As six Native American tribes attempted to petition the US Senate for sovereign status, Chief Stephen R. Adkins of the Chickahominy Tribe used an interesting term for what’s happened to these people — “paper genocide.” The reason this term is particularly apt in the case of Native Americans is because in many places records for tribes were lost or destroyed, or the tribes were simply reclassified altogether, making it difficult to demonstrate their origins.
A different court
The International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, is currently hearing a possibly precedent setting case between Bosnia and Serbia. Unlike its usual cases, this isn’t a dispute over territory or land use. Instead, it’s a civil suit, brought by Bosnia, accusing the former Yugoslavia of genocide.
If successful, this will be the first time a civil ruling on genocide has been handed down by the World Court. With its roots in a bitter civil war, the Bosnian/Serbian conflict, and the resulting ethnic cleansing, leant itself well to this type of lawsuit, particularly after the death of one of its key participants – Slobodan Milosevic.
Normally, cases of genocide involve prosecuting the individuals responsible before the international war crimes tribunal. In this case, however, the entire region was fractured by the conflict, splitting into multiple states, opening the way for this type of suit.
Should the court rule in Bosnia’s favor, the Serbian state will suffer the stigma of having committed genocide, an outcome that would implicate the entire Milosevic government.
For Serbian citizens and their fledgling economy, that could mean also being saddled with hefty war reparations. Bosnia has asked the court to award damages for the loss of life and property. During the war, 100,000 people died, the majority of them Muslims, and entire Muslim towns and villages were destroyed, including their mosques and monuments. No figure was set.
Even though the case was filed thirteen years ago, it is only now wrapping up nine week’s worth of hearings. The entire process has been repeatedly challenged by the Serbians who claim that the court has no jurisdiction to hear this case. Their claim hinges on the fact that during the period in question, Yugoslavia was not part of the United Nations.
Lawyers following the case said defining genocide or proving it at this court might be different. “This is not a criminal trial and the levels of proof needed are not as high,” said Richard Dicker, a director of Human Rights Watch. “In any case, it will be hugely important to see how this court interprets and rules on genocide.”
As Charles Taylor gets ready to stand trial in Europe, one has to wonder, if Bosnians are successful does the same precedent hold true for Sierra Leone or even Darfur?
Ntamabyariro in court
Agnes Ntamabyariro, the former Justice Minister of Rwanda, had her first court appearance this week. She’s the highest-ranking official to be charged with genocide in connection with the 800,000 Rwandans killed in the 1990s.
Taylor moved to the Hague
The UN Security Council voted unanimously to send Charles Taylor, the former Liberian President, to the Hague to be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Taylor is being accused of using Sierra Leone’s Revolutionary United Front to commit acts of murder, rape, and mutilation, as well as drugging and using children as combatants.
UN officials fear that holding the trial in Sierra Leone would cause a ground swelling of support and dissent, which could cause even greater unrest in the region. The Netherlands had previously stated that they would not jail Taylor if he were found guilty, but Britain offered a prison cell in order to broker the move to the Hague.
ICC investigates Darfur
Even though the US has long labeled the crisis in Darfur as genocide, the UN has been keeping the entire conflict at arms length. However, for the first time during the African country’s troubles, the United Nations Security Council has taken an unprecedented step forward and asked the International Criminal Court to investigate allegations of war crimes in Sudan.
The Sudanese Minister of Justice, Mohammed al-Mardi, took a firm stance on what he fears might unfold in his nation:
“If they are here to discuss the progress of trials or the role of national justice then we are ready to give them whatever information they are looking for. But if the matter is about investigations, then they….don’t have the jurisdiction.”
This is at least partially correct, as the ICC doesn’t have the authority to try people who have been properly processed in a national court. Human Rights Watch maintains that the Sudanese government established its own court to handle the Darfur crisis, but has only tried 13 minor cases to date.