scholarly journals The Role of International Adjudicative Bodies in Prosecuting Genocide Crime: A Case Study of International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 759-765
Author(s):  
Joko Setiyono ◽  
◽  
Kholis Roisah

This paper is intended to explain the urgency of the formation of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), as an ad hoc international court based on United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution No. 827 of 1993, to try perpetrators of genocidal crimes against ethnic Bosnian Muslims. The crime of genocide originated from the ethnic conflict that occurred in the federation of Yugoslavia. The research was conducted by using a qualitative method, based on analysis of data sourced from international journals, books, and other electronic sources. The results conclude that the genocide that occurred against Bosnian Muslim ethnicity is one form of international crime while threatening international peace and security in the Balkan region, also intended to break the practice of impunity against international criminals who are a common enemy of humanity (hostis humans generis). These two considerations form the legal basis for the issuance of the UNSC Resolution on the Establishment of ICTY. The establishment of ICTY as an international court is intended as a court used to try perpetrators of genocidal crimes against Bosnian Muslim ethnicities, so that similar crimes will not be repeated in the future, both in Yugoslavia and in various other countries.

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 183
Author(s):  
MSc. Vilard Bytyqi

This paper will treat the establishment, scope, and the completion of the mission of International Criminal Tribunal for formerYugoslavia. It is well known that this Tribunal, respectively The Hague Tribunal, is established with a resolution of United Nations Security Council, for the purpose of establishing peace in the troubled region ofYugoslavia. Since its establishment, the Tribunal has held many judicial processes, by bringing in front of the justice even the heads of states and people with significant state positions.Currently, the tribunal is in the completion phase of its mandate set by the United Nations resolution. For this reason, the tribunal does not accept new cases in order not to extend its completion phase of the mandate.The paper as such, has a practical importance because it will examine the success and challenges that this international court level has faced. Moreover, it will point out also the Completion strategy of this tribunal, where it is presumed that the cases will be transferred to the local justice in order not to overload the court with other cases.


2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Goy

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.


Temida ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 33-42
Author(s):  
Mirjana Tejic

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 209-226
Author(s):  
Małgorzata Szwejkowska

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.


Author(s):  
V. Popko

The article analyses the development of the concept of international crime in the "Hague" period, which covers the last decades of the last century and is closely related to the establishment of ad hoc international tribunals in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The article reveals the legal grounds for the establishment of these tribunals, the features of their activities, jurisdiction and principles of responsibility of persons who committed crimes in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The establishment of international justice bodies by UN Security Council decisions has provoked a number of debates about their legitimacy, but it is undeniable that the activities of ad hoc international tribunals have contributed to the initiation of a new stage in the development of international criminal justice, further development of international criminal law, in particular in the development of the Rome Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Court. All types of tribunal jurisdictions are disclosed, but special attention is paid to the substantive and personal jurisdictions of tribunals, which became the basis for the theoretical justification of the "Hague" modification of international crime, as well as the practical implementation of this concept in tribunal decisions. It is shown that the categories of international crimes that constitute the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (serious violations of the Geneva Conventions, violations of the laws or customs of war, genocide and crimes against humanity) and the categories of crimes defined in the Statute of the International Tribunal for Rwanda against humanity and violations of the Geneva Conventions) in the documents of the tribunals have been developed in comparison with the Nuremberg and post-Nuremberg periods. ~ 74 ~ ВІСНИК Київського національного університету імені Тараса Шевченка ISSN 1728-3817 It is shown that the substantive jurisdiction of the ICTY and the ICC does not coincide with the provisions of the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals. The differences relate to the list of categories of crimes; parallel jurisdiction of international ad hoc tribunals and national courts; extending the competence of ad hoc tribunals to cases of crimes committed both during wars between states and during internal armed conflict, etc. The content of the categories of crimes, their composition, the subjects of responsibility have been clarified. In particular, the characteristic features of the crime of genocide and crimes against humanity are identified; the conditions, elements and subjects for the recognition of their qualifications are indicated. The author pays attention to the principles of personal jurisdiction, shows that in the decisions of international tribunals ad hoc has developed the principle of individual responsibility for international crimes that constitute substantive jurisdiction. The application of the principle of universal jurisdiction in the activity of tribunals is revealed. The author concludes that the establishment of ad hoc international criminal tribunals and their activities has contributed to the development of the concept of international crime and the separation of a special "Hague" modification. Keywords: international crime, tribunal, "Hague" modification, international justice, jurisdiction, criminal liability


2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (34) ◽  
pp. 251
Author(s):  
Romina Beqiri

Given the spread terror and the abuses perpetrated in the Balkan region, many victims and witnesses of atrocities were deterred from testifying. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY or Tribunal) facilitated the appearance of witnesses and protected them in case of intimidation including by taking measures against those who would violate the confidentiality of the proceedings. This article aims to introduce some of the witness protective measures before the Tribunal, and particularly threats and risks they have faced in the context of the cases dealt with by the Tribunal. It reflects also upon groundbreaking measures of protection decided by the Tribunal and the challenges it has faced over the last two decades. It finally discusses the impact of such challenges on the right to a fair trial and how they were addressed.


2021 ◽  
pp. 030582982110330
Author(s):  
Caitlin Biddolph

The study of global politics is not an exercise in objectivity and rationality, but one that is embodied, personal, and deeply affective. Feminist scholarship both within and outside of International Relations (IR) have pioneered discussions of embracing our affective experiences as researchers, as well as maintaining ethical commitments to research participants and collaborators. In addition to feminist contributions, the emotional turn in IR has seen the emergence of vibrant scholarship exploring the role of emotions in sites and processes of global politics, as well as the role of emotions in the research process. In this article, I aim to contribute to this growing body of scholarship by speaking to these and other questions that explore the role of emotions in researchers’ engagement with their work. In particular, I draw on and interrogate my own emotional entanglements with the digital archives of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). The goal of this article is to provide insights into the emotional process of reading and interpreting testimonies of violence, and to illuminate ethical concerns that arise – particularly as an ‘outsider’ – when reading and representing trauma in my research.


2001 ◽  
Vol 95 (4) ◽  
pp. 934-952 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daryl A. Mundis

The international criminal court (ICC) will serve as a permanent institution dedicated to the enforcement of international humanitarian law sixty days after the sixtieth state has deposited its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession to the Treaty of Rome with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.1 Pursuant to Article 11 of the ICC Statute, however, the ICC will have jurisdiction only with respect to crimes committed after the treaty comes into force.2 Consequently, when faced with allegations of violations of international humanitarian law in the period prior to the establishment of the ICC, the international community has five options if criminal prosecutions are desired.3 First, additional ad hoc international tribunals, similar to those established for the former Yugoslavia (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, ICTY) and Rwanda (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, ICTR) could be established.4 Second, "mixed" international criminal tribunals, which would share certain attributes with the ad hoc Tribunals, could be created.5 Third, the international community could leave the prosecution of alleged offenders to national authorities, provided that the domestic courts are functioning and able to conduct such trials. Fourth, in those instances where the national infrastructure has collapsed, international resources could be made available to assist with the prosecution of the alleged offenders in domestic courts. Finally, the international community could simply do nothing in the face of alleged violations of international humanitarian law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document