DOCSLIB.ORG

London International Model United Nations 2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
London International Model United Nations 2016 LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2016 . Historical United Nations Security Council (HSC) London International Model United Nations 17th Session | 2016 11 LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2016 . Table of Content Introduction to Historical United Nations Security Council 3 Topic A: The Situation in Bosnia 5 Introduction 5 Parties to the conflict 6 Bloc Positions 9 Timeline 10 Questions a Resolution Must Answer 12 Sources 13 Conference Information 14 Position Papers 15 Contact Details 16 22 LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2016 . Introduction to the Historical United Nations Security Council The UN Security Council hardly requires an introduction. The UNSC is one of the primary organs of the United Nations. It is tasked with preserving international peace and security. It is composed of 15 members, of which 5 have a permanent seat: China, France, the Russian Federation (which, at the time of our session, has only recently succeeded the USSR as a permanent member), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America. The other 10 members are elected from the geographical division groups of the United Nations through an election process via the United Nations General Assembly, for two year terms. Due to the gravity of the decisions of the Security Council, it uses a system of a qualified majority when it comes to substantive matters, which cannot pass if a Permanent Member votes against, i.e. vetoes the matter. Any decision requires an affirmative vote of at least 9 affirmative votes out of the 15 members. Originally, all permanent members had to cast an affirmative vote in order to pass a resolution. Over time however, it was accepted that an abstention by a P5-member does not constitute a veto. Procedural matters require simple majority votes. 3 LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2016 . The resolutions of the Security Council can take the form of recommendations, if adopted under Chapter VI of the Charter, or of binding measures, if adopted under Chapter VII. It is therefore hard to underestimate the power of the UNSC, both when it comes to the scope of topics it can discuss, and the impact of its decisions regarding these topics. The historical aspect of the committee distinguishes it significantly from the other committees at LIMUN 2016. We will set our time machine to travel to a specific date on which our Security Council session will be held. In order to re-live the conflict in its specific setting in time, we would like to ask you, the delegates, to keep this in mind while conducting your research. Any references to events in the ‘future’ are not allowed. This might seem restrictive, however we feel it offers you the freedom to re-write history rather than re-enact it. It is up to the whole committee to come up with a comprehensive resolution that covers all of the key issues of the crisis. In doing so, the Security Council has all the powers of Chapter VI and VII of the UN Charter at its disposal. Of course, you will still be bound by the political reality of the time and policies of the respective country you represent. 4 LONDONLONDON INTERNATIONALINTERNATIONAL MODELMODEL UNITED NATIONS 20162016 . Topic: The Situation in Bosnia Introduction For this year’s Historic Security Council at LIMUN, we jump back 23 years in time, to January 10th 1993. This means you will have to act, speak and even think from that particular time perspective. Bill Clinton has beaten George Bush Sr. in the American presidential elections, and negotiations between the South African Apartheid government and Nelson Mandela’s ANC are underway. In Europe, Czechoslovakia peacefully splits up, and the first ever text message is sent in the United Kingdom. While these events are not directly linked to the topic we will be discussing, they might help set the stage for our Security Council session, and transmit that specific 1993 atmosphere. You will not only have to travel in time, but also in space, to that south-eastern corner of Europe called the Balkan Peninsula. Here, in this ethnic patchwork of different cultures, languages and religions, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand sparked the First World War and the defeat of Austria paved the way for the creation of a pan-Slavic state in the Balkans, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. After being occupied by Axis forces during the Second World War, the Yugoslav Partisans liberated the country and established the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, under the leadership of Marshall Josip Broz Tito. 55 LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2016 . Moving forward to 1989, the revolution in political affairs on a global playground leads to great dissatisfaction with communism as a political establishment. Many of the communist states go through political revolutions. Yugoslavia is no exception, and one by one the Yugoslav republics start declaring independence. Slovenia and Croatia secede in June 1991, Macedonia follows in September of the same year. These actions lead to high tensions in Bosnia, where the desire for independence is strongly opposed by the Serbian and Croatian minorities. This leads to the creation of independent republics of Serbs and Croats within Bosnia, the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and the Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia respectively. Despite a boycott by the Bosnian Serbs, a referendum on Bosnian independence is held. The Serbian- dominated Yugoslav People’s Army (JNA) sides with the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and violent clashes erupt all over Bosnia and Herzegovina. Reports of ethnic cleansing are widespread. The UN Protection Force (UNPROFOR) is sent in to prevent an escalation of the violence. Parties to the conflict Figure 1: Republics within the SFRY; ICTY, What is the former Yugoslavia? <http://www.icty.org/en/about /what-former-Yugoslavia> 1.1. Slovenia The first republic to declare its independence from Yugoslavia in June 1991, Slovenia had to win its sovereignty in a short military conflict with the JNA, known as the Weekend War. In the months leading up to the declaration of independence, Slovenia resists the Yugoslavian efforts for a reorganisation of the JNA, to a more centrally lead Defence Force. This would take away much of the control Slovenia has over JNA forces stationed within its borders. Slovenia sets up a parallel military structure 6 LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2016 . to counter the attempts of the JNA to take control of the Slovenian Territorial Defence Force (TO). After the Declaration of Independence, the JNA does move into Slovenia to try and bring it back under Yugoslavian control. However, since Slovenia does not have a substantial Serbian minority, the Serbian-led Yugoslav federal presidency is reluctant to commit fully to the conflict, especially since the simultaneous Croatian Declaration of Independence is much more important to the Serbs. The intensity of the fighting, and subsequently the amount of casualties, are low. The conflict officially ends with the signing of the Brijuni Agreement (see below). 1.2. Croatia and the SAO Krajina Unlike Slovenia, Croatia is home to a large Serbian minority (580,000 or 12,2% of this total population, according to the pre-war census of 1991). Croatian president Franjo Tudman actively strives for Croatian independence from Yugoslavia, much to the discontent of this Serbian minority. Serbian-dominated areas of Croatia pre-emptively counter this desire by declaring independence from Croatia and forming the Serbian Autonomous Oblast Krajina (SAO Krajina). Within the SAO Krajina, JNA Forces led by Ratko Mladic and Milan Babic begin to forcibly remove ethnic Croatians from their territory1. These actions are considered to be the first organised efforts at ethnic cleansing during the Yugoslavian break-up, most notably the Vukovar massacre2. Shortly after the Croatian Declaration of Independence, the European Community negotiates with Slovenia, Croatia and the Yugoslavian government, and the Brijuni Agreement is signed. This enforces the independence of Slovenia, while placing a three-month moratorium on the Croatian independence3. The moratorium does not stop the fighting, which lasts until the Sarajevo Agreement of January 2nd 1992. SAO Krajina, supported by the JNA, still occupies almost a third of all Croatian territory. The JNA itself retreats to Bosnia, where the Yugoslavian presidency anticipates further hostilities. 1.3. Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) Bosnia and Herzegovina is a pre-dominantly Muslim republic within Yugoslavia. Just as his Slovenian and Croatian counterparts, Bosnian president Alija Izetbegovic aspires to independence for his country. BiH however has large Serbian (Orthodox, 1 350 000 strong, 31% of the total Bosnia population) and Croat (Catholic, 760 000, 17%) minorities within its borders. Especially the Serbs are staunchly opposed to Bosnian independence, and favour staying part of the Serbian-dominated Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). Izetbegovic nonetheless persists, and organises a referendum. The 1 Milan Babic’s plea before the ICTY; <http://www.icty.org/x/cases/babic/custom4/en/plea_annexA.pdf>, accessed December 1st 2015 2 Bodies link officers to Croat executions, NY Times 24 October 1996; <http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/25/world/bodies-link-officers-to-croat-executions.html>, accessed December 1st 2015 3 The Brijuni Agreement; <http://www.ucdp.uu.se/gpdatabase/peace/Yug%2019910712.pdf>, accessed December 1st 2015 7 LONDON INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS 2016 . Serbian minority boycotts it, and later claims the result did not provide Izetbegovic with a sufficient majority to declare independence. Izetbegovic does so anyway in October 1991. In a move resembling the formation of the SAO Krajina in Croatia, the Bosnian Serbs secede, forming the Serbian Nation of BiH, also known as the Republika Srpska. The Croatian minority soon follows suit with the creation of Herzeg-Bosnia. Figure 2: Ethnic diversity in Bosnia & Herzegovina in 1992; Office of the High Representative in BiH; <http://reliefweb.int/organization/ohr> 1.4.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Summary of Judgement for Milan Martić
    JUDGEMENT SUMMARY TRIAL CHAMBER (Exclusively for the use of the media. Not an official document) The Hague, 12 June 2007 United Nations Nations Unies SUMMARY OF JUDGEMENT FOR MILAN MARTIĆ Please find below the summary of the judgement today read out by Judge Moloto: Summary of judgement International Criminal Tribunal This Trial Chamber is sitting today to deliver its judgement in the case of the Prosecutor v. for the former Milan Martić. First of all, the Trial Chamber wishes to thank the Parties, the Registry staff, and all Yugoslavia others who have assisted in the smooth and efficient running of this trial. Tribunal Pénal International pour The Trial Chamber emphasises that this is but a summary of its findings and that the only l’ex-Yougoslavie authoritative account is the written judgement, which will be made available after this hearing. This trial started on the 13th of December 2005 and concluded on the 12th January 2007. During the trial, which encompassed some 11,000 transcript pages, the Chamber heard the evidence of 67 live witnesses and admitted written evidence of 33 witnesses. The Trial Chamber admitted just over one thousand exhibits. The Indictment in this case charges Milan Martić with individual criminal responsibility in 19 counts, which set out: - 9 counts of violations of the laws or customs of war under Article 3 of the Statute, including murder, attacks on civilians, torture, cruel treatment, destruction of villages and institutions dedicated to religion and education, and plunder of public of private property, and - 10 counts of crimes against humanity under Article 5 of the Statute, including persecution, extermination, murder, torture, inhumane acts, and deportation.
    [Show full text]
  • Memorial of the Republic of Croatia
    INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE CASE CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE (CROATIA v. YUGOSLAVIA) MEMORIAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA APPENDICES VOLUME 5 1 MARCH 2001 II III Contents Page Appendix 1 Chronology of Events, 1980-2000 1 Appendix 2 Video Tape Transcript 37 Appendix 3 Hate Speech: The Stimulation of Serbian Discontent and Eventual Incitement to Commit Genocide 45 Appendix 4 Testimonies of the Actors (Books and Memoirs) 73 4.1 Veljko Kadijević: “As I see the disintegration – An Army without a State” 4.2 Stipe Mesić: “How Yugoslavia was Brought Down” 4.3 Borisav Jović: “Last Days of the SFRY (Excerpts from a Diary)” Appendix 5a Serb Paramilitary Groups Active in Croatia (1991-95) 119 5b The “21st Volunteer Commando Task Force” of the “RSK Army” 129 Appendix 6 Prison Camps 141 Appendix 7 Damage to Cultural Monuments on Croatian Territory 163 Appendix 8 Personal Continuity, 1991-2001 363 IV APPENDIX 1 CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS1 ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE CHRONOLOGY BH Bosnia and Herzegovina CSCE Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe CK SKJ Centralni komitet Saveza komunista Jugoslavije (Central Committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia) EC European Community EU European Union FRY Federal Republic of Yugoslavia HDZ Hrvatska demokratska zajednica (Croatian Democratic Union) HV Hrvatska vojska (Croatian Army) IMF International Monetary Fund JNA Jugoslavenska narodna armija (Yugoslav People’s Army) NAM Non-Aligned Movement NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
    [Show full text]
  • Goran Hadžić
    NOT AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT CASE INFORMATION SHEET (IT-04-75) GORAN HADŽIĆ GORAN HADŽIĆ Indicted for persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds; extermination; murder; torture; inhumane acts; deportation and forcible transfer; cruel treatment; wanton destruction of villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity; destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to education and religion; and plunder of public or private property President of the Government of the self-proclaimed Serbian Autonomous District Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem (SAO SBWS) and subsequently President of the Republic of Serbian Krajina (RSK). - Still at large Crimes indicted for (examples): Persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds; extermination; murder; torture; inhumane acts; deportation and forcible transfer (crimes against humanity) Murder; torture; cruel treatment; wanton destruction of villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity; destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to education and religion; and plunder of public or private property (violations of laws or customs of war) From 1 August 1991 until the end of June 1992, Goran Hadžić, acting individually or in concert with other known and unknown members of a joint criminal enterprise, planned, instigated, ordered, committed, or otherwise aided and abetted the planning, preparation, or execution of the persecutions of the Croat and other non-Serb civilian population in the SAO SBWS / RSK. These persecutions were based on political, racial or religious grounds and included the following: • The extermination or murder of hundreds of Croat and other non-Serb civilians, including women and elderly persons, in Dalj, Dalj Planina, Erdut, Erdut Planina, Klisa, Lovas, Grabovac and Vukovar.
    [Show full text]
  • Corrigé Corrected
    Corrigé Corrected CR 2014/16 International Court Cour internationale of Justice de Justice THE HAGUE LA HAYE YEAR 2014 Public sitting held on Wednesday 12 March 2014, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia) ________________ VERBATIM RECORD ________________ ANNÉE 2014 Audience publique tenue le mercredi 12 mars 2014, à 15 heures, au Palais de la Paix, sous la présidence de M. Tomka, président, en l’affaire relative à l’Application de la convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide (Croatie c. Serbie) ____________________ COMPTE RENDU ____________________ - 2 - Present: President Tomka Vice-President Sepúlveda-Amor Judges Owada Abraham Keith Bennouna Skotnikov Cançado Trindade Yusuf Greenwood Xue Donoghue Gaja Sebutinde Bhandari Judges ad hoc Vukas Kreća Registrar Couvreur - 3 - Présents : M. Tomka, président M. Sepúlveda-Amor, vice-président MM. Owada Abraham Keith Bennouna Skotnikov Cançado Trindade Yusuf Greenwood Mmes Xue Donoghue M. Gaja Mme Sebutinde M. Bhandari, juges MM. Vukas Kreća, juges ad hoc M. Couvreur, greffier - 4 - The Government of the Republic of Croatia is represented by: Ms Vesna Crnić-Grotić, Professor of International Law, University of Rijeka, as Agent; H.E. Ms Andreja Metelko-Zgombić, Ambassador, Director General for EU Law, International Law and Consular Affairs, Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, Zagreb, Ms Jana Špero, Head of Sector, Ministry of Justice, Zagreb, Mr. Davorin Lapaš, Professor of International Law, University of Zagreb, as Co-Agents; Mr. James Crawford, A.C., S.C., F.B.A., Whewell Professor of International Law, University of Cambridge, Member of the Institut de droit international, Barrister, Matrix Chambers, London, Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • CR 2006/41 (Translation)
    BHY CR 2006/41 (translation) CR 2006/41 (traduction) Thursday 4 May 2006 at 10 a.m. Jeudi 4 mai 2006 à 10 heures - 2 - 10 The PRESIDENT: Please be seated. Madame Fauveau-Ivanović, you have the floor. Ms FAUVEAU-IVANOVIĆ: Thank you, Madam President. GENOCIDE I. Genocide was not committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina: the criminal acts were not the consequence of the political objectives of the Bosnian Serbs 1. Madam President, Members of the Court, we have been able to observe during the oral pleadings that the positions of the Applicant and of Serbia and Montenegro do not differ substantially as regards the definition of the constituent elements of genocide enumerated in Article II of the Genocide Convention. 2. We agree that the material elements of the crime of genocide, its actus reus, are enumerated exhaustively in Article II of the Genocide Convention, and that the crime of genocide can only be constituted by the commission of one of the acts enumerated. We have also reached agreement on the fact that such acts constitute genocide only if they are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religions group, as such. 3. However, we do not agree on the legal characterization of the facts in the present case, since the Applicant alleges that genocide was committed, while we consider that genocide was not committed. Indeed, Madam President, Members of the Court, genocide was not committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Neither Serbia and Montenegro nor the Bosnian Serbs had the intention to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such.
    [Show full text]
  • Bee Varsity Final Round Bee Varsity Final Round Regulation Questions
    NHBB Nationals Bee 2017-2018 Bee Varsity Final Round Bee Varsity Final Round Regulation Questions (1) This campaign featured the Battle of the Pips, in which two ships fired into an empty sea because their radar confused birds for enemy vessels. As part of this campaign's Operation Cottage, the United States bombarded a target non-stop for three weeks, then invaded, (+) only to discover the enemy had left before the bombardment. In this campaign, the intelligence agents of Castner's Cutthroats helped construct the Adak Island landing strip. This campaign began with an attack on (*) Dutch Harbor that coincided with the Battle of Midway. Attu and Kiska were the targets of, for the points, what World War II campaign over islands in the far north Pacific? ANSWER: Aleutian Islands Campaign (accept descriptions of the Alaskan theater of World War II; prompt on descriptions of (the Pacific theater of) World War II before mentioned) (2) A song about the leaders of one of these events has him throw his newly married bride into a river to prove his devotion to his cause. That leader, Stepan Razin, captured Astrakhan and drew on the support of the (+) Don Cossacks. Another leader of one of these events was struck from the historical record after his defeat and conquered Kazan. That leader styled himself (*) Tsar Peter III before being defeated at Tsaritsyn and forced into an iron cage before Catherine the Great. For the points, name this type of uprising led by Pugachev, drawing on the frustrations of repressed serfs. ANSWER: Russian peasant rebellion (accept serf rebellion, Cossack uprising before Cossacks) (3) During the 2000 presidential campaign, this man criticized George W.
    [Show full text]
  • Goran Hadžić
    NOT AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT CASE INFORMATION SHEET “HADŽIĆ” (IT-04-75) GORAN HADŽIĆ GORAN HADŽIĆ Indicted for persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds; extermination; murder; torture; inhumane acts; deportation and forcible transfer; cruel treatment; wanton destruction of villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity; destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to education and religion; and plunder of public or private property President of the Government of the self-proclaimed Serbian Autonomous District Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem (SAO SBWS) and subsequently as President of Republic of Srpska Krajina (RSK). - Still at large Crimes indicted for (examples): Persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds; extermination; murder; torture; inhumane acts; deportation and forcible transfer (crimes against humanity) Murder; torture; cruel treatment; wanton destruction of villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity; destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to education and religion; and plunder of public or private property (violations of laws or customs of war) From 1 August 1991 until the end of June 1992, Goran Hadžić, acting individually or in concert with other known and unknown members of a joint criminal enterprise, planned, instigated, ordered, committed, or otherwise aided and abetted the planning, preparation, or execution of the persecutions of the Croat and other non-Serb civilian population in the SAO SBWS / RSK. These persecutions were based on political, racial or religious grounds and included the following: • The extermination or murder of hundreds of Croat and other non-Serb civilians, including women and elderly persons, in Dalj, Dalj Planina, Erdut, Erdut Planina, Klisa, Lovas, Grabovac and Vukovar.
    [Show full text]
  • Milan Martić
    CASE INFORMATION SHEET “RSK” (IT-95-11) MILAN MARTIĆ “RSK” (IT-95-11) MILAN MARTIĆ MILAN MARTIĆ Convicted of murder, persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds, cruel treatment, imprisonment, deportation, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of villages or devastation not justified by military necessity, torture, inhumane acts, attacks on civilians From 4 January 1991 until August 1995, held various leadership positions, such as President, Minister of Defence, Minister of Internal Affairs, in the so-called "Serbian Autonomous District (SAO) Krajina," and the so-called "Republic of Serbian Krajina" (RSK). - Sentenced to 35 years’ imprisonment Crimes convicted of (examples): Persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds, murder, imprisonment, torture, inhumane acts, deportation, inhumane acts (forcible transfers) (crimes against humanity) Murder, torture, cruel treatment, wanton destruction of villages or devastation not justified by military necessity, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to education or religion, plunder of public or private property, attacks on civilians (violations of the laws or customs of war) • Milan Martić intended to forcibly displace the Croat and other non-Serb population from the SAO Krajina and the RSK, and he actively participated in the furtherance of the common purpose of the joint criminal enterprise (JCE). He actively worked together with the other JCE participants to fulfil the objective of a united Serb state, something which he expressed publicly on several occasions between 1991 and 1995. • He was aware that the non-Serb population was being driven out as a result of the coercive atmosphere in the SAO Krajina and the RSK but he deliberately refrained from intervening against perpetrators who committed crimes against the non-Serb population.
    [Show full text]
  • Serbia and the Serbian Rebellion in Croatia (1990-1991)
    Serbia and the Serbian Rebellion in Croatia (1990-1991) By Harry Jack Hayball Thesis submitted to Goldsmiths College, University of London, for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy April 2015 Supervised by Professor Jan Plamper 2 Declaration All the work presented in this thesis is my own. Harry Jack Hayball Declaration 3 Abstract It is often suggested that the Serbian rebellion in Croatia in 1990-91 was orchestrated by Serbia, and, in particular, by its president Slobodan Milošević personally. Despite the popularity of this interpretation, however, the literature on the break-up of Yugoslavia is yet to offer a focused study of Serbia's role in the descent into conflict in Croatia. Many sources that have become available in recent years remain unused. Through a critical and cautious use of such sources, including extensive interviews with participants in the conflict and contemporary documentation, this thesis aims to fill this gap in the literature and to update our knowledge of this important aspect of the bloody disintegration of Yugoslavia. Honing in on Belgrade's relationships with Serb political and military/paramilitary leaders in Croatia, as well as Serbia's direct involvement in and attitude towards the road to war, it concludes that the existing focus on Milošević's Serbia has been misplaced. Serbia's stance towards Croatia was hardline, but Belgrade's influence over the Croatian Serbs was limited and its direct involvement in events minimal. Milošević did not have a grand plan to orchestrate violence in Croatia, and the leaders of the Serbian rebellion in Croatia were fundamentally independent and autonomous actors, who, far from being Milošević's puppets, were often in conflict with him.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia on War Crime Investigations and Prosecutions in Croatia
    THE IMPACT OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR YUGOSLAVIA ON WAR CRIME INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS IN CROATIA BY KEREN MICHAELI DOMAC/10, DECEMBER 2011 ABOUT DOMAC THE DOMAC PROJECT focuses on the actual interaction between national and international courts involved in prosecuting individuals in mass atrocity situations. It explores what impact international procedures have on prosecution rates before national courts, their sentencing policies, award of reparations and procedural legal standards. It comprehensively examines the problems presented by the limited response of the international community to mass atrocity situations, and offers methods to improve coordination of national and international proceedings and better utilization of national courts, inter alia, through greater formal and informal avenues of cooperation, interaction and resource sharing between national and international courts. THE DOMAC PROJECT is a research program funded under the Seventh Framework Programme for EU Research (FP7) under grant agreement no. 217589. The DOMAC project is funded under the Socio-economic sciences and Humanities Programme for the duration of three years starting 1st February 2008. THE DOMAC PARTNERS are Hebrew University, Reykjavik University, University College London, University of Amsterdam, and University of Westminster. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Adv. Keren Michaeli is a Lecturer in Public International Law and International Humanitarian and Criminal Law at the School of Law, the College of Management, Academic Studies in Israel.
    [Show full text]
  • Weighing the Evidence RIGHTS Lessons from the Slobodan Milosevic Trial WATCH December 2006 Volume 18, No
    The Balkans HUMAN Weighing the Evidence RIGHTS Lessons from the Slobodan Milosevic Trial WATCH December 2006 Volume 18, No. 10(D) Weighing the Evidence Lessons from the Slobodan Milosevic Trial Executive Summary.................................................................................................. 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................5 Background..............................................................................................................7 Court Proceedings.............................................................................................10 Evidence ................................................................................................................ 14 Financial Assistance .........................................................................................16 Material Support...............................................................................................24 Arming of Bosnian and Croatian Serbs.........................................................25 JNA support............................................................................................25 Serbian Ministry of Defense ...................................................................28 Serbian Ministry of the Interior ...............................................................29 Association of Serbs and Emigrants of Serbia.........................................30 1992 formation of the SVK and VRS..............................................................32
    [Show full text]
  • Stanišić & Simatović
    NOT AN OFFICIAL DOCUMENT CASE INFORMATION SHEET (IT-03-69) STANIŠIĆ & SIMATOVIĆ The Prosecutor v. Jovica Stanišić and Franko Simatović JOVICA STANIŠIĆ Indicted for murder, persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds, deportation and inhumane acts/forcible transfer Head or Chief of the State Security Service (DB) of the Ministry of the Internal Affairs of the Republic of Serbia (MUP) FRANKO SIMATOVIĆ Indicted for murder, persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds, deportation and inhumane acts/forcible transfer Initially worked on counter intelligence within the DB and then moved into the newly formed Intelligence Administration (or Second Administration) of the DB and as such was the commander of the Special Operations Unit of the DB Crimes indicted for (examples): Persecutions on political racial or religious grounds; murder; deportation; inhumane acts (forcible transfer) (crimes against humanity) Murder (violations of the laws or customs of war) • From no later than 1 April 1991 until 31 December 1995, Jovica Stanišić and Franko Simatović, acting alone or in concert with members of a joint criminal enterprise, planned, ordered and/or otherwise aided and abetted the planning, preparation and/or execution of persecutions of Croats, Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats and other non-Serbs within the Serbian Autonomous District of Krajina (SAO Krajina) and the Serbian Autonomous District of Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srijem/Srem (SAO SBWS), both Serb- controlled areas of Croatia, as well as in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the municipalities of Bijeljina, Bosanski Šamac, Doboj, Sanski Most, Trnovo, and Zvornik. • These persecutions were committed on the discriminatory grounds of political affiliation, race or religion, and included the murder, forcible transfer and deportation of Croats, Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Croats and other non-Serb civilians.
    [Show full text]