Jean-Arnaud Derain, historian: “In Ukraine, as in the former Yugoslavia, international justice should not be justice for the victors.”

Jean-Arnault Dérens is a historian, Balkan specialist and journalist, founder of online media. Balkan Courier. He recently wrote with journalist Laurent Gheslin, Balkans in 100 questions. Under the influence of the intersection (Tallandier, 352 pages, €19.90).

30 years ago, on May 25, 1993, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was established. This decision echoes the ongoing debate about the need to address war crimes in Ukraine. Under what conditions was it received?

UN Security Council Resolution 827, adopted during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, stems from the West’s desire not to create a “victors’ tribunal” like Nuremberg. [1945-1946] After World War II, but a neutral criminal court, to say the law. There are no official winners or surrenders in the Balkan Wars. The war in Bosnia ended in December 1995 with the Dayton Accords, which gave enormous powers to the warlords, Serb nationalists, Croats, or Croats. Bosnians; that Kosovo ends with a technical cease-fire agreement [le 9 juin 1999].

The creation of the ICTY also allows Europeans and the international community to ease their consciences when they have failed to prevent war, fighting continues and efforts to stop it have sunk.

The court serves two purposes. First of all, it concerns those who violated international law in order to avoid the feeling of collective guilt among this or that people. Then there is the ambition to implement transitional justice, so that societies can confront their past and thus facilitate the reconciliation of the parties.

Has the ICTY’s ambition been achieved?

He and not. The road map was respected: 161 accused people were arrested and tried, except for ten of them who died in the meantime. But this experiment was marked by failures, some of which are facing the courts. First of all, a failure in pedagogy: the choice of an Anglo-Saxon type of justice complicated the trials, which was accustomed to Yugoslav law, inspired by Roman law, and which, however, gave the hearings a wide following.

The wave of acquittals in 2011-2012 is another failure. People who were found guilty and given very severe sentences – in the first instance up to forty years in prison -, especially Croats, but also high-ranking Serbs, were acquitted on appeal without presenting any new facts. Because of their deep conviction, the judges decided not to uphold the principle of command responsibility.