Forum Klix.ba

ALONE ON THE LEFT
Milosevic wins again
By Petra Hendrickson

Serbia has been exonerated by the International Court of Justice, which cleared the Balkan state of accusations of genocide against Bosnia from '92-'95.
Most of us were pretty young, but maybe you remember something about it? Something like 100,000 people were killed; Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia-Herzegovina, was shelled repeatedly; Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, who died last year in the Hague where he was being tried for crimes against humanity, made it his goal to "reclaim" Bosnia for the sake of a unified "greater Serbia." And the conflict only ended with a partition plan that gave the Bosnians, who had to team up with the Croatians, control of 51 percent of the country, while allowing the Serbs to maintain control of 49 percent of the territory of Bosnia.
But hey, at least the ICJ had enough sense to say Serbia should have done more to prevent Srebrenica, where 5,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were slaughtered by Bosnian Serb forces. That's consolation, right?
Not likely.
I'm not an expert on international law, I haven't done much research into the ins and outs of human rights law, but I know enough to know that the decision of the ICJ was a crap ruling. There was, and still is, little doubt that Milosevic masterminded the plan to reunite Bosnia with Serbia for the sake of the pursuit of a "greater Serbia." Both the Croatians and the Serbians forced an identity on the Bosnians, one in which they were at best "the other" and at worst "the Turks," a loaded concept for the Serbians, who blame the Ottoman Empire for the decline of Serb greatness during the Middles Ages.
I've taken enough political science classes to know what makes a state, and a lot of it has to do with the structures of governance and power. So while every Serb may have been part of this fuzzy concept of a Serb "nation," there is no doubt that Milosevic, Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, who were military and political officials, were part of this Serbian state apparatus that was brought to the ICJ by Bosnia.
The "just taking orders" defense didn't work at Nuremburg; at what point are the individuals who make up the state not sufficient to find the state guilty?
At what point were all the leaders of the state of Serbia conspiring to lead an irredentist conflict that would kill thousands upon thousands of people not the state?
This ruling just doesn't make sense to me. There was little doubt in Cambodia when it was still Democratic Kampuchea that Pol Pot and his cronies were "the state," and should have been held responsible as such. Serbia is an analogous situation.
So even though Milosevic is dead and Karadzic and Mladic are in hiding, this ruling by the ICJ vindicated all three, and many more, and may have killed the healing process in Bosnia.

Romanopisac wrote:Molim vas prijatelji, procitajte kako je to fino ova djevojka iz Indiane napisala. Ni ja to bolje ne bi sastavio.

ALONE ON THE LEFT
Milosevic wins again
By Petra Hendrickson

Serbia has been exonerated by the International Court of Justice, which cleared the Balkan state of accusations of genocide against Bosnia from '92-'95.
Most of us were pretty young, but maybe you remember something about it? Something like 100,000 people were killed; Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia-Herzegovina, was shelled repeatedly; Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, who died last year in the Hague where he was being tried for crimes against humanity, made it his goal to "reclaim" Bosnia for the sake of a unified "greater Serbia." And the conflict only ended with a partition plan that gave the Bosnians, who had to team up with the Croatians, control of 51 percent of the country, while allowing the Serbs to maintain control of 49 percent of the territory of Bosnia.
But hey, at least the ICJ had enough sense to say Serbia should have done more to prevent Srebrenica, where 5,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were slaughtered by Bosnian Serb forces. That's consolation, right?
Not likely.
I'm not an expert on international law, I haven't done much research into the ins and outs of human rights law, but I know enough to know that the decision of the ICJ was a crap ruling. There was, and still is, little doubt that Milosevic masterminded the plan to reunite Bosnia with Serbia for the sake of the pursuit of a "greater Serbia." Both the Croatians and the Serbians forced an identity on the Bosnians, one in which they were at best "the other" and at worst "the Turks," a loaded concept for the Serbians, who blame the Ottoman Empire for the decline of Serb greatness during the Middles Ages.
I've taken enough political science classes to know what makes a state, and a lot of it has to do with the structures of governance and power. So while every Serb may have been part of this fuzzy concept of a Serb "nation," there is no doubt that Milosevic, Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, who were military and political officials, were part of this Serbian state apparatus that was brought to the ICJ by Bosnia.
The "just taking orders" defense didn't work at Nuremburg; at what point are the individuals who make up the state not sufficient to find the state guilty?
At what point were all the leaders of the state of Serbia conspiring to lead an irredentist conflict that would kill thousands upon thousands of people not the state?
This ruling just doesn't make sense to me. There was little doubt in Cambodia when it was still Democratic Kampuchea that Pol Pot and his cronies were "the state," and should have been held responsible as such. Serbia is an analogous situation.
So even though Milosevic is dead and Karadzic and Mladic are in hiding, this ruling by the ICJ vindicated all three, and many more, and may have killed the healing process in Bosnia.

nineac wrote:Super je napisala.
Medjutim, neko ko imalo zna u americi sta se desavalo u BiH nema nikakve sumnje ko je pocinio genocid za razliku od onih gnjida iz engleske, francuske, rusije i grcke.
Ja kad sam na casoima i kad se spomene bosna, profesori uvjek napomenu kako je SRBIJA IZVRSILA GENOCID U BIH!
Tako da netreba amerikancima presuda da znaju sta se desilo!

Kredibilitet tzv. Medjunarodnog suda pravde, odranije vec pod znakom pitanja, ovim je defintivno srusen za dogledno vrijeme. A kad god se kod nas spomene Evropa u pozitivnom kontekstu, kao nesto cemu teba teziti, uvijek se treba sjetiti da se radi prije svega o ekonomskom uzoru. Nikako moralnom.

JahijaJilic wrote:

Kredibilitet tzv. Medjunarodnog suda pravde, odranije vec pod znakom pitanja, ovim je defintivno srusen za dogledno vrijeme. A kad god se kod nas spomene Evropa u pozitivnom kontekstu, kao nesto cemu teba teziti, uvijek se treba sjetiti da se radi prije svega o ekonomskom uzoru. Nikako moralnom.

KAKO BI BILO DA SE MALO SABEREMO?

Medjunarodni sud pravde je najvisa sudska instanca. Kako bi bilo da shvatimo da to nisu ni "nase" ni "vase" bivse i sadasnje komunisticke ubice, pa da onako "ofrljoke" pisu nekakve dosude ili svjetske ili lokalne budalastine i blentavluke.

Presuda Medjunarodnog suda nije uopce tako lakotna i bezazlena kako se to nekima lokalnim "patriotima" ili bjelosvjetskim "poznavaocima" prava cini.

Buduci da su mnogi jako nezadovoljni, kako bi bilo da se provede video-anketa kod domacih sudija sta bi oni odlucili da su odlucivali, ili koliko su u dometu da prihvate presudu jednog Mejdunarodnog suda, koji eto i nije tako dobro skolovan kao bosanski tuzitelji ili sudije?

Svemirski_Jebach wrote:ma ja ...a ameri ne valjaju ono jel de? a francuzi valjaju, jer su oni europljani...gnjide.