Prosecutor v. Tadic
Procedural History:
Tadic (D) was prosecuted for alleged war crimes committed at a Serb-run concentration camp in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Overview:
Tadic (D) was prosecuted for alleged war crimes committed at a Serb-run concentration camp in Bosnia Herzegovina. TadiC (D) challenged the tribunal’s jurisdiction as exceeding the authority of the U.N. Security Council. The trial court dismissed the challenge and Tadic (D) appealed.
Issue:
Does the International Tribunal have jurisdiction to examine the plea against its jurisdiction based on the invalidity of its establishment by the Security Council?
Rule:
The international tribunal has jurisdiction to examine the plea against its jurisdiction based on the invalidlty of its establishment by the security council
Analysis:
Tadic (D) attacked the authority of the Security Council to establish a tribunal for the determination of a criminal charge. The tribunal is authorized to be established for the determination of such charges so long as it is “established by law.” The Council requires that it be “set up by a competent organ in keeping with relevant legal procedures, and that it observes the requirements of procedural fairness.”
Outcome:
(Judge Cassese, Presiding; Judges Li, Deschenes, Abi-Saab, and Sidhwa) Yes. The International Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine the plea against its jurisdiction based on the invalidity of its establishment by the Security Council. For an international tribunal to be established according to rule of law, it must be established in accordance with the proper international standards; it must provide all guarantees of fairness, justice, and evenhandedness, in full conformity with internationally recognized human rights instruments. When a tribunal such as the present one is created, it necessarily must be endowed with primacy over national courts.
Procedural History:
Tadic (D) was prosecuted for alleged war crimes committed at a Serb-run concentration camp in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Overview:
Tadic (D) was prosecuted for alleged war crimes committed at a Serb-run concentration camp in Bosnia Herzegovina. TadiC (D) challenged the tribunal’s jurisdiction as exceeding the authority of the U.N. Security Council. The trial court dismissed the challenge and Tadic (D) appealed.
Issue:
Does the International Tribunal have jurisdiction to examine the plea against its jurisdiction based on the invalidity of its establishment by the Security Council?
Rule:
The international tribunal has jurisdiction to examine the plea against its jurisdiction based on the invalidlty of its establishment by the security council
Analysis:
Tadic (D) attacked the authority of the Security Council to establish a tribunal for the determination of a criminal charge. The tribunal is authorized to be established for the determination of such charges so long as it is “established by law.” The Council requires that it be “set up by a competent organ in keeping with relevant legal procedures, and that it observes the requirements of procedural fairness.”
Outcome:
(Judge Cassese, Presiding; Judges Li, Deschenes, Abi-Saab, and Sidhwa) Yes. The International Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine the plea against its jurisdiction based on the invalidity of its establishment by the Security Council. For an international tribunal to be established according to rule of law, it must be established in accordance with the proper international standards; it must provide all guarantees of fairness, justice, and evenhandedness, in full conformity with internationally recognized human rights instruments. When a tribunal such as the present one is created, it necessarily must be endowed with primacy over national courts.
No comments:
Post a Comment