Search results

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.

This volume is designed to provide a quick yet comprehensive reference to the jurisprudence of both the ICTY and to some extent, the ICTR. It goes significantly beyond the Judgements of the Tribunal into the Orders and Decisions of the Trial and Appeals Chambers. The book is organized by sections, according to each Article of the Statute and Rule of procedure and evidence. Following the text of the Article or Rule, there is a Commentary section, where appropriate and a digest of Judgements, Decisions and Orders of the Appeals Chamber and the Trial Chambers. Materials will be found in the book from the beginning of the operation of the ICTY through the Furundžija Appeals Judgement and the amendments to the Rules in July 2000

This article explores the relationship between the concepts of trauma and justice in the jurisprudence of crimes against humanity of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, focusing upon cases of sexual violence. It argues that the Tribunal's jurisprudence conceives this crime as a traumatic violation of both the subject of rights and of universal humanity. The Tribunal's models of international justice as procedure, punishment, recognition and therapy understand justice as the legal suturing of this trauma. In these models, the notion of 'justice' functions as phantasy in the psychoanalytic sense of an imaginary scene that veils its impossibility. However, figuring international justice as the resolution of the trauma of crimes against humanity reiterates the traumatic wrong in humanitarian law. Humanitarian law therefore requires a new model of international justice - a model that does not reiterate the past but which can institute the future.

This article examines Croatia's involvement with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). The factors that have made the issue of cooperation so volatile in Croatia are addressed, shedding light on domestic politics of state cooperation with the ICTY. The issue of cooperation--and the challenges it poses to stability and democratization in the former Yugoslavia and to the ICTY's struggle for institutional survival--will continue to be volatile as long as the tribunal exists. The strong domestic resistance to cooperation in the Balkans underscores the challenge confronting both the ad hoc tribunals as well as the permanent International Criminal Court: how to institutionalize a system of international tribunals in which neither the winners nor losers are immune from standing trial for atrocities committed during battle. Although the international criminal tribunals prosecute individuals and not nations, nationalist groups in Croatia have raised the political costs of cooperation with the ICTY through rhetoric that equates the tribunal's indictments against Croatian individuals with an attack against the dignity and legitimacy of the Homeland War (1991-1995) and against the legitimacy of Croatia as a nation. The politics of cooperation reach beyond the domestic arena and also involve an interaction with ICTY officials, international institutions, and foreign governments. The Croatian government is caught between the competing pressures of nationalists who oppose cooperation and members of the international community who have conditioned Croatia's entry into Western organizations upon increased cooperation with the ICTY. The result has been an inconsistent, ad hoc policy that has quickly transformed the aftermath of each tribunal indictment of a Croatian general into a political crisis that threatens to undermine stability and the country's nascent democratization process. This article begins with a discussion of the tribunal's mandate and its limited power to compel state cooperation. It then places the Croatian government's dilemma concerning cooperation with the tribunal in the larger context of the experience of newly democratizing countries that confronted the question of transitional justice in the 1980s and the early 1990s. This is followed by an assessment of Croatia's cooperation with the ICTY under the authoritarian regime of Franjo Tudjman, which ruled the country from 1990 through 1999. It then evaluates cooperation with the ICTY during the first year of the reformist government of Ivica Racan. Next, the domestic politics of cooperation is examined through narratives of the government's response to several controversial war crimes indictments: the Mirko Norac indictment in early 2001; the Ante Gotovina and Rahim Ademi indictments in mid-2001, and the Janko Bobetko indictment in the fall of 2002. The article concludes with a discussion of the inherent conflict between the tribunal's mission to prosecute violations of international humanitarian law and the objective of many transitional regimes to delay such prosecutions in order to bolster their political standing vis-a-vis domestic opponents.

This Article addresses the report by the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) concerning war crimes allegedly committed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) during the conduct of its war with Yugoslavia. International law regarding the conduct of war, or jus in bello, governs what are popularly thought of as "war crimes." This body of law is currently in flux; while the OTP is not in any sense a rule-making body, its actions may give some guidance as to the direction that the development of this body of law will follow.The OTP considered NATO attacks on twenty-one targets in Yugoslavia as possible violations of existing jus in bello norms. The OTP categorized the issues raised by the accusations under the headings of environmental damage, use of depleted uranium projectiles, use of cluster bombs, and improper target selection. The first and last categories have the potential for the greatest impact on the formation of normative expectations regarding the conduct of war. The fourth problem can also be divided into two major subcategories: problems of discrimination and problems of proportionality. In each instance, the OTP found that NATO's actions did not violate existing norms, although in one instance the panel found itself divided. These outcomes were correct. The reasoning underlying the outcomes, though, is troubling. The rules of law it states and applies would exonerate not only NATO, but also the perpetrators of far more deliberate and destructive acts. The OTP seems to ignore the development of the jus in bello during the past decade, and perhaps during the past three decades. While the OTP is to be applauded for its decisions, its report nonetheless contains troubling assumptions about current normative expectations relating to the conduct of war.¶

This thesis highlights the centrality of gender, sexuality, and violence to the governing practices of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). It builds on queer, feminist and poststructural theories and contributes an innovative queer poststructural discourse analysis to studies of global politics. It does this by conceptualising the ICTY as a governance mechanism that is constituted by and adjudicates violence through the (re)production of cis-heteronormative discourses of gender, sexuality, and ethnic identity. The thesis shows how the ICTY is a gendered and gendering governance mechanism that is constitutive and agential, violent and violating. To do this, the thesis deconstructs discourses of gender, sexuality, and violence that are invoked by ICTY discourse, including the effects of these practices, such as legitimating criminalising and carceral responses to violence. The thesis begins by introducing its conceptual framework through an empirical analysis of the ICTY as a governance mechanism. Revealing the origin stories and logics of governance that constitute the ICTY, the thesis deploys cutting-edge queer methodology to highlight how the ICTY invokes gendered, Balkanist logics in its governing practices. These logics have significant effects on the ICTY's juridical practices, legitimating the construction, denunciation, and incarceration of hyper-heteromasculine Balkan criminals, and the silencing of feminised, Balkan victims. Analysing key legal documents from five ICTY cases, the thesis illustrates that the ICTY governs through representation by organising violence through objectifying, humiliating, and dehumanising logics. It exposes how practices of legal violence (including victimisation, denunciation, excision, and paternalism) perpetuate Balkanist logics and gendered discourses to construct certain types of victims, perpetrators, and adjudicators. These practices legitimate discursive and juridical possibilities such as imprisonment, and co-exist with subversive ...