Talk:Bosnian Genocide Case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Serbia Portal
Bosnian Genocide Case is part of the WikiProject Serbia, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Bosniak?

I would suggest changing the words "Bosniak muslim" into "Bosniak". --EmirA 22:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

From skimming the article Bosniaks, this make sense. Changed. Be bold! --Geoffrey 03:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit]  ???????

How can a state be judged? Isn't it like judging the Atlantic Ocean, or judging women? Can anything be judged, not only people? Or does "Serbia" refers to all the present Serbs?

It kind of remains me when the king of Spain sentenced all the Netherlanders (but a family) to death... --euyyn 02:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


For legal purposes of the ICJ, the state isn't the collective population of Serbia, but rather the government. The legal entity of Serbia, not the geographic, social, or cultural one.

All ICJ cases work like this. States (aka governments) sue each other for violations. It's inherent in the nature of the court. For instance, Ireland v. the UK was a lawsuit against the British government for abuse of terrorism suspects, not an accusation against the entire collective British population. 67.39.194.10 20:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Can we discuss major changes to this article, such as changing the name of the article, before you proceed with changes. Whoever changed the name of the article gave a poor reason ie. "more useful name".

90% of all reports on this topic call this case Bosnia genocide case or Bosnian genocide case. Given the profound nature of the case I think this is far more appropriate name. It is not merely a border dispute such as most other cases that this court has taken on and it deserves to be istinguished.

Curent name, although is typically used in the legal system, in a general public domain could also mean a soccer match "Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro". I would strongly suggest moving it back to its original name "Bosnian genocide case at the ICJ". --Dado 18:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the above comment, but would want to settle on a name that could be used consistently for other legal cases at the ICJ. AndrewRT 11:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Not only the above, but don't forget one of the burdens on prosecution is proving there was an intent to cause genocide at all - Bosnian Genocide ase starts sounding POV-ish. Daemon8666 14:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is by its current name going against the grain of what is commonly used name. Not one media source calls this case as Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia Montenegro in particular due to ambiguity of the name morphology (it used to be Bosnia and Herzegovina v Yugoslavia). I thought we were supposed to use commonly used phrases. All alternates are still called out in the article and we can redirect BiH v SCG on Bosnian genocide case at the ICJ.--Dado 18:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Errors

There may be several errors in the article. For example, saying Yugoslavia is not a UN member state and therefore do not have standing to sue Nato member states does not mean the same thing as ICJ not having jurisdiction over Nato member states. I have marked "disputed". – Kaihsu 12:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand which part you're disputing. Is it a section, a sentence or the whole article? Can you clarify. AndrewRT 12:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand either. Perhaps a few additional sources should be noted but hardly that article justifies an NPOV tag. I will remove the tag until you clarify it. Stating that "There MAY be several errors" cannot justify a dispute. Please be careful not to misuse NPOV tag --Dado 19:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, jurisdiction regarding crimes against humanity are binding upon all. (couldn't remember the exact latin term, sorry) Wouldn't that make S&M prone to indictment and punishment iff the judges ruled that there indeed had been a genocide? (kutukagan 08:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC))


I am still not following your entire train of thought of what you are implying to. To answer your last question, although ICJ is the highest authority to make a judgement on this case it has no means of implementing the sentance if one would come about. Please make corrections in the article if you see it necessary. --Dado 18:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I was just wondering that where did they come up with the following date for the final decision: "A binding ruling will be handed down on February 21, 2007. If Bosnia wins, it could seek billions of dollars in compensation." I contaceted myself to the Court and they knew nothing about this date...they only informed me that the Court will give a press release beforehand and since there is no such thing given yet, it´s weird to me that in wikipedia a specific date exists! – 2007-02-07T09:45:35 128.214.205.5

[edit] Success

Is there chance of the trial's success? If there is, what would BiH ask from Montenegro (and what from Serbia)? --PaxEquilibrium 21:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • There was an interesting situation here (B&H) a month ago when officials from Montenegro asked Bosnian authorities to drop charges against Montenegro, because it is an independent country now. This was a followup to the same question asked by ICJ. Because there is no real consensus in the Presidency about this, the official agent of B&H stated that the original suit will not be changed, because Montenegro was a part of Yugoslavia, it participated in aggression and genocide and it did nothing to stop it. The question of reparations is very complex, and it has been said to the Court (the last oral at ICJ, by Bosnian side), that this will be answered after the decision in February. – 2006-12-31T12:05:31 85.158.35.58

[edit] srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com

I have removed the Srebrenica Genocide Blog from the list of external links because it was added by the author of the blog himself (to this article and to many, many others) in contravention of WP:COI.[1] However, I suspect that it may actually be useful to keep here (I'm not sure, as I don't know much about the Bosnian Genocide and about the blog). If someone other than the author re-adds it, please leave a note here so that it isn't mistakenly removed again. —Psychonaut 20:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-write required

As Serbia has been cleared the article will need to be re-written to take into account the full judgement. -- Phildav76 11:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bosnian genocide merge with Srebrenica massacre

Since it has been officially determined by the Hague that "there was no Bosnian genocide on the scale of the whole country in an effort to exterminate the Bosnian Muslims" apart from the incident in Srebrenica, the article Bosnian genocide should be merged with the article Srebrenica massacre, or it should simply become a 'Redirect' to Srebrenica Massacre, because in this case it becomes simply redundant. Maîtresse 16:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

sure --TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it isn't redundant. Hague only determined that Serbia as state was not involved in genocide, which was committed by Army of Republika Srpska (as noted by court). This article must stay, in order to describe ethnic cleansing and genocide in Foča, Višegrad, Bijeljina, Zvornik, and so on... But I see your point. Nothing can surprise me these days. I will cite you: incident in Srebrenica... --HarisM 18:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

See en:Talk:Bosnian_Genocide#Merge_with_Srebrenica_Article Maîtresse 08:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move by Serbian side

Boris Tadic declared that he is planning to present a law to the parliament about accepting the role of Serbia in the massacre. I think it is a positive step forward for the relations between Bosnia and Serbia. See you, Deliogul 16:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Provocative & possibly POV language

The language in the following excerpt seems provocative and possibly POV: "It was concluded however that Serbia failed to punish those who carried out the genocide, especially general Ratko Mladić. Despite the evidence of widespread killings, siege of Sarajevo, mass rapes, ethnic cleansing and torture by different Serb forces which also included JNA (VJ), elsewhere in Bosnia, especially in Prijedor, Banja Luka and Foča camps and detention centers, the judges ruled that the criteria for genocide were met only in Srebrenica or Eastern Bosnia." This paragraph's wording "different Serb forces which also included JNA" further confuses uninformed readers about the difference between Serbs and Serbians (in suing the state of Serbia and Montenegro rather than the Serb people the UN fails to address crimes commited by ethnic Serbs from other countries and unintentionally punishes Albanian, Hungarian, and Roma minorities in Serbia as well as Serbian Muslims from the Novi Pazar region.) Additionally, the language suggests the writer clearly believe the verdict to have been wrong, since the prosecution's evidence is presented along with the verdict in a sensationalist tone of disbelief. I contend that this paragraph at least, and any similar examples be re-written to avoid confusion or editorialization, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.81.110 (talk) 20:37, 28 February, 2007 (PST)

If you have suggestions for re-wording please provide them, or otherwise be bold and make the changes yourself, while explaining them on the talk page. Maîtresse 04:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Penalties?

Let me start by saying I'm nearly totally ignorant of international law and how these courts work. So, I imagine there are many others like me reading! What is the result of the trial? Great, they are guilty of violating an international agreement. We obviously aren't going to build a jail cell around the country. What use is the verdict? Is it simply a result for victims to go to lower courts and demand compensation? If someone more familiar could clear this up, I know I would appreciate it as well as anyone else who doesn't understand what is so significant about it.

Thank you, Liastnir 14:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Under international law if a state takes an action involving another state which violates international law the state which is determined to violate international law can be assessed to pay damages to the injured state, which are called reparations. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has assessed such damages in several cases and in such situation the injured state would then have an international claim against the first state. What is significant about this in the Bosnia v Serbia lawsuit is that Bosnia asked for billions of dollars of reparations from Serbia in its claim that Serbia was responsible for genocide in Bosnia. Since the ICJ did not find that Serbia committed genocide in Bosnia (it did find Serbia violated the Genocide Convention in two other respects), the ICJ did not award reparations to Bosnia.Avorkink 21:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Avorkink, that makes more sense. Liastnir 15:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In the event that Serbia was found to be in violation and an order for reparation was made, Serbia could still decide to ignore the order. The decisions of the ICJ are not considered to be legally binding and have been ignored in previous occassions (most notably by the US - see the LaGrand case and Breard case for examples). The ICJ works in a political climate such that a failure to adhere to it's decisions would be held in low regard by other member States. Moreover, international law is still a relatively young judicial branch and as such decisions of the ICJ add to the development of this area of law.

[edit] Read this

I’ve just added these two article in the “External links” section. If anyone here wants to add more content in the article using the articles above as references, that’s OK.--MaGioZal 01:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Significance

Since the entire "Significance" section is without references/sources I suggest we put some in there or remove the section alltogether (which would be too bad, since it makes the article more interesting rather than just an account of the ICJ judgement). CheersOsli73 13:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)