Ratko Mladic, former Bosnian-Serb military leader, who is accused of “monstrous” war crimes, claims that he does not recognize the authority of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslovia (ICTY) to assert jurisdiction over him. This is not altogether shocking: Mladic is a nationalist, not an internationalist.
It is alleged that Serbian officials aided in keeping Mladic hidden for so long. How then do the international criminal courts gain jurisdiction over alleged international war crimes criminals that may not be viewed as such in their home country?
Mladic shares characteristics with many of history’s most notorious historical figures: charisma, military backing, and ideological foundations. Many of these historical figures have contributed to the legitimacy and necessity of international criminal tribunals. But, what is the difference between one country’s hero, and another country’s war criminal?
The following article provides insight into Mladic’s background: the historical underpinnings of his nationalist sentiment, his military training, and experience growing up in an ethnically cleansed area of Serbia. This insight is useful when attempting to answer the above questions.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,784851-2,00.html
The answer to your question is that we made the rules of war and we enforce them. If we are winners we decide who is a hero and villain. If we lose, we still get to decide, but do we get to enforce them? Yes, I still think so. But our enforcement abilities depend on international politics. Bashir can escape trial if he maintains his usefulness to valuable allies.
ReplyDelete