On trial before the world
Former Yugoslav president Milosevic has been brought to stand trial for atrocities committed in Kosovo. What is the legal basis for trying the ex-dictator, and why haven’t other leaders accused of engineering mass slaughter been brought to justice?
How was Milosevic captured?
The process began last October, when mass protests forced Milosevic from power after he refused to recognize constitutional lawyer Vojislav Kostunica as the winner in the Yugoslav presidential elections. Milosevic hid in his home until police arrested him on corruption charges on April 1. Before Milosevic could stand trial, the U.S. threatened to block $1.28 billion in aid to Yugoslavia unless he was handed over to an international criminal tribunal. President Kostunica said the extradition was illegal, but the Serbian government bowed to the pressure and sent Milosevic to the Netherlands.
What is he being charged with?
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Milosevic is charged with crimes against humanity and violating the laws of war in Kosovo. After Kosovar leaders began calling for independence in 1998, Milosevic sent troops there to crush an armed uprising by the ethnic Albanian majority. Milosevic is specifically cited for ruthlessly evicting more than 700,000 Kosovar Albanians—the process of “ethnic cleansing”—and for giving orders that led to the execution of 340 people,
mainly civilians.
Does he face other charges?
Chief prosecutor Carla Del Ponte predicts that the trial on the listed charges could last up to two years. But she has not ruled out bringing additional charges involving the carnage in Bosnia, where Bosnian Serbs slaughtered tens of thousands of Muslims and engaged in mass rape. Milosevic’s opponents would likely want to establish that he encouraged or even ordered such massacres, including the killing of 7,000 Muslims in Srebrenica in July 1995.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Who is trying Milosevic?
The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) indicted the Serbian leader for his actions in Kosovo. The United Nations originally set up this tribunal in The Hague in 1993 to investigate atrocities in the wars in Croatia and, later, Bosnia. The prosecution of Milosevic marks the first time a U.N. body has tried a head of state. In 1994, a comparable body based in Arusha, Tanzania, was organized to prosecute the leaders of the Rwandan genocide, during which 800,000 (mostly Tutsis) were killed. That tribunal is still active, and continues to hold trials for the hundreds of people charged with participating in the massacres.
How does the ICTY differ from Nuremberg?
The Nuremberg International Military Tribunal was set up in 1945 to prosecute members of the Nazi regime for crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, violations of the rules of war, and conspiracy to commit these criminal acts. At that time, a second court, set up in Tokyo, prosecuted Japanese leaders for their wartime roles. The main difference between the World War II courts and the Rwanda and Yugoslav tribunals is that the former ones involved the war’s victors bringing the losers to trial for their actions. The current tribunals were set up by the U.N. to try alleged criminals on all sides of the conflict.
Why have there been so few war-crimes trials?
Most countries are loath to give up their judicial sovereignty, making it difficult for international courts to issue binding judgments. A case in point is the International Criminal Court (ICC), which was established in July 1998 in Rome. Although 120 nations voted to create the Rome Statute, 60 nations are required to ratify it, and only a few have done so. The U.S. has refused to ratify until an amendment is added that gives immunity for official government acts—an assurance that the U.S. won’t be put on trial itself. In addition, international tribunals have been extremely slow and expensive in their pursuit of justice. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, for example, has spent nearly half a billion dollars and achieved only nine convictions.
Will the validity of thistrial be challenged?
A defiant Milosevic has declared the proceedings illegal. Some Serbian leaders, such as Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic, have said that Milosevic must first be discredited by a domestic trial before his own people will accept a U.N. verdict. Yugoslavia’s president, Vojislav Kostunica, has long said that the tribunal is biased against Serbs. Critics say the U.S. is hypocritical for supporting the trial, questioning why no NATO member has been indicted, even though Serbian civilians were killed in the bombing of Belgrade. Others have pointed out that the U.S. and its Western allies negotiated with Milosevic as a peacemaker, only to later turn against him.
How strong is the case against Milosevic?
Ever since Nuremburg, the argument goes, criminal leaders have learned not to leave paper trails. This lack of physical evidence is one reason many were convinced that Milosevic would never stand trial, and why his conviction, all appearances to the contrary, could be difficult to obtain. Prosecutors may need to rely on eyewitness testimony to demonstrate that Milosevic had command of the military personnel who killed the Kosovars, that he was aware of their actions, and did not try to stop them.
The path to power
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
-
The African asylum seekers fighting for Israel in Gaza
Under the Radar 'Quid pro quo' recruitment offer condemned as unethical as Israel seeks to address shortage of soldiers
By The Week Staff Published
-
Instagram rolls out teen accounts with new limits
Speed Read After facing pushback over child safety, Meta announced that all users under 18 will have their Instagram accounts modified
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
Arizona official sues to bar 100K from local voting
Speed Read A large number of residents who have not submitted citizenship documents might be prevented from voting in the battleground state's elections
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
How could J.D. Vance impact the special relationship?
Today's Big Question Trump's hawkish pick for VP said UK is the first 'truly Islamist country' with a nuclear weapon
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Biden, Trump urge calm after assassination attempt
Speed Reads A 20-year-old gunman grazed Trump's ear and fatally shot a rally attendee on Saturday
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
Supreme Court rejects challenge to CFPB
Speed Read The court rejected a conservative-backed challenge to the way the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is funded
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
Arizona court reinstates 1864 abortion ban
Speed Read The law makes all abortions illegal in the state except to save the mother's life
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
Trump, billions richer, is selling Bibles
Speed Read The former president is hawking a $60 "God Bless the USA Bible"
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
The debate about Biden's age and mental fitness
In Depth Some critics argue Biden is too old to run again. Does the argument have merit?
By Grayson Quay Published
-
How would a second Trump presidency affect Britain?
Today's Big Question Re-election of Republican frontrunner could threaten UK security, warns former head of secret service
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Trump’s rhetoric: a shift to 'straight-up Nazi talk'
Why everyone's talking about Would-be president's sinister language is backed by an incendiary policy agenda, say commentators
By The Week UK Published