380 CHAPTER TEn ■ Human Riht
The former Yugo slavia illustrates the dilemmas associated with the application of
these conventions. During the war in the early 1990s, the term ethnic cleansing was
coined to refer to systematic efforts by Croatia and the Bosnian Serbs to remove
peoples of another group from their territory, but not necessarily to wipe out the entire
group.
But was this genocide or crimes against humanity? During 1992 and 1993, the
UN Commission on Human Rights undertook several investigations, concluding
that there were “massive and grave violations of human rights” and that Muslims were
the principal victims. The Security Council Commission of Experts concluded that all
sides were committing war crimes, but only the Serbs were conducting a systematic
campaign of genocide. But some states and many NGOs disagreed. In 2007, the Inter
national Court of Justice ruled that Serbia neither committed genocide nor conspired or
was complicit in the act of genocide. The judges pointed to insufficient proof of inten
tionality to destroy the Bosnians. In 2015, the same court ruled that both Serbia and
Croatia committed crimes, but the intent to commit genocide had not been proven.^16
Other cases of pos si ble genocide and war crimes continue to occur. In 2015, the
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights reported that the Islamic State may have
committed genocide and war crimes against the Yazidi community in Iraq and called
for the Security Council to refer the case to the ICC. But since Iraq is not a signatory
state to the ICC, the ICC has not yet seized the issue.
As this discussion shows, international efforts to prevent or stop mass human rights
abuses have been fitful. When prevention isn’t pos si ble, for practical or po liti cal rea
sons, the next issue is whether and how to punish the individuals responsible.
P HaRtRainheniHRlhynRadRvRdHmlt
A key trend in the new millennium is that individuals responsible for genocide and
crimes against humanity should be held accountable. This idea is not new. After World
War II, the allies convened trials to punish German and Japa nese leaders for their war
time actions. However, because these trials were the victor’s punishment, they were
not seen as legitimate pre ce dents. Following the atrocities in Yugo slavia and Rwanda,
the United Nations established two ad hoc criminal tribunals, the International Crim
inal Tribunal for the Former Yugo slavia, in 1993, and the International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda, in 1994. These ad hoc tribunals, approved by the UN Security
Council, have developed procedures to deal with the issues of jurisdiction, evidence,
sentencing, and imprisonment. Because of the need to establish procedures and the
difficulty in finding the accused, the trials have proceeded very slowly. As of the end
of 2015, the Yugo slav tribunal had completed proceedings for 141 out of 161 persons
indicted, with 80 sentences rendered. The Rwanda court had indicted 95 individuals
and convicted 55. The tribunal was closed officially on December 1, 2015.