KIIT SCHOOL OF LAW
INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW
GENOCIDE IN BOSNIA AND HERZeGOVInA
Under the guidance of
Prof. Kasturi Bhagat
I would like to thank the University for providing me with the opportunity to complete the project. Moreover, I would like to thank my teacher, Prof Kasturi Bhagat for providing me with the support which proved essential for the conclusion of the project. I would also like to thank my parents, for supporting all along. I also thank the faculty members, the library and computer lab staff as without their support and help, this project could not have seen the light of the day. I thank my friends for their valuable suggestions and precious guidance and all the other people who directly or indirectly helped me to complete this project. It is all these people who deserve the credit.
A Doctrinal research methodology was used for the purpose of making this project, and secondary sources of information were used. Aims and Objectives
1. To investigate upon the facts of genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina. 2. To enquire about the violations of international criminal law. 3. To make an attempt to analyze its consequences and remedies provided. Resources used
1. Internet as a major source of information, referred to various sites for information 2. Books in the Library as an important source of information for the legal perspective on the concept.
table of contents
__________________________________________________________________________ * Abstract5
* State Responsibility7
* State obligation to prevent genocide8
* Criticism of icj judgement9
The article comments on the judgment of the International Court of Justice in the Genocide case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and discusses several issues which arise from it. It first briefly explains the several constraints under which the Court had to operate in deciding this case, most notably its limited jurisdiction, the legally very strict definition of genocide, and the litigation strategies of the two parties. The article then turns to examining two specific issues that the Court did not address in a fully satisfactory manner, namely the question of Serbia's responsibility for the acts of the Scorpions paramilitary group, as well as the Court's refusal to ask Serbia to produce certain confidential military documents. The Court's analysis of state responsibility for complicity in genocide and state responsibility for failing to prevent genocide is then addressed. The article finally criticizes the Court's reasoning when it comes to reparation and remedies. INTRODUCTION
The Genocide judgment of the International Court of Justice has come and gone, but the bottom line of the judgment is that Serbia is responsible under the Genocide Convention for failing to prevent the genocide committed by the Bosnian Serb army (VRS) in the Bosnian town of Srebrenica in July 1995, and for not cooperating with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in punishing the perpetrators of this atrocity. The ICJ indeed followed the ICTY in ruling that the only crime committed during the Bosnian war which amounted to genocide was the Srebrenica massacre. However, the Court also found that Serbia is neither directly responsible for the Srebrenica genocide itself, nor is it complicit in it. With certain significant exceptions, the judgment seems to be legally unimpeachable when it comes to the Court findings on genocide in Bosnia, and particularly in its application of the law of state responsibility. The judgment truly excels as a final validation of the attribution model of state...