Shakespeare's Fools

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 29-41
Author(s):  
Maja Milatovic-Ovadia
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Life Imprisonment ◽  
Close Analysis ◽  
Complex Process ◽  
Applied Theatre ◽  
Work Functions

In November 2017, Ratko Mladic, a war-time leader and a commander of the Bosnian Serb Army, was sentenced by the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal to life imprisonment for the genocide and crimes against humanity committed during the 1992–1995 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the region the verdict was received with conflicting reactions, emphasising yet again how extensive the ethnic division is within the society. Through close analysis of the theatre project Shakespeare’s Comedies performed by ethnically segregated youth in Bosnia-Herzegovina, this article aims to understand how Shakespeare’s work functions as a vehicle to address the consequences of war and to support the complex process of reconciliation under circumstances in which the issues of war crimes cannot be tackled in a straightforward and direct manner. The study takes a cross-disciplinary approach to research, drawing from theory of reconciliation, applied theatre practice and comedy studies.

scholarly journals Przedterminowe zwolnienie z kary pozbawienia wolności skazanych za ludobójstwo, zbrodnie przeciwko ludzkości i wojenne na mocy orzeczeń międzynarodowych trybunałów karnych „ad hoc” oraz ich sukcesora w postaci Mechanizmu Rezydualnego ONZ

2021 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 209-226
Author(s):  
Małgorzata Szwejkowska
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Early Release ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Domestic Law

In the last decade of the 20th century, a war in the former Yugoslavia broke out, once again making Europe a witness to an armed conflict. Almost at the same time, another local ethnic bloodshed started, but this time in distant Africa — in Rwanda. Both these events included the most horrifying international crimes against humanity: genocide and war crimes. To prosecute the most important commanding figures involved in these conflicts and hold them criminally responsible, two ad hoc United Nations tribunals were created: International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in Hague and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha. They finished their operation in 2017 and 2015, respectively. The tasks of conducting and completing all ongoing proceedings, including law enforcement, after the completion of their mandates have been entrusted to the UN International Residual Mechanism. One of the crucial assignments of the tribunals and later the Redisual Mechanism was to deal with the request on behalf of the convicted for granting them early release. Although none of the statutes of the aforementioned courts provided any ground for early release, soon it was accepted that both tribunals, as well as their successor, were entitled to proceed despite this issue. As soon as in 2001, the first convict was granted early release, but with no conditions. It is estimated that, to date, more than 2/3 of all convicted by the Tribunals have been released before the termination of their sentence. This should raise the question of how to rehabilitate that kind of offender, convicted of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity, to ensure they do not pose a threat to society anymore. Especially since the offenders serve their punishment outside the country of their origin — meaning, different rules apply according to the domestic law regulation of the state that voluntarily agreed to enforce the sentence. This article analyzes the juridical approach of the tribunals and the Residual Mechanism on the issue of early release of the convicts involved in the armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

Rape and Human Rights

PMLA ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 121 (5) ◽  
pp. 1662-1664 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Franco
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Ethnic Group ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
War Criminals ◽  
The United Nations

According to the report of the United Nations commission on Human Rights, rape is the least condemned war crime (coomaraswamy, Further Promotion 64n263). Although wartime rape was listed as a crime against humanity by the Nuremberg Military Tribunals and by the Geneva Conventions, it was not until 2001 that the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia identified rapists as war criminals. In that year the tribunal sentenced three men for violations of the laws or customs of war (torture, rape) and crimes against humanity (torture, rape) committed during the war in Bosnia during the 1993 takeover of Foca, where women were systematically raped and killed, the purpose being “to destroy an ethnic group by killing it, to prevent its reproduction or to disorganize it, removing it from its home soil.”

Briefly Noted

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 664-667
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
The Balkans ◽  
Life Sentence

On March 20, 2019, the Appeals Chamber of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals set aside Radovan Karadžić's prior sentence of forty years and imposed a life sentence. Karadžić was convicted of genocide, crimes against humanity, and violations of the laws or customs of war in March 2016 by a Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and sentenced to forty years in prison. His crimes relate to war crimes he committed during the 1990s conflicts in the Balkans, in particular the 1995 Srebrenica massacre of 8,000 Bosnian Serbs and the three-year long siege of Sarajevo. The Appeals Chamber reversed part of Karadžić's convictions related to the Overarching JCE and dismissed the rest of his appeal, while also dismissing most of the Prosecution's appeal, aside from the sentence. The Appeals Chamber judges found that the Trial Chamber “committed a discernible error and abused its discretion in imposing a sentence of only 40 years of imprisonment,” and consequently imposed a life sentence.

scholarly journals The Norm of Justice and the Negotiation of the Rambouillet/Paris Peace Accords

2000 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 207-217
Author(s):  
Paul R. Williams
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Peace And Justice ◽  
High Government ◽  
Made In

With the creation of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the imminent creation of a permanent International Criminal Court, as well as the proliferation of public statements by high government officials endorsing the norm of justice, many commentators are hypothesizing that the long running tension between peace and justice may be undergoing a period of reconciliation. A brief review of the efforts to incorporate the norm of justice in the Rambouillet/Paris Accords and UNSC 1244 indicates that only minimal progress has been made in the reconciliation between the quest for a negotiated peace and the norm of justice. As the most powerful nation committed to the rule of law, we have a responsibility to confront these assaults on humankind. One response mechanism is accountability, namely to help bring the perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes to justice. If we allow them to act with impunity, then we will only be inviting a perpetuation of these crimes far into the next millennium. Our legacy must demonstrate an unyielding commitment to the pursuit of justice.David SchefferUS Ambassador for War Crimes The search for a juster peace than was obtainable at the negotiating table has inflicted hardship and havoc on innocent civilians within the former Yugoslavia and exacted a heavy price from the already weak economies of the neighboring states.David OwenCo-Chair of the International Conference for the former Yugoslavia

Investigating Crimes against Humanity in Syria and Iraq: The Commission for International Justice and Accountability

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 395-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melinda Rankin
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International System ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
International Community ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Justice ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
The United Nations

The failure of the United Nations to effect a ‘responsibility to protect’ in Syria and Iraq has provoked acrimonious debates over how the international community should respond to mass atrocities in the contemporary international order. Moreover, the fact that the International Criminal Court and other United Nations (un) agencies remain unable to investigate in Syria and Iraq, has reinvigorated debate on the mechanisms available to bring those most responsible for humanities gravest crimes to account. This article examines the Commission for International Justice and Accountability (cija). As non-state actors, cija conduct their investigations outside the United Nations system, with the aim of investigating and preparing case briefs for the most senior leaders suspected of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria; and war crimes, crimes against humanity and allegations of genocide in Iraq. This article argues that in preparing case briefs for individual criminal liability for a future prosecution, cija have attempted to extend the system of international criminal law, and in so doing, pose a challenge to traditional notions of the state in relation to the concept of war and the law, and the relationship between power and law in the international system. The article concludes by the asking the question: does the international community have a ‘responsibility to prosecute’ those suspected of criminal misconduct?

The Good Deeds of International Criminal Defendants

2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 799-813 ◽  
Author(s):  
JEAN GALBRAITH
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
The Other ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Good Deeds

AbstractInternational criminal tribunals try defendants for horrific acts: genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. At sentencing, however, evidence often arises of what I will call defendants’ ‘good deeds’ – humanitarian behaviour by the defendants towards those on the other side of the conflict that is conscientious relative to the culture in which the defendants are operating. This article examines the treatment of good deeds in the sentencing practices of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. I show that the tribunals’ approaches are both undertheorized and internally inconsistent. I argue that the tribunals should draw upon the goals that underlie international criminal law in developing a coherent approach to considering good deeds for sentencing purposes.

The Sentencing Determinants of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia: An Empirical and Doctrinal Analysis

2003 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 717-750 ◽  
Author(s):  
JAMES MEERNIK ◽  
KIMI KING
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Critical Factors ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
Fair Degree

The pronouncements of punishment for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) will be among its most important legacies for international law and international relations. The purpose of our research is to examine the judges' opinions on the determinants of punishment and, most especially, the data on sentences handed down by the trial chambers in order to understand which factors are the most powerful in explaining sentences. We find that there is a fair degree of consistency in the sentences conferred on the guilty. By systematically examining all the sentences both doctrinally and empirically we can see that sentences are premised on those critical factors that the judges are admonished to employ by the ICTY Statute and their own Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

Darfur and the ‘Odious Scourge’: The Commission of Inquiry's Findings on Genocide

2005 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 871-885 ◽  
Author(s):  
WILLIAM A. SCHABAS
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Genocidal Intent ◽  
Set Up

The report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur, set up pursuant to a UN Security Council resolution, is an important contribution to the evolving law of genocide. The Commission concluded that genocide had not been committed, but that the case should be referred to the International Criminal Court for prosecution as crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Commission did not find significant evidence of genocidal intent. It looked essentially for a plan or policy of the Sudanese state and, in its absence, concluded that genocide was not being committed. The Commission endorsed the ‘stable and permanent groups’ approach taken by one trial chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). On this point, it exaggerated the acceptance of this interpretation, which has been ignored by other trial chambers of the international tribunals. However, the Commission found that the better approach to determination of the groups covered by the Convention is subjective, and that the targeted tribes in Darfur meet this criterion.

United Nations Member States' Obligations Towards the ICTY: Arresting and Transferring Lukic, Gotovina, and Zelenovic

2008 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 627-653 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alejandra Vicente ◽  
Yolanda Gamarra
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Member States ◽  
War Criminals ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
Key Factor ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
Legal Difficulties

AbstractFull and expedient cooperation of UN member States in the arrest and transfer of war criminals constitutes a key factor in addressing war crimes and providing redress to the victims. Through the analysis of three recent cases of arrests and transfers to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the authors show the legal difficulties and political considerations that some States face when implementing their international obligations to arrest and transfer. The three cases analyzed demonstrate that the arrest and transfer of war criminals is more likely to take place when State authorities are truly committed to cooperate, and act on that commitment by adopting specific domestic legislation to make the process of arresting and transferring smooth and transparent.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document