We were a bit confused by this ruling and court case and sought out insight from a few individuals who could help clarify the situation.
"Serbia and Croatia Didn’t Commit Genocide in 1990s, U.N. Court Rules"
Associated Press. Feb. 3, 2015.
THE HAGUE, Netherlands — The United Nations' top court ruled Tuesday that Serbia and Croatia did not commit genocide against each other's people during the bloody 1990s wars sparked by the breakup of Yugoslavia.
THE HAGUE, Netherlands — The United Nations' top court ruled Tuesday that Serbia and Croatia did not commit genocide against each other's people during the bloody 1990s wars sparked by the breakup of Yugoslavia.
Responses:
Dr. James Waller, Author and Professor, Genocide Studies at Keane College, NH
Very simply, this new ICJ ruling is ONLY about allegations of genocide by Croatia against Serbia and counter-allegations of genocide by Serbia against Croatia. The court found that neither country committed genocide against each other’s people during the war. So, the only countries involved in this new case are Serbia and Croatia…they did horrible things to each other’s citizens and on each other’s territory, but, according to the court, nothing amounting to genocide.
This judgment has NOTHING to do with the ICJ’s previous 2007 ruling on Srebrenica and Serb atrocities in Bosnia-Herzegovina (a completely different country). So, the court’s previous ruling on Srebrenica as genocide still stands.
Here’s also a good news link: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31104973.
Here’s also a good news link: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31104973.
Selena Salihovic Hutchins
The article specifically addresses the Croatian and Serbian populations, not the Bosniak (Muslim) population. I think, in a way, this ruling will be helpful toward the pending Hague trials because we have had some folks on trial at the Hague respond that they (Serbian generals) sent their armies to kill Muslim populations because they felt threatened by outside populations. Stating that a genocide was not attempted on Serbian populations makes these arguments moot.
I will say, though, that my parents and I are refraining from going because while it has been years since the war, tensions are very high again.
Marie Berry, PhD, Genocide Studies
If I understand this correctly, this ruling just applies to Serbian crimes in Croatia (and vice versa), so doesn't apply to crimes in Bosnia. Since Srebrenica was in Bosnia, this ruling doesn't change anything related to the legal definition of that massacre as genocide. While the article references a 2007 ICJ judgement about Belgrade not being responsible for the genocide in Srebrenica in 1995, this is misleading, as the court did find that the massacre at Srebrenica was genocide and that the individual Serb forces that committed the atrocities were responsible for genocide. The decision simply did not find that the state of Serbia as a whole was responsible.
But frankly, this NYTimes piece does a terrible job of spelling that out and makes it seem like this ruling is a big shock. I think the take away is that Serb forces committed genocide in Bosnia (especially in the Drina Valley region, but arguments have also been made for genocidal crimes in the Krajina region and elsewhere as well), but that their engagements in the rest of the region (and in other parts of Bosnia) should be considered part of a civil war, not a genocide.
