Serbian President Boris Tadic announced at a news conference in Belgrade on Thursday that Ratko Mladic, the fugitive accused of masterminding the massacre at Srebrenica in 1995, had been captured but refused to give details.
Mr. Mladic, a former Bosnian Serb general, was one of the world’s most wanted criminals, evading capture for more than 15 years despite an increasing international effort to hunt him down. Serbian news reports said that he was living under the name of Milorad Komadic and was captured after a tip that he had identification documents for Mladic and appeared physically similar.
Why should they extradite this man to the Hague? The Serbians are competent and have standing to judge the man. Why give credibility to an extra-national court that has neither authority nor jurisdiction?
carl
Carl –
Serbia does not have a clear standing to try Mladic. Since this all occurred when Bosnia had just voted to secede from Yugoslavia, and Mladic was fighting to:
a) prevent this secession and/or
b) to separate the predominantly Serb portions of Bosnia (Republika Srpska) from Bosnia proper,
It can be argued that he was either a Bosnian citizen or a Yugoslav citizen at the time of his crimes. Better to try him by a third party than to either extradite him to Bosnia, where I doubt they could even seat a court to try him (for reasons of internal politics which are too byzantine to go into here) or to try him in Yugoslavia (read Serbia) where the court would be stacked in the opposite direction for other, equally byzantine reasons. A change of venue to the Hague is the best option.
Who held jurisdiction over Serbia in 1995 when the massacre at Srebrenica was committed such that Mladic violated the law? It must be either Serbia or Bosnia. There is no other competent authority available. If he didn’t violate either Serbian of Bosnian law, then whose law did he violate? Right about now some bright lawyer will say “International Law.” So how did Mladic come under the jurisdiction of “International Law” such that the ICC has competence to judge him?
The US doesn’t recognize the ICC because it doesn’t want some Eurocrat judge presuming to criminalize American Foreign Policy by calling it a ‘war crime.’ I have also been told that Chinese officials can’t be hauled before the ICC because China doesn’t recognize the ICC. So if the jurisdiction of the court depends upon national acquiescence, when did Serbia acquiesce prior to 1995 such that Mladic is not being charged according to ex post facto law? Or should I expect charges to be filed against the leadership of the PRC for Tienanmen Square?
If you want to shoot the guy, then shoot him. Far better that than to turn him over to an incompetent court whose sole purpose is not ‘international justice’ but establishing a temporal organization that presumes to sit in judgment of the sovereign nations – at least those too weak to do anything about it. In truth, justice is enforced when one nation imposes its will on another by force of arms. That’s why the Germans were hanged at Nuremberg. It wasn’t because they violated ‘international law.’ It was because the victorious powers presumed to impose judgment upon the Germans for their actions. The standard was not ‘international law.’ The standard was the victor’s sense of good and evil, combined with the victor’s sense of political expediency, combined with a victor’s desire for revenge. all leavened with a severe case of willful blindness about the Russians.
Legitimizing this court isn’t worth the price. Far better to let him be judged by an actual sovereign law-giver than by a bunch of judges appointed by people who think the UN and “International Law” are important.
carl
Carl,
Correct me if I am wrong – in the Nuremberg trials the charges were “crimes against humanity”, not violating international law (international law being a convention of positive laws). The historic context was that the Nazis were acting within the bounds of German law and so the prosecutors had to find another legal apparatus as the basis of proceeding with the trial. Hence, “crimes against humanity” was simply another way of expressing “natural law” and that German laws – failing to meet the standards of natural law – could not be offered up as a defense. Some legal theorists say that a human law in violation of a natural law is no law at all. Others say they may be laws but have no force.
#4 carl
[blockquote]Who held jurisdiction over Serbia in 1995 when the massacre at Srebrenica was committed…?[/blockquote]
Satan, I would suspect.
[blockquote]Right about now some bright lawyer will say “International Law.â€[/blockquote]
Very probably
[blockquote]So how did Mladic come under the jurisdiction of “International Law†such that the ICC has competence to judge him? [/blockquote]
In the same way that Radovan Karadžić was – handed over by a Serbian Judge and extradited to the Hague with the assistance of the Serbian government.
6. Pageantmaster[blockquote] In the same way that Radovan Karadžić was – handed over by a Serbian Judge and extradited to the Hague with the assistance of the Serbian government.[/blockquote] Is that the price of admission into the EU these days?
Beyond that rather obvious point, you didn’t answer the question. Whose law did Mladic violate in 1995? Sure, the ICC has the power to try him if it has custody. That doesn’t mean it has any legitimate jurisdiction. If Mladic is being charged with a crime against humanity, then when will I see arrest warrants issued for leaders in the PRC for their similar crimes? Or does the ICC only prosecute those who can’t shoot back?
carl
#7 carl
[blockquote]Is that the price of admission into the EU these days?[/blockquote]
I have no idea, but it certainly won’t hurt the prospects of Serbia to show that it has a working legal system and judiciary.
[blockquote]Whose law did Mladic violate in 1995?[/blockquote]
A Serbian judge is considering that matter at the moment from what I understand on the news. If the indictments have already been publicly released, I haven’t yet seen them. Even though law and order had broken down in 1995, I suspect the relevant domestic laws are those of the former Republic of Yugoslavia, and the treaties which Yugoslavia had entered into which probably continued to apply to the area.
Of course there may also be breaches of International Law, but since you don’t believe that exists, you needn’t worry your head about it. Interestingly Mr Karadžić has been using your argument. It hasn’t got him very far at the moment.
The rest of your questions are too nebulous to consider in relation to the issues Mr Mladic faces from the ICC and under domestic Serbian law. We will have to see what the competent authorities in Serbia decide.
Mladic is going to be tried by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), not the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICTY was established by the UN Security Council (of which the US is a permanent member with veto rights) in 1993 under their Chapter Seven authority (which by the terms on the UN Charter makes the action legally binding on states). The ICTY has jurisdiction to try individuals for violations of international humanitarian law (including war crimes) that occurred during the Bosnian war of the 1990’s. The Tribunal (see http://www.icty.org) has already tried and convicted a number of individuals (as well as acquitted several), including Serbs and Croats. The US Government, has supported these trials since the 1990’s, including during the Bush Administration, which is one of my “other duties as assigned” at work.
8. Pageantmaster
[blockquote] [I]t certainly won’t hurt the prospects of Serbia to show that it has a working legal system and judiciary.[/blockquote] No, it won’t hurt at all. From the linked article. [blockquote] Many of the 27 members of the European Union had been in favor of rewarding Belgrade for its recent tilt toward Europe and the United States by advancing its move toward membership in the bloc. But some, especially the Netherlands, had insisted that as long as Mr. Mladic remained free, Serbia could not join the union. [/blockquote] Justice as Quid Pro Quo?[blockquote] A Serbian judge is considering that matter at the moment from what I understand on the news.[/blockquote] An interesting system you have here. Arrest the suspect, and then figure out how to charge him.[blockquote] [S]ince you don’t believe that exists, you needn’t worry your head about it.[/blockquote] I don’t worry about it. I worry about people trying to enforce it against the interests of the US. I worry about policy differences being criminalized. Like (say) a US soldier being hauled before a court to answer for what some prosecutor considers an illegal war. Like (say) the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The US is a sovereign nation and no temporal court stands in judgment of it. Do you think I am paranoid? This is the exact reason the US doesn’t recognize the ICC.[blockquote] It hasn’t got him very far at the moment.[/blockquote] Life’s hard when you are Serbian and not Chinese. Little states don’t have much capacity to intimidate the ICC, especially when they want something from the nation that hosts the ICC.[blockquote] The rest of your questions are too nebulous to consider[/blockquote] Those would be the questions about the immunity of large powerful countries from “international law”, I suspect. The questions you never answer because there is no answer.
carl
#9 Thankyou AG – that is helpful information.
9. Already Gone
Clear something up for me. Yugoslavia dissolved and was removed from the UN in 1992. Serbia wasn’t admitted to the UN until
[url=http://www.undp.org.rs/index.cfm?event=public.un ]01 November 2000[/url]. So do I understand this correctly? Mladic is being charged with a crime by virtue of the fact that he was a citizen of a country that was once a member UN state even though that country did not exist at the time of the crime, and had been removed from the UN three years earlier? How is the UN charter binding on a state that is not a member nation? How is the UN charter binding on the citizens of a state that no longer exists?
This level of arbitrariness is what drives me crazy about this subject. All that matters is finding some basis no matter how incredible for making the charge. In fact, they are acting as if there is a code of law above the nations to which every nation is subject. They do not specify an authority for this law. They do not even attempt to evenly apply this law. They simply act as if it exists, and they apply it when it suits their convenience. In fact, there is no code. There are only dominant powers who determine for themselves what standards of behavior they will tolerate, and what behaviors they will punish. As the dominant powers change, the standards of behavior change. This tribunal reflects nothing more than the dominance and the interests and the reach of western powers. That last qualification is essential to understanding this matter.
carl
#12 carl
[blockquote]In fact, they are acting as if there is a code of law above the nations to which every nation is subject. They do not specify an authority for this law. They do not even attempt to evenly apply this law. They simply act as if it exists, and they apply it when it suits their convenience. In fact, there is no code.[/blockquote]
Your argument is circular carl, and answers your own question. You do not believe that there is any law outside of or above domestic national law, so your question about how action can be taken by for example the United Nations, is framed to ensure that only an answer that it is not lawful [by your own definition] is possible. This is a category error, based on your assumption that nations cannot contract to be bound by law [and to bind others]. You say that if a nation does not exist, by your definition in this case of recognition by the UN, therefore no one in that nation is responsible under any code, national or international for their actions, nor can be held to account for them.
Of course nations have so contracted, as in this case by signing the United Nations Charter, and those nations do regard themselves, and others as bound by the rules and decisions they have so made and contracted to be bound by. Whether any other individual or nation recognises that binds their own behaviour or responsibility does not concern the applicability of that code so far as the members are concerned, and they are quite at liberty and do require their own courts, and the courts of others such as Serbia who are also members to apply those rules, including if necessary retrospectively.
Whether or not such codes and decisions are applied across the board is neither here nor there. It is a developing area and increasingly applied, so for example, as Already Gone points out, some codes have more international recognition and acceptance than others. The US as a signatory in this case regards the ICTY as having jurisdiction, whereas it has not agreed to be bound by the ICC. This reflects the implimentation of treaties by countries. Treaties ratified by a few countries bind only those countries until they reach a critical mass. Some treaties never get to the stage of popular ratification, where as others such as the various ‘Laws of the Sea’ are almost universally accepted and are applied by countries. Consent is a feature of law, and it is not necessary for its application in this case for Mladic or the relevant state at the time to have accepted the jurisdiction of the ICTY, any more than it is necessary for each individual to agree with it for domestic law to exist.
I haven’t looked into it but I think that whether the area of former Yugoslavia concerned was still governed by the laws of former Yugoslavia, it is likely that the UN remained seized of jurisdiction in matters concerning the area under the UN charter, in the same way as it does in Libya. While Srebenica was going on, the UN was seized of the matter and had a presence, although shamefully not the ability or will to prevent the massacre which occured. However the long arm of the law has thankfully caught up with both Karadžic, Mladic and a number of others.