Ratko Mladic has been arrested

[River]

It's all over, but the most complete coverage is, unsurprisingly, Serbian. Linky in English.

My resident Serb's reaction: "Finally we can stop talking about him." And, "Why didn't they take him ten years ago." And some stuff that won't make it past the word filter. He's actually in high spirits about the whole thing. The EU and the Hague should be happy too - the Radical Party in Serbia is resurging and those guys are much less ambivalent about shielding indicted criminals than the current Serbian government is.

The first time I went to Serbia in 2006, both Mladic and Karadzic were still on the loose and the Serbian government was dragging its feet over looking for them. Montenegro had also split off just weeks before I landed in Belgrade so feelings were a little raw. The second time, in 2009, Karadzic had been captured and there was a wanted poster up for Mladic at the local police station. They were offering 2 million euros for him. That was almost enough for me to want to hunt him. I was wondering what the reward would be this year but I guess the posters won't be there anymore

[Lalaith]

I admit that I don't know much about him or about the overall situation there. I just did some reading on Wikipedia.

I'm always glad when war criminals are caught.

[Túrin Turambar]

This has been the lead story on the ABC today, but to be honest, I can't get too excited. He's already old and sick and I suspect that, like Milosevic, he'll be dead before the wheels of justice at the Hague actually turn. To be honest, Idespite my non-support of the death penalty, I think that we had the right idea when he hanged the Nazi war criminals. Shame he isn't going the same way.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

What exactly is a war criminal?

[Túrin Turambar]

There's a grey area, but someone who guarantees the safety of seven thousand civilian refugees and then has his men shoot them probably doesn't fall into it.

[nerdanel]

@ Ghân: for the ICTY's purposes, someone who is convicted of doing one of these things:

ICTY Statute Article 2
Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949
The International Tribunal shall have the power to prosecute persons committing or ordering to be committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:
(a) wilful killing;
(b) torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
(c) wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health;
(d) extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
(e) compelling a prisoner of war or a civilian to serve in the forces of a hostile power;
(f) wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or a civilian of the rights of fair and regular trial;
(g) unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a civilian;
(h) taking civilians as hostages.

ICTY Statute Article 3
Violations of the laws or customs of war
The International Tribunal shall have the power to prosecute persons violating the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to:
(a) employment of poisonous weapons or other weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;
(b) wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
(c) attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings;
(d) seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science;
(e) plunder of public or private property.

ICTY Statute Article 4
Genocide
1. The International Tribunal shall have the power to prosecute persons committing genocide as defined in paragraph 2 of this article or of committing any of the other acts enumerated in paragraph 3 of this article.
2. Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) killing members of the group;
(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
3. The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) genocide;
(b) conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) attempt to commit genocide;
(e) complicity in genocide.

ICTY Statute Article 5
Crimes against humanity
The International Tribunal shall have the power to prosecute persons responsible for the following crimes when committed in armed conflict, whether international or internal in character, and directed against any civilian population:
(a) murder;
(b) extermination;
(c) enslavement;
(d) deportation;
(e) imprisonment;
(f) torture;
(g) rape;
(h) persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds;
(i) other inhumane acts.

See here. Srebrenica counts.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

I don't deny Srebenica counts. Why doesn't Fallujah? Or any other number of "crimes" perpetrated by... us?

[nerdanel]

Because the ICTY was established under the UN Security Council's Chp VII powers. International criminal justice, if it is to be backed by meaningful enforcement powers, depends disproportionately on the consent of the strongest nations, particularly the five permanent members of the Security Council. International criminal law can, at best, ensure some curtailing of impunity for some of the worst crimes if doing so is politically palatable for the strongest nations. That's what this is. No more - but, critically, no less.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Because the ICTY was established under the UN Security Council's Chp VII powers. International criminal justice, if it is to be backed by meaningful enforcement powers, depends disproportionately on the consent of the strongest nations, particularly the five permanent members of the Security Council. International criminal law can, at best, ensure some curtailing of impunity for some of the worst crimes if doing so is politically palatable for the strongest nations. That's what this is. No more - but, critically, no less.

So it will always be "victors' justice", and those who are responsible for commiting the worst criminal excesses (us) are immune.

No wonder International Law is held in such contempt by the masses...

PS And the worst of it is that this selectivity of prosecution perpetuates the myth that "we" have moral superiority and consequent authority.

It really does stink...

[nerdanel]

It sounds like you're arguing for more (international) criminal justice, not less - i.e., not saying that Mladic shouldn't be tried for Srebrenica, but that a more democratic/universal form of international criminal justice is needed, one that considers the war crimes that stronger nations commit. (I'd also argue that we need international criminal justice that also considers the war crimes committed in weaker, but "less interesting" to the superpowers, countries: Uganda, for instance, tried for nearly twenty years to get anyone to pay attention to the LRA conflict before finally self-referring the matter to the ICC to try to get something done. No Chp VII, well-funded/enforced tribunal for them!)

So I have no objection to your contention. Happily, you are a citizen/resident of one of the five permanent members of the Security Council and thus are as well-positioned as anyone to use your country's political process to agitate for broader international justice. I encourage you to do so. I recognize that my country is one of the strongest opponents of a universal international criminal justice model (for reasons that I ~ 95 percent disagree with), but happily, we've spent the past week affirming our "special relationship" with the UK. So you're still pretty well-positioned to argue for the change you desire. Go forth!

ETA Oh, I completely agree with you on the selectivity of prosecution issue. It's quite embarrassing, actually.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Nerdanel, I live in a pseudo-democracy in which those pipers in power are paid by figures very separate from the masses. My voice is worthless, within the sham democratic process...

But that really is another topic!

PS As for more international scrutiny, yes. However, with the system as is, I believe we would be better served with no International Court than with a partial one that simply reflects skewed power relationships and hence contributes to a culture of punitive actions followed by increasing resentment. Whilst the major players are immune from prosecution, the system is paramountly unjust, and so becomes part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

If this means minor players such as Mladic escape prosecution, that is the cost.

[River]

From an outsider's POV it probably looks like this is all about justice being served, there's more to it than that. Mladic and Karadzic were bargaining chips for Serbia's entry into the EU. They always were - modern Europe frowns on bloodbaths in the Balkans. And, for a few years after the fall of Milosevic, Serbia wasn't playing ball. Lots of mistrust, lots of finger-pointing going in both directions. They weren't actively sheltering them but they weren't actively looking either. But then, a few years ago, there was a shift in Serbia's internal politics and they decided to start jumping through the EU's hoops. They started looking. The Serbian government doesn't have a lot of money or efficiency, but they started looking and eventually they found. It'll be interesting to see what happens next - on one hand, the last of the most wanted's been handed over and I'm sure a lot of Serbs are thinking "Cool, can we join the EU now?", but on the other, Germany's trying to get Serbia thrown out of the Shengen Zone because of all the false asylum applicants.