Moralna odgovornost i pravna perfidnost međunarodne zajednice
MORAL RESPONSIBILITY AND LEGAL PERFIDIOUSNESS OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

Summary/Abstract: In international relations, according to the majority of lawyers, sociologists, historians and other scholars, the responsibility of states for internationally illegal acts are the key legal, moral, and social factors, without which the state in international relations would be similar to Hobbes’ state of “war of all against all.” So by the spirit of the law, which primarily seeks to detect, suppress and eliminate all anti-social phenomena, the letter of the law must be clear and unambiguous, so that the dispersion and arbitrary interpretations would be at the minimal level. However, even international acts, as well as state ones are not clear enough. Thus, in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide are not sufficiently regulate some norms which leaves space for different interpretations, dilution and transfer of responsibility when it focuses only on the individual responsibility of the accused and the prosecution of individuals, while the responsibility of the state, which is a creator, instigator and realizer of the genocide, as stated in the charges of Bosnia and Herzegovina against Serbia and Montenegro at the International criminal Tribunal in The Hague, has sought to be avoided. Although the Trial Chamber has found that the respondent put its considerable military and financial support available to the Republika Srpska, and made the conclusion of the genocidal intent, in addition to individual responsibilities of two senior officers of the Army of the Republika Srpska convicted of genocide, and now here is the third one, it was not given a judgment for the responsibility of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro for the planning, organizing and committing genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Based on all the foregoing, this paper intends to show that the judgment of the ICTY is not fair, because they are not acknowledged key evidence against Serbia, as well as evidence that the court allowed “black out” and in a such pseudo-legal way to grant amnesty to aggressor state. However, despite of hidden evidence, the Court had sufficient reason to act in accordance with Article IX of the Convention, but it did not happen, conversely, The Court has issued delusive, better say acquittal, and we can conclude, with great resignation, that the moral and legal responsibility should bear both the direct perpetrators and the state union of Serbia and Montenegro, as well as the international community, which has avoided to convict the real culprits and deliver the verdict because of diplomatic backroom deals and various pressures.

• Details
• Contents