DOCSLIB.ORG

L'application De La Convention Pour La Prévention Et La

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
L'application De La Convention Pour La Prévention Et La INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE AFFAIRE RELATIF À L’APPLICATION DE LA CONVENTION POUR LA PRÉVENTION ET LA RÉPRESSION DU CRIME DE GÉNOCIDE (CROATIE c. SERBIE) CASE CONCERNING APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE (CROATIA v. SERBIA) STIPULATIONS, EVIDENCE, and MEMORANDA SUBMITTED BY THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA and THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA February 2018 1 INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE Honourable Justices, Welcome to the International Court of Justice at NAMUN 2018. I will be serving as the President of the Court, joined by Deputy President Jerry Qiu and Registrar Marium Nur Vahed. During the conference, the court will be deliberating on a contentious case (Croatia v. Serbia) and an advisory opinion (Immunities from Criminal Proceedings, based on historic cases Equatorial Guinea v. France and Congo Republic v. France). The first order of business is to read the Background Guide, posted on the NAMUN website, which deals primarily with the principles and procedure of the contentious case. The phases of the trial as they map with the conference schedule will be discussed in more detail at our first committee session. You will also find an advisory opinion guide, which discusses the Position Paper which is due at the beginning of the conference on February 22. Please read that guide. Your position paper does not have to be particularly elaborate: our basic requirement is that you have at least three questions about the advisory opinion for us to discuss during the first day of the conference. Please let me know if you have trouble finding or using any of these documents. I anticipate this year’s contentious case will produce a fruitful and engaging simulation. As it deals with relatively recent historical events characterized by deep hostility, I want to specifically remind the participants to withhold their personal perceptions and prejudgment of the case and representatives of the two sides – including the fact that the case concerning Application of the Genocide Convention between Croatia and Serbia was resolved in the actual International Court of Justice on 3 February 2015. The findings from the court at Peace Palace, cases at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, any other legal mechanism, or, indeed, your existing knowledge of events are not relevant to our simulation. Following this note are three types of documents described in the Background Guide produced by the advocates for Croatia and Serbia: stipulations, memoranda, and evidence lists. Advocates Mia Durkovic and Mitchell Popen, representing Croatia, and Adrian Ko and Tasfia Karim, representing Serbia, have been hard at work for the past few months preparing these, their witnesses, and arguments. These documents are for your reference. Your knowledge of their contents or the evidence does not need to be complete before the conference. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me and my colleagues at [email protected]. I may have forgotten to mention some things so please forgive me and remember to check your email (and spam folder) for any further notes. Best regards, Allen Wang President, International Court of Justice NAMUN 2018 2 INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE Stipulations The parties stipulate that: 1. The contentious case, Croatia v. Serbia, was brought to the International Court of Justice on 2 July 1999, where Croatia filed an Application against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), now known as Serbia, “for violating the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”. 2. The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) came to an end on 27 April 1992 and became the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). 3. All parties agree to the definition of genocide as outlined in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. 4. All parties agree that Article IX of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide applies to this case, giving the International Court of Justice jurisdiction to hear disputes relating to the application of the convention, and prosecute responsible States. 5. All parties agree that Croats and Serbs are ethnically distinct as demonstrated by independent linguistic, religious, and historical traditions. Both the Applicant and the Respondent recognize that such ethnic differences resulted in tensions which rest at the heart of the dispute ahead of us. 6. The Brioni Agreement was signed by Croatia, Slovenia, and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on 7 July 1991 in order to suspend all hostilities surrounding the proposed model of confederation submitted by the Republics of Croatia and Slovenia. 7. All parties agree that the translations used of any aforementioned treaties should be held such that the translations are true, but each state reserves their respective legal interpretations. 3 INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE Memorandum of Points and Authorities Submitted by Counsel for Croatia Statement of Jurisdiction 1. The Republic of Croatia submits this Application, naming the Republic of Croatia (“Croatia”) against the Republic of Serbia (“Serbia”), formerly known as the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, for violations of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (hereafter referred to as the Genocide Convention). The Court has jurisdiction to preside over the case pursuant to Article 36(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice and Article IX of the Genocide Convention. 2. At the time in which Croatia filed the Application, both Croatia and Serbia were parties to the Genocide Convention; the court at the time of the Application also had jurisdiction to preside over matters concerned with responsibility for breaches of the convention. Statement of Law 1. On 19-21 November 1990, the states of Yugoslavia participated in the Charter of Paris for a New Europe. The meeting outlined terms for peaceful relations among participating States in Europe and reaffirmed the commitment to the Helsinki Final Act. It also established a framework of human rights. 2. On 22 October 1992, Croatia signed the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect to Treaties. In doing so, Croatia agreed that it would be bound by the treaty obligations of the state from which they separated. 3. On 11 December 1948, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia signed the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention) and ratified it on 21 December 1950. a. The Genocide Convention defines genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part ; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring the children of the group to another group.” 4. On 14 May 1954, at The Hague in Netherlands, The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia signed The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (hereafter referred to as The Hague Convention). Statement of Fact 1. An independence referendum was held on 19 August 1990 to determine Croatia’s proposed exit from Yugoslavia. Over 90 percent of the voters voted in favour of the referendum. 4 INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE 2. In 1991, the separation of Croatia from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia spurred four years of wrongful bloodshed and economic destruction. 3. On 7 July 1991, representatives of the Republic of Slovenia, Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia signed the Brioni Agreement, facilitated by the European Community (EC). The agreement demanded a ceasefire, wherein all parties agreed to refrain from any unilateral action. A moratorium of three months on the enactment of a Slovenian declaration of independence was established. 4. On October 8, 1991, Croatian Parliament officially declared independence from Yugoslavia, an act which Serbia and its member of the Yugoslav Presidency did not recognize or accept. 5. The Vance Plan was approved pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 721 on 11 December 1991. The plan set out to implement a ceasefire in parts of Croatia which were under control of the JNA and Croatian Serbs. The Geneva Accord was first signed 23 November 1991, but did not hold, so the second agreement was signed in January 1992 in Sarajevo by all Yugoslav states. 6. Serbian paramilitary groups sought to take over areas along Croatia’s border with Serbia based on the proposed lines drawn of Greater Serbia in the SANU Memorandum. 7. The Yugoslav People’s Army (JNA) directly armed and funded the operations of these Serbian paramilitaries. Argument 1. During the Croatian War of Independence, Serbia – through the JNA and supported paramilitaries – was in breach of article II of the Genocide Convention. a. Between October 10th-18th, 1991, the JNA shelled, tortured, raped, and up to 70 unarmed and peaceful Croatian civilians in the village of Lovas after it was taken over by Yugoslav/Serbian forces. b. On November 12th, 1991, Martic’s police force, led by the JNA, entered the town of Saborsko where they sought out all remaining Croat civilians. In moving from house to house, they captured and then killed 29 such individuals and placed their bodies in two mass graves. c. On 13th December 1991, the paramilitary group known as The White Eagles, entered the town of Vocin where they systematically tortured, dismembered, burned, and killed dozens of Croatian citizens far beyond the scope collateral damage seen in war times. d. On 20 December 1991, at Vukovar, the JNA removed over 200 patients – most of whom were ethnic Croats – from the Vukovar Hospital, denied the International Committee of the Red Cross entry to the hospital, beat the aforementioned patients, and subsequently allowed Serbian paramilitary groups to massacre the patients.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MSF and Srebrenica 1993 - 2003
    MSF AND SREBRENICA 1993 - 2003 MSF SPEAKS OUT MSF Speaks out In the same collection, “MSF Speaking Out”: - “Salvadoran refugee camps in Honduras 1988” Laurence Binet - Médecins Sans Frontières [October 2003 - April 2004 - December 2013] - “Genocide of Rwandan Tutsis 1994” Laurence Binet - Médecins Sans Frontières [October 2003 - April 2004 - April 2014] - “Rwandan refugee camps Zaire and Tanzania 1994-1995” Laurence Binet - Médecins Sans Frontières [October 2003 - April 2004 - April 2014] - “The violence of the new Rwandan regime 1994-1995” Laurence Binet - Médecins Sans Frontières [October 2003 - April 2004 - April 2014] - “Hunting and killings of Rwandan Refugee in Zaire-Congo 1996-1997” Laurence Binet - Médecins Sans Frontières [August 2004 - April 2014] - ‘’Famine and forced relocations in Ethiopia 1984-1986” Laurence Binet - Médecins Sans Frontières [January 2005 - November 2013] - “Violence against Kosovar Albanians, NATO’s Intervention 1998-1999” Laurence Binet - Médecins Sans Frontières [September 2006] - “War crimes and politics of terror in Chechnya 1994-2004’” Laurence Binet - Médecins Sans Frontières [June 2010-September 2014] - “Somalia 1991-1993: Civil war, famine alert and UN ‘military-humanitarian’ intervention” Laurence Binet - Médecins Sans Frontières [October 2013] - “MSF and North Korea 1995-1998” Laurence Binet - Médecins Sans Frontières [November 2014] Editorial Committee: Laurence Binet, Françoise Bouchet-Saulnier, Marine Buissonnière, Rebecca Golden, Michiel Hofman, Paul Mac Phun, Jerome Oberreit, Darin Portnoy - Director of Studies (project coordination-research-interview-editing): Laurence Binet - Assistant: Martin Saulnier - Translation into English: Mark Ayton, Leah Brumer, Kristin Cairns, Amanda Dehaye, Nina Friedman, Justin Hillier, Derek Scoins, Caroline Serraf (coor- dination), Ros Smith-Thomas, Karen Stokes, Karen Tucker, Riccardo Walker - Editing/Proof Reading: Liz Barling, Rebecca Golden - Design and Layout: tcgraphite - Video research: Martin Saulnier - Website Designer and Administrator: Sean Brokenshire.
    [Show full text]
  • The Yugoslav Peoples's Army: Between Civil War and Disintegration
    WARNING! The views expressed in FMSO publications and reports are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. The Yugoslav Peoples's Army: Between Civil War and Disintegration by Dr. Timothy L. Sanz Foreign Military Studies Office, Fort Leavenworth, KS. This article appeared originally in Military Review December 1991 Pages 36-45 August, a crisis in the Balkans, and a revolutionary upheaval in part of Europe--these words raise the hair on the back of the neck. Just a bit less than eighty years ago, Europe inaugurated this century of total war, thanks to the inability of its monarchs, statesmen, and generals to deal with a Balkan Crisis, the latest manifestation of what diplomats then called the "accursed Eastern Question." In the wake of that failure of statecraft, million-man armies marched into battle from one end of the continent to the other. Looking back on the long interval of peace which Europe has enjoyed since the end of the Second World War, the present crisis confirms the reality of a profound shift in the European security system and raises the question of whether the emerging security system in Europe will be able to deal with new Balkan crises. For several decades, while the military might of two ideologically-hostile blocs stood poised for action in Central Europe, a hypothetical internal crisis in Yugoslavia was often seen as an element in a scenario for bringing about a NATO-WTO military confrontation.
    [Show full text]
  • Opmaak Both/Definitief 02-08-2000 15:13 Pagina 1
    * From Indifference to 19-12-2003 17:26 Pagina 1 NORBERT BOTH NORBERT NORBERT BOTH Fr om Indifference to Entrapment to om Indifference The Yugoslav crisis represents a formidable foreign policy challenge to many Western and Islamic government bureaucracies. From Indifference to Entrapment deals with the question of how the Netherlands faced up to this challenge during the years 1990-1995. It was during this period that the crisis erupted into armed conflict and the single worst war crime in Europe since the end of World War II took place in the ‘safe area’ of Srebrenica. The role of the Netherlands is particularly interesting, as the country held the EC/EU Presidency during the recognition debate in 1991 and supplied the peacekeeping presence in Srebrenica. The questions addressed in this book include: Did early warning work? What role did the Dutch Presidency (July-December 1991) play in the recognition debate? What motiv- ated the Dutch opposition to the Vance-Owen Peace Plan? Why did the Netherlands become From Indifference entrapped, as symbolised through its isolated peacekeeping commitment to Srebrenica? Finally, what can this story tell us about the ability of small and medium powers to in- fluence international affairs? This study is based on interviews with key players, including former Cabinet Minis- ters, and on documents from the Netherlands Ministry to Entrapment of Foreign Affairs, made available under the Dutch ‘freedom of information act’. ISBN 90-5356-453-5 Dr. Norbert Both, formerly a research assistant The Netherlands for David Owen, now works at the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
    [Show full text]
  • France and the Dissolution of Yugoslavia Christopher David Jones, MA, BA (Hons.)
    France and the Dissolution of Yugoslavia Christopher David Jones, MA, BA (Hons.) A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of East Anglia School of History August 2015 © “This copy of the thesis has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with the author and that use of any information derived there from must be in accordance with current UK Copyright Law. In addition, any quotation or extract must include full attribution.” Abstract This thesis examines French relations with Yugoslavia in the twentieth century and its response to the federal republic’s dissolution in the 1990s. In doing so it contributes to studies of post-Cold War international politics and international diplomacy during the Yugoslav Wars. It utilises a wide-range of source materials, including: archival documents, interviews, memoirs, newspaper articles and speeches. Many contemporary commentators on French policy towards Yugoslavia believed that the Mitterrand administration’s approach was anachronistic, based upon a fear of a resurgent and newly reunified Germany and an historical friendship with Serbia; this narrative has hitherto remained largely unchallenged. Whilst history did weigh heavily on Mitterrand’s perceptions of the conflicts in Yugoslavia, this thesis argues that France’s Yugoslav policy was more the logical outcome of longer-term trends in French and Mitterrandienne foreign policy. Furthermore, it reflected a determined effort by France to ensure that its long-established preferences for post-Cold War security were at the forefront of European and international politics; its strong position in all significant international multilateral institutions provided an important platform to do so.
    [Show full text]
  • Additional Pleading 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. serBia) ADDITIONAL PLEADING OF THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA volume 1 30 august 2012 international court of Justice case concerning the application of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide (croatia v. serBia) ADDITIONAL PLEADING OF THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA volume 1 30 august 2012 ii iii CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 section i: overview and structure 1 section ii: issues of proof and evidence 3 proof of genocide - general 5 ictY agreed statements of fact 6 the ictY Judgment in Gotovina 7 additional evidence 7 hearsay evidence 8 counter-claim annexes 9 the chc report and the veritas report 9 reliance on ngo reports 11 the Brioni transcript and other transcripts submitted by the respondent 13 Witness statements submitted by the respondent 14 missing ‘rsK’ documents 16 croatia’s full cooperation with the ictY-otp 16 the decision not to indict for genocide and the respondent’s attempt to draw an artificial distinction Between the claim and the counter-claim 17 CHAPTER 2: CROATIA AND THE ‘RSK’/SERBIA 1991-1995 19 introduction 19 section i: preliminary issues 20 section ii: factual Background up to operation Flash 22 serb nationalism and hate speech 22 serbian non-compliance with the vance plan 24 iv continuing human rights violations faced by croats in the rebel serb occupied territories 25 failure of the serbs to demilitarize 27 operation maslenica (January 1993)
    [Show full text]
  • Confronting the Yugoslav Controversies Central European Studies Charles W
    Confronting the Yugoslav Controversies Central European Studies Charles W. Ingrao, senior editor Gary B. Cohen, editor Confronting the Yugoslav Controversies A Scholars’ Initiative Edited by Charles Ingrao and Thomas A. Emmert United States Institute of Peace Press Washington, D.C. D Purdue University Press West Lafayette, Indiana Copyright 2009 by Purdue University. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Second revision, May 2010. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Confronting the Yugoslav Controversies: A Scholars’ Initiative / edited by Charles Ingrao and Thomas A. Emmert. p. cm. ISBN 978-1-55753-533-7 1. Yugoslavia--History--1992-2003. 2. Former Yugoslav republics--History. 3. Yugoslavia--Ethnic relations--History--20th century. 4. Former Yugoslav republics--Ethnic relations--History--20th century. 5. Ethnic conflict-- Yugoslavia--History--20th century. 6. Ethnic conflict--Former Yugoslav republics--History--20th century. 7. Yugoslav War, 1991-1995. 8. Kosovo War, 1998-1999. 9. Kosovo (Republic)--History--1980-2008. I. Ingrao, Charles W. II. Emmert, Thomas Allan, 1945- DR1316.C66 2009 949.703--dc22 2008050130 Contents Introduction Charles Ingrao 1 1. The Dissolution of Yugoslavia Andrew Wachtel and Christopher Bennett 12 2. Kosovo under Autonomy, 1974–1990 Momčilo Pavlović 48 3. Independence and the Fate of Minorities, 1991–1992 Gale Stokes 82 4. Ethnic Cleansing and War Crimes, 1991–1995 Marie-Janine Calic 114 5. The International Community and the FRY/Belligerents, 1989–1997 Matjaž Klemenčič 152 6. Safe Areas Charles Ingrao 200 7. The War in Croatia, 1991–1995 Mile Bjelajac and Ozren Žunec 230 8. Kosovo under the Milošević Regime Dusan Janjić, with Anna Lalaj and Besnik Pula 272 9.
    [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]
  • Chapter VII: the Formation of the Republika Srpska and the Policy of Ethnic Separation in Bosnia and Herzegovina
    UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) The unfinished trial of Slobodan Milošević: Justice lost, history told Vrkić, N. Publication date 2015 Document Version Final published version Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Vrkić, N. (2015). The unfinished trial of Slobodan Milošević: Justice lost, history told. General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl) Download date:06 Oct 2021 Why do you want to make Serbia and Serbs responsible for the war in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina? ...[The international community] broke up Yugoslavia... and now they want all three peoples in Bosnia and Herzegovina to foot the bill... Slobodan Milošević, Opening Statement, 14 February
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Arms in Peace Processes: Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina
    UNIDIR/96/7 UNIDIR United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research Geneva Disarmament and Conflict Resolution Project Managing Arms in Peace Processes: Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina Paper: Barbara Ekwall-Uebelhart and Andrei Raevsky Questionnaire Analysis: LTCol J.W. Potgieter, Military Expert DCR Project Project funded by: the Ford Foundation, the United States Institute of Peace, the Winston Foundation, the Ploughshares Fund, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; and the governments of Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Finland, France, Austria, the Federal Republic of Brazil, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Argentina, and the Republic of South Africa. UNITED NATIONS New York and Geneva, 1996 NOTE The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. * * * The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Secretariat. UNIDIR/96/7 UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION Sales No. GV.E.96.0.6 ISBN 92-9045-110-6 Table of Contents Previous DCR Project Publications............................... vii Preface - Sverre Lodgaard .......................................ix Acknowledgements ............................................xi Project Introduction - Virginia Gamba ............................xiii Project Staff ................................................xxi List of Acronyms ...........................................xxiii Part I: Case Study ................................... 1 Chapter 1: Introduction B. Ekwall-Uebelhart and A. Raevsky .............. 3 1.1. Background to the Conflict - B. Ekwall-Uebelhart..........
    [Show full text]
  • Fierce Battles Rage in Croatia
    Fierce battles rage in Croatia From Marcus Tanner in Belgrade SERB militants clashed with Cro- tatives of the eight constituent atian police yesterday in several parts of the country, seem like a gun battles in villages near the dead letter. It had ordered the dis- central Croatian town of Petrinja. banding of all irregular armed "It's a real battle going on," said units, except the federal army and a Croatian policeman from the the regular police force, by mid- village of Donji Cuntic, near Pet- night on 18 July. rinja. The policeman said fighting The order was immediately began after local Serb gunmen countermanded, however, by the surrounded the village police sta- President of Yugoslavia, Stipe tion early in the morning. Reports Mesic, a Croat. Shortly after sign- of the number of dead or ing the ultimatum, he said that wounded in yesterday's clashes Croatia would not obey the order could not be confirmed. Late last if it meant disbanding the repub- night it was reported that Cro- lic's paramilitary National Guard. atian militiamen retook four vil- The daily outbreaks of fresh lages from Serbian guerrillas. The violence and the deep hatred and Croatian interior minister last suspicion which mark relations week reported that 29 Croatian between the various Yugoslav Croatian villagers take part in a funeral procession for one of the many young men killed in the civil turmoil that has engulfed the breakaway republic Photograph: David Rose police had been killed since Au- republics, will create an almost gust last year in clashes between
    [Show full text]
  • From a Consistent Warrior to an (Un)Willing Ally"
    THE ROLE OF MONTENEGRO IN THE WARS OF THE 1990s: "FROM A CONSISTENT WARRIOR TO AN (UN)WILLING ALLY" PhD Šerbo Rastoder and MSc Novak Adžić INTRODUCTION In order to fully understand the role of Montenegro in the wars that caused the disintegration of Yugoslavia, it is necessary to keep in mind that, from 1945 to 1992, Montenegro was a federal unit within the Yugoslav state. Based on the 1974 Constitution, it had formed a federal government, together with five other republics and two provinces, holding - at least theoretically - approximately 12.5% of the power at the federal level. In the period 1992- 2003, it was part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), in which it theoretically held 50% of the power, while from 2003 to 2006 it was part of the Union of Serbia and Montenegro, a confederate entity in which it was guaranteed 50% of the power. In essence, the constitutional definition was subordinated to the centre of power, which was personified since 1989 by the regime of Slobodan Milošević, president of the Republic of Serbia. Montenegro was, thus, formally part of a wider community in which it essentially had no role in the decision-making process. The constitutional order from 1974 began to collapse in 1988. By abolishing the autonomy of Vojvodina and Kosovo, and by installing a puppet government in Montenegro, Milošević’s regime had established control over 50% of the Yugoslav federation, as the control of four votes was able to cause a ‘blockade’ of the work of federal bodies. It is important to note that the constitutional powers of the republics were reduced, especially the control of the armed forces (Yugoslav People's Army - YPA later Yugoslav Army - YA).
    [Show full text]
  • The International Community and the FRY/Belligerents, 1989-1997
    5 Dušan Janjić, team leader Matjaž Klemenčič, team leader Vlado Azinović John Fine Emil Kerenji Albert Bing Zlatko Hadžidedić Vladimir Klemenčič Sumantra Bose Marko Attila Hoare Miloš Ković Daniele Conversi Charles Ingrao Vladimir Petrović Dušan Djordjevich Constantin Iordachi Nikola Samardžić Keith Doubt A. Ross Johnson Brendan Simms Principal author Matjaž Klemenčič acknowledges the extensive input by team members, including several pages of text contributed by Marko Attila Hoare, Charles Ingrao and Albert Bing. Funding from the National Endow- ment for Democracy and the Slovenian Research Council facilitated Prof. Klemenčič’s research, including numerous interviews with Slovenian gov- ernment officials and former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker. Profs. Klemenčič and Dušan Janjić assumed team leadership from John A. Fine (2001-2003) in order to streamline the team’s internet commu- nication. An initial draft was submitted for project-wide review in Novem- ber 2003, which mandated considerable expansion in the chapter’s length and research base. Although the text was adopted following project-wide review in April 2005, further revisions were undertaken in 2008 to address concerns raised by two of the four outside referees in 2010, to accommodate constructive criticism raised in book reviews, and again in 2012 to incorpo- rate new evidence of U.S. and NATO complicity in avoiding the arrest of ICTY indictees. The chapter cites several confidential interviews conducted by SI scholars with several current and former officials from the U.S. State De- partment and IFOR military; in each case their identities have been recorded and stored in the Purdue University archives for later release, upon request, consistent with terms negotiated with each individual.
    [Show full text]