratic Republic of Congo the country's troops committed, among other offences, grave breaches of international humanitarian law, as well as serious human rights violations, including torture. According to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and human rights treaties, these acts should also entail individual criminal responsibility. Furthermore, states have undertaken an obligation to investigate and prosecute individuals for these heinous acts. However,enforcement of that obligation has always been problematic; states have been very reluctant to prosecute their own forces. And without an effective enforcement mechanism at the international level, states have largely gottenaway with this bad practice. In light of the importance of having a state's responsibility support the enforcement of individual criminal responsibility at the national level, the article briefly reflects on the case's impact on individual criminal responsibility. It addresses the issue in two ways. Firstly, it examines a state's obligation to prosecute individuals as a secondary obligation, i.e., inherent in a state's obligation to make reparations for an international wrongful act. Secondly, it explores a state's obligation to prosecute individuals as a primary obligation, undertaken in the Geneva Conventions and human rights treaties. The article concludes thatdespite the clear obligation of a state to enforce individual criminal responsibility for the acts at hand in the Armed Activity Case, and the rear occurrence of having a case of this nature reaching the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, where the opportunity to address it and enforce it was largely missed. The nature and submissions in other recent cases at the International Court of Justice indicate that in the near future the Court will have a larger role in enforcing states' obligation to investigate and prosecute serious crimes at the national level.

scholarly journals Why Serious International Crimes Might Not Seem ‘Manifestly Unlawful’ to Low-level Perpetrators

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alette Smeulers
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Specific Context ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
The Core ◽  
The Right ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

Abstract Article 33 of the International Criminal Court Statute allows low-ranking perpetrators to — in exceptional cases — rely on the defence of superior orders. By doing so, Article 33 might be seen as an acknowledgement that within a specific context orders to commit international crimes might not always be manifest unlawful. Article 33(2), however, restricts the possibility to rely on this defence to perpetrators of war crimes and denies perpetrators of crimes against humanity and genocide a similar defence, since according to Article 33(2), such orders are considered always to be manifestly unlawful. This contribution questions whether such a distinction should be made. Many low-ranking perpetrators involved in such crimes by following superior orders seem to genuinely believe that they were doing the ‘right thing’. This article seeks to explain how these perpetrators might have come to such a belief, and the challenge this might represent to the core principles which underpin the concept of individual criminal responsibility.

scholarly journals Ethnical distance of the citizens of Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the nations of former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

Psihologija ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 141-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Srdjan Puhalo
Keyword(s):  
Federal Republic ◽  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
Social Distance ◽  
Republika Srpska ◽  
Made In

The paper presents the study of Ethnical distance with the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The study was made using Bogardus' scale of social distance, on 1000 interviewees of the Federation of BiH and 850 interviewees of Republika Srpska. The citizens of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina reject the Romas the most, followed by the Albanians and Macedonians. This is followed by the Serbs and Montenegrians, while Slovenians and Croats are the least rejected. Prejudices of the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the Romas, Albanians, and Macedonians are much more important for the rejection or accepting of offered relations, than it was the case with open hostility and war conflicts with the Serbs, Montenegrians, and Croats. In the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina a distinction is made in the degree of ethnical distance of Bosniaks and Croats to the nations who lived in the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Offered relations are more rejected by the Croats than by the Bosniaks. The citizens of Republika Srpska accept the Muslims (Bosniaks) and Romas the least. This is followed by the Croats, Slovenians, and Macedonians, and the Montenegrians are rejected the least. The citizens of Republika Srpska refuse that they or the members of their family marry a member of another nation. Thus they object any possibility for the members of other nations to be found on managing position, or any situation where they themselves would be in a subordinate position in society in relation to the members of other nationalities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document