Let’s talk UN War Crimes Tribunal. Thoughts?
The UN War Crimes Tribunal has said it’s ready for the extradition of Radovan Karadžic from Belgrade. Karadžic was, of course, a war crimes fugitive captured earlier this year by Yugoslavian authorities. A Belgrade court is currently considering extraditing him to the UN War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague.
On the one hand, it makes sense to have an international court to adjudicate these issues. Crimes against humanity transcend borders and the entire international community has an interest in enforcing norms for the treatment of people.
On the other, Karadzic terrorized the people in Yugoslavia. The families of his victims are there. The wreckage from his – as well as Milosevic and crew’s – genocidal tendencies are there. Shouldn’t justice reside there? In the legal system that was created following their reign?
I tend to agree with the case for the latter. While these countries may struggle with maintaining control of these trials, these men (and, presumably, some women) should be held accountable by and for the families they terrorized. While The Hague may play an important role in the international community’s desire to enforce human rights standards, whenever possible justice is more properly meted out by the countries who suffer at the hands of these thugs.
So… how can you guarantee justice for the victims by trying these guys a continent away at The Hague?
And, more generally, are international legal tribunals a good thing?
Make your case.
No related posts.
Trying a strongman in his country runs the danger of intimidation, bias, etc. In Karadzic’s case, there have been protests FOR him in Serbia about how he is a hero and it is unjust that he has been arrested.
True justice likely requires an antiseptic venue, like the Hague. Do we really need to have a Serbian circus where supporters and victims are fighting in the streets while a compromised judiciary tries to sort out fact from propaganda?