The Balkan Conflicts Research Team is continuously producing superb, hard-hitting and intellectually provocative Twitters about Srebrenica and the Hague Tribunal. We highly recommend them to our readers who may follow them by visiting their Twitter account at: Balkan Conflicts Research Team@ResearchTeam
You may view this Tweet at: https://twitter.com/ResearchTeam/status/1251059302338527232?s=20
What was the ‘New World Order”?
The theme of a speech by US President George H Bush in September 1990. Interpreted by many as an announcement of the long-awaited peace dividend following the end of the Cold War, it turned out to be something else entirely.
How was that?
It became clear that the President was planning a new approach to international affairs. Powerful nations would step in to solve the problems of the world, sidestepping the laborious and time-consuming processes of international law. Surprisingly, this ‘globalisation’ seemed to strike a chord with numerous western politicians.
What relevance did it all have to the ICTY?
1992 was a presidential election year in the USA. Madeleine Albright was part of Bill Clinton’s campaign team, helping to develop thinking on foreign policy. Under her sponsorship, work started on plans to create a UN war crimes Tribunal for Yugoslavia.
How did things develop?
Clinton won the election and appointed Albright as US Ambassador to the UN. Within weeks she had brought proposals for a Tribunal to the UN Security Council. Although the UN (and far less the Security Council) had no power to do so, Albright managed to drive the proposal through, thanks to highly exaggerated reports of humanitarian disaster in Yugoslavia.
What next?
Despite detailed instructions from the Security Council, Albright took complete control of the ICTY. Its Statute gave it endless discretion to create and change international law. In the words of Richard Holbrook, it was a “very useful tool” of US policy.
Was this a bad thing?
Terrible. The world had been utterly deceived into believing that the ICTY was a court that fulfilled all the core principles of the UN. In reality, it was the worst kind of fake court which has poisoned the reputations of both the UN and of international justice.
What should happen?
The ICTY was set up illegally (the UN Charter gave the UN no power to create a criminal court) and conducted itself illegally in almost every possible way. The UN should acknowledge this and move immediately to declare the court null and void. Full restitution should then be made to all those who suffered from its gross injustices, including the sovereign nation of Serbia.