Plausible Deniability

2019 ◽  
pp. 256-272
Author(s):  
Iva Vukušić
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Military Leaders ◽  
High Ranking

Outsourcing illegal violence and plausible deniability feature among the main reasons for states to establish, finance, equip, and direct actions of paramilitary units. Political and military leaders have an interest in distancing themselves from crimes, which are committed to further their political goals. This chapter discusses some of the reasons that make prosecuting paramilitary violence more difficult by analysing examples from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). After reviewing relevant trials and their outcomes, the main conclusion is that plausible deniability works and results in shielding high-ranking officials from criminal responsibility. Overall, it is the lower-level perpetrators that receive punishment, and not those who have sent them on their missions, especially when those missions are across state borders. If courts do not find ways to hold accountable those that establish, fund, and direct paramilitaries as they persecute civilians, future perpetrators will not be deterred.

New Developments in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia: Prominent Leaders Indicted and Jurisdiction Established

1995 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 449-461 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodney Dixon
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Military Leaders ◽  
New Developments ◽  
International Jurisdiction ◽  
High Ranking ◽  
Recent Developments

The first indictments against high-ranking political and military leaders were issued by the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) on 25 July 1995. Those indicted include Radovan Karadžić, the President of the Bosnian Serb Administration of Pale;Ratko Mladić, the commander of the army of the Bosnian Serb Administration;and Milan Martic, the President of the former Croatian Serb Administration of Knin. On the same day, the defence motion challenging the jurisdiction of the ICTY to try the accused currently before it, Dusko Tadicwas argued before the Trial Chamber. On 10 August 1995, this motion was dismissed.These recent developments, amongst others, are the culmination of the Prosecution's work in confronting the immense challenges of this unique international jurisdiction. Although the task is far from complete, the achievements to date provide a stable foundation upon which to progress with confidence. This article will comment on the significance of these new developments.

Individual Criminal Responsibility before the International Criminal Court

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Goy
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

For more than 15 years the two ad hoc Tribunals, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), have interpreted the requirements of different forms of individual criminal responsibility. It is thus helpful to look at whether and to what extent the jurisprudence of the ICTY/ICTR may provide guidance to the International Criminal Court (ICC). To this end, this article compares the requirements of individual criminal responsibility at the ICTY/ICTR and the ICC. The article concludes that, applied with caution, the jurisprudence of the ICTY/ICTR – as an expression of international law – can assist in interpreting the modes of liability under the ICC Statute. ICTY/ICTR case law seems to be most helpful with regard to accessorial forms of liability, in particular their objective elements. Moreover, it may assist in interpreting the subjective requirements set out in Article 30 ICC Statute.

The Power of the Beaten Path

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
William A. Schabas
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Paris Peace Conference

The introductory chapter explains contemporary interest in legal developments a century ago. Discussions and decisions at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 were the beginning of debates that continue to this day. The chapter looks in some detail at the criminality of starting a war, today known as the crime of aggression, the immunity that can be invoked by a Head of State like the Kaiser, and problems of attributing criminal responsibility to those who are not physically involved in the crime. It also addresses the creation of international criminal tribunals, which began with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

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.

scholarly journals Later Rather Than Sooner: Time and Its Effects on the Karadžić and Mladić Trials

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Iva Vukušić
Keyword(s):  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Conventional Wisdom ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
High Ranking ◽  
The Many ◽  
Atrocity Crimes ◽  
Life Sentences

Abstract Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić, the war-time Bosnian Serb leaders, were first indicted by the UN Hague-based International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in 1995. The two hid for many years, with their trials starting only in 2009 and 2012, respectively, after they were apprehended in headline-generating operations. Their continued evasion of trial was constantly critiqued. After all, thousands were killed, tortured, detained, raped, expelled, and robbed during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and these two men were widely seen as responsible. Pleas were made by survivors and frustration expressed on behalf of the victims, as many said, ‘justice delayed is justice denied’. However, as this article shows, the many years the two high-ranking individuals spent hiding were well-used to collect evidence which led to their convictions and life sentences. Contrary to conventional wisdom, delay can actually be beneficial in prosecuting leaders for atrocity crimes.

From The Hague to the Balkans: A Victim-oriented Reparations Approach to Improved International Criminal Justice

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stathis N. Palassis
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
The Balkans ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Yugoslav Wars

The international crimes committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s have been the subject of both State responsibility claims and prosecutions establishing individual criminal responsibility. On 26 February 2007 the International Court of Justice handed down its judgment in the Genocide case while it is expected that in 2014 the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia will conclude all appeals from prosecutions. While these initiatives contribute to the acknowledgement of the commission of international crimes they have not provided the victims with any financial reparations. Instead victims have had to make compensation claims under domestic law. The article examines how, in addition to the international initiatives at The Hague, a regionally focused victim oriented reparations approach can assist in attaining improved international criminal justice for international crimes committed during the Yugoslav wars. A victim oriented reparations approach would enhance victims’ rights through the provision of financial reparations, reflect improved international criminal justice and assist in the attainment long-term stability in the war-torn States of the former Yugoslavia.

Individual Criminal Responsibility in the Execution of a "Joint Criminal Enterprise" in the Jurisprudence of the ad hoc International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

2006 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Attila Bogdan
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Criminal Enterprise ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Joint Criminal Enterprise ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

AbstractThis article explores the development of "joint criminal enterprise" form of responsibility in the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (hereinafter "Yugoslav Tribunal"). Although "joint criminal enterprise" does not appear in the Yugoslav Tribunal Statute, this form of responsibility was read into the Statute by the tribunal judges and is repeatedly relied on in finding individuals guilty in cases before the tribunal. In particular, ever since the Appeals Chamber in Prosecutor v. Tadic held that "joint criminal enterprise", as a form of accomplice liability, is "firmly established in customary international law", other Trial and Appeals Chamber decisions continue to follow this holding. This article takes a critical look at some of the fundamental issues associated with the development of "joint criminal enterprise" at the Yugoslav Tribunal, in particular the methodology employed by the Appeals Chamber in Tadic. In addition, the article also examines the similarities between "joint criminal enterprise" and U.S. conspiracy law, and whether the use of "joint criminal enterprise" at the Yugoslav Tribunal violates the "principles of legality".

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document