Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T14:31:06.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia: Some Introductory Remarks From a Defence Point of View

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2009

Jan M. Sjöcrona
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Antonio Cassese, who is now President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), once observed from an academic point of view:

[i]nternational legal control of warfare has kept pace with the developments in organized armed violence only to a limited extend. Major military Powers have not accepted sweeping restraints, with the consequence that this body of law is beset with deficiencies, loopholes, and ambiguity.

Keywords

evidenceinternational humanitarian lawwar crimeswitnessesYugoslavia.
Type
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , Autumn 1995 , pp. 463 - 474
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Cassese, A., International Law in a Divided World 285 (1992).Google Scholar

2. UN Doc. S/RES/808 (1993).

3. UN Doc. 4S/RES/827 (1993); and UN Doc. S/25704 and Add. 1 (1993).

4. UN Doc. S25704 and Add. 1.

5. UN Doc. IT/32 (1994); amended on 5 May 1994 and on 4 October 1994. See UN Doc. IT/32 Rev.2 (1994).

6. For a discussion on some of the examples, see also Sjöcrona, J.M., Oorlogstribunaalin Den Haag, Veel Vragenen Weinig Antwoorden, 1993 Nederlands Juristenblad 1435–1442.Google Scholar

7. Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 808, UN Doc. S/25704, para. 28 (1993).

8. The opinion is shared by C.F. Rüter in a lecture given on 6 December 1993, which unfortunately has not been published. See also van den Wijngaert, C., Een Intemationaal Strafhof voor ex-Joegoslavië: een deus ex machina, 1993 Panopticon 290 and 289–294.Google Scholar

9. See also Dixon, R., New Developments in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia: Prominent Leaders Indicted and Jurisdiction Established, 8 LJIL 449 (1995), and specifically Section 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10. See Report of the Secretary-General, supra note 7.

11. Directive on the Assignment of Defence Counsel (Directive No. 1 /94), UN Doc. IT/73/Rev. 1(1994).

12. Special Task Force of the American Bar Association (Section of International Law and Practice), Report on the International Tribunal to Ajudicate War Crimes Committed in the Former Yugoslavia 30 (1993).

13. Id., at 31.

14. Interim Report of the Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), UN Doc. S/25274, at 15 (para. 48) (1993).

15. See note 8, supra.

16. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 78 UNTS 277(1951).