International Justice

So much for the “World Court,” I suppose. That’s my reaction after reading Slobodan Milosevic’s Last Waltz in the New York Times this morning. It can be difficult to obtain justice in any court, but one would think, as the United Nations Criminal Court did, that Serbia’s roll in the genocide committed under Milosevic’s rule was obvious enough. The “World Court,” however, felt otherwise.

The “World Court,” formally known as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Its seat is at the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands. The ICJ, the organization’s official website tells us, has as its function: “to settle in accordance with international law the legal disputes submitted to it by States, and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized international organs and agencies.” It is literally meant to be a world court, as its composition indicates:

The Court is composed of 15 judges elected to nine-year terms of office by the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council sitting independently of each other. It may not include more than one judge of any nationality. Elections are held every three years for one-third of the seats, and retiring judges may be re-elected. The Members of the Court do not represent their governments but are independent magistrates.

The New York Times tells us that “The World Court also insists that unless Belgrade gave “direct orders” for particular operations or the Bosnian Serbs were “completely dependent” on Belgrade, there is no liability at all. This will be a surprise to scholars of ordinary tort law, who are accustomed to supposing that responsibility for wrongdoing can be shared.”

This sounds like a step away from the logic behind the Nuremburg Trials. I am no expert in such matters, but I remember the news at the time and I remember that Nato did not go into the region on a whim. Genocide was taking place. Somebody must be responsible. Serbia, led by Milosevic, was behind the arming and motivation of these local Serbian militias and if we do not have signed orders by Misloevic neither did we for Hitler; yet we all knew he was guilty. There was and never has been any doubt of that outside of people like David Irving. Even if he did not issue such orders, the genocide still occurred on his watch, and the leader must always bear ultimate responsibility for the actions of his people. It just seems to me like a general principal has been violated here and that justice has gone awry.

Serbia is set to rejoin Europe, but how can this be a happy or prosperous reunion if the sins of the very recent past are left out of the equation? Shouldn’t there be a reckoning? I would certainly like to see the world make a reckoning with our own leader when all is said and done. The world is a smaller place than it was, due to our instant communications and rapid means of travel, and far more easily destroyed. In a sense, the world, and not just your town, city, county or nation, is your home. And rogue nations must be discouraged, be they small like Serbia or large like the United States. The best way to discourage such behavior is by holding the leaders of nations accountable for deeds committed during their rule or regime. After all, American soldiers might be in Iraq, but they didn’t go there voluntarily. They are there because they were sent by their commander-in-chief, who, however little he likes that fact, bears ultimate responsibility for everything that goes on there. It’s a basic rule of management and it needs to be applied and enforced, locally, nationally, and globally.

It’s a shame the World Court doesn’t see it that way.