Customer Reviews

Reconciliation Via the War Crimes Tribunal?

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The book is essentially about international justice and the theoretical elements that make it work. It is only secondarily about the Hague Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and only in the sense of illustrating the more general points that need to be observed in order for international justice to be effective.

The author starts from the assumption that international justice, importantly, serves the purposes of achieving reconciliation between the parties, by means of taking their conflict away from them and adjudicating it at an international level. In order for this strategy to work, the process must be impeccable in the professional sense, and any organisational problems within the courts reverberate through the regions affected and are perceived as compromises to justice. Thus the author's main point is that good intentions are only morally justified in the case of international criminal trials when they are adequately coupled with the organisation and operation of the courts at a sufficiently high standard. In many cases, this is simply not the case, as has been amply illustrated by numerous international lawyers who write both about the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and the tribunal for Rwanda.

The findings of authors who claim that the Reconciliation Commissions in Rwanda have achieved far better results for reconciliation itself than was the international tribunal basically confirm the conclusions of this book, which discusses the international tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The author follows a very careful thread of argument and shows why the establishment of the Hague Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia held high potential for the promotion of international justice, and why and where the actual work of the Tribunal has fallen short of achieving this potential. The arguments given in support of those conclusions that are critical (not all are) of the Tribunal are based entirely on the theoretical principles that underpin the successful implementation of justice, and not on objections that the Tribunal is systematically biased. (It would be very difficult today to find those who would say that it is not biased, even among those most ardently in favour of internaitional criminal justice. However, this book remains focused on the main topic of reconciliation, and is strict not to get into issue of bias.) This is the only book on the subject, to my knowledge, written during the NATO bombardment of Serbia, in Serbia, and thus should be read by scholars seeking a balanced view of the merits and shortfalls of the Hague Tribunal. It is moderate, based on facts, it clearly states its theoretical assumptions and provides conclusions that open possibilities for the improvement of international justice rahter than being merely critical. It is by all means a recommended reading. This is a piece of writing intended for the serious students of political and legal philosophy, alongside with policymakers and those interested in current affairs.

"The Hague" was created as a means to justify the US/UK's bombing of the Serbian population - they bombed them in Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia. The court is anti-Serbian and is seen as a Kangaroo Court, not an international court of justice! If it were after justice it would also deal with the issue of the illegal bombing of Serbia by the US/UK - no not interested in that. Therefore don't be interested in this book as the title and contents is hypocritical!