|
|
|
|
Yugoslavia
Branko Milinkovic
|
A legal action brought by Yugoslavia before the International Court of Justice ended Wednesday with a call by the lawyers acting for Belgrade for Nato to "cease their acts of use of force." Yugoslavia filed the case on April 29 claiming that 10 Nato states have acted in breach of their obligations not to use force against another state and violated the UN 1948 Genocide Convention. All ten respondents - Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, UK and USA - were united in rejecting ICJ's jurisdiction to try the case and requested that the Court throw it out. "The bombing of FRY violates UN Charter and constitutes a crime against peace," said Rodoljub Etinski, legal adviser at the Yugoslav Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He quoted the ICJ's decision in a trial that pitted Nicaragua against the USA in 1985. The court had then ruled that "the use of force could not be appropriate method to monitor and ensure respect for human rights". In order to support Yugoslavia's claim of genocide, Etinski argued that "respondent states are deliberately inflicting on Yugoslavia such conditions of life which are calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the whole nation." Also arguing for Yugoslavia, British international law expert Ian Brownlie rejected Nato's claim that humanitarian intervention might serve as a possible legal basis for the bombing. "Air strikes are extremely disproportionate. They do not have any genuine humanitarian purpose. This war is part of ongoing geopolitical agenda unrelated to human rights. Finally, the threats to use the force are seven months old. By that time their aim was not to protect human rights, but to produce dictated solution," Brownlie remarked. "NATO action means a regression of the international law and a very bad sign for the next century. It looks like that we are back in the era of a gun-boat diplomacy," Belgian professor Eric Suy, another Yugoslav counsel, told the Court. NATO states have used almost all their time (ten hours, compared to the two hours given to Yugoslavia) to argue that ICJ lacks jurisdiction. They have also rejected Yugoslav accusations of genocide, criticised Belgrade for coming to the Court with "dirty hands" and justified Nato bombardment as an action aimed to prevent genocide. Nato arguments have included the claim that Yugoslavia is not a member of the UN and, consequently, not a member to the Statute of the International Court of Justice. They have also challenged the Yugoslav Declaration to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. They claimed that this is not a dispute which falls within the scope of the Genocide Convention. Victims of genocide should be members of a particular ethnic or national group and there must be an evidence of the intention to destroy that group or its part. These elements are missing in the Yugoslavia's petition, the Nato countries argue. "NATO wants to prevent genocide, and it never had the slightest intention to provoke another genocide," said Umberto Leanza, Head of the Diplomatic Legal Service at the Italian Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Both Yugoslav and Nato respondents commented on the legal and political aspects of the possible provisional measures of the Court - meaning a temporary cessation in Nato bombing. While Yugoslavia's counsel claimed that they would contribute to the ongoing diplomatic efforts to solve the Kosovo crisis, legal experts from Nato came up with several reasons against such measures. For Canadian representative they would be "inappropriate and counter-productive" since they would satisfy to only one side and they would be an "anticipatory judgement on the merit." Italy, Portugal and Spain said such measures would represent a great risk for the population of Kosovo since they will allow "Serbian forces to resume their operations." In the previous cases of requests for provisional measures, the Court needed from one day to several weeks to arrive at a decision. "I do not expect that we will wait too long," Arthur Witheven, Information officer of the Court, said.
|
