The trial of Slobodan Milošević at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is widely regarded in enlightened legal and intellectual circles as a sham. The authors of this scholarly article argue that “to ignore evil is to cause it to cease to exist, thought the ancients, and so, perhaps, think those who accuse former leaders of now dismembered countries, no longer in existence, of war crimes, and who would prevent those they accuse of raising the aggression which was committed against their country. Can the evil of aggression be willed out of existence if it goes unmentioned, and if international ad hoc bodies do not consider it a crime within their jurisdiction? And if the defendant is gagged, if judgments permit him to be removed from the courtroom altogether, will we be free from having to see and hear the evil he persistently identifies, and for which he points out there will be no justice?” They assert that “[t]he Milosevic trial has been underreported to the point where ‘speaking evil’ – that is, expressing criticism of the persistent procedural irregularities that have plagued the proceedings, and indeed the outright erosion of fair trial rights (heralded as ‘progress’ in some quarters) – has become a demanding exercise.”
That exercise the authors undertake to perform in this scholarly article.
- Jovan Milojevich and Peter Beattie — The Pull of Humanitarian Interventionism: Examining the Effects of Media Frames and Political Values on People’s Choice of Resolution
- David N. Gibbs: How the Srebrenica Massacre Redefined US Foreign Policy