Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T05:01:52.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Divided We Stand? The AD HOC Tribunals and the CEE Region

Part of: International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda: Broadening the Debate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Veronika Bílková
Veronika Bílková*
Affiliation:
Institute of International Relations in Prague
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

After WWII, countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) actively backed the establishment of the military tribunals in Nuremberg and Tokyo. In the early 1990s, when the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and for Rwanda (ICTR) were created by the UN Security Council, the CEE countries again lent uniform, albeit largely rhetorical support to these institutions. A quarter of a century later, this uniformity seems to be gone. While the CEE countries continue to express belief in international criminal justice, they no longer agree with each other on whether this justice has actually been served by the ad hoctribunals. The diverging views on the achievements of the ICTY and ICTR might also partly account for the differences in the approach to the permanent International Criminal Court (ICC), though the grounds for these differences are more complex.

Type
Symposium on the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda: Broadening the Debate
Information
AJIL Unbound , Volume 110 , 2016 , pp. 240 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2016

References

1 UN Scor, 47th Sess., 3217th mtg. at 44, UN Doc. S/PV.3217 (May 25, 1993).

2 Id.

3 See Kovanda, Karel: The Czech Republic on the UN Security Council: The Rwandan Genocide, 5 Genocide Stud. & Prevention 192 (2010).

4 UN Scor, 49th Sess., 3453d mtg., UN Doc. S/PV.3453(Nov. 8,1994).

5 See 1993-1994 Y.B. Pol. Foreign Pol’y (1994).

6 SeeDeborahAvant & ErikVoeten, Who runs the international criminal justice system?, in, Who Governs The Globe? 35, 48-50 (DeborahAvant et al. eds., 2010).

7 Id.

8 Мезяев А.Б., Международный уголовный трибунал по бывшей гославии - незаконный, зависимый и пристрастный суд, in ДВОЙНЫЕ СТАНДАРТЫ В ЗАЩИТЕ ПРАВ ЧЕЛОВЕКА: КАЗУС ПРОФЕССОРА ШЕШЕЛЯ 15-49(2009).

9 ООН, Представитель России – недавние оправдательные приговоры МТ Б «дискредитируют идею международного уголовного правосудия(Dec. 6, 2012).

10 Ministry of Foreign Affairs Russia, Statement by the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the UN Vitaly Churkin at the meeting of the UN General Assembly on agenda items “Report of ICTY” and “Report of ICTR”, (Oct. 13, 2008); Ministry of Foreign Affairs Russia, Acquittal of Ante Gotovinaand Mladen Markac by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, (Nov. 19, 2012); Karadzic case: Russia slams ICC over making solely Serbians responsible for Yugoslavia war crimes, Panorama (Mar. 26, 2016).

11 Moscow says Karadžić verdict continues myth of Serbs’ sole responsibility for Yugoslav war, TASS (Mar. 25, 2016).

12 РФ рассмотрит вопрос об отношении к МУС изза процесса по жной Осетии, РИАНОВОСТИ (Jan. 29., 2016).

13 Распоряжение Президента Российской Федерации от 16.11.2016 № 361-рп “О намерении Российской Федерации не стать участником Римского статута Международного уголовного суда.”