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
The tweet The ICTY: Seven levels of fraud is their latest production.
Wasn’t The Hague Tribunal legally established by the United Nations?
No. The UN had no power in its Charter to create a court of any kind, let alone an international criminal court.
So how did the UN Security Council approve a resolution for its creation?
By persuading itself that this course was justified by the seriousness of the humanitarian crisis. This was irrelevant: the Security Council had absolutely no power to do this.
What about the Security Council’s emergency powers under Chapter VII of the Charter?
These powers had nothing to do with the creation of a court. Members of the UN Charter drafting team have revealed that powers to create a court were deliberately excluded from the Charter.
How did the fraud continue?
In drafting Its Statute, the ICTY team deliberately ignored all the limitations set down by the Security Council and the Secretary-General. Although the Security Council approved the Statute, the member states failed even to discuss this subversion of the clearly expressed instructions included in the original resolution.
Was the legitimacy of the ICTY ever formally considered?
A motion challenging its legality was submitted by the defence team in the Dusan Tadic case. Instead of referring it to a higher, independent court, the ICTY defied one of the golden rules of justice – that no one should be judge their own case – and referred it to its own Appeal Chamber, made up of 5 ICTY judges.
What did the Appeals Chamber decide?
The Appeals Chamber started by creating a false logical structure for its deliberations. This enabled it to by-pass all the fundamental questions:
* What power did the UN have to create a criminal court?
* How was the ICTY Statute approved when it blatantly ignored the requirements set down by the Security Council and Secretary-General?
*. Why did the ICTY refer the motion of illegality to the Appeals Chamber when it had a blatant conflict of interest in doing so?
Was the Appeals Chamber decision reasonable?
No. It was pitiful. Disingenuous, tortuous waffle with no legal merit of any kind. But good enough for an organisation that, astonishingly, still commands some confidence thanks to relentless propaganda.