Talk:International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

older talk

[206.124.129.30]: I found the listed criticisms and other additions to reflect a Serbo-centric viewpoint. Accordingly, I added counter-arguments and expounded on some points. However, I cannot say in all fairness that my own viewpoint is neutral on this matter, so the reader is advised that while differing viewpoints are represented, neither is objective. Further reading is advised.

---

I believe that this edit is pushing a POV. Does anyone care to comment?

Acegikmo1 18:51, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well ok it is a bit biased - personally I consider the opening line that it is a "body of the UN" when it is specifically not set up per the UN Charter a bit dodgy. "body of the Security Council but not of the UN General Assembly" is clumsy but accurate - I also think the fact it is funded by NATO members, while mentioned in Shea's quote, is sufficiently important as to whether it is independent of Nato or simply (as I believe) their corrupt propaganda arm to warrent mention in the main body. On the other hand the editor has admitted his bias which is half way & more importantly has put up most of the anti-nazi case.

Compare this with the Tudjman biography page which is taken verbatim from the Croatian nazi government & all edits are verbotten or Srebrenica where, while their is a "Revisionist" section only Natoists are allowed to write it.

New appeal for a npov check

So, how about a new check? --ThomasK 10:41, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

This page is one third simple description. Then 2/3rds critisizing it. There is no attempt to ballence this with a description of it's achievemnts. Editing is just going to give the bias a false veneer of neutrality. Dejvid 15:06, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I removed the below section. Dejvid is correct that the article deals too much with criticism and the below potion is quite POV. The passage, attributed to unnamed critics, also seems like original research. - SimonP 06:10, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

"An apparently disproportionately large number of indictees are Serbs" - well, disproportionately large number of indictees in Nuremberg were Germans, no? I thought about correcting some of the worst bias, but then, we could do this forever. Why not just put that "neutrality of this article is disputed" sign and let readers think for themselves (including reading this talk page)? I am new here - how do pages acquire "neutrality disputed" banner? -- bonzi 21:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

No. All indictees in Nuremberg were Germans, because it was a court created to judge German leaders. Such a sentence would not be necessary if ICTY was created to judge only Serbian leaders. But it supposedly was not.

You add the banner by inserting {{NPOV}} at the top of the page. You are also expected to describe what you see as not neutral on the talk page, else someone will likely remove it. If your description is sound, no one is supposed to remove it (though there are people who are doing that), until the page is made NPOV, or at least the discussion shows that you are wrong. It is nice if same person who put the tag in removes it after the article is changed, because that shows that you agree with the changes. Nikola 08:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikola. I will think it over and not do anything hastily. It's just that this "disproportionally large number of Serbs" really gets on my nerves (and it reflects some western diplomats' - in particular British - now abandoned calls for "more balanced approach", meaning, for each Serb atrocity invent some from other two sides; of course, the idea was to hide the fact they could have prevented or stopped the carnage at the very beginning, by just not encouraging Milošević). --bonzi 23:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Just don't think that I agree with anything you said. Nikola 05:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think you would :) --bonzi 23:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Trudjman

I think that Franjo Tuđman should be added. The fact that he is dead does not change the fact that he would now sit in Hague. HolyRomanEmperor 17:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Not only Tudjman, BUT THE WHOLE NAZI-HDZ CROATIAN GOVERNMENT from 1995, responsible for the actions 'Storm' and similar, when many innocent people were killed; They should be all added. An indication that this will happen has been set up a while ago. Hopefully they will add all those monsters to the Haag Criminal Tribunal and they will be judged for what they've done. Cheers.24.86.110.10 (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If he was indicted he should be on the list. If not, we should not try to guess at "what might have been". Rmhermen 23:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

There was a statement that he was under investigation and would possibly be indicted had he lived. I agree he should not be added. Nikola 07:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not mention (with citations) that he was being considered for an indictment, and just leave it at that? It's factual, without venturing into speculation. Wandering Star 05:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to mention people that might have been indicted I suggest you should ad a few more. Del Ponte said on numerous occasions that Izetbegovic might have been indicted as well if he had not died. Moreover the probably biggest war criminals in the whole Yugoslav Wars, Blagoje Adzic and Veljko Kadijevic might have been indicted if Louise Arbour had staid the chief prosecutor. While she was in charge large investigations have been made against these two and others but thanks to del Ponte, these investigations have been cancelled. So if Arbour was chief prosecutor these two might have been indicted as well. Also one or two years ago I have read an interview with del Ponte where she was asked why there have been no investigations against some UN officials like Yasushi Akashi and general Janvier although many Muslims consider them responsible for the massacre in Srebrenica. Her answer was that they considered this but could not start investigations because of time restrictions. This means that Akashi might have also been indicted if they had more time. Finally, when the defence teams of the generals Markac and Cermak asked the prosecution, who exactly according to the prosecution was part of the supposed “joint criminal venture” during operation Oluja the answer included a list of about 6000 people. This means that actually any police man, soldier, general or politician from that period might have been indicted. In fact it seems like pure coincidence that for instance Mladen Markac was indicted while others were not.

Milosevic

Milosevic is dead. The good news is that the whole "Greater Serbia" movement may be dying too. The bad news is, he died before he recieved any sentence from The Hague. This trial was fairly unique. It's one of the first of it's kind since the Nuremberg trials. However, the Nuremberg trials reached a decisive conclusion, which in turn allowed the healing process to begin, and established the legal authority of a court like the ICC. This trial did not. Europe's lodestone has always been, and always will be, it's inability to unite over much of anything. Here was the opportunity for the ICC to justify it's existence by bringing a war criminal to justice. The ICC instead became weighed down with beuracracy and indecision, to the point where it could not frunction well enough to reach a verdict of either innocence or guilt before the defendant died in his cell. Maybe the judges thought this would relieve them of the burden of having to say something controversial, which either verdict would have been. But it just makes the Court look spineless and weak, unable to take a stand. Their inability to reach a consensus within the time needed shows the inefficiency of this court, and displays for all the world to see it's fatal flaw. War criminals need not fear the ICC. Milosevic got away with it. The signal sent out by his death is that all the other war criminals probably will, too. Wandering Star 05:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I know this is old, but ICTY =/= ICC

List

The list of indictees currently contains 86 of the 161 indictees. I would like to expand it to a complete listing but wonder if it shouldn't be moved onto its own page. Any opinions? Rmhermen 15:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The list now contains 147 names - the same number as on the drop down list at ICTY Indictments. Are the rest, some 14, still under sealed indictments? Rmhermen 15:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of the rest either had their indicments withdrawn or died. There should only be 2 or 3 still missing from the list. Rmhermen 15:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I found one more name and recounted - I think the list is complete now. Rmhermen 16:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I was Bold and moved the list to List of ICTY indictees. Rmhermen 16:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Length of Trial

What a farce this court is. How long has it been since these crimes were committed? 10 years, 12 years and longer. The UN isn't interested in Justice. Only in spending the money of the American people. I say someone create an article about the ridiculousness of the length of the trial. Execute the offenders and be done with it. What a farce. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.219.241.10 (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

You don't have any idea what a monumental task they are up for, are you? The number of witnesses that needs to be heard, the enormous amount of evidence that has to be gone through...they are taking the law seriously, at least compared to the mock Iraqi court that had Saddam and the two other hanged before the full range of accusations had been dealt with. MoRsE 20:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral presentation

There are a number of conclusory statements and value judgments in this article. Some of them may be accurate, but the presentation does not allow the reader to verify or dispute the concepts. As such, the neutrality of this article is suspect.

Examples:

Calling the tribunal "The Victor's Tribunal for the Losers of the Yugoslavian War". Using Google, I couldn't find one page referring to the tribunal with this name.

I can't find the phrase in the article. Nikola

"In 2004, the ICTY published a list of five successes which it claimed it had accomplished:" The statement implies that the successes were not accomplished but does not provide any reason why the reader should think the success were not accomplished.

In one sentence, you say that it is not obvious why the reader should think the successes were not accomplished; in another, that section on criticism is too large. Perhaps the two things have something to do with each other ;) Nikola

"An apparently disproportionately large number (~3/4) of indictees are Serbs." Disproportionate is a conclusion. The truth may be that the number is disproportionate, but the article does not make clear how it is disproportionate. Is it disproportionate to the population in the former Yugoslavia, to the number of deaths, to the number of complaints, or to some other number?

It's disproportionate to all of them. Nikola

"Serbian indictees are of higher rank than those of other nations and face with broader accusations" This is in the criticism section of the article, so the statement is meant as a criticism. Unfortunately, it is not clear why this is a problem.

I don't understand why it isn't clear. Nikola

"However, this fails to explain why a number of specific crimes committed against Serbs are not prosecuted." Which "specific" crimes? The article claims that there are specific crimes that have gone unprosecuted but does not provide any more information. Again, this statement may be 100% correct, but the reader has no way to verify the assertion.

Any of them? Nikola

"The Tribunal's power to issue secret indictments creates uncertainty among people who regard themselves as possible indictees, which places an unreasonable strain on their ability to proceed with their everyday lives, both in the short and long term." The word unreasonable is a value judgment. It seems obvious that the possibility of a secret indictment could be a strain on some people. But, to call it an "unreasonable" strain is to make a value judgment about the reasonableness or necessity of the secret indictments. This statement is in the criticisms section of the article (good), but it doesn't have enough information to allow the reader to agree or disagree with the value judgment (bad).

I agree, "unreasonable" could be removed. Nikola 22:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is only a partial list of problems. In fact, if these were the only problems, then I would have simply edited the article. Finally, the fact that the overwhelming majority of the article is in the section titled "Criticisms of the Court" should make us suspect that there is a neutrality problem here.

67.39.184.122 16:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that Criticism section is very long, but note that it does not contains only criticism. For example:

An apparently disproportionately large number (~3/4) of indictees are Serbs (to the extent that a sizeable portion of the Bosnian Serb and Serbian political and military leaderships have been indicted), whereas there have been very few indictments resulting from crimes committed against Serbs (many Croat indictees were charged with crimes committed against Bosnian Muslims); furthermore, Serbian indictees are of higher rank than those of other nations and face with broader accusations. Defenders of the Tribunal respond that Serb control of the established command structure (and most of the weaponry) of the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) from the start of the various wars facilitated the commission of crimes on a wider and more organised scale; furthermore, the Serb command structure facilitated the identification of those with command responsibility for war crimes. However, this fails to explain why a number of specific crimes committed against Serbs are not prosecuted.

If a single sentence about any of the important points on which ICTY is criticised and a single sentence to refute it is added to the section, well, it grows to be large. Note also that there are many criticisms which are not in the section: for example, accusations of staff being selected on political basis, accusations of the using fake witnesses, criticism of its use of common law system, of the practice plea bargain, of making its own rules of procedure, mistreatment of specific indictees (Seselj)... Nikola 22:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Also conspicuously absent from the "criticism" section are serious allegations by Western scholars that the Tribunal's proceedings bear little resemblance to those of criminal courts in most democratic societies. The accused do not have the right to a trial by jury. There is no clear demarcation between prosecution and judges. The judges and prosecutors are overwhelmingly from NATO countries (enemies of the Serbs). In effect the accused are being tried by a panel of political appointees rather than a jury of their peers. The accused have limited ability to subpoena witnesses. Hearsay evidence is admissible, denying the accused the right to cross-examine witnesses. The prosecution has the right to appeal acquittals, denying the freedom from double jeopardy. Indictments are issued in secret, and the accused is not entitled to an indictment hearing, meaning habeas corpus is also effectively denied. Apart from all that is the fact the Del Ponte refused to indict NATO leaders in the face of clear evidence of serious breaches of the Geneva Conventions during the 1999 NATO bomings. Justice that is not applied evenly is not justice. It is something else.

About an item on “Criticism” section

*In the political analysts milieu one can frequently encounter the following thesis: court verdicts do not succeed in writing history. Historians have observed that trials like the Nuremberg trials or the Tokyo processes did not affect German and Japanese populaces, respectively, in the wished-for way: they resulted in national homogenization and helped form a uniform, self-defensive opinion which treated these judicial processes as show trials or a weapon of revenge wielded by occupying forces. Only after more than two decades and the onset of economic prosperity did German general public come to agree with the many-but not all- points encountered in the Nuremberg trials indicements; on the other hand, frequent Sino-Japanese and Korean-Japanese diplomatic clashes about the veracity of Japanese history textbooks testify that Japanese public opinion have not, generally, accepted the interpretation of the WW2 history prevalent in the US, the EU and the neighboring countries, most importantly Korea and China. Criticism along these lines has been voiced with regard to the ICTY. The involved nations' public opinions, particularly those of Serbs and Croats, as well as of their dominant intellectual elites (especially with regard to historiography, political, economic and sociological analyses; also, political journalism, geopolitical analyses and military history), do not seem to be willing to accept or agree with the theses of the Hague court that, in their respective views, pretend to pass the final verdict on the turbulent periods of their national histories. Overviews of Croatian and Serbian history books and best-selling political journalism, as well as opinion polls, show the predictable course of events has occurred: peoples, as a rule, do not accept other's assessment of their national histories, especially if these evaluations are seen as being predominantly politically motivated. Since the majority of Serbs and Croats, a minority of Bosnians and Albanians, and a sizeable part of international community legal experts consider the ICTY to be a political court and the puppet of Anglo-American geopolitical interests- the possibility that the ICTY's verdicts will be, in a foreseeable future, regarded as impartial by the recently warring sides it has been founded to deal with is- virtually nil.

Welll, I think this entire item is unencyclopedic, uninformative and more a point-of-view statement than anything else. So I’ve decide it was better to remove it since it’s not necessary for the understanting of the article.--MaGioZal 07:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Any info on whether the Serb government tried to justify or defend themselves using the loophole in international law regarding ethnic cleansing?

• Timothy V. Waters, On the Legal Construction of Ethnic Cleansing, Paper 951, 2006, University of Mississippi School of Law.

--Stor stark7 ^Talk 21:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation template for ICTY documents?

Does a citation template for documents of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia already exist somewhere? If so, can someone advise me where to find it? If not, would an editor who is knowledgeable in these things be willing to create one or assist me in creating one? The most-referenced articles should be indictments and decisions, but some may want to use transcripts and other documents as well. The ICTY web site might be helpful in this endeavor. I have asked this same question over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International law with no response so far, so I thought I'd try here as well. Many thanks in advance for any help. Civilaffairs (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Civilaffairs