International Justice: Highlights

International Justice
by Avril MacDonald, 6/10/96

The trial of Dusko Tadic, the first to be held before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), is unique, both legally and historically. It is the first time an individual has been tried by a truly international and impartial criminal court for breaches of international humanitarian law.

The Nuremberg and Tokyo trials before the International Military Tribunals after World War II were trials by the four victorious allies rather than by the international community under the auspices of the UN. Much of the law within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, at least in its codified form, postdates the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials. In both its codified and customary forms, international humanitarian law has been observed mostly in the breach. The Trial thus represents not only the first opportunity to enforce and explicate the minimum code of conduct during wars but also a singular opportunity to build on existing jurisprudence in this field and to develop international criminal procedure. The trial is thus not only history in the making but the cutting edge of international criminal law.

Justice and its limitations
by Andras Riedlmayer, 6/11/96

The International Criminal Tribunal deserves our support. But it has not received the support it needs, either from United Nations headquarters or from the member countries. The UN Commission of Experts, charged with gathering evidence for indictments and prosecutions, was able to do some of its work only thanks to donations of space, equipment, money and time by outside institutions, private foundations, and a small group of dedicated volunteers. On repeated occasions, officials at UN headquarters in New York went out of their way to deny it funding, authority and even the funds to publish its final report.

Now that the Tribunal is actually in operation, it still lacks adequate funding for basic things like office space and personnel, let alone more costly ventures like extensive field investigations. The reasons for this are quite transparent. Despite lip service to the importance of bringing war criminals to justice, most of the permanent members of the UN Security Council that established the Tribunal do not really wish to see it succeed. Their foremost desire is to keep the news from The Hague from becoming an "embarrassment to the peace process." In their view, if the indictments go up the chain of command to the same high officials who are now being courted as "peacemakers," then the search for justice could become an "obstacle to peace."

Deja-vu
by Frank Tiggelaar, 6/13/96

The Tokyo Tribunal left the Japanese Emperor, in whose name so many war crimes had been committed, in power, albeit, as the Western powers then said, as a 'figure-head without power'.

I suppose most people agree that the West's attitude towards Slobodan Milosevic indicates a similar line of thinking in the 1990's - in Milosevic's case the West is not even bothered to strip him of his powers.

Under funding the Tribunal might also have a second purpose: there are people within the UN whom we could regard as accomplices to crimes against humanity - just think of what happened in Srebrenica. Keeping the Tribunal on an ultra-tight budget will prevent it from investigating who was responsible for handing over thousands of civilians to what was at the time already known to be a gang of butchers.

First opportunity...no, no, no!
by Nadim Kanafani, 6/13/96

Mr. McDonald, your opening comments were well-intentioned, but it is a gross inaccuracy to assert that the Tribunal represents the first opportunity to implement the lofty ideals of "international justice." Certainly every effort should be made to punish harshly and to establish a firm legal and moral precedent against war crimes committed in Bosnia by all parties, but many of your Palestinian friends, Cambodian friends, Lebanese friends, Afghanis, Rwandans, Iraqis, and many others have sat in disbelief at the vigor with which the international community both ignored and then pursued the injustices committed in Bosnia during the war. What about Pol Pot, Ariel Sharon (who is personally responsible for the slaughter of over two thousand Palestinian refugees during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982); what happened to "international justice" during the slaughter of what the most recent estimates place at close to 3 MILLION Cambodians? Does this Tribunal represent the first opportunity or the most convenient one, the most readily available and easily implemented? Are we all of a sudden in a new era of "international justice" after Bosnia, from which we can learn and apply new lessons to ALL forms of international injustice and oppression? I hope so. Please tell me that these gross double standards and incongruous applications of "international justice" will not continue; but please continue your efforts in Bosnia and with the Tribunal and know that all the oppressed people of the world are watching with intense scrutiny as well as resentment and disbelief.

How Serbs Feel
by Ivan D. Trifunovich, 6/17/96

The efforts of some from the West might be noble, but I have two questions:

1) Where were you when you could have saved multi-cultural, far more worth preserving Yugoslavia?

2) Logistics? How are you going to restore multi-cultural Bosnia? Let us say you move 5,000 Muslims to Banja Luka. Let us say you put in monitors in place. Are they going to protect these Muslims the same way as they are protecting Serbs in Sarajevo suburbs? Suppose you prevent killings or beatings. Who is going to force Serbian companies to give them jobs? Let's say the international community gives them jobs somehow. Who is going to force Serbs to sell them anything in the store? Who is going to make it safe for their children to go to school? (you cannot go around and arrest 12 year-olds because they beat up their Muslim "friends" every day). Finally, who is going to insure that they will not be total outcasts, that somebody is going to communicate with them, be friends with them?

The future of the former Yugoslavia lies in cementing the partition of Bosnia (and force the Croats to stay within the Federation). That way everybody would have lost something and gained something. If you try to treat Bosnia as a large laboratory for social experiments, and impose a total defeat on the Serbs (they lost Krajina, and re-unifying Bosnia they would regard as losing all of Bosnia to their enemies), then the Serbs will definitely want to go to war again. The present situation is dissatisfactory mostly to the Muslims, but if the Federation is preserved, even they will gain a great deal. In addition, as the weakest of all war sides, they are the least likely to start war anew.

Looking for specific problems with the Tribunal
by Joel A. Brodsky, 6/17/96

As a defense attorney I would like to ask those who think the International Tribunal is unfair to get specific. If you would not deny that a killer of children, or unarmed civilians, or a rapist, should be tried and punished, then lets get down to brass tacks. What then is unfair about the Tribunal? Do they allow hearsay? What about the secret witnesses mentioned by Mr. McDonald? Is there complete disclosure by the prosecution of all evidence remotely favorable to the defense? Is there recourse to a court of appeal? Is there a presumption of innocence? Is proof beyond a reasonable doubt required? Can the accused remain silent and not have it held against him? If you can find fault with the Tribunal in this regard, then perhaps the complaints about the west and its so called oppression of the Serbs can be given some legitimacy in the eyes of western observers who see films of Srebrenica, Zvornik, Kozarac, Zepa, Bijeljina and just shrug off Serb complaints as mere excuse making for criminals.

hope for reconciliation: forgiveness
by robert m. de rycke, 6/23/96

The only way this insanity can stop is by everyone deciding to relinquish the past, and to vow to live in peace. We cannot live in peace as long as we seek vengeance, in the guise of "justice." "Justice" seeks retribution, and retribution calls for more of the same. What good does it do to prove genocide, when no one is willing to define the word? How many victims does it take to call murder "genocide?" Ten? A hundred? A million? Is "justice" a matter of numbers? As long as I seek vengeance I am my own enemy, because the object of my vengeance will seek to get back at me or at some of my fellow humans.

Don't Hold Your Breath
by Zoran Stojanovic, 6/20/96

What reconciliation. How can you become a friend to yesterdays butcher? This war has driven a permanent stake right through a heart of Bosnia. No way, no how will it ever become a single unitary state. And why should it? If Yugoslavia, a true multi-ethnic country, was not worth saving, why create a mini Yugoslavia out of Bosnia? Sorry, no reconciliation this time. Serbs to Serbia, Croats to Croatia, and those Muslims can go where ever the want.

One question and one answer for Bernard Gwertzman regarding the Dayton Agreement
by Michael Pravica, Vice President, The Serbian-American Alliance of New England (SANE), Inc., 6/20/96

The Dayton Agreement stipulates that the military "balance" ratio between the Bosnian Federation and Republika Srpska is to be two to one. Given that the Federation was at war with Repulika Srpska, there is a high probability that the Federation will resume war with the Bosnian Serbs when the IFOR/NATO troops leave and given that they will probably not receive much aid from President Milosevic, there is a high likelihood that another million Serbs will be ethnically cleansed from Republika Srpska. This is in my opinion the greatest concern of the Dayton agreement.

Rules in Hag
by Ivan D. Trifunovich, 6/20/96

Mr. Brodsky:

You refuse to take into account the "atmosphere" which surrounds the Hag Tribunal. By talking about the sequestered juries, I was not implying that there should be a sequestered jury vs. a panel of judges, but rather pointing out the fact that under present circumstances Karadzic and Mladic cannot receive a fair trial.

Furthermore, I object to the composition of the panel, and the rules of its operation. There should be judges from let's say Greece and Russia, and the verdict should require an unanimous decision. If they are guilty, they should be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Finally, you are not addressing my objection which has to do strictly with the rules (since you don't seem to think that other circumstance matter). Why is Dr. Karadzic forced by the RULE to step down as the President of Republika Srpska? I told you why: because his POLITICAL removal is more important than finding his guilt or innocence. This makes the Hag Tribunal a political court, which, we might agree, is not a good sign of fairness.

Reply to Rules In Hag
by Joel A. Brodsky, 6/21/96

Mr. Trifunovich,

Thank you for addressing the subject. Here is my reply, point by point:

It is true that even judges are influenced by public opinion. However, judges are professionals whose job it is to weigh the evidence without regard to public opinion. If they can't do it then they are in the wrong profession. In the case of the Tribunal the judges are some of the most highly regarded and respected who practice in international law. If they cannot give the defendants a fair trial in the face of public opinion, then nobody can. Since the more horrific the charge, the stronger is public opinion, the logical conclusion of this position is that to avoid trial, just make sure that your crime is a heinous one sure to bring about strong feelings. Therefore, the very worst criminals can never be tried. I am sure this is not what you would want.