International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the context of "Crimes against humanity"

⭐ In the context of crimes against humanity, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) is notable for what key distinction in its jurisdiction?

Ad spacer

⭐ Core Definition: International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was an ad hoc court of the United Nations that was established to prosecute the war crimes that had been committed during the Yugoslav Wars and to try their perpetrators. The tribunal was located in The Hague, Netherlands and operated between 1993 and 2017.

It was established by Resolution 827 of the United Nations Security Council, which was passed on 25 May 1993. It had jurisdiction over four clusters of crimes committed on the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991: grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, violations of the laws or customs of war, genocide, and crimes against humanity. The maximum sentence that it could impose was life imprisonment. Various countries signed agreements with the United Nations to carry out custodial sentences.

↓ Menu

>>>PUT SHARE BUTTONS HERE<<<

👉 International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the context of Crimes against humanity

Crimes against humanity are certain crimes committed as part of a large-scale attack against civilians. Unlike war crimes, crimes against humanity can be committed during both peace and war and against a state's own nationals as well as foreign nationals. Together with war crimes, genocide, and the crime of aggression, crimes against humanity are one of the core crimes of international criminal law and, like other crimes against international law, have no temporal or jurisdictional limitations on prosecution (where universal jurisdiction is recognized).

The first prosecution for crimes against humanity took place during the Nuremberg trials and Subsequent Nuremberg trials against defeated leaders of Nazi Germany and collaborators. Crimes against humanity have been prosecuted by other international courts (such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Special Court for Sierra Leone, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, and the International Criminal Court) as well as by domestic courts. The law of crimes against humanity has primarily been developed as a result of the evolution of customary international law. Crimes against humanity are not codified in an international convention, so an international effort to establish such a treaty, led by the Crimes Against Humanity Initiative, has been underway since 2008.

↓ Explore More Topics
In this Dossier

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the context of Intent to destroy

Genocidal intent is the specific mental element, or mens rea, required to classify an act as genocide under international law, particularly the 1948 Genocide Convention. To establish genocide, perpetrators must be shown to have had the dolus specialis, or specific intent, to destroy a particular national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, in whole or in part. Unlike broader war crimes or crimes against humanity, genocidal intent necessitates a deliberate aim to eliminate the targeted group rather than merely displace or harm its members.

The concept of genocidal intent is complex and has spurred significant legal debate, primarily due to the challenge of proving an individual’s intent to destroy a group without direct evidence. International criminal tribunals, such as those for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, have relied on circumstantial evidence to infer intent, considering the scale, systematic nature, and targeting patterns of atrocities. Legal standards for genocidal intent have varied, with some rulings demanding dolus directus (direct intent to cause harm) and others allowing for dolus indirectus (foreseeable consequences accepted by the perpetrator). This discrepancy has influenced judicial outcomes, as seen in the acquittal of certain defendants under stringent intent requirements, leading some scholars to advocate for a knowledge-based standard to better facilitate genocide convictions.

↑ Return to Menu

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the context of Stari Most

The Old Bridge (Serbo-Croatian: Stari most), also known as the Mostar Bridge, is a rebuilt 16th-century Ottoman bridge in the city of Mostar in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It crosses the river Neretva and connects the two parts of the city, which is named after the bridge keepers (mostari) who guarded the Old Bridge during the Ottoman era. Commissioned by Suleiman the Magnificent in 1557 and designed by Mimar Hayruddin, a student and apprentice of the architect Mimar Sinan, the Old Bridge is an exemplary piece of Balkan Islamic architecture.

During the Croat–Bosniak War, the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ARBiH) used the bridge as a military supply line, leading the Croatian Defence Council (HVO) to shell and destroy it on 9 November 1993. Subsequently, the bridge was reconstructed, and it reopened on 23 July 2004. In 2017, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) deemed that the bridge was a legitimate military target.

↑ Return to Menu

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the context of Common purpose

The doctrine of common purpose, common design, joint enterprise, joint criminal enterprise or parasitic accessory liability is a common law legal doctrine that imputes criminal liability to the participants in a criminal enterprise for all reasonable results from that enterprise. The common purpose doctrine was established in English law, and later adopted in other common-law jurisdictions including Scotland, Ireland, Australia, Trinidad and Tobago, the Solomon Islands, Texas, the International Criminal Court, and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

Common design also applies in the law of tort. It is a different legal test from that which applies in the criminal law. The difference between common designs in the criminal law and the civil law was illustrated in NCB v Gamble [1959] 1 QB 11 at 23, by Devlin LJ:

↑ Return to Menu

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the context of Ratko Mladić

Ratko Mladić (Serbian Cyrillic: Ратко Младић, pronounced [râtko mlǎːdit͡ɕ]; born 12 March 1942) is a Serbian former military officer who led the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) during the Yugoslav Wars. In 2017, he was found guilty of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). He is serving a life sentence for these crimes in The Hague.

A long-time member of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia, Mladić began his career in the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) in 1965. He came to prominence during the Yugoslav Wars, initially as a high-ranking officer of the JNA and subsequently as the Chief of Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska in the Bosnian War of 1992–1995. In July 1996, the Trial Chamber of the ICTY, proceeding in the absence of Mladić under the ICTY's Rule 61, confirmed all counts of the original indictments, finding there were reasonable grounds to believe he had committed the alleged crimes, and issued an international arrest warrant. The Serbian and United States' governments offered €5 million for information leading to Mladić's capture and arrest, but he remained at large for nearly sixteen years, initially sheltered by Serbian and Bosnian Serb security forces and later by family.

↑ Return to Menu

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the context of United Nations Security Council Resolution 827

United Nations Security Council resolution 827, adopted unanimously on 25 May 1993, after reaffirming Resolution 713 (1991) and all subsequent resolutions on the topic of the former Yugoslavia, approved report S/25704 of Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, with the Statute of the International Tribunal as an annex, establishing the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

Still alarmed at violations of international humanitarian law in former Yugoslavia and especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including mass killings, systematic detention and rape of women, and ethnic cleansing, the resolution determined that the situation continued to pose a threat to international peace and security, further announcing its intention to bring an end to such crimes and bring justice to the victims. The council decided that the establishment of a tribunal and the prosecution of persons responsible would address such violations, reaffirming its decision in Resolution 808 (1993).

↑ Return to Menu

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the context of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1503

United Nations Security Council resolution 1503, adopted unanimously on 28 August 2003, after recalling resolutions 827 (1993), 955 (1994), 978 (1995), 1165 (1998), 1166 (1998), 1329 (2000), 1411 (2002), 1431 (2002) and 1481 (2003), the Council decided to split the prosecutorial duties of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) which had previously been under the responsibility of one official, Carla Del Ponte, since 1999.

↑ Return to Menu