This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I would suggest changing the words "Bosniak muslim" into "Bosniak". -- EmirA 22:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
How can a state be judged? Isn't it like judging the Atlantic Ocean, or judging women? Can anything be judged, not only people? Or does "Serbia" refers to all the present Serbs?
It kind of remains me when the king of Spain sentenced all the Netherlanders (but a family) to death... -- euyyn 02:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
For legal purposes of the ICJ, the state isn't the collective population of Serbia, but rather the government. The legal entity of Serbia, not the geographic, social, or cultural one.
All ICJ cases work like this. States (aka governments) sue each other for violations. It's inherent in the nature of the court. For instance, Ireland v. the UK was a lawsuit against the British government for abuse of terrorism suspects, not an accusation against the entire collective British population. 67.39.194.10 20:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Can we discuss major changes to this article, such as changing the name of the article, before you proceed with changes. Whoever changed the name of the article gave a poor reason ie. "more useful name".
90% of all reports on this topic call this case Bosnia genocide case or Bosnian genocide case. Given the profound nature of the case I think this is far more appropriate name. It is not merely a border dispute such as most other cases that this court has taken on and it deserves to be istinguished.
Curent name, although is typically used in the legal system, in a general public domain could also mean a soccer match "Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro". I would strongly suggest moving it back to its original name "Bosnian genocide case at the ICJ". -- Dado 18:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
There may be several errors in the article. For example, saying Yugoslavia is not a UN member state and therefore do not have standing to sue Nato member states does not mean the same thing as ICJ not having jurisdiction over Nato member states. I have marked "disputed". – Kaihsu 12:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I am still not following your entire train of thought of what you are implying to. To answer your last question, although ICJ is the highest authority to make a judgement on this case it has no means of implementing the sentance if one would come about. Please make corrections in the article if you see it necessary. --
Dado 18:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I was just wondering that where did they come up with the following date for the final decision: "A binding ruling will be handed down on February 21, 2007. If Bosnia wins, it could seek billions of dollars in compensation." I contaceted myself to the Court and they knew nothing about this date...they only informed me that the Court will give a press release beforehand and since there is no such thing given yet, it´s weird to me that in wikipedia a specific date exists! – 2007-02-07T09:45:35 128.214.205.5
Is there chance of the trial's success? If there is, what would BiH ask from Montenegro (and what from Serbia)? -- PaxEquilibrium 21:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the Srebrenica Genocide Blog from the list of external links because it was added by the author of the blog himself (to this article and to many, many others) in contravention of WP:COI. [1] However, I suspect that it may actually be useful to keep here (I'm not sure, as I don't know much about the Bosnian Genocide and about the blog). If someone other than the author re-adds it, please leave a note here so that it isn't mistakenly removed again. — Psychonaut 20:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
As Serbia has been cleared the article will need to be re-written to take into account the full judgement. -- Phildav76 11:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Since it has been officially determined by the Hague that "there was no Bosnian genocide on the scale of the whole country in an effort to exterminate the Bosnian Muslims" apart from the incident in Srebrenica, the article Bosnian genocide should be merged with the article Srebrenica massacre, or it should simply become a 'Redirect' to Srebrenica Massacre, because in this case it becomes simply redundant. Maîtresse 16:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
See en:Talk:Bosnian_Genocide#Merge_with_Srebrenica_Article Maîtresse 08:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Boris Tadic declared that he is planning to present a law to the parliament about accepting the role of Serbia in the massacre. I think it is a positive step forward for the relations between Bosnia and Serbia. See you, Deliogul 16:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The language in the following excerpt seems provocative and possibly POV: "It was concluded however that Serbia failed to punish those who carried out the genocide, especially general Ratko Mladić. Despite the evidence of widespread killings, siege of Sarajevo, mass rapes, ethnic cleansing and torture by different Serb forces which also included JNA (VJ), elsewhere in Bosnia, especially in Prijedor, Banja Luka and Foča camps and detention centers, the judges ruled that the criteria for genocide were met only in Srebrenica or Eastern Bosnia." This paragraph's wording "different Serb forces which also included JNA" further confuses uninformed readers about the difference between Serbs and Serbians (in suing the state of Serbia and Montenegro rather than the Serb people the UN fails to address crimes commited by ethnic Serbs from other countries and unintentionally punishes Albanian, Hungarian, and Roma minorities in Serbia as well as Serbian Muslims from the Novi Pazar region.) Additionally, the language suggests the writer clearly believe the verdict to have been wrong, since the prosecution's evidence is presented along with the verdict in a sensationalist tone of disbelief. I contend that this paragraph at least, and any similar examples be re-written to avoid confusion or editorialization, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.81.110 ( talk) 20:37, 28 February, 2007 (PST)
Let me start by saying I'm nearly totally ignorant of international law and how these courts work. So, I imagine there are many others like me reading! What is the result of the trial? Great, they are guilty of violating an international agreement. We obviously aren't going to build a jail cell around the country. What use is the verdict? Is it simply a result for victims to go to lower courts and demand compensation? If someone more familiar could clear this up, I know I would appreciate it as well as anyone else who doesn't understand what is so significant about it.
Thank you, Liastnir 14:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Under international law if a state takes an action involving another state which violates international law the state which is determined to violate international law can be assessed to pay damages to the injured state, which are called reparations. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has assessed such damages in several cases and in such situation the injured state would then have an international claim against the first state. What is significant about this in the Bosnia v Serbia lawsuit is that Bosnia asked for billions of dollars of reparations from Serbia in its claim that Serbia was responsible for genocide in Bosnia. Since the ICJ did not find that Serbia committed genocide in Bosnia (it did find Serbia violated the Genocide Convention in two other respects), the ICJ did not award reparations to Bosnia. Avorkink 21:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Avorkink, that makes more sense. Liastnir 15:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
In the event that Serbia was found to be in violation and an order for reparation was made, Serbia could still decide to ignore the order. The decisions of the ICJ are not considered to be legally binding and have been ignored in previous occassions (most notably by the US - see the LaGrand case and Breard case for examples). The ICJ works in a political climate such that a failure to adhere to it's decisions would be held in low regard by other member States. Moreover, international law is still a relatively young judicial branch and as such decisions of the ICJ add to the development of this area of law.
I’ve just added these two article in the “External links” section. If anyone here wants to add more content in the article using the articles above as references, that’s OK.-- MaGioZal 01:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Since the entire "Significance" section is without references/sources I suggest we put some in there or remove the section alltogether (which would be too bad, since it makes the article more interesting rather than just an account of the ICJ judgement). Cheers Osli73 13:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, wasn't it also so that the ICJ judgement found that there had not been any genocide in Bosnia outside of the Srebrenica Massacre (or at least didn't find enough evidence to it)? As the article currently reads, that is not precisely clear. Osli73 ( talk) 05:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- In September 2006, former Bosnian Serb leader Momcilo Krajisnik was found guilty of multiple instances of crimes against humanity, but while the ICTY judges found that there was evidence that crimes committed in Bosnia constituted the criminal act of genocide ( actus reus), they did not establish that the accused possessed genocidal intent, or was part of a criminal enterprise that had such an intent ( mens rea) (Staff. Momcilo Krajisnik convicted of crimes against humanity, acquitted of genocide and complicity in genocide, A press release by the ICTY in The Hague, 27 September 2006 JP/MOW/1115e).
From the history of the article:
The quote by the ECHR of the ICJ was part of their judgement on "Jorgic v. Germany", but it is relevant here because it is a secondary source quoting a primary source to explain why the ICJ did not find the ethnic cleansing as carried out in Bosnia to meet the requirements of genocide in relation to Serbian state involvement. -- PBS ( talk) 19:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
In reviewing the case in the judgement of Jorgic v. Germany on 12 July 2007 the European Court of Human Rights selectively quoted from the ICJ ruling on the Bosnian Genocide Case to explain that ethnic cleansing was not enough on its own to establish that a genocide had occurred:
ECHR Jorgic v. Germany §45 citing Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro ("Case concerning the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide") the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found under the heading of "intent and 'ethnic cleansing'" § 190
This addition made on 9 July to the verdict section are misleading because they confuse four separate cases
This addition "Furthermore, the court found that the applicant had acted with intent to commit genocide within the meaning of Article 220a of the Criminal Code...It concluded that the applicant had therefore acted with intent to destroy the group of Muslims in the North of Bosnia, or at least in the Doboj region." to the quote by the ECHR about the ICJ judgment is misleading because it is not the ECHR quoting the ICJ, it is from a different section [paragraph 18] and is referring to Article 220a of the [German] Criminal Code.
"on 12 July 2007 the European Court of Human Rights upheld the earlier judgment that Bosnian Genocide happened" should not be in this section. Besides it is not correct as the ECHR found that the Germans's interpretation of their law was not unfair and that if Jorgic had taken advice over his actions that he would have known that likely outcome of a trial in Germany of his actions would have been a finding of genocide. -- PBS ( talk) 10:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The last addition with is the Krstic Appeals Judgment is to do with the Srebrenica massacre (Finding 5 in the ICJ judgement), "...in respect of the genocide that occurred in Srebrenica in July 1995;" But the included quote does not bring clarity because it is about a separate case and including it with its mention of "an Appeals Chamber" is confusing and not directly relevant to this verdict. Further placing it within this section is a violation of WP:SYN and OR as unlike the ECHR judgment extract that selectively quotes the ICJ judgment (and is therefor a secondary source) this quote is using a primary source in a verdict section, as an indirect explanation of ICJ judgment 5. -- PBS ( talk) 10:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- This is not to say that acts described as 'ethnic cleansing' may never constitute genocide, if they are such as to be characterized as, for example, 'deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part', contrary to Article II, paragraph (c), of the Convention, provided such action is carried out with the necessary specific intent (dolus specialis), that is to say with a view to the destruction of the group, as distinct from its removal from the region.
- (5) Finds that Serbia has violated the obligation to prevent genocide, under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in respect of the genocide that occurred in Srebrenica in July 1995;
- - The facts invoked by the Applicant
- Before turning to the allegations of fact advanced by Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Court briefly outlines the background of the case relating to the break-up of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) and defines the different entities involved in the events complained of. The Court then examines the links between the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and the authorities of the Republika Srpska (which was the self-proclaimed “Republic of the Serb People of Bosnia and Herzegovina”). The Court finds that the FRY made its considerable military and financial support available to the Republika Srpska and that, had it withdrawn that support, this would have greatly constrained the options available to the Republika Srpska authorities.
- The Court then sets out to examine the facts alleged by Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to decide: (1) whether the alleged atrocities occurred and, if established, (2) whether the facts establish the existence of an intent, on the part of the perpetrators, to destroy in whole or part the group of the Bosnian Muslims.
- The Court makes long and detailed findings of fact on the alleged atrocities which are grouped according to the categories of prohibited acts described in Article II of the Genocide Convention.
- With respect to “killing members of the protected group” (Article II (a) of the Convention), the Court finds that it is established by overwhelming evidence that massive killings throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina were perpetrated during the conflict. However, the Court is not convinced that those killings were accompanied by the specific intent on the part of the perpetrators to destroy, in whole or in part, the group of Bosnian Muslims. It acknowledges that the killings may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity, but that it has no jurisdiction to determine whether this is so.
- The Court turns to the massacre at Srebrenica and carefully examines the evidence regarding that event, including the fact that the ICTY found in the Krstić and Blagojević cases that Bosnian Serb forces killed over 7,000 Bosnian Muslim men following the takeover of Srebrenica in July 1995. The Court concludes that both killings and acts causing serious bodily or mental harm occurred. The Court finds that the Main Staff of the VRS (the army of the Republika Srpska) had the necessary specific intent to destroy in part the group of Bosnian Muslims (specifically the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica) and that accordingly acts of genocide were committed by the VRS in or around Srebrenica from about 13 July 1995.
- The Court then proceeds to examine evidence of acts “causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the protected group” (Article II (b) of the Convention). It finds that the Bosnian Muslims were systematically victims of massive mistreatment, beatings, rape and torture causing serious bodily and mental harm during the conflict. However, it finds that the specific intent to destroy the protected group is not conclusively established.
- The Court then examines alleged acts of “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” (Article II (c) of the Convention). It finds that there is conclusive evidence that the alleged acts were committed, but that the necessary specific intent is not established.
- With respect to Articles II (d) and (e) of the Convention - “imposing measures to prevent births within the protected group” and “forcibly transferring children of the protected group to another group” -, the Court cannot find that the evidence is sufficient to establish that such acts occurred.
- The Court then finds that the Applicant has not demonstrated any overall plan to commit genocide on the basis of the 1992 Strategic Goals issued by the authorities of the Republika Srpska. It also rejects Bosnia and Herzegovina’s claim that the very pattern of the atrocities committed over many communities, over a lengthy period, focussed on Bosnian Muslims, can demonstrate the necessary specific intent to destroy the group in whole or in part.
Footnote #7 has a broken link: http://www.icj-cij.org/cijwww/cdocket/cbhy/cbhyjudgments/cbhy_cjudgment_20070226/bhy_judgment.pdf Bosniak ( talk) 04:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Can this article refrain from using legalese where not strictly necessary, e.g. in the 1st sentence "return". See WP:JARGON. Pcap ping 04:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, according to the ICJ’s judgement "it is established by overwhelming evidence that massive killings in specific areas and detention camps throughout the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina were perpetrated during the conflict" and that "the victims were in large majority members of the protected group, the Bosniaks, which suggests that they may have been systematically targeted by the killings". Moreover, "it has been established by fully conclusive evidence that members of the protected group were systematically victims of massive mistreatment, beatings, rape and torture causing serious bodily and mental harm, during the conflict and, in particular, in the detention camps". The Court accepted that these acts, on the part of the Serb forces, had been committed, but that there was inconclusive evidence of the specific intent to destroy the Bosniaks as a group in whole or in part. This includes the period up to 19 May 1992, when Bosnian Serb forces were under the formal control of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Hoare, Marko Attila (9 March 2007). "The International Court of Justice and the decriminalisation of genocide". Bosnian Institute.
{{ cite web}}
: External link in( help))
|publisher=
The Index of the judgement can be found on page 43-44/4-5 (PDF 4,6) of the judgement (the document seems to carry dual paging and just be be further confusing interlaces English and French pages and the PDF numbers --thanks to the French pages--are different again). However the index is clear because it refers to numbered paragraphs not page numbers.
(b): causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the protected group" (§§ 298–319)
I think this paragraph has problems because Marko Attila Hoare does not make it clear that this is a synthesis from two paragraphs from two different section of the judgement and by using quotes makes them appear as if they are from the same page or at least the same section. I think that the paragraph would be better constructed without quotations:
The ICJ found overwhelming evidence that there had been massive mistreatment, beatings, rape, torture and killings of Bosnian Muslims (a protected group under the terms of the Genocide Convention), but that there was inconclusive evidence of the specific intent to destroy that group (as laid out in the Genocide Convention) by people and organisations acting on the behalf Serbia and Montenegro (citations 1 and 2).
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)-- PBS ( talk) 12:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The article is poorly referenced and relies way too much on primary sources and overuse of long quotations. Additional reliable, secondary sources are needed.
There are only thirteen references currently, of which by my count eight are primary sources or press releases, two are from
reliable news sources in English (but one of those is a dead link), and one is a standard legal reference book cited in support of a
original interpretation in the article (
Bosnia will need to show..."). Of the other two, one (the Bosnian Institute) would be okay in the context of an article with many other secondary references.
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. Wikipedia is not a mirror of public domain or other source material. The place for long, direct quotations from primary documents is in Wikisource. Those Wikisource documents can then be linked to from the article. Mathglot ( talk) 22:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bosnian Genocide case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I would suggest changing the words "Bosniak muslim" into "Bosniak". -- EmirA 22:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
How can a state be judged? Isn't it like judging the Atlantic Ocean, or judging women? Can anything be judged, not only people? Or does "Serbia" refers to all the present Serbs?
It kind of remains me when the king of Spain sentenced all the Netherlanders (but a family) to death... -- euyyn 02:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
For legal purposes of the ICJ, the state isn't the collective population of Serbia, but rather the government. The legal entity of Serbia, not the geographic, social, or cultural one.
All ICJ cases work like this. States (aka governments) sue each other for violations. It's inherent in the nature of the court. For instance, Ireland v. the UK was a lawsuit against the British government for abuse of terrorism suspects, not an accusation against the entire collective British population. 67.39.194.10 20:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Can we discuss major changes to this article, such as changing the name of the article, before you proceed with changes. Whoever changed the name of the article gave a poor reason ie. "more useful name".
90% of all reports on this topic call this case Bosnia genocide case or Bosnian genocide case. Given the profound nature of the case I think this is far more appropriate name. It is not merely a border dispute such as most other cases that this court has taken on and it deserves to be istinguished.
Curent name, although is typically used in the legal system, in a general public domain could also mean a soccer match "Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro". I would strongly suggest moving it back to its original name "Bosnian genocide case at the ICJ". -- Dado 18:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
There may be several errors in the article. For example, saying Yugoslavia is not a UN member state and therefore do not have standing to sue Nato member states does not mean the same thing as ICJ not having jurisdiction over Nato member states. I have marked "disputed". – Kaihsu 12:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I am still not following your entire train of thought of what you are implying to. To answer your last question, although ICJ is the highest authority to make a judgement on this case it has no means of implementing the sentance if one would come about. Please make corrections in the article if you see it necessary. --
Dado 18:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I was just wondering that where did they come up with the following date for the final decision: "A binding ruling will be handed down on February 21, 2007. If Bosnia wins, it could seek billions of dollars in compensation." I contaceted myself to the Court and they knew nothing about this date...they only informed me that the Court will give a press release beforehand and since there is no such thing given yet, it´s weird to me that in wikipedia a specific date exists! – 2007-02-07T09:45:35 128.214.205.5
Is there chance of the trial's success? If there is, what would BiH ask from Montenegro (and what from Serbia)? -- PaxEquilibrium 21:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the Srebrenica Genocide Blog from the list of external links because it was added by the author of the blog himself (to this article and to many, many others) in contravention of WP:COI. [1] However, I suspect that it may actually be useful to keep here (I'm not sure, as I don't know much about the Bosnian Genocide and about the blog). If someone other than the author re-adds it, please leave a note here so that it isn't mistakenly removed again. — Psychonaut 20:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
As Serbia has been cleared the article will need to be re-written to take into account the full judgement. -- Phildav76 11:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Since it has been officially determined by the Hague that "there was no Bosnian genocide on the scale of the whole country in an effort to exterminate the Bosnian Muslims" apart from the incident in Srebrenica, the article Bosnian genocide should be merged with the article Srebrenica massacre, or it should simply become a 'Redirect' to Srebrenica Massacre, because in this case it becomes simply redundant. Maîtresse 16:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
See en:Talk:Bosnian_Genocide#Merge_with_Srebrenica_Article Maîtresse 08:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Boris Tadic declared that he is planning to present a law to the parliament about accepting the role of Serbia in the massacre. I think it is a positive step forward for the relations between Bosnia and Serbia. See you, Deliogul 16:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The language in the following excerpt seems provocative and possibly POV: "It was concluded however that Serbia failed to punish those who carried out the genocide, especially general Ratko Mladić. Despite the evidence of widespread killings, siege of Sarajevo, mass rapes, ethnic cleansing and torture by different Serb forces which also included JNA (VJ), elsewhere in Bosnia, especially in Prijedor, Banja Luka and Foča camps and detention centers, the judges ruled that the criteria for genocide were met only in Srebrenica or Eastern Bosnia." This paragraph's wording "different Serb forces which also included JNA" further confuses uninformed readers about the difference between Serbs and Serbians (in suing the state of Serbia and Montenegro rather than the Serb people the UN fails to address crimes commited by ethnic Serbs from other countries and unintentionally punishes Albanian, Hungarian, and Roma minorities in Serbia as well as Serbian Muslims from the Novi Pazar region.) Additionally, the language suggests the writer clearly believe the verdict to have been wrong, since the prosecution's evidence is presented along with the verdict in a sensationalist tone of disbelief. I contend that this paragraph at least, and any similar examples be re-written to avoid confusion or editorialization, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.81.110 ( talk) 20:37, 28 February, 2007 (PST)
Let me start by saying I'm nearly totally ignorant of international law and how these courts work. So, I imagine there are many others like me reading! What is the result of the trial? Great, they are guilty of violating an international agreement. We obviously aren't going to build a jail cell around the country. What use is the verdict? Is it simply a result for victims to go to lower courts and demand compensation? If someone more familiar could clear this up, I know I would appreciate it as well as anyone else who doesn't understand what is so significant about it.
Thank you, Liastnir 14:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Under international law if a state takes an action involving another state which violates international law the state which is determined to violate international law can be assessed to pay damages to the injured state, which are called reparations. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has assessed such damages in several cases and in such situation the injured state would then have an international claim against the first state. What is significant about this in the Bosnia v Serbia lawsuit is that Bosnia asked for billions of dollars of reparations from Serbia in its claim that Serbia was responsible for genocide in Bosnia. Since the ICJ did not find that Serbia committed genocide in Bosnia (it did find Serbia violated the Genocide Convention in two other respects), the ICJ did not award reparations to Bosnia. Avorkink 21:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Avorkink, that makes more sense. Liastnir 15:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
In the event that Serbia was found to be in violation and an order for reparation was made, Serbia could still decide to ignore the order. The decisions of the ICJ are not considered to be legally binding and have been ignored in previous occassions (most notably by the US - see the LaGrand case and Breard case for examples). The ICJ works in a political climate such that a failure to adhere to it's decisions would be held in low regard by other member States. Moreover, international law is still a relatively young judicial branch and as such decisions of the ICJ add to the development of this area of law.
I’ve just added these two article in the “External links” section. If anyone here wants to add more content in the article using the articles above as references, that’s OK.-- MaGioZal 01:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Since the entire "Significance" section is without references/sources I suggest we put some in there or remove the section alltogether (which would be too bad, since it makes the article more interesting rather than just an account of the ICJ judgement). Cheers Osli73 13:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, wasn't it also so that the ICJ judgement found that there had not been any genocide in Bosnia outside of the Srebrenica Massacre (or at least didn't find enough evidence to it)? As the article currently reads, that is not precisely clear. Osli73 ( talk) 05:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- In September 2006, former Bosnian Serb leader Momcilo Krajisnik was found guilty of multiple instances of crimes against humanity, but while the ICTY judges found that there was evidence that crimes committed in Bosnia constituted the criminal act of genocide ( actus reus), they did not establish that the accused possessed genocidal intent, or was part of a criminal enterprise that had such an intent ( mens rea) (Staff. Momcilo Krajisnik convicted of crimes against humanity, acquitted of genocide and complicity in genocide, A press release by the ICTY in The Hague, 27 September 2006 JP/MOW/1115e).
From the history of the article:
The quote by the ECHR of the ICJ was part of their judgement on "Jorgic v. Germany", but it is relevant here because it is a secondary source quoting a primary source to explain why the ICJ did not find the ethnic cleansing as carried out in Bosnia to meet the requirements of genocide in relation to Serbian state involvement. -- PBS ( talk) 19:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
In reviewing the case in the judgement of Jorgic v. Germany on 12 July 2007 the European Court of Human Rights selectively quoted from the ICJ ruling on the Bosnian Genocide Case to explain that ethnic cleansing was not enough on its own to establish that a genocide had occurred:
ECHR Jorgic v. Germany §45 citing Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro ("Case concerning the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide") the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found under the heading of "intent and 'ethnic cleansing'" § 190
This addition made on 9 July to the verdict section are misleading because they confuse four separate cases
This addition "Furthermore, the court found that the applicant had acted with intent to commit genocide within the meaning of Article 220a of the Criminal Code...It concluded that the applicant had therefore acted with intent to destroy the group of Muslims in the North of Bosnia, or at least in the Doboj region." to the quote by the ECHR about the ICJ judgment is misleading because it is not the ECHR quoting the ICJ, it is from a different section [paragraph 18] and is referring to Article 220a of the [German] Criminal Code.
"on 12 July 2007 the European Court of Human Rights upheld the earlier judgment that Bosnian Genocide happened" should not be in this section. Besides it is not correct as the ECHR found that the Germans's interpretation of their law was not unfair and that if Jorgic had taken advice over his actions that he would have known that likely outcome of a trial in Germany of his actions would have been a finding of genocide. -- PBS ( talk) 10:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The last addition with is the Krstic Appeals Judgment is to do with the Srebrenica massacre (Finding 5 in the ICJ judgement), "...in respect of the genocide that occurred in Srebrenica in July 1995;" But the included quote does not bring clarity because it is about a separate case and including it with its mention of "an Appeals Chamber" is confusing and not directly relevant to this verdict. Further placing it within this section is a violation of WP:SYN and OR as unlike the ECHR judgment extract that selectively quotes the ICJ judgment (and is therefor a secondary source) this quote is using a primary source in a verdict section, as an indirect explanation of ICJ judgment 5. -- PBS ( talk) 10:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- This is not to say that acts described as 'ethnic cleansing' may never constitute genocide, if they are such as to be characterized as, for example, 'deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part', contrary to Article II, paragraph (c), of the Convention, provided such action is carried out with the necessary specific intent (dolus specialis), that is to say with a view to the destruction of the group, as distinct from its removal from the region.
- (5) Finds that Serbia has violated the obligation to prevent genocide, under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in respect of the genocide that occurred in Srebrenica in July 1995;
- - The facts invoked by the Applicant
- Before turning to the allegations of fact advanced by Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Court briefly outlines the background of the case relating to the break-up of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) and defines the different entities involved in the events complained of. The Court then examines the links between the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and the authorities of the Republika Srpska (which was the self-proclaimed “Republic of the Serb People of Bosnia and Herzegovina”). The Court finds that the FRY made its considerable military and financial support available to the Republika Srpska and that, had it withdrawn that support, this would have greatly constrained the options available to the Republika Srpska authorities.
- The Court then sets out to examine the facts alleged by Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to decide: (1) whether the alleged atrocities occurred and, if established, (2) whether the facts establish the existence of an intent, on the part of the perpetrators, to destroy in whole or part the group of the Bosnian Muslims.
- The Court makes long and detailed findings of fact on the alleged atrocities which are grouped according to the categories of prohibited acts described in Article II of the Genocide Convention.
- With respect to “killing members of the protected group” (Article II (a) of the Convention), the Court finds that it is established by overwhelming evidence that massive killings throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina were perpetrated during the conflict. However, the Court is not convinced that those killings were accompanied by the specific intent on the part of the perpetrators to destroy, in whole or in part, the group of Bosnian Muslims. It acknowledges that the killings may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity, but that it has no jurisdiction to determine whether this is so.
- The Court turns to the massacre at Srebrenica and carefully examines the evidence regarding that event, including the fact that the ICTY found in the Krstić and Blagojević cases that Bosnian Serb forces killed over 7,000 Bosnian Muslim men following the takeover of Srebrenica in July 1995. The Court concludes that both killings and acts causing serious bodily or mental harm occurred. The Court finds that the Main Staff of the VRS (the army of the Republika Srpska) had the necessary specific intent to destroy in part the group of Bosnian Muslims (specifically the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica) and that accordingly acts of genocide were committed by the VRS in or around Srebrenica from about 13 July 1995.
- The Court then proceeds to examine evidence of acts “causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the protected group” (Article II (b) of the Convention). It finds that the Bosnian Muslims were systematically victims of massive mistreatment, beatings, rape and torture causing serious bodily and mental harm during the conflict. However, it finds that the specific intent to destroy the protected group is not conclusively established.
- The Court then examines alleged acts of “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” (Article II (c) of the Convention). It finds that there is conclusive evidence that the alleged acts were committed, but that the necessary specific intent is not established.
- With respect to Articles II (d) and (e) of the Convention - “imposing measures to prevent births within the protected group” and “forcibly transferring children of the protected group to another group” -, the Court cannot find that the evidence is sufficient to establish that such acts occurred.
- The Court then finds that the Applicant has not demonstrated any overall plan to commit genocide on the basis of the 1992 Strategic Goals issued by the authorities of the Republika Srpska. It also rejects Bosnia and Herzegovina’s claim that the very pattern of the atrocities committed over many communities, over a lengthy period, focussed on Bosnian Muslims, can demonstrate the necessary specific intent to destroy the group in whole or in part.
Footnote #7 has a broken link: http://www.icj-cij.org/cijwww/cdocket/cbhy/cbhyjudgments/cbhy_cjudgment_20070226/bhy_judgment.pdf Bosniak ( talk) 04:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Can this article refrain from using legalese where not strictly necessary, e.g. in the 1st sentence "return". See WP:JARGON. Pcap ping 04:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, according to the ICJ’s judgement "it is established by overwhelming evidence that massive killings in specific areas and detention camps throughout the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina were perpetrated during the conflict" and that "the victims were in large majority members of the protected group, the Bosniaks, which suggests that they may have been systematically targeted by the killings". Moreover, "it has been established by fully conclusive evidence that members of the protected group were systematically victims of massive mistreatment, beatings, rape and torture causing serious bodily and mental harm, during the conflict and, in particular, in the detention camps". The Court accepted that these acts, on the part of the Serb forces, had been committed, but that there was inconclusive evidence of the specific intent to destroy the Bosniaks as a group in whole or in part. This includes the period up to 19 May 1992, when Bosnian Serb forces were under the formal control of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Hoare, Marko Attila (9 March 2007). "The International Court of Justice and the decriminalisation of genocide". Bosnian Institute.
{{ cite web}}
: External link in( help))
|publisher=
The Index of the judgement can be found on page 43-44/4-5 (PDF 4,6) of the judgement (the document seems to carry dual paging and just be be further confusing interlaces English and French pages and the PDF numbers --thanks to the French pages--are different again). However the index is clear because it refers to numbered paragraphs not page numbers.
(b): causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the protected group" (§§ 298–319)
I think this paragraph has problems because Marko Attila Hoare does not make it clear that this is a synthesis from two paragraphs from two different section of the judgement and by using quotes makes them appear as if they are from the same page or at least the same section. I think that the paragraph would be better constructed without quotations:
The ICJ found overwhelming evidence that there had been massive mistreatment, beatings, rape, torture and killings of Bosnian Muslims (a protected group under the terms of the Genocide Convention), but that there was inconclusive evidence of the specific intent to destroy that group (as laid out in the Genocide Convention) by people and organisations acting on the behalf Serbia and Montenegro (citations 1 and 2).
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)-- PBS ( talk) 12:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The article is poorly referenced and relies way too much on primary sources and overuse of long quotations. Additional reliable, secondary sources are needed.
There are only thirteen references currently, of which by my count eight are primary sources or press releases, two are from
reliable news sources in English (but one of those is a dead link), and one is a standard legal reference book cited in support of a
original interpretation in the article (
Bosnia will need to show..."). Of the other two, one (the Bosnian Institute) would be okay in the context of an article with many other secondary references.
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. Wikipedia is not a mirror of public domain or other source material. The place for long, direct quotations from primary documents is in Wikisource. Those Wikisource documents can then be linked to from the article. Mathglot ( talk) 22:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bosnian Genocide case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)