Procesuiranje ratnih zločina pred nacionalnim sudovima u regionu – Između međunarodnih obaveza i real politike

Q4 Arts and Humanities Historijski pogledi Pub Date : 2023-06-20 DOI:10.52259/historijskipogledi.2023.6.9.291
Sabina Subašić Galijatović
{"title":"Procesuiranje ratnih zločina pred nacionalnim sudovima u regionu – Između međunarodnih obaveza i real politike","authors":"Sabina Subašić Galijatović","doi":"10.52259/historijskipogledi.2023.6.9.291","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The fight against impunity for war crimes is one of the basic principles of international law. The criminal prosecution of the perpetrators of these crimes stems from international obligations that states have for the purpose of establishing facts and truth as the basis for establishing the rule of law. The right to the truth as a basic guarantee against repetition, the obligation to prosecute serious crimes under international law and the right to a fair trial, the right to effective legal remedies and reparations, and the obligation to remember and memorialize, are obligations prescribed to states by numerous international legal instruments. A fundamental contribution to the fight against impunity for crimes committed on the territory of the former Yugoslavia in the armed conflicts of the nineties of the twentieth century was made by the International Ad Hoc Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. His legal legacy is significant both in the field of determining responsibility for crimes and in the development of international law. With the strategy for ending the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the obligation to process war crimes was placed under the jurisdiction of the national courts of the countries in the region. The judicial authorities in the region, with the support of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Courts, the successor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, took on the responsibility of prosecuting war crimes committed during the armed conflicts of the 1990s in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, and for this purpose specialized departments were established courts and prosecutor's offices for processing war crimes. However, numerous suspects of high or middle military and civilian chain of command who participated in crimes, most of which were committed on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and for which their superiors were convicted before the Hague Tribunal, have not yet been prosecuted, that is, the sentences have been carried out. The national courts in the region, which have the obligation to ensure the implementation of the international principle of the fight against impunity and to continue the work of the international judiciary, have proven to be ineffective in that area, if not in the service of realpolitik. Numerous high-ranking war crime suspects avoid criminal responsibility by fleeing to neighboring countries where they have or have acquired dual citizenship. By abusing the institution of extradition, impunity has been granted to those suspected of serious violations of international law. In addition, by unfoundedly applying the institute of universal jurisdiction in the prosecution of war crimes, national courts not only ignore the jurisprudence of international courts, but also contribute to the revisionism of established facts. The lack of regional cooperation in the prosecution of war crimes, despite numerous agreements signed for this purpose, the non-recognition of judgments of the courts of neighboring states in the region, are problems that continue to prevent the acceptance of facts and truth as the basis of a guarantee of non-repetition. Moreover, the facts established in the judgments before the international judiciary are the subject of institutional denial and revisionism in the territories of the states of the former Yugoslavia that participated in armed conflicts in the 90s. Negationism and revisionism, deeply institutionally rooted in the post-war societies of the former Yugoslavia, their toleration and approval, as well as the ineffective work of the national judiciary, led to the phenomenon of glorification of crimes and war criminals in the region. Through the reports of relevant international and national institutions and examples from court practice, this work aims to point out the obligations and key shortcomings in the work of national courts in the region of the former Yugoslavia and the problems of regional cooperation in the prosecution of war crimes.","PeriodicalId":52780,"journal":{"name":"Historijski pogledi","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Historijski pogledi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52259/historijskipogledi.2023.6.9.291","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The fight against impunity for war crimes is one of the basic principles of international law. The criminal prosecution of the perpetrators of these crimes stems from international obligations that states have for the purpose of establishing facts and truth as the basis for establishing the rule of law. The right to the truth as a basic guarantee against repetition, the obligation to prosecute serious crimes under international law and the right to a fair trial, the right to effective legal remedies and reparations, and the obligation to remember and memorialize, are obligations prescribed to states by numerous international legal instruments. A fundamental contribution to the fight against impunity for crimes committed on the territory of the former Yugoslavia in the armed conflicts of the nineties of the twentieth century was made by the International Ad Hoc Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. His legal legacy is significant both in the field of determining responsibility for crimes and in the development of international law. With the strategy for ending the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the obligation to process war crimes was placed under the jurisdiction of the national courts of the countries in the region. The judicial authorities in the region, with the support of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Courts, the successor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, took on the responsibility of prosecuting war crimes committed during the armed conflicts of the 1990s in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, and for this purpose specialized departments were established courts and prosecutor's offices for processing war crimes. However, numerous suspects of high or middle military and civilian chain of command who participated in crimes, most of which were committed on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and for which their superiors were convicted before the Hague Tribunal, have not yet been prosecuted, that is, the sentences have been carried out. The national courts in the region, which have the obligation to ensure the implementation of the international principle of the fight against impunity and to continue the work of the international judiciary, have proven to be ineffective in that area, if not in the service of realpolitik. Numerous high-ranking war crime suspects avoid criminal responsibility by fleeing to neighboring countries where they have or have acquired dual citizenship. By abusing the institution of extradition, impunity has been granted to those suspected of serious violations of international law. In addition, by unfoundedly applying the institute of universal jurisdiction in the prosecution of war crimes, national courts not only ignore the jurisprudence of international courts, but also contribute to the revisionism of established facts. The lack of regional cooperation in the prosecution of war crimes, despite numerous agreements signed for this purpose, the non-recognition of judgments of the courts of neighboring states in the region, are problems that continue to prevent the acceptance of facts and truth as the basis of a guarantee of non-repetition. Moreover, the facts established in the judgments before the international judiciary are the subject of institutional denial and revisionism in the territories of the states of the former Yugoslavia that participated in armed conflicts in the 90s. Negationism and revisionism, deeply institutionally rooted in the post-war societies of the former Yugoslavia, their toleration and approval, as well as the ineffective work of the national judiciary, led to the phenomenon of glorification of crimes and war criminals in the region. Through the reports of relevant international and national institutions and examples from court practice, this work aims to point out the obligations and key shortcomings in the work of national courts in the region of the former Yugoslavia and the problems of regional cooperation in the prosecution of war crimes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
打击战争罪有罪不罚现象是国际法的基本原则之一。对这些罪行的肇事者进行刑事起诉源于各国为确立事实和真相作为建立法治基础而负有的国际义务。了解真相的权利是防止重复的基本保障,根据国际法起诉严重罪行的义务和获得公正审判的权利,获得有效法律补救和赔偿的权利,以及追忆和纪念的义务,是众多国际法律文书对各国规定的义务。前南斯拉夫问题国际特设刑事法庭为打击在二十世纪九十年代武装冲突中在前南斯拉夫领土上犯下的罪行不受惩罚的现象作出了根本贡献。他的法律遗产在确定罪行的责任方面和在国际法的发展方面都是重要的。根据结束前南斯拉夫问题国际刑事法庭工作的战略,处理战争罪行的义务被置于该区域各国国家法院的管辖之下。该区域的司法当局在前南斯拉夫问题国际刑事法庭和卢旺达问题国际刑事法庭的继承者国际刑事法院残余机制的支持下,承担了起诉1990年代在前南斯拉夫领土内武装冲突期间犯下的战争罪行的责任,为此目的设立了专门部门,审理战争罪行的法院和检察官办公室。然而,许多参与犯罪的高级或中级军事和文职指挥系统的嫌疑犯,其中大多数是在波斯尼亚-黑塞哥维那领土上犯下的,其上级已在海牙法庭上被定罪,但尚未受到起诉,也就是说,判决已经执行。该区域的国家法院有义务确保执行打击有罪不罚现象的国际原则并继续国际司法机构的工作,但事实证明,它们在这一领域即使不是为现实政治服务,也是无效的。为了逃避刑事责任,逃到拥有双重国籍或获得双重国籍的邻国的高级战犯也很多。滥用引渡制度,使那些涉嫌严重违反国际法的人不受惩罚。此外,各国法院在起诉战争罪行时毫无根据地适用普遍管辖权制度,不仅忽视了国际法院的判例,而且助长了对既定事实的修正主义。尽管为此目的签署了许多协定,但在起诉战争罪行方面缺乏区域合作,不承认该区域邻国法院的判决,这些问题继续阻碍人们接受事实和真相作为保证不再发生的基础。此外,在1990年代参加武装冲突的前南斯拉夫各国领土上,国际司法机构面前的判决所确定的事实是体制上否认和修正的对象。否定主义和修正主义在体制上深深植根于前南斯拉夫战后社会,对它们的容忍和赞同,以及国家司法机构的无效工作,导致了该地区美化罪行和战争罪犯的现象。通过有关国际和国家机构的报告以及法院实践中的例子,本工作旨在指出前南斯拉夫区域内国家法院工作中的义务和主要缺点,以及在起诉战争罪方面进行区域合作的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Historijski pogledi
Historijski pogledi Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Pojedina obilježja učinitelja i žrtava ratnih silovanja procesuiranih pred Sudom Bosne i Hercegovine Ka NATO putu – Od formiranja i ustrojstva Armije Republike Bosne i Hercegovine do Oružanih snaga Bosne i Hercegovine Parallel University of Prishtina, 1991-1999: Functioning, challenges and peaceful resistance Republika Sjeverna Makedonija i Bosna i Hercegovina od uspostavljanja diplomatskih odnosa do danas (1993-2022) Bosna i Hercegovina i konstituisanje Avnojske Jugoslavije (1943-1945)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1