No description available.

No description available.

State compliance with International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) arrest and surrender orders, Article 29(d) and (e) obligations, remains under explored in international criminal tribunal (ICT) scholarship despite the fact compliance with ICTY orders often proved not forthcoming from the states of the former Yugoslavia. This thesis will attempt to identiy causal phenomena behind compliance with ICT arrest and surrender orders through an exploration of compliance on the part of the diverse spectrum of states and non-state governing entities across the former Yugoslavia. Because International Relations (IR) scholarship identifies competing causal mechanisms to explain compliance and non-compliance outcomes, which range from a rationalist focus on material incentives and disincentives to norm-centric approaches, there will be an exploration of both ideational and material explanatory variables. Moreover, as mainstream neorealist and neoliberal institutionalist theories are unable to cope with entites where an autonomous state is not an ontological given, this thesis will be divided into two constituent parts. Part I will address the question of state compliance and include three case studies, Croatia, Serbia and Macedonia, while Part II will address the question of compliance in the context of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, both of which do not conform to traditional models of the Westphalian state. This thesis will argue that the study of compliance is limited by the state centricity of international law and the rationalist failure to integrate ideational structures itno the study of compliance.

This thesis addresses the legitimacy discourse of the ad-hoc International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, by focusing on a particular case study: the Interlocutory Motion challenging the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in the Dusko Tadi6 case. This, the first ever International Criminal Tribunal established by the United Nations Security Council, faced in the initial proceedings with the first indictee to be present in the Chambers a challenge as to the lawfulness of its own establishment, and therefore as to its legitimacy. The lack of historical precedents for this novel jurisdiction, and the context of the more multicultural-driven international relations of the 1990s, that is, because of the collapse of the superpowers and the temporary suspension of the logic of a bipolar world, were all expected to validate a complex discourse of legitimacy, namely, through recourse to extra-legal references. In fact, the acceptance, and therefore the legitimacy, of the new jurisdiction depended on the recognition of a shared historical, cultural and political context, or, at least, of recognizable politicocultural references beyond the legalistic self-contained judicial speech. After extensively reviewing the initial materials of the challenge presented before the court, the thesis focuses its research on the Tribunal's Decisions, both at Trial and Appeal levels, identifying the attempts to break a self-referential legal discourse. The uncertainty of the historical moment, together with the hesitation on the use of politico-cultural references on the part of the Tribunal, sustains the conclusion of this thesis that no coherent legitimacy discourse is here attained.

During the 1990s Yugoslavia and Rwanda were swept by wars accompanied by serious violations of international humanitarian law. Grave and severe crimes wiped away lives and destroyed properties. The United Nations Security Council determined that the violations committed constituted threats to international peace and security, declaring itself empowered to take action. It established international ad hoc criminal tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda with the mandate of prosecuting individuals responsible for those crimes as an enforcement measure under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. Investigating the tribunals’ effectiveness enables one to assess whether they achieved the anticipated outcomes based on the tribunals’ mission, goals, and objectives without creating other problems. The research relies on naturalism and positivism to put the tribunals in a moral and ethical perspective. By examining how the tribunals were established, their objectives, the investigation and prosecution processes, the reliance on guilty plea and judicial notice and the imputation of criminal responsibility by applying joint criminal enterprise and command responsibility doctrines; the study argues that prosecution has not been an effective tool as contemplated by the Security Council. An analytical and comparative review of various domestic and international legal resources helped to provide an insightful approach for an effective prosecution of international crimes. Credible, legitimate and legal judicial institutions in which professional judges and prosecutors discharge their function independently, impartially and are accountable may achieve justice for the victims of international crimes. Ad hoc tribunals failed to thoroughly investigate and assume the dual role of prosecution. They conveniently used legal procedural tools that fit petty domestic crimes; unfortunately demeaning the magnitude of international crimes of concern. Criminal responsibility was mostly imputed without properly scrutinising the legality, extent, actual participation and guilty mind of the alleged perpetrators. Effectiveness should be a value assessment. Imposed and overburdened ad hoc tribunals are inappropriate and should be abandoned. / Public, Constitutional, & International / LLD

During the 1990s Yugoslavia and Rwanda were swept by wars accompanied by serious violations of international humanitarian law. Grave and severe crimes wiped away lives and destroyed properties. The United Nations Security Council determined that the violations committed constituted threats to international peace and security, declaring itself empowered to take action. It established international ad hoc criminal tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda with the mandate of prosecuting individuals responsible for those crimes as an enforcement measure under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. Investigating the tribunals’ effectiveness enables one to assess whether they achieved the anticipated outcomes based on the tribunals’ mission, goals, and objectives without creating other problems. The research relies on naturalism and positivism to put the tribunals in a moral and ethical perspective. By examining how the tribunals were established, their objectives, the investigation and prosecution processes, the reliance on guilty plea and judicial notice and the imputation of criminal responsibility by applying joint criminal enterprise and command responsibility doctrines; the study argues that prosecution has not been an effective tool as contemplated by the Security Council. An analytical and comparative review of various domestic and international legal resources helped to provide an insightful approach for an effective prosecution of international crimes. Credible, legitimate and legal judicial institutions in which professional judges and prosecutors discharge their function independently, impartially and are accountable may achieve justice for the victims of international crimes. Ad hoc tribunals failed to thoroughly investigate and assume the dual role of prosecution. They conveniently used legal procedural tools that fit petty domestic crimes; unfortunately demeaning the magnitude of international crimes of concern. Criminal responsibility was mostly imputed without properly scrutinising the legality, extent, actual participation and guilty mind of the alleged perpetrators. Effectiveness should be a value assessment. Imposed and overburdened ad hoc tribunals are inappropriate and should be abandoned. / Public, Constitutional, and International / LL. D.