scholarly journals Responsibility of Serbia for genocide: Application of the Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide

Temida ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 33-42
Author(s):  
Mirjana Tejic
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Reconciliation Process

On February 26th 2007, International Court of Justice claimed Serbia responsible for failing to prevent genocide and punish perpetrators underlining its' responsibility to cooperate with International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia. Although it was confirmed genocide has been committed in Srebrenica 1995, Serbia is not obliged to pay financial reparations. Judgment makes distinction between individual and three-fold state responsibility for genocide, based on Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and other sources of international law. There are evident disagreements among judges on jurisdiction, interpretation rules, even on meritum of the case. Many questions still remain open especially what precedent effects will have on establishment of state's dolus specialis and how it will influence the reconciliation process in the region.

Customary Humanitarian Law Today

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodor Meron
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

This chapter discusses the revival of customary humanitarian law. It begins by considering the origins of the revival, followed by discussions of the application of customary international law by non-criminal international bodies, such as the International Court of Justice; the customary law jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY); and the customary law jurisprudence of the other international criminal courts.

Consolidation of Statehood through Membership in the UN: Some Remarks on Kosovo, Democracy and International Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-349
Author(s):  
Iliriana Islami ◽  
Remzije Istrefi
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
State Building ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Building Process

Kosovo declared its independence on 17 February 2008. Subsequently, one of the aims of Kosovo’s foreign policy was to further consolidate this position and to justify Kosovo’s prospective membership in the United Nations. This article examines the issue of recognition, elucidating how Kosovo is different from other countries and comparing it with the case of the former Yugoslavia. Other aspects in the state-building process such as ‘building constitutionalism’ will be presented as a step toward justifying recognition and membership. Furthermore, the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of 8 October 2008 will be presented as evidence of Kosovo’s strengthening international position in its quest for further recognition. Thus, the article will discuss and analyze the arguments in favor of Kosovo being admitted to the UN.

scholarly journals States’ Mouthpieces or Independent Practitioners? The Role of Counsel before the ICJ from the Perspective of the Legal Value of their Oral Pleadings

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-76
Author(s):  
Marco Longobardo
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Treaty Interpretation

Abstract This article explores the role of counsel before the International Court of Justice, taking into account their tasks under the Statute of the Court and the legal value of their pleadings in international law. Pleadings of counsel constitute State practice for the formation of customary international law and treaty interpretation, and they are attributable to the litigating State under the law on State responsibility. Accordingly, in principle, counsel present the views of the litigating State, which in practice approves in advance the pleadings. This consideration is relevant in discussing the role of counsel assisting States in politically sensitive cases, where there is no necessary correspondence between the views of the States and those of their counsel. Especially when less powerful States are parties to the relevant disputes, the availability of competent counsel in politically sensitive cases should not be discouraged since it advances the legitimacy of the international judicial function.

GHOSTS OF GENOCIDES PAST? STATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR GENOCIDE IN THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA

2015 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 198-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federica Paddeu
Keyword(s):  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
Past State

IN Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v Serbia), the International Court of Justice (“ICJ” or “Court”) dealt with a claim by Croatia that Serbia was responsible for the commission of genocide against ethnic Croatians in contravention of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (“the Convention”), and with Serbia's counter-claim that Croatia had committed genocide against ethnic Serbs also in breach of the Convention. In its judgment of 3 February 2015, the Court dismissed both the claim and counter-claim. While many of the acts complained of constituted the actus reus of genocide, there was no evidence that they had been perpetrated with the required mens rea, namely the intention to destroy, in whole or in part, the targeted group as such.

When is a conflict international? Time for new control tests in IHL

2016 ◽  
Vol 98 (903) ◽  
pp. 1019-1041
Author(s):  
Djemila Carron
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Armed Group ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

AbstractThis article clarifies the control a State should have over an armed group for the triggering act of an international armed conflict and for the internationalization of non-international armed conflicts in international humanitarian law. It explains the reasons for the distinction between these two types of attribution and details the specificities of each test, with an innovative approach. The author proposes new control tests for both triggering and internationalization, rejecting the effective and overall control tests regarding internationalization proposed by the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. For instance, regarding the internationalization of a non-international armed conflict, a general and strict control test is proposed. Finally, this article addresses specific issues like the difficult question of the control required for an occupation through an armed group.

Bosnia-Hercegovina and International Justice

2010 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marko Attila Hoare
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Court ◽  
Bosnian War ◽  
The Icj

Three different international courts have determined that genocide took place in Bosnia-Hercegovina in 1992-1995: the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Yet paradoxically, there has been virtually no punishment of this genocide, while the punishment of lesser war crimes of the Bosnian war has been very limited. The ICTY has convicted only one individual, a lowly deputy corps commander, of a genocide-related offence. The ICJ acquitted Serbia, the state that planned and launched the assault upon Bosnia-Hercegovina in 1992, of genocide and related offences, finding it guilty only of failure to prevent and punish genocide. Although Serb forces were responsible for the overwhelming majority of war crimes, the ICTY prosecution has disproportionately targeted non-Serbs in its indictments and, among Serbs, has disproportionately targeted Bosnian Serbs, with no official of Serbia or Yugoslavia yet convicted of war crimes in Bosnia. This article argues that the meagre results of the international judicial processes vis-à-vis the crimes of the Bosnian war must be sought in the structural failings, poor decision making, and political influences that affected the international courts. It argues that the international courts have failed either to deliver justice to the victims of the war crimes or to promote reconciliation among the peoples of the former Yugoslavia and suggests measures that could be taken to rectify the situation.

scholarly journals Application of Bosnia v Serbia to the Individualist Charge of Ineffectiveness: A Defense of State Responsibility

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-54
Author(s):  
Felix Lambrecht
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International System ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

This paper aims to combat the individualist challenge to the notion of state responsibility in international law. That is, this paper attempts to counter the criticism of international law that suggests responsibility for wrongful acts should be attributed to individuals rather than states. While prior scholarship has focused on the individualist's fairness complaint, this paper focuses on the charge of ineffectiveness that would remove states as the primary duty-bearers in international law. By using the International Court of Justice case of Bosnia v Serbia (2007), this paper demonstrates that there are long-term important obligations in the international system that require states to remain primary duty-bearers in international law.

scholarly journals Геноцид как Тяжкое Преступление (Genocide As Extraordinary Crime)

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 951-962
Author(s):  
Nur Rohim Yunus ◽  
Latipah Nasution ◽  
Siti Nurhalimah ◽  
Siti Romlah
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
The State ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
State Obligations

The state is a subject of international law who has power or power, so that the state is required not to abuse its authority. State obligations have been regulated in various international legal instruments. The protection of human rights has implications for the emergence of the fulfillment of human rights as a form of state responsibility. The state in this case must ensure to protect, to ensure, and to fulfill the human rights. Therefore, all acts of the state that discriminate against citizens of a certain ethnicity by committing genocide are serious human rights crimes that must be prosecuted by the International Court of Justice. This study uses qualitative research with a sociological and juridical approach. The results of the study state that the State of Indonesia has also regulated the behavior of preventing the crime of genocide in order to protect human rights.Keywords: Genocide; HAM; Extraordinary Crime Abstrak:Negara merupakan subjek hukum internasional yang memiliki kekuasaan atau power, sehingga negara dituntut tidak melakukan penyalahgunaan wewenang. Kewajiban negara telah diatur dalam berbagai instrumen hukum internasional. Perlindungan terhadap HAM berimplikasi terhadap munculnya pemenuhan HAM sebagai wujud tanggungjawab negara. Negara dalam hal ini harus memastikan to protect, to ensure, and to fulfill the human rights. Oleh karenanya, segala tindakan negara yang melakukan diskriminasi kepada warga negara dari etnis tertentu dengan melakukan genosida merupakan kejahatan HAM berat yang harus dituntut oleh Mahkamah Internasional. Penelitian ini menggunakan penelitian kualitatif dengan pendekatan sosiologis dan yuridis. Hasil penelitian menyatakan bahwa Negara Indonesia juga telah mengatur perilaku pencegahan tindak kejahatan Genosida guna menjaga HAM.Kata Kunci: Genosida; HAM; Extraordinary Crime Абстрактный:Государство является субъектом международного права, обладающим властью или властью, поэтому от государства требуется не злоупотреблять своей властью. Обязательства государства регулируются различными международно-правовыми документами. Защита прав человека имеет значение для возникновения реализации прав человека как формы ответственности государства. Государство в этом случае должно гарантировать защиту, обеспечение и соблюдение прав человека. Следовательно, все действия государства, дискриминирующие граждан определенной этнической принадлежности путем совершения геноцида, являются серьезными преступлениями в области прав человека, которые должны преследоваться Международным Судом. В данном исследовании используются качественные исследования с социологическим и юридическим подходом. Результаты исследования показывают, что государство Индонезия также регулирует действия по предотвращению преступления геноцида в целях защиты прав человека.Ключевые слова: Геноцид; Ветчина; Чрезвычайное Преступление

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document