Politicization and Challenges to Impartiality in the ICTY’s Pursuit of Justice

  • Share

By Muhammad Ahsan Tampubolon (A Lecturer at Universitas Pamulang)

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has been a focal point in the pursuit of justice for heinous crimes committed during the Balkan wars. However, the recent revelations about the ICTY’s internal workings and its approach to the Srebrenica massacre raise serious questions about the objectivity and impartiality of international justice. Moreover, when juxtaposed with the allegations against the Zionist entity for abuses against Palestinians, a pattern of politicization emerges, underscoring the need for a reevaluation of the tribunal’s legacy.

One of the contentious aspects highlighted by critics is the ICTY’s broad interpretation of genocide. According to this interpretation, any military force causing fatalities, even in the absence of a prearranged plan, can be labeled as committing genocide. This broad classification becomes particularly significant when assessing the actions of the Zionist entity against Palestinians since 1948. The argument posits that, based on the ICTY’s criteria alone, unequivocal conviction for genocide should be handed down to the Zionist entity for its historical and ongoing abuses against Palestinians.

The comparison with the Srebrenica case brings to light disturbing revelations about the politicization of the ICTY’s mission. Behind-closed-doors admissions by Western officials suggest that the tribunal’s crusade to convict high-ranking members of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) and Bosnian Serb leadership of genocide was deeply politicized. It appears that the prosecutors worked backward from the conclusion that Srebrenica constituted genocide to secure convictions, rather than objectively examining the available evidence.

A leaked April 2004 cable from the US embassy in The Hague revealed that there was a “general sense” among ICTY prosecutors that the Tribunal Appeals Chamber had predetermined the outcome of the case for “political reasons.” The cable indicated that the chamber had given drafters general directions, leaving the impression that the judgment was crafted by legal professionals following a predetermined political agenda. This revelation calls into question the integrity of the judicial process and whether the pursuit of justice was influenced by geopolitical considerations.

Furthermore, the cable reported that many prosecutors were “perplexed” by the Appeals Chamber’s ruling that Srebrenica was a “genocide” while failing to identify perpetrators with the specific intent required by the ICTY Statute and the 1948 Genocide Convention. The positive spin was that the ruling made it “easier to prosecute a person for aiding and abetting genocide,” highlighting a potential disconnect between legal principles and the practical pursuit of justice.

These revelations challenge the public’s perception of international justice as an unbiased and impartial entity. The notion that the ICTY’s judgments were shaped by political considerations rather than a dispassionate pursuit of truth and justice raises concerns about the credibility of international tribunals. As the world grapples with ongoing conflicts and human rights abuses, it becomes imperative to reevaluate the mechanisms in place for holding perpetrators accountable and ensuring that justice is blind, unbiased, and unwavering in its commitment to the truth.

  • Share