Wikipedia

Talk:Bosnian genocide/Archive 2

< Talk:Bosnian genocide
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Philip Baird Shearer in topic potential for a quality article
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Possible disambiguation

Latest comment: 17 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion
see Talk:Bosnian Genocide/Archive 1#Introduction July 2007 for the earlier part of this discussion

To adress your major points: yes, Marko Attila Hoare has published views since the judgement; I once again disagree with your assesment of Martin Shaw's blog, partly because you hardly responded to my argument and partly because Mr. Shaw has in fact been published; and the term "acts of genocide" refers to characterizations of certain aspects of ethnic cleansing as such in previous ICTY rulings (Krajisnik and Blagojevic), by which said courts meant that the VRS actions amounted to acts outlined in the genocide convention (i.e. causing serious mental harm under article 4.2.b) and, depending on genocidal intent, would amount to genocide (Blagojevic was convicted, Krajisnik was not) - while the ICJ judgement (iirc) did not re-iterate the ICTY's conclusions, it too stated that actions other than killing could constitute genocide and that these types of actions had been committed in Bosnia. So by "acts of genocide", then, I mean one component of the crime of genocide that has in fact been adressed by international courts - the term Bosnian genocide, as demonstrated by Martin Shaw and others, is used by those who believe that there was a country-wide genocide because these acts of genocide (VRS actions that meet the descriptions of acts from the genocide convention) were complimented with genocidal intent. Due to all this I further reject your "undue weight" argument, as WP:NPOV#Undue weight is quite clear. According to the policy, "significant minority" viewpoints do belong on Wikipedia and "can recieve attention on pages specifically devoted them" provided that "it... make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must no reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view". The policy then goes on to cite Jimbo Wales, who defined "significant minority" viewpoints as follows: "if a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". With all this in mind, I think my proposal for this article fits all criteria: "Bosnian genocide" should adress the significant minority viewpoint that country-wide genocide was committed in Bosnia-Herzegovina (as held by various experts [academic, legal, human rights, etc.] mentioned above) while being careful to appropriately reference the majority viewpoint through a review of related and legal developments and to not attempt to rewrite the majority-view's content strictly from the perspective of the minority view". Live Forever 15:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

To make it easier for me to consider your arguments can you please add additional information to what you have written. For example what has Marko Attila Hoare published on this article since the ruling. Which cases and which paragraphs are you referring to in the ICTY conclusions and which paragraphs in the ICJ judgement? etc. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Philip, so, if we were to be able to find a source of some knowledgeable person/organization using the term "Bosnian genocide" after the ICJ judgement, and that that this ("Bosnian genocide") clearly refers a wider genocide in Bosnia and not the ICJ/ICTY case or the Srebrenica massacre, then you believe this is sufficient to keep the article and describe the "Bosnian genocide" as a view held by some that there was a wider genocide in Bosnia during the war?Osli73 23:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It depends. Most likely the article will be a criticism of the ICJ trial in some form or another, because I can not see how a knowledgeable source could ignore the ICJ findings (or for that matter the ECHR summary of the ICJ judgement). That would suggest that a better place for such criticism is in the ICJ trial. But I do not want to prejudge any hypothetical source and given the current state of this article (which at the moment I think is not too bad), I do not think that we have to be in a hurry to make this decision. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not happy with the current version of Momčilo Krajišnik article (which I read for the first time today), because the "Acquittal of genocide" section is larger than "ICTY Conviction" section. I would not want to see the same thing developing on this article. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

To start off with, here are links to some of the sources referenced earlier in the discussion: articles by Martin Shaw 1, 2, and 3, Marko Attila Hoare's subsequent analysis of the ICJ ruling, and a summary of the Blagojevic ruling - my references to ICTY/ICJ findings are all touched upon within these links. Also, I have several points to raise about your most recent response to Osli. First of all, of course the article would encyclopedically present criticism of the ICJ ruling; the article couldn't possibly adequately present the views of those who believe in a country-wide genocide without doing so. However, the article would hardly be some "response" to the ICJ; criticism of the ICJ ruling would be in context of a greater debate over the definition of genocide as related to Bosnia-Herzegovina (the Edina Becirevic article on the Krajisnik ruling is a good example). Secondly, nobody is "[ignoring] the ICJ findings"; they are disagreeing with the ICJ's interpretation of genocide, which is a perfectly valid academic view of the crime. I further think you're focusing too much on the legal aspect of this. Please don't get me wrong: genocide is an issue of international law, so of course an article on the "Bosnian genocide" would have to address and make clear the related legal developments in the ICJ, ICTY, and ECHR etc.). However, the article I'm proposing (which, as I mentioned above, is completely in line with Wikipedia policy) would not address the issue of genocide in Bosnia solely through a legal lens, but historically, culturally, and politically as well. It is in this respect that I chiefly find the present article lacking: while it adequately adresses the legal aspects/development of the issue, there is absolutely no historical overview of events considered to be part of the Bosnian genocide, no background information, no mention whatsoever of a decade worth of academic work on the subject, nothing about cultural consequences of genocide in Bosnia, next to no talk about related political issues, etc. All of this would belong here if we were to properly present the "significant minority viewpoint" that country-wide genocide occured in Bosnia-Herzegovina, but instead a person coming to this article would only find out that there was debate about the legal definition of genocide as it pertains to Bosnia. Live Forever 13:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note on Shaw page 2 above he seems to be using the old German interpretation of the CPPCG that "intent to destroy" include the intent to destroy a group as a social entity. However if you read the section in the article Bosnian Genocide#Nikola Jorgic you will see that the ECHR noted that this wider interpretation of genocide has since been rejected by international courts considering similar cases. So I am not sure how much weight can be put on his criticism of the ICJ ruling which as the ECHR points out is a minority one. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly the point: Shaw's stance on the Bosnian genocide and the ICJ ruling represents a minority viewpoint. However, as an expert in the field who holds this view (along with others like him), this is a significant minority viewpoint. Wikipedia policy is then quite clear on this matter: such a minority viewpoint "can recieve attention on pages specifically devoted them" (i.e. "Bosnian Genocide"), given that it "make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and... not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." The "Bosnian Genocide" article that I and (at least to this extent) Osli are proposing would not be some "alternative" to the majority viewpoint, but a fair representation of the (significant) minority view. Even the ECHR ruling you mention notes that "a considerable number of scholars" hold this view. Live Forever 20:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The Shaw Hoare articles are analyses of the ICJ ruling and as such are better in the Bosnian Genocide Case article --assuming that they are reliable sources -- That article to date has little in it and no criticism of the verdict). The problem I have with your last posting is this "However, the article I'm proposing (which, as I mentioned above, is completely in line with Wikipedia policy) would not address the issue of genocide in Bosnia solely through a legal lens, but historically, culturally, and politically as well." because it starts with the assumption that there was a genocide when more than one court has ruled that there was none. How do you cross the legal rubicon without creating an article that is inherently biased? --Philip Baird Shearer 19:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's go over this once again. I say that there is a significant minority viewpoint that the RS campaign against civilians in Bosnia-Herzegovina amounted to a country-wide genocide, citing several sources along the way. You summarily dismiss these sources as outdated, and insist on proof that the people/organizations behind said sources continue to hold such views after the ICJ judgement of February 2007 (implying that we should assume they all fundementally changed their stance after a controversial 13-2 ruling). I then provide you such proof in the form of subsequent reactions and analysis to the said ICJ ruling. You then dismiss this new evidence you had demanded, saying that it exclusively relates to the ICJ ruling and (apparently) in no way suggests that said academics continue to believe after the ICJ ruling that there was a country-wide genocide committed in Bosnia-Herzegovina. I think that by now you're just stumbling over your own standards of proof; Hoare's article in itself might be an analysis of the ICJ ruling, but we are not considering this article by itself but as part of Hoare's larger academic repertoire and as an example of his continued belief that a country-wide genocide occured in Bosnia-Herzegovina (for further reading, you can simply refer to Hoare's earlier works or his upcoming history of Bosnia). As for the second part of your post, your points seem to touch upon general Wikipedia policy. Once again, the article I am proposing would not be an alternative to the majority interpertation of events but a fair representation of a significant minority viewpoint. In this sense, the cultural, political and historical lenses I'm referring to would be presented to the extent that they are related to the view that genocide was committed in Bosnia. Culturally, for instance, the article could mention efforts by those who believe that a country-wide genocide was committed to establish museums and memorials, or artists whose work was inspired by (as they see it) the country-wide Bosnian genocide - certainly understandable for an article presenting the idea of a Bosnian genocide. A similar approach would be taken for the political aspect: the U.S. resolution would certainly belong on an article adressing the view of country-wide genocide. History? The current article lists of international trials while only barely explaining the where and when of the events they covered - an NPOV overview of historical events would certainly be in order. As Wikipedia's undue weight point states, as long as we do not "attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view", all of this could be properly incorporated into a quality article on this (once again) significant minority viewpoint. Live Forever 20:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You have still not addressed the subject of a minority POV title for the article you are proposing. Since the international court cases have explicitly ruled out that there was an area wide genocide, it is better that the article you are suggesting be under some other title that does not carry the minority view POV connotations that "Bosnian Genocide" does. If another less POV title is used then this page can become a disambiguation page -- including a link in it to the article you are proposing. As an example of a non POV name consider the article Human rights in the Soviet Union. That the article originally named "Soviet genocide" has been moved to its current title of "Human rights in the Soviet Union" with a short existence under the name "Soviet persecutions". Under the name "Human rights in the Soviet Union" a much better and balanced article has developed than existed when it was called Soviet genocide --Philip Baird Shearer 08:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
In that case, could you please list some possible titles for such an article? Live Forever 17:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Not sure. Should the new article cover only the war or a longer period? --Philip Baird Shearer 08:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Lead paragraphs

Latest comment: 16 years ago98 comments6 people in discussion

See Talk:Bosnian Genocide/Archive 1#Introduction July 2007

See alternative versions (24 October 2007):

See alternative versions (21/23 November 2007)

User:The Dragon of Bosnia the reason I reverted you changes is to do with timing. Can you provide any reliable sources since the international court cases this year that call the events other than the Srebrenica massacre genocide? Because you changes from

prior to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling on the Bosnian Genocide Case in February 2007 — the term Bosnian Genocide had been used by some academics,[2] and human rights officials,[3] to describe the allegations made by the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina that there had been a wider genocide in Bosnia during the during the 1992-1995 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

to

or to the crimes against humanity during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War, used by academics and human rights institutions to describe the ethnic cleansing campaign and persecution conducted by Serb, and to a lesser extent Croat secessionist authorities (Republika Srpska and Herzeg-Bosnia) in Bosnia and Herzegovina on political, racial and religious grounds in the context of a widespread attack on the Bosniak civilian population.

Implies that it is still used, which AFAICT is not longer true. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the term is still used, and is referred to ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, not just to Srebrenica genocide: Genocide Watch - May 31 2007
The phrase’s history begins with Ser­bi­an com­man­ders in the Bos­ni­an gen­o­cide of the early 1990s, who used code words such as et­nicko cis­cenj (ethnic cleansing - “cleans­ing of the re­gion”) to mean “leav­ing no­body alive,” the re­search­ers wrote. Such phrases, they added, ech­oed an ear­li­er Na­zi catch­word, Ju­den­rein (“Jew-free.”)
I can provide you more sources, but at least read those presented in the article. The Dragon of Bosnia 13:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The source you have found is interesting but it ( 'Ethnic cleansing' bleaches the atrocities of genocide) was Received by the Journal on June 17, 2006 , accepted for publication on January 24, 2007 before the ICJ ruling. If you have other sources then please lets see them particularly those that discuss the ICJ and the ECHR judgements. --Philip Baird Shearer 15:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The source is a proof the term is still used, after ICJ verdict. You said, it isn't, but it is. And you are trying to present that as a quote from the Journal, but that is not the case. The above quote is not the quote from Journal, but from the World Science, it is their own statement: The phrase’s history begins with Ser­bi­an com­man­ders in the Bos­ni­an gen­o­cide of the early 1990s. The authors are using Bosnian genocide as a fact, and explain the history of the term. So, I think you are really not trying to help here, but to manipulate. Grandy Grandy 18:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW the link I have provided has a link to the full article in PDF format. The reference given for "The ICTY concluded that what happened in Bosnia was genocide"(page 2) is footnote 21 "International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic, 2 August 2001, OF/P.I.S./609e." which is of course the ruling that found the Srebrenica massacre to be a genocide. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

PBS removed all changes made after him, including new senteces, new sources, diacritics etc. This is just not OK!

The term Bosnian Genocide is still used to denote mass war crimes committed in Bosnia, by different organizations:

(Shaw-28-02-2007)

The Bosnian genocide began in spring 1992 when Bosnian-Serbian nationalists, led by Radovan Karadzic (today a fugitive from the ICTY), taking over units and weapons from the Serbian-dominated Yugoslav national army, backed by Milosevic (who was then president of Serbia), and supported by murderous Milosevic-funded militia from Serbia proper, launched their violent campaign against the non-Serb (primarily Muslim and Croat) populations. Serbian forces burned villages, killed community leaders, incarcerated and murdered men in concentration camps, and raped women and girls - thus terrorising 90% of the non-Serb population into leaving the areas of Bosnia-Herzegovina that they controlled or conquered.

In Armenian genocide article, there is no court decision about the character of the crime, but it still says:

"AG was the forcible deportation and massacre of hundreds of thousands to over 1.5 million Armenians during the government of the Young Turks from 1915 to 1917 in the Ottoman Empire.[2] It is widely acknowledged to have been one of the first modern, systematic genocid."

On the other hand we have organizations, which use the term Bosnian Genocide referred to 100,000 people killed, and we have court decision about Srebrenica genocide, the first case in history of mankind, with the verdict about specific intent to destroy an ethnic group.

PBS, I think you are biased, and that is not good for Wikipedia. You are not the God, and this is not your property. Grandy Grandy 17:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Another source about the usage of the term:

World Science Magazine: September 2007

Grandy Grandy 17:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Bosnian Genocide/Archive 1#Introduction July 2007 and #Possible disambiguation.
The Shaw-28-02-2007 web article is a blog. It is not a peer reviewed article or even one which appeared in a news paper. The best it has managed is a letter to the Guardian which the Guardian (as discussed in the archive and above). So the Shaw-28-02-2007 web article fails WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper) also it fails WP:UNDUE unless more sources can be found that support his POV.
Your second source World Science Magazine: September 2007 is an article that discusses 'Ethnic cleansing' bleaches the atrocities of genocide (discussed in this section already) which was Received by the Journal on June 17, 2006 , accepted for publication on January 24, 2007 before the ICJ ruling and see the mention of footnote 21 above.
As to you comment above "In Armenian genocide article, there is no court decision about the character of the crime, ..." There has been a court case on the alledged wider Bosnian genocide and the International Court of Justice ruled that there was not one.
So you want to say that Armenian genocide is not the right term, because there was no trial. Grandy Grandy 18:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I did not say that. Leaving aside for the moment that although the act of genocide existed before it because an crime under international law and the Armenian genocide took place before such a crime had been defined -- If such a crime had existed during World War I and an international court had found that the events in Armenia were not to be a genocide, then it would not be called a genocide today. Instead the definition of if it was or was not a genocide has to be weighed through the publication of articles in peer reviewed journals and books published by University presses (as defined in WP:V). --Philip Baird Shearer 19:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can find some peer reviewed journals particularly those on international law that critisises the judgements, then we would have something to work with, but an article submitted for publication in a medical journal more than six before the ICJ ruling -- that cites Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic, (the Srebrenica massacre) as the genocide -- and one blog page is not support the supposition that "[is still] used by academics and human rights institutions to describe the ethnic cleansing campaign and persecution conducted by Serb" Nor are there any sources presented that Bosnian genocide still refers to "to a lesser extent Croat secessionist authorities (Republika Srpska and Herzeg-Bosnia) in Bosnia and Herzegovina on political, racial and religious grounds in the context of a widespread attack on the Bosniak civilian population." --Philip Baird Shearer 10:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can find some peer reviewed journals particularly those on international law that critisises the judgements about Armenian genocide, then we would have something to work with this. (Your arguments are totally ridiculous.)
Why would there be any "peer reviewed journals particularly those on international law that critisises the judgements about Armenian genocide" as there have not been any judements on the Armenian genocide? --Philip Baird Shearer 19:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly! But we have ICJ judgment in Bosnian Genocide case, and two definitions: the genocide, and acts of genocide (wider sense of genocide), both proven befor ICJ. Grandy Grandy 20:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


ICJ concluded:
SERBIA FOUND GUILTY OF FAILURE TO PREVENT AND PUNISH GENOCIDE:
Regarding "alleged" wider Bosnian genocide: The world's highest court concluded that the crimes, such as mass killing, rapes, detention, destruction or deportations, committed during the 1992 -1995 war, are "acts of genocide" according to the Convention, but could not be qualified as genocide.
So we have two terms here. Genocide per se, and acts of genocide (you called it alleged wider Bosnian genocide), both confirmed by ICJ. Genocide is referred to Srebrenica genocide, acts of genocide according to convention (such as mass killing, rapes, detention, destruction or deportations, committed during the 1992 -1995 war) are referred to the wider crimes committed in Bosnia, know as Bosnian genocide.Grandy Grandy 18:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
ICJ President Rosalyn Higgins noted that there is a lot of evidence to prove that crimes against humanity and war crimes had been committed in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The International Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction over them, because this case deals "exclusively with genocide in a limited legal sense and not in the broader sense sometimes given to this term ".
So, we are talking also about broader sense of the term, which is sometimes given to it. That is exactly the fact (ICJ finding) in the article that you keep removing. Are you satisfied now? Grandy Grandy 18:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I wrote an article that contains most of the academic definitions see genocide definitions. If you wish the article to refer to one of those definitions and not the internationally recognised legal definition then you will have to find an article which defines the activities that took place in Bosnia as a genocide published after the ICJ ruling. See for example Genocides in history#Soviet invasion of Afghanistan where M. Hassan Kakar presents such an argument in a book published by a university. To do so the authors will have to analyse the ICJ judgement and explain why they are using a different definition. I look forward to reading such an article. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am referring to ICJ, the judgment is quite enough. (Btw, you told me to do that.) We have "acts of genocide" proven befor ICJ referred to bosnian genocide in the broader sense. We just have to include this source as well, and the intro is fine then. Grandy Grandy 20:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. This is very good point. Acts of genocide should also be mentioned, just the way ICJ stated:there is a lot of evidence to prove that crimes against humanity and war crimes had been committed in Bosnia-Herzegovina. referring to Bosnian genocide in the broader sense. The Dragon of Bosnia 15:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
(2) by thirteen votes to two,
Finds that Serbia has not committed genocide, through its organs or persons whose acts engage its responsibility under customary international law, in violation of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;
(3) by thirteen votes to two,
Finds that Serbia has not conspired to commit genocide, nor incited the commission of genocide, in violation of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;
(4) by eleven votes to four,
Finds that Serbia has not been complicit in genocide, in violation of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;
(5) by twelve votes to three,
Finds that Serbia has violated the obligation to prevent genocide, under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in respect of the genocide that occurred in Srebrenica in July 1995;

Your version is unacceptable because it does not clearly state that "On February 26, 2007 the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in the Bosnian Genocide Case upheld the ICTY's earlier finding that the Srebrenica massacre constituted genocide, but found that there had been no wider genocide on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina during the war, as the Bosnian government had claimed." because you have removed the phrase in bold. Why have you done that as that is a summary of the ICJ findings? --Philip Baird Shearer 16:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This is very good version. I agree with Grandy. He explained it very well. There are two terms, genocide in a limited sense (noted by ICJ President Rosalyn Higgins) and genocide in a broader sense (acts of genocide committed in Bosnia). The Dragon of Bosnia 15:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

the sources given do not support the statement that The term Bosnian Genocide is used to refer to the crimes against humanity during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War, used by academics[2][3][4] and human rights institutions[5] to describe the ethnic cleansing campaign and persecution conducted by Serb, and to a lesser extent Croat secessionist authorities (Republika Srpska and Herzeg-Bosnia) in Bosnia and Herzegovina on political, racial and religious grounds in the context of a widespread attack on the Bosniak civilian population. They may have before the ICJ ruling but none of the sources given support that statement.

Further this statement is NPOV and inaccurate Despite the evidence of widespread killings, the siege of Sarajevo, mass rapes, ethnic cleansing and torture conducted by different Serb forces which also included JNA (VJ), elsewhere in Bosnia, especially in Prijedor, Banja Luka and Foča, as well as camps and detention centers, the judges ruled that the criteria for genocide with the specific intent (dolus specialis) to destroy Bosniaks were met only in Srebrenica or Eastern Bosnia. What does "Srebrenica or Eastern Bosnia" mean, does it mean Srebrenica IN Eastern Bosnia?

The whole tone of the re-write is not reporting what the ICJ's ruling was but implying that it was wrong. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I read the whole statement by the judge Higgins (and watched it on TV), so I included it in the article. There is a source about her statement (verdict), so it is now all clear. This is a good compromise, I just don't understand your behaviour here?! Do you want to improve the article, or just to vandalize it, reverting it all the time? You also removed other changes, which are valuable information, about the casualties etc.The Dragon of Bosnia 16:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your question about Easter Bosnia. Yes, it was genocide committed in Easter Bosnia or in Srebrenica. There is the summary of the verdict:

"In this case, having identified the protected group as the national group of Bosnian Muslims, the Trial Chamber concluded that the part the VRS Main Staff and Radislav Krstić targeted was the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica, or the Bosnian Muslims of Eastern Bosnia. This conclusion comports with the guidelines outlined above. The size of the Bosnian Muslim population in Srebrenica prior to its capture by the VRS forces in 1995 amounted to approximately forty thousand people. This represented not only the Muslim inhabitants of the Srebrenica municipality but also many Muslim refugees from the surrounding region. Although this population constituted only a small percentage of the overall Muslim population of Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time, the importance of the Muslim community of Srebrenica is not captured solely by its size...The Court sees no reason to disagree with the concordant findings of the Trial Chamber and the Appeals Chamber."

--The Dragon of Bosnia 16:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead paragraphs 2

The intro is just very difficult and has quite a partisan feel to it. I suggest that we go back to the previous version by Philip Beard Shearer (PBS). Not only is the language easier, it is also more concise, it sets out the different uses of the term. CheersOsli73 22:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Please?! This intro is precise and also sets out the different uses of the term. Read the above discussion. We are trying to improve this, with all due respect sockpuppetery and similar games are not welcome. You should inform yourself about the subject before you start reverting it. The Dragon of Bosnia 05:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
From the history:
05:41, 24 October 2007 user:The Dragon of Bosnia (22,683 bytes) (rv vandalism)
Read the above discussion. The Dragon of Bosnia 12:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Btw, the term is still used:
Trawling the internet for the term Bosnian Genocide does not prove it is in common usage among scholars.
So to date we still have not found any scholarly reliable sources that still refer to a more general genocide than that of the "Srebrenica massacre". --Philip Baird Shearer 14:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
user:The Dragon of Bosnia if you place into the edit history any wording that implies that other editors good faith edits are vandalism then either I or another administrator will block you account for a time (First usage Warning second usage. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about [difficult] language and wordiness in the current introduction are a far smaller and easier to address problem than the puritanism and hypocrisy smeared all over Mr. Shearer's "balanced" version. As other users have shown, genocide is a complex term with both a long legalistic development as well as a series of intertvined and equally significant broader interpretations - even Mrs. Higgins statements in the ICJ ruling admitted to as much. With all due respect to the factual and empirical evidence that we may gather from international proceedings, adhering exclusively to the recent legal interpretation of these events is the wrong approach here. Were we to maintain this thinking elsewhere, we would logically have to reconsider charges of genocide everywhere from Armenia to Rwanda, seeing as none of these have had legal re-confirmation following the precedent-setting ruling in the Bosnian case. Otherwise, we'd be forced to apply these new (far higher) standards exclusively to Bosnia - the only place where they have been applied and presumably the only place where they will be applied in the near-future. After all, the Armenian genocide is not about to be put to trial and scrutiny in a comparable international institution anytime soon; and yet, despite a similar history of support and evidence prior to the 2007 ruling (academic works, findings by lower courts, popular support, political decrees, etc.), Shearer seems to be arguing that the idea of genocide in Bosnia has suddenly lost all legitimacy. This seems terribly unfair, and the efforts I've seen to deny continuing intellectual and popular support on this talk page border on the illogical. In fact, the most "balanced" response (to use your own favorite word) would be to accurately describe the events in question while representing both the legalistic and broader interpretation of them and explaining the relationship between the two. If the current effort to do so is done with "wordy" or "difficult" language, than we're truly dealing with a relatively minuscule problem to get around. Live Forever 14:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fairness has nothing to do with it. The article to which I have been reverting mentions that until the ICJ ruling there were academic sources which speculated that the events in Bosnia other than the Srebrenica massacre were genocides. Since the ICJ ruling there have been none. When or if new reliable sources are found then we can include them. The Srebrenica massacre is widely acknowledged to be a genocide precisely because it was found to be by an international court of law. A wider genocide is not longer recognised as having taken place because of another international court of law's ruling. May I put it to you, Live Forever, that if a person was to present sources of the quality that have been presented here in the last month denying that the Srebrenica massacre was not a genocide you would criticise such sources and not being reliable, and if you did not do that I would. I fail to see why we should not use the same standards for criticism for the ICJ ruling. If you can find a reliable that explains that it was a genocide using another respected scholarly definition (such as those listed in genocide definitions), then we can add that. But at the moment that is not what is being done instead a few words are being taken out of the broader context of the ICJ ruling and starting with primary sources extrapolated into an argument that is basically a WP:SYN. For example the ICJ press release, that like other ICJ press releases on their rulings, is a good guide for a layman to read to understand the rulings does not support the interpretation that you are putting forward. I have already quoted on this page some of the findings as presented in the ICJ press release it also says:

With respect to “killing members of the protected group” (Article II (a) of the Convention), the Court finds that it is established by overwhelming evidence that massive killings throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina were perpetrated during the conflict. However, the Court is not convinced that those killings were accompanied by the specific intent on the part of the perpetrators to destroy, in whole or in part, the group of Bosnian Muslims. It acknowledges that the killings may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity, but that it has no jurisdiction to determine whether this is so.
...
The Court then finds that the Applicant has not demonstrated any overall plan to commit genocide on the basis of the 1992 Strategic Goals issued by the authorities of the Republika Srpska. It also rejects Bosnia and Herzegovina’s claim that the very pattern of the atrocities committed over many communities, over a lengthy period, focussed on Bosnian Muslims, can demonstrate the necessary specific intent to destroy the group in whole or in part.

But it does not support the synthesis from the primary source that you are making. If an article about the Bosnian genocide is to remain on Wikipeida then it should present the ICJ findings and ruling as the predominant point of view (This is after all the International court set up by the UN charter to look into disputes between members and there is no appeal court above it) and not put undue weight on other points of view. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Live Forever and DoB. PBS you are the only one here who is not improving the article. You can call it whatever you like, that is the fact! You wanted sources about the term usage, and the sources are here, now you want smth else. What is wrong with this sentence:

  • "The term is used by academics[4][5][6][7] and human rights institutions[8][9]"

And the sentece is fully sourced? Human rights institutions use the term today, as the above "Save Darfur" source shows. Grandy Grandy 17:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Instead of edit warring over this article, why not state something to the effect that "although the ICJ ruled that genocide only occurred in Srebrenica and not the rest of the war, many outside commentators (sourced) maintain that the court was wrong and the war was indeed characterized by genocide and ethnic cleansing." The court's ruling may be final in the legal sense, but that doesn't mean we should throw out every assertion to the contrary. Dchall1 17:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Because to date AFAICT no reliable source (as defined in WP:V) has published an analysis that the court was wrong. All that has been produced are internet sites which do not have peer review or even an independent editorial staff. (This had already been discussed above)--Philip Baird Shearer 21:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. That's my point! We have two terms (this is ICJ conclusion), genocide in a limited legal sense, and in a broader sense (or acts of genocide):

PBS said: "If an article about the Bosnian genocide is to remain on Wikipeida then it should present the ICJ findings..."

Here we go:

ICJ (sense-agency):

"The world's highest court concluded that the crimes, such as mass killing, rapes, detention, destruction or deportations, committed during the 1992 -1995 war, are "acts of genocide" according to the Convention, but could not be qualified as genocide."

So we have two terms here. Genocide per se, and acts of genocide both confirmed by ICJ. Genocide is referred to Srebrenica genocide, acts of genocide according to convention (such as mass killing, rapes, detention, destruction or deportations, committed during the 1992 -1995 war) are referred to the wider crimes committed in Bosnia, know as Bosnian genocide.

"ICJ President Rosalyn Higgins noted that there is a lot of evidence to prove that crimes against humanity and war crimes had been committed in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The International Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction over them, because this case deals "exclusively with genocide in a limited legal sense and not in the BROADER SENSE SOMETIMES given to this term "."

We are also talking about broader sense of the term, which is sometimes given to it. That is exactly the fact (ICJ finding) in the article that you keep removing, and you said the article should present ICJ findings, which is a little bit contradict?! Grandy Grandy 17:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again Mr. Shearer, your criticize others concerns as unfounded while resting your own arguments on a heap of bizarre conclusions. Pardon my French, but if we can go back to the very roots of your argument, how the hell did we reach the conclusion in the first place that the dozens of academics and scholars who have maintained for the past 15 years that country-wide genocide occured suddenly changed their mind following the ICJ verdict? In fact, we didn't - you simply arrived at this conclusion, single-handedly, imposed a ridiculous burden of proof on all who disagreed and then ran with it. You claim that "academic sources... speculated that the events in Bosnia other than the Srebrenica massacre were genocides." This is false; academic sources specializing in genocide and human rights, based on a clear definition of the crime as valid as any of the ones that you have offered (and, at the time, legally enforced), claimed - not "speculated" - that what happened in Bosnia was a country-wide genocide. This is not a murder mystery Mr. Shearer: the ICJ ruling did not uncover hidden evidence that empirically invalidated 15 years of popular academic opinion, it simply chose a contrasting interpretation of genocide - an interpretation that has been objected since by a number of academics and even members of the court (all of which you've stubbornly ignored). Now you ask for a respected scholarly definition of genocide that applies here, but in your actions you've shown again and again that you'll have nothing to do with it. For example, Prof. Martin Shaw has written an entire book on genocide (complete with definition), but you've dismissed his views with little reason. Even the ECHR ruling in the Nikola Jorgic case made it clear that the events in Bosnia were reasonably found to be genocide based on another "respected scholarly definition", but you've apparently decided against this in your analysis. As for your comments regarding Srebrenica, your argument is basically giving equal weight to accusations of genocide from wide-spread independent academic and human rights organizations and to genocide denial from politically motivated parties - sad and besides the point. Live Forever 19:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

p.s. Your argument appears more unreasonable by the second. On your "definitions of genocide" page you list the views of academics who do indeed consider a country-wide genocide to have occurred in Bosnia. Live Forever 19:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Which academics, since the ICJ judgement have written that a country-wide genocide occurred in Bosnia? --Philip Baird Shearer 21:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Requiring academic opinions since the ICJ ruling (and throwing out those before) is an unreasonable standard. First, the ruling was a little over six months ago, which is hardly enough time for a flood of academic articles to have been published. Secondly, we might (by your logic) require that only those sources whose authors specifically repudiate them post-ICJ be thrown out. I repeat my earlier statement that while the ICJ may be the source with the highest legal standing, its opinion does not negate those of the rest of the academic community who disagree with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dchall1 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
No one is suggesting that the earlier references are not used but their use is put into context. This is the text from the version I prefer:
The term Bosnian Genocide is used to refer either to the Srebrenica massacre,[1] or — prior to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling on the Bosnian Genocide Case in February 2007 — the term Bosnian Genocide had been used by some academics,[2] and human rights officials,[3] to describe the allegations made by the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina that there had been a wider genocide in Bosnia during the during the 1992-1995 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.[1]
--Philip Baird Shearer 09:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

But, in the current introduction we just included ICJ conclusion:

  • "ICJ President Rosalyn Higgins noted that there is a lot of evidence to prove that crimes against humanity and war crimes had been committed in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The International Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction over them, because this case deals "exclusively with genocide in a limited legal sense and not in the BROADER SENSE SOMETIMES given to this term ".

Which means that the term is still used, sometimes or not, to refer to a lot of evidence about crimes against humanity and war crimes that had been committed in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and those crimes were sourced. It is known as Bosnian Genocide, or Genocide in Bosnia.

Not to mention, that we should correct introduction and include genocide per se in Eastern Bosnia as well, not just in Srebrenica, because the court concluded that genocide with the specific intent to destroy Bosniaks happened in Srebrenica or in Eastern Bosnia. Grandy Grandy 10:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The ruling makes it clear that although "there is a lot of evidence to prove that crimes against humanity and war crimes had been committed in Bosnia-Herzegovina. " it was not genocide. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It was not genocide just in a limited legal sense, which is precisely explained in the intro:

The term Bosnian Genocide is used to refer either to the genocide committed by Serb forces in Srebrenica in 1995, in a limited legal sense, with the specific intent (dolus specialis) to destroy Bosniaks in the area[1] or to the genocide in a broader sense referring to crimes against humanity and war crimes during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War[2]... Grandy Grandy 19:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Even though I agree with Dchall's response, I'll respond to PBS for the sake of argument. Helen Fein is the first that comes to mind: using the definition that you list on your own article, she has historically claimed that a country-wide genocide occurred in Bosnia. In her newest book, released in August, the language she uses when she mentions Bosnia makes it clear that she hasn't changed her mind. Martin Shaw is another example; he has written an entire book on genocide and offered his own definition of it as an extension of total war. As the book and his internet postings following the ICJ decision show, he still maintains that a country-wide genocide occurred. Shaw's colleague Hoare, who we have already demonstrated believes a country-wide genocide occurred, has released a new history of Bosnia recently (September) where he deals with the recent events as well. Live Forever 06:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the title and ISBN of Helen Fein's book? Martin Shaw's internet postings are not a reliable source. What is the name of Hoare's book? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I still hold that the court's recent ruling does not invalidate those earlier sources who maintain that genocide did indeed occur. I am not willing to create a precedent that genocide has not occurred in any given situation unless the ICJ rules that it has. Doing so here sets a standard that other articles are not held to.Dchall1 14:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course. The Dragon of Bosnia 16:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
No one is suggesting that other genocides did or did not occur if the ICJ has not made a ruling on them. But just as when an international court of law finds that a Genocide did occur (as with the the Srebrenica genocide) or did not occur (as in a general Bosnian Gemocide) a lot more weight should be attached to those court findings than to other opinions. The ICJ ruling does invalidate the earlier papers because the authors of any paper published after the ruling that dissagrees with the general findings of the ICJ will have to explain how they draw a different conclusion from that of the ICJ. Papers published before the ICJ ruling are like any academic paper no longer as valid given that the legal position has now been clarified. That is not to say that theses earlier papers should not be mentioned (as in the version that his been here for several months) but less weight should be given to them. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Rosalyn Higgins (ICJ) explanation is fine (those are court findings as well) - genocide in a limited legal sense (Srebrenica or Eastern Bosnia genocide) and genocide in a broader sense (crimes against humanity and war crimes) referring to general Bosnian genocide. I just can't see the problem with this: ---The term Bosnian Genocide is used to refer either to the genocide committed by Serb forces in Srebrenica in 1995, in a limited legal sense, with the specific intent (dolus specialis) to destroy Bosniaks in the area[1] or to the genocide in a broader sense referring to crimes against humanity and war crimes...--- The sentence is more accurate, based on ICJ findings (It is important to note the ICJ found many crimes against humanity were committed as well, and ICJ deals exclusively with genocide in a limited legal sense and "not in the broader sense given to the term", meaning the broader sense is given to the term when referring to crimes against humanity happened in Bosnia). The Dragon of Bosnia 00:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Genocide involves crimes against humanity and often war crimes, but not all crimes against humanity, or war crimes are genocide. For example perfidy is a war crime but no act of genocide need be involved when the offense is committed. Just because the ICJ said that war crimes and crimes against humanity may have been committed, it does not mean that those acts were acts of genocide. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead paragraphs 2: arbitrary subsection 1

This arbitrary subsection break was retrofitted for ease of referencing from other sections.

PBS please, why didn't you read the source and the whole discussion, you just keep repeating the same thing over and over: ICJ ((Sense Agency report):

The world's highest court concluded that the crimes, such as mass killing, rapes, detention, destruction or deportations, committed during the 1992 -1995 war, are acts of genocide according to the Convention, but could not be qualified as genocide.

So it does mean that those acts were acts of genocide, but without specific intent called dolus specialis. There is one more importan thing. Your earlier claims were also false, about the genocide in Eastern Bosnian. And ICJ didn't say: the general bosnian genocide didn't happen. It just said: ICJ deals exclusively with genocide in a limited legal sense, but acts of genocide did happen. Those are known as Bosnian Genocide. But, this is not over yet, because ICJ didn't use documents from Milosevic trial who died.

Claim? I asked a question "What does "Srebrenica or Eastern Bosnia" mean, does it mean Srebrenica IN Eastern Bosnia?". I did not make a claim. As the text was not in quotes it was a reasonable question. Please stop making this confrontational as it makes it more difficult to reach a Wikipedia consensus. The ICJ summary of the judgement is much clear on this issue than the above " ... Radislav Krstić targeted was the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica, or the Bosnian Muslims of Eastern Bosnia. This conclusion comports with the guidelines outlined above. The size of the Bosnian Muslim population in Srebrenica prior to its capture by the VRS forces in 1995 amounted to approximately forty thousand people. This represented not only the Muslim inhabitants of the Srebrenica municipality but also many Muslim refugees from the surrounding region."[2] --Philip Baird Shearer 16:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

ICJ - The missing link (Sense Agency report)

Paradoxical as it may be, the outcome of this legal suit filed back in March 1993 arrived too early for Bosnia Herzegovina. Three trials of former Serbian officials have yet to start before the Tribunal. The trials of Momcilo Perisic, one-time Chief of the VJ General Staff, Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic, heads of the secret police, and Vojislav Seselj, leader of the Serbian Radicals and Chetniks should shed light on the role the VJ, Serbian police, paramilitary and volunteer units played in the war in BH.

This is also interesting:

In the judgment delivered in July 1999, the Appeals Chamber found that the VRS was "under overall control" of Belgrade and the Yugoslav Army, which meant that they had funded, equipped and assisted in coordination and planning of military operations. Had the International Court of Justice accepted this finding of the Tribunal, Serbia would have been found guilty of complicity in the Srebrenica genocide. Instead it concluded that the Appeals Chamber in the Tadic case "did not attempt to determine the responsibility of a state but individual criminal responsibility:, and that “Serbia’s leaders were not involved” in the appellate proceedings.

What I want to say? ICJ didn't reach the verdict based on ICTY findings and other findings about the genocide, it just reached the verdict based on the available documents (not all, as in Milosevic case) reagarding the responsibility of a state of Serbia (that is limited legal sense) but not individual criminal responsibility. Grandy Grandy 14:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The ICJ did reach its verdict based on the ICTY findings as it makes clear it the Summary of the Judgment of 26 February 2007 in the section "The massacre at Srebrenica":
The Court goes on to examine whether there was specific intent (dolus specialis) on the part of the perpetrators. Its conclusion, fortified by the Judgments of the ICTY Trial Chambers in the Krstić and Blagojević cases, is that the necessary intent was not established until after the change in the military objective (from 'reducing the enclave to the urban area' to taking over Srebrenica town and the enclave as a whole) and after the takeover of Srebrenica, on about 12 or 13 July. This may be significant for the application of the obligations of the Respondent under the Convention. The Court has no reason to depart from the Tribunal's determination that the necessary specific intent (dolus specialis) was established and that it was not established until that time.

It may be that in the future others are found guilty of genocide over the events in Bosnia in the early 1990s, but this article should not anticipate the courts verdicts. Besides given the ECHR review of this case in Jorgic v. Germany on 12 July 2007, I suspect that if anyone is found guilty in the future it will be for crimes against humanity and not genocide. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I was clear. It didnt base the verdict on all ICTY findings, for example Tadic verdict

In the judgment delivered in July 1999, the Appeals Chamber found that the VRS was "under overall control" of Belgrade and the Yugoslav Army, which meant that they had funded, equipped and assisted in coordination and planning of military operations. Had the International Court of Justice accepted this finding of the Tribunal, Serbia would have been found guilty of complicity in the Srebrenica genocide. Instead it concluded that the Appeals Chamber in the Tadic case "did not attempt to determine the responsibility of a state but individual criminal responsibility:, and that “Serbia’s leaders were not involved” in the appellate proceedings.

It concluded that the Appeals Chamber in the Tadic case did not attempt to determine the responsibility of a state but individual criminal responsibility, so it didnt base the judgment on those findings, and it didnt use Milosevic case documents. Grandy Grandy 22:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

To the specific use of the term "acts of genocide" which has bee used frequently in these talk sections taking third party summary reports the Summary of the Judgment of 26 February 2007 uses the term 17 times. It is used in "The applicable law" section twice. It is used in the "The massacre at Srebrenica" section 5 times and no one is disputing that that was a genocide. It is used in the section "The test of responsibility" 9 times these are:

  1. First, it needs to be determined whether the acts of genocide could be attributed to the Respondent on the basis that those acts where committed by its organs or persons whose acts are attributable to it under customary rules of State Responsibility.
  2. When applied to the present case, this rule first calls for a determination whether the acts of genocide committed in Srebrenica were perpetrated by 'persons or entities' having the status of organs of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (as the Respondent was known at the time) under its internal law, as then in force. According to the Court, it must be said that there is nothing which could justify an affirmative response to this question. It has not been shown that the FRY army took part in the massacres, nor that the political leaders of the FRY had a hand in preparing, planning or in any way carrying out the massacres. It is true that there is much evidence of direct or indirect participation by the official army of the FRY, along with the Bosnian Serb armed forces, in military operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the years prior to the events at Srebrenica.
  3. In the present case, the Court however cannot find that the persons or entities that committed the acts of genocide at Srebrenica had such ties with the FRY that they can be deemed to have been completely dependent on it.
  4. The Court therefore finds that the acts of genocide at Srebrenica cannot be attributed to the Respondent as having been committed by its organs or by persons or entities wholly dependent upon it, and thus do not on this basis entail the Respondent's international responsibility.
  5. The Court states that, in order to ascertain whether the Respondent is responsible for 'complicity in genocide', it must examine whether those organs or persons furnished 'aid or assistance' in the commission of the genocide in Srebrenica... In particular, it has not been established beyond any doubt in the argument between the Parties whether the authorities of the FRY supplied - and continued to supply - the VRS leaders who decided upon and carried out those acts of genocide with their aid and assistance, at a time when those authorities were clearly aware that genocide was about to take place or was under way.

The term "acts of genocide" is next mentioned "The obligation to prevent genocide (paras. 428-438)" 1 mention and concludes "Such is the case here. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the Respondent violated its obligation to prevent the Srebrenica genocide in such a manner as to engage its international responsibility."

In the section "The obligation to punish genocide (paras. 439-450)" 1 mention which is again about Srebrenica: "Having recalled that its 'orders on provisional measures under Article 41 [of the Statute] have binding effect', the Court finds that it is clear that in respect of the massacres at Srebrenica ... do not commit any acts of genocide'.".

In the section "The question of reparation (paras. 459-470)" 2 mentions: "Turning to the question of the appropriate reparation for the breach by the Respondent of its obligation under the Convention to punish acts of genocide, the Court notes that it is satisfied that the Respondent has outstanding obligations as regards the transfer to the ICTY of persons accused of genocide, in order to comply with its obligations under Articles I and VI of the Genocide Convention, in particular in respect of General Ratko Mladić. ",and "Decides that Serbia shall immediately take effective steps to ensure full compliance with its obligation under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide to punish acts of genocide as defined by Article II of the Convention, or any of the other acts proscribed by Article III of the Convention, and to transfer individuals accused of genocide or any of those other acts for trial by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and to co-operate fully with that Tribunal;"

AFAICT not once in the summary of the judgement does the ICJ find that "acts of genocide" were committed anywhere but at Srebrenica. What the say is

Having examined the specific allegations of the Applicant under this heading, and having taken note of the evidence presented to the ICTY, the Court considers that it has been established by fully conclusive evidence that members of the protected group were systematically victims of massive mistreatment, beatings, rape and torture causing serious bodily and mental harm, during the conflict and, in particular, in the detention camps. The Court finds, however, that it has not been conclusively established that those atrocities, although they too may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity, were committed with the specific intent (dolus specialis) to destroy the protected group, in whole or in part.

and:

On the basis of the elements presented to it concerning the camps, the Court considers that there is convincing and persuasive evidence that terrible conditions were inflicted upon detainees of the camps. However, the evidence presented has not enabled the Court to find that those acts were accompanied by specific intent (dolus specialis) to destroy the protected group, in whole or in part. In this regard, the Court observes that, in none of the ICTY cases concerning camps cited above, has the Tribunal found that the accused acted with such specific intent (dolus specialis).

and more in a similar vain, but the ICJ summary report does not say (outside the Srebrenica genocide) that the events were "acts of genocide", as was claimed in the [ICJ (Sense Agency report)]:

The world's highest court concluded that the crimes, such as mass killing, rapes, detention, destruction or deportations, committed during the 1992 -1995 war, are acts of genocide according to the Convention, but could not be qualified as genocide.

perhaps the finding is in the full judgement but I do not have time to read that today. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The above agency report is quite clear, and it is included as a source. Grandy Grandy 22:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not think it is I have now skimmed through the Judgement and can not find anywhere where it differs on this issue from the summary report or the ICJ press realease. Please could you point me to the part of the judement that states that other "acts of genocide" (other than the were carried out Srebrenica) were carried out. Or failing that can you find another news agency report that backs up the Sense Agency report, because it is not unknown for people to say things a press conferences that are not in the official documents presented at the same conference. Equally it is not unknown for a reporter to misunderstand what they have heard. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
PBS, with all due respect, your logic is silly. I provided the source (Agency specialized for ICJ and ICTY news), and if you don't agree with it you have to read the judgment, not me. Because if we apply your logic to other articles in Wikipedia (and many other agency reports), then it would be better to delete them all. Grandy Grandy 14:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The ICJ Press Release 2007/8 , the Reuters Press release or the Associated Press release all published on February 26, 2007, put the same spin on things that a small little known agency that you are citing. The all say much the same thing, (as does this BBC report published on the same day), and of those press releases the ICJ press release is the most detailed and I think should be used as the basis for this article, not a press release from a little known agency, as this is much closer to the spirit of the WP:V policy and WP:RS guideline. After all it is not the first time that an agency reporter has misunderstood a press conference, for example see the press release by Howard Cowan for Associated Press after a SHAEF press conference about Bombing of Dresden two days after the raid (see British section for details) --Philip Baird Shearer 18:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I have to agree with Grandy Grandy regarding SENSE. "Small little known agency" is just not correct term to describe it. It is well-known agency in the Balkans covering all ICTY trials for Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Kosovo and Macedonia since the first one. It is considered to be the most neutral source regarding ICTY trials. It is supported by the European Commission, Governments of the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Switzerland and Germany, and the Open Society Institute.
  • About Sense Tribual: SENSE – TRIBUNAL is a specialized project of SENSE News Agency based in International War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague. The focus of this project is regular, balanced and comprehensive coverage of the work of the ICTY, and the activities of ICJ (International Court of Justice) and ICC (International Criminal Court)...Since 1998 SENSE is continuously producing daily news reports and a weekly television program entitled The Tribunal for TV networks in Bosnia & Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia & Montenegro and FYROM.
Reuters and Associated Press are not specialized for ICTY unlike Sense. So it is quite good source of information. The Dragon of Bosnia 19:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
If the Sense news agency report placed the same emphasis on the judgement as the other news agencies then fair enough. But it does not and more significantly it does not place the same emphases on the judgement as the ICJ press release (which is what Reuters and AP both do). Do you have any other independent source that claims that put such an emphasis on "genocidal acts"? After all on 1 July 1916 the Germans killed 20,000 Brits and attempted to kill far more, but although that was a mass killing it is not considered to be a genocidal act. For mass killing to be a genocidal act there has to be intent to commit genocide or it is not a genocidal act. The sense new agency report seems to be the minority view and this article ought to reflect the view of the majority and perhaps mention in passing the minority view as suggested in WP:NPOV#Balance andWP:NPOV#Undue weight. I think the older version of the article is a far batter base to build on than the version that emphasises the Sense news agency report --Philip Baird Shearer 18:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear all, wouldn't it be easiest to just cite the ICJ finding and then mention/list some of the comments made by various media, academics and organizations, regardless of their intepretation of the findings?Osli73 (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead paragraphs 2: arbitrary subsection 2

This arbitrary subsection break was retrofitted for ease of referencing from other sections.

@PBS: To answer your previous question, Helen Fein's new book is titled "Human Rights and Wrongs: Slavery, Terror, Genocide" and the ISBN is 1594513279. Hoare's book is titled "A History of Bosnia" and its ISBN is 0863569536. Martin Shaw's internet postings form a perfectly legitimate source because he is an established expert in the field (as the language of relevant Wikipedia policy makes perfectly clear); I've explained this to you in great detail several times now, and if you continue to ignore it and brush it off you will force me to assume bad faith. Live Forever 17:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As I have repeatedly written. If there are new scholarly sources that argue that build an arguement that despite the ICJ argument that there was a genocide in Bosnia then I of course have no objections to the arguments insuch bookls being put forward with citations that include page references. However I think the introduction to this article should still emphasise the ICJ judgement.
I have done a search on the Fien's book and there are only a few reviews of it on the net, none of them detailed enough to mention any analysis of Bosnia let alone detailed enoughto say if she had drawn different conclusions from those of the ICJ. As the book was first published in August 2007, I am not sure that the manuscript would not have been prepared before the ICJ ruling. So please can you explain what here findings are.
I have also done a search on Hoare's book and apart from "required reading for anyone interested in the Bosnian conflict." by The Journal of Military History, I could find no other review. So what does that book say about genocide in Bosnia? --Philip Baird Shearer 19:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Misrepresenting the ICJ finding?

The text currently reads:

The court concluded that the crimes, including mass killings, rapes, detentions, destruction and deportation, committed during the war, were "acts of genocide" according to the Genocide Convention, but that these acts did not, in themselves, constitute genocide per se.

However, I can't find this anywhere in the ICJ judgement or press release. If it's not there we should change or remove that text. Comments?Osli73 (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It is taken from the ICJ ((Sense Agency report) and I think you need to read the sections above (specifically #Lead paragraphs 2: arbitrary subsection 1), because that is one of the major bones of contention. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

After reading the Talk above it seems there is a difference between how the ICJ pressrelease presents it and how the SENSE news agency presents it. Given that the ICJ is the source it doesn't seem that hard - just write/quote whatever the ICJ says. One could then go on to present other organization's intepretation and comments on the judgement. What's wrong with that?Osli73 (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. SENSE is a relaible source per WP:RS, it is specialized for ICTY and ICJ trials (Osli73 I think we are both aware of your revisionist arguments you tried to impose in Srebrenica massacre article many many times). So don't remove relaible sources. It is called vandalism. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
SENSE presented the trail in general with its main features. And the summary of the verdict also confirmed the crimes against humanity committed in Bosnia. Read carefully. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 12:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Why should we use a secondary source (SENSE) when we have a perfectly good primary source (ICJ)? And if we are to quote a secondary source, why not use a more mainstream source (eg BBC)? Finally, please refrain from insults and politically motivated personal attacks.Osli73 (talk) 09:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

what do you think of the new section{ Bosnian Genocide Case)? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, well, on one hand it's straight out of the ICJ pressrelease so no one should object. On the other, I feel it's a bit strange that we don't offer the reader any summary of the judgement. Everyone won't want to read the entire findings or know what parts of the findings are significant (or more significant the the other parts). How about putting the BBC's summary of the judgement first and the following up with the quote from the ICJ's pressrelease? Some relevant quotes from the BBC article below:

The International Court of Justice in The Hague said the massacre of 8,000 men in Srebrenica was genocide, but Belgrade was not directly responsible.

However the court added that the leaders of Serbia failed to comply with its international obligation to prevent the killings and punish those responsible.

The court also rejected Bosnia's claim for reparations.

How about putting (part of) that text in first?Osli73 (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a summation in the lead section (the paragraph that starts "In 2001 the ..."), but I think you are right, as I do not wish to monopolize the editing please add whatever wording you think is appropriate --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
There is already Bosnian Genocide Case article. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
That is no reason why there should mot be a section in this article with a
main article Bosnian Genocide Case
at the start of it. It also gives room for putting summaries of the standard POV expressed in the ICJ press release and the BH POV as expressed in the Sense new report of the findings:
The [Bosnia Herzegovina] representatives admitted that they “did not get everything we wanted" but stressed, "we got quite a lot". First of all, it was confirmed that the Bosnian Serb forces had committed a number of grave crimes tantamount to "acts of genocide". With the exception of Srebrenica, they could not be qualified as genocide because of the difficulties involved in proving the existence of “genocidal intent”
--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OMG! @PBS, we are dealing here with the term. Bosnian Genocide is also nowdays term used to refer (see two additional sources) to other crimes committed in Bosnia (ethnic cleansing in Prijedor region). The introduction is quite good, I don't see the problem here?! Grandy Grandy (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources:

Grandy Grandy (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in either of the sources that indicates that they do not mean the Srebrenica massacre when they write Bosnian Genocide. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
This is your greatest hit yet. By its very title, the first article is explicitely referring to the Prijedor region. As far as the second site goes, the section on the Bosnian genocide was presented by Benjamin Moore and Jack Luzkow; it doesn't take much effort to find out that these two men are referring to genocide outside of Srebrenica[3].Live Forever (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the additional information I have incorporated it into the page. Now that there is at least one academic site that is still using the term Bosnian Genocide for a wider genocide, I have also added a paragraph expressing Marin Shaw's POV. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. @Osli73 included false information related to the percentage of military casualties, not supported by the source, not related to the genocide. Bosniak civilians were main target during the war, so please stick to the topic. Serb casualties were 90% military, which clearly defines the character of the war, but the article is related to the genocide not to the war. There is no need for revisionism. Thanks. Grandy Grandy (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Grandy, I simply quote the Intl. Herald Tribune (IHT) article related to the casualty numbers in Bosnia. What's wrong with:

97,207 people were killed during the Bosnian war. Of those, about 60 percent were soldiers and 40 percent civilians. Of the civilians, 83 percent were Bosnian Muslims, 10 percent were Serbs and more than 5 percent were Croats, followed by a small number of others such as Jews or Roma.

It makes it very clear that 83% of the civilians were Bosniaks. By selectively presenting figures you are providing a POV. Please refrain from personal attacks (accusations of "revisionism").Osli73 (talk) 09:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
It it only relates to the genocide then the numbers are 'only' the 8,000 or so of the internationally recognised genocide. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear all, a couple of things are quite clear:

  1. The ICJ found that genocide was limited to the Srebrenica massacre
  2. Many people, including many Bosniaks and some human rights groups, believe that the ICJ is wrong and that there was genocide outside of the Srebrenica massacre

The natural thing would be to present No. 1 as the majority opinion, citing the ICJs own sources/material, while giving some room to the minority dissenting opinion, No. 2, citing some of those sources. Finally, while the Bosnian Genocide Case article deals exclusively with the specific court case this deals with the greater issue, giving room to the minority opinion. Osli73 (talk) 09:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

From the history of the article:

The Dragon of Bosnia (Talk | contribs | block) (23,297 bytes) (rv)

"The" if you are going to revert to an earlier version then please give a clue in the edit history as to which version you are reverting to instead of making people guess. In this case I assume it was the last edit by Grandy Grandy. If so then please comment here as to why you are doing that. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I am trying to improve it. I am going to list the individuals accused and convicted of genocide by different courts in the world with references to verdicts, indictments or other documents due to gather all important information related to Bosnian Genocide. It is important to note that the main characters accused of genocide are still hiding somewhere in Serbia, and Milošević died during the trial. Anyway, the term is used not just by academics or human rights institutions, but in the broader sense by courts as I suggested before. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
What are you sources for the claim "Anyway, the term [Bosnian Genocide] is used not just by academics or human rights institutions, but in the broader sense by courts as I suggested before." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice sometimes that you actually read the sources, not just to act by default. ICTY Prosecution, German courts, Bosnian court and ECHR use the terminology: Prijedor genocide, Doboj genocide, genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina, genocide in territories within Bosnia and Herzegovina etc. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see that the article is soon to go through mediation. I'm all for this and glad we'll (hopefully) finally reach some constructive conclusion and move on to improving the article. I more or less agree with what Osli wrote in the paragraph above, and think the other editors labeled as wanting "less emphasis on the ICJ ruling" do too. Of course the ICJ ruling, as the most significant legal verdict on the issue, deserves primary emphasis; what I am dead-set against is an article that would simply parrot the ICJ ruling as the only legitimate outlook on the subject. To summarize: I am hoping for an article that, while making the ICJ ruling and its significance explicit, would also make room for the considerable dissenting opinion without treating it like an illegitimate intellectual bastard-child. Below the introduction, I hope that such an article would 1.) present an objective analysis of the dispute at hand, and 2.) provide the necessary background information on the dispute by giving a well-referenced overview of the events at (i.e. the RS campaign against civilians and Srebrenica's place within that). Live Forever (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you want to place the ICJ judgement so far down the introduction and not in the first paragraph? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I agree. We have plenty of verdicts and other documents, so background section should explain introduction in genocide. ICJ also confirmed other crimes in Bosnia, many ICTY trials important to this matter haven't started yet, because Serbia didn't arrest the accused. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to expand this article to include atrocities other than just the the genocide that took part during the war, then the name should be changed. This is something I suggested some time ago see Archive 1#Moved Bosnian Genocide to Bosnian atrocities --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree, as genocide did happen. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Then the article should be just about genocide an not the other atrocities that took place in Bosnia during the war. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

OMG! Why not? Are you afraid of truth? This IS about genocide in a legal sense and about genocide interpreted by other sources, the very same way as Armenian Genocide. If you want to move Bosnian Genocide to Bosnian atrocities, Armenian genocide should be moved to Armenian atrotities? Do you agree? You cannot insist on double standards. Introduction about atrocities should be added as it is the same way ICJ presented its judgment... Grandy Grandy (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason why those who disagree with the ICJ ruling should not be mentioned but the ICJ ruling is the one that this article should emphasise as it is the legal and majority view as to what happened in Bosnia during the 1990s. Since the ICJ ruling there have only been a handful of articles that take a line different from the ICJ. I think that this article (Some observations on the ICJ Judgment 4 March 2007) written by Phon van den Biesen the Deputy Agent of Bosnia-Herzegovina before the International Court of Justice, is a very interesting read. With regards to the issue of this article I think that paragraphs 5 and 6 are particularly relevant to the current dispute about this article:

5. The Court has then set a standard for establishing the commission of genocide, and has found that the threshold is very high: not only does it need to be proved that the perpetrator had the intent to kill (etc.) a certain group of the population; on top of that, the perpetrator’s intent to destroy - in whole or in part - this particular group needs to be proved conclusively. We felt we had lived up to our obligation to satisfy these conditions with respect to the entire conflict, but a large majority of the Judges found otherwise.
6. The Court did not ignore the nature of the atrocities that were committed in Bosnia outside Srebrenica, and considered that these may fall into the category of war crimes, more specifically crimes against humanity

But war crimes, and crimes against humanity are not genocide. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Individuals accused of genocide

Latest comment: 16 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion

The phrase "Accused by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia" and "Accused by the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina:" can not be right. A court does not accuses anyone, a court hears accusations. I suspect that what is meant is that the suspects are indicted to appear before court X to face charges of ABC. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk)

You are wrong. This is an official ICTY document: PERSONS PUBLICLY INDICTED BY THE ICTY FOR WAR CRIMES. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
If I am wrong why is the third word of the source you have provided using the word "indicted"? BTW the source provided is indictment is for war crimes not genocide. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk)
You are wrong regarding your claim that: "A court does not accuses anyone, a court hears accusations". Just go to the official site of ICTY, and you'll get the list of accused, if you prefer that word. The war crime term is a broader term, and genocide is a type of crime according to International Law. It is a common sense, really. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you I did look over the web site and noticed the following (under the heading proceedings:
Investigations are initiated by the Prosecutor at her own discretion or on the basis of information received from individuals, governments, international organisations or non-governmental organisations.
Indictments must be confirmed by a judge prior to becoming effective.
The trial commences only once the accused is physically present before the Tribunal. At the initial appearance of the accused, the Trial Chamber asks the accused to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty.
There is a clear chinese wall between the Prosecutor and the court, so the person is not accused by the "International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia" they are accused by the Prosecutor and indicted to appear before the judicial part of the Tribunal. To say that they are accused by the Tribunal is misleading. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry but I do not understand what you mean when you wrote "The war crime term is a broader term, and genocide is a type of crime according to International Law. " please could you rephrase and then hopefully I'll understand what you meant. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
It means that they are not just accused of genocide, but also of other war crimes committed in Bosnia. As genocide is a war crime, it is common terminology used in ICTY documents. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
What is important here is your wrong claim regarding the action made by the court. You can use indict instead of accuse, but still it is done by the ICTY: PERSONS PUBLICLY INDICTED BY THE ICTY FOR WAR CRIMES. I hope you understand now. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Also Nikola Jorgic was found guilty of genocide by a German court, he lost his appeal against the verdict in the ECHR he was not "Convicted by the European Court of Human Rights" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

So what would you call him? A loser? For God's sake Philip, we are serious people, we don't have time for games. ECHR accepted the case, and he was convicted. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This is an encyclopaedia we should be accurate in what we write. He was found guilty of genocide by a German court. His appeal against that conviction which because it was an appeal against the verdict, based on technical legal grounds was refused by the ECHR. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
If this is encyclopedia, and if we should be accurate in what we write, then Armenian genocide article, or other instances of genocide in history should be deleted, as there is no ICJ or other international validation. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Just because another pages in Wikipeda may or may not conform to the highest standards of Wikipedia, is not a justification for this one not keeping to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
@PBS, I admit you're really something :) I haven't seen such Demagogy for a long long time...There are no such Wiki policies, because it would be impossible to write an article here. Grandy Grandy (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see the content policies of WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Armenian genocide, since "Genocide" was not a legal term at the time and there was no court able to judge on the issue that cannot be held as a requirement for whether or not it should be termed genocide or not. In the case of the 1992-1995 war in the former Yugoslavia, there are internationally established and recognized courts able to rule on the issue, the ICTY and ICJ. Therefore their findings are relvant. If we accept argue that the Srebrenica massacre was an act of genocide on the basis of the ICTY finding then we have to also accept the ICJ ruling. However, we can, and should, still say that there are those who disagree with these fidings.Osli73 (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

@OSLI, Genocide cases are not over yet befor ICTY, as the fugitives are still hiding somewhere in Serbia. And those were the key leaders of Serbs indicted for genocide. Regarding the Armenian genocide, ICJ is very old institution, and a war crime cannot become obsolete. We've already accepted ICJ ruling, so what is the problem? It confirmed other war crimes as well, sentences are sourced, terms are explained...Grandy Grandy (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Grandy, comments to you:

  1. I'm not sure why you're talking about the icty genocide cases not being over yet - have I stated that they are?
  2. I'm not sure what your argument about the icj and the Armenian massacres/genocides is about. That has nothing to do with this article.
  3. Yes, both the icty and the icj have found the Srebrenica masssacre to be an act of genocide. However, the icj has also found that Serbia was not responsible for the Srebrenica massacre and that there was no genocide on the wider territory of Bosnia during the war, as claimed by the Bosnian government. That should be very easy.

Cheers Osli73 (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Point of fact the ICJ was set up under Chapter XIV of the United Nations Charter in 1945, so it did not exist during World War I when the Armenian genocide took place. The international crime of genocide did not exist before January 1951 with the coming into effect of the CPPCG (that is not to says that previous to that date genocides did not take place and that crimes such as mass murder and other crimes against humanity were not committed during a genocide, just that the crime of genocide did not exist).--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Intro, part 3

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

It's getting very legalistic and a bit charged here while it really doesn't have to be all that complicated. Why not start by saying that

The Bosnian Genocide is usually used to refer to the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, found to be an act of genocide by the ICTY. The term it is also used by some to refer to war crimes in general committed during the 1992-1995 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, in its 2007 ruling on the Bosnia v Serbia case the ICJ found that genocide in Bosnia was limited to the Srebrenica massacre.

How about something like that?Osli73 (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've reverted to the old PBS version of the intro, which really seems the easiest and most neutral.Osli73 (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that way. You just removed all other edits. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
"The" I think your comment above shows that you were confused, the edit on the article by Osli73 (Revision as of 23:38, 24 November 2007 ) only reverted the introduction (lead section). It was I who re-added the Bosnian Genocide Case information and copy edited the individual genocide cases. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Await the outcome of the ArbCom's decision?

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

OK, should we (1) put a hold on the editing until the ArbCom has come to a decision/opinion, (2) try to come to some type of agreement on content and process ourselves or (3) continue as we do now? Osli73 (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

A broad term such as 'genocide' can never be defined or limited by a single court ruling

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

For example, compare this to the Armenian genocide, which indeed is called and defined as 'genocide' although NO TRUE legal trial has ever been held in the case. Thus, the term 'genocide' - in any case - is always a broad public term which is never limited to a single inhuman act commited by the perpetrator side. Any legal court's attempt/ruling to crystallize the genocide to only include the illest deeds of the perpetrator merely falls into details and cannot, ever, be used to minimalize and define a broad term such as genocide. And however, the version with less emphasis on the ruling is the one accepted by a majority in the mediation case, the pro-ruling versionists miust accept this decission! Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There can not have been a court case on the Armenian genocide because such a term did not exist at the time the genocide took place. Although the Armenian genocide can still be called as such if the consensus of scholarly opinion is that it was a genocide and actions which today would be considered to be part of a genocide were crimes, not crime of genocide took place. Since there is now a crime of genocide, that since the early 1990s has been enforced with criminal trials and is used by UN sanctioned international Commissions (for example the final report of the International Commission of Inquiry for Burundi presented to the United Nations Security Council in 2002 found that the 1993 killing of Tutsi by the Hutu population was a genocide).
The problem that you are running into here Ancient is that if we take your argument that "Thus, the term 'genocide' - in any case - is always a broad public term" then you are saying that there is no legal genocide. So the Srebrenica massacre massacre is only a genocide if people think it is not because there is an international trial that has declared people guilty of genocide. But the only reason why the majority of sources claim it is a genocide is because they quote the courts findings. Similarly the majority of sources since the ICJ ruling state that there was not general genocide in Bosnia. To say that there was a general genocide is very much a minority view (as shown by the stunning lack of sources published since the ICJ ruling stating that it was). In Wikipedia we must place due emphasis on majority view and in the case of a wider Bosnian genocide the view is the one expressed in the ICJ ruling that is summed up in the ICJ press release. That is not to says that critisism of the ruling by some and others who choose to ignore it should not be mentioned but their views should be clearly shown to be the minority view. For example the vast majority of English language news media sources either sent their own staff to cover the ICJ ruling or they based their articles on the large news agencies like Reuters, AP, etc. So why is it Ancient that you choose to use a minority view point from a minor agency for the opening line "The Bosnian Genocide are the acts of crimes against humanity and war crimes commited during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War". When clearly most media use the ICJ's UN interpretation of the internationally recognised UN sponsored treaty definition as expressed in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG)? Particularly as no academic definition defines genocide as "crimes against humanity and war crimes". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree in that the intro could be better rephrased, but then again I must stress the significant detail here: that this is the article about the Bosnian Genocide, not the Bosnian genocide CASE. And once again, please respect the majority. Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The ICJ Bosnian Genocide case judgement is the most influential factor in the question of what was and was not a genocide. For that reason the judgement should be the main opinion around which the article is built, because the ICJ is a respected World Court and its opinions carry a lot of weight and influence. (See for example this opinion piece by Phon van den Biesen the Deputy Agent of Bosnia-Herzegovina before the International Court of Justice, which accepts the judgement but points out that although the crime of a wider genocide was not committed, war crimes and crimes against humanity may well have been and those who are accused of such crimes can still be taken to court for those crimes). Philip Baird Shearer (talk 00:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Background section

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

First, this article is about the Bosnian Genocide, not about the Bosnian Genocide Case, so please don't mix the two. Second, it is time to write background section of genocide, events and facts about crimes against humanity which led to Srebrenica genocide. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(a)You are making an assumption that crimes against humanity led to the Srebrenica genocide. (b) There is already an article on that genocide which is a better place to put such information. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not making an assumption. It is a part of some ICTY verdicts (Krstic, Kunarac, Stakic etc), even an ICJ one:

  • ("ICTY: The attack against the civilian population and related requirements". {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) Kunarac verdict) At the outset of the Bosnian war, Serb forces attacked the non-Serb civilian population in eastern Bosnia. Once towns and villages were securely in their hands, Serb forces - i.e. the military, the police, the paramilitaries and sometimes even Serb villagers – applied the same pattern: Bosnian Muslim houses and apartments were systematically ransacked or burnt down while Bosniak civilians were rounded up or captured and, sometimes, beaten or killed in the process. Men and women were separated, with many of the men detained in local camps.
  • (Prosecutor vs. Krstic, Trial Chamber Judgement, para. 12) The predominantly Bosniak area of Central Podrinje (the region around Srebrenica) had a primary strategic importance to Serbs, as without it there would be no territorial integrity within their new political entity of Republika Srpska. They thus proceeded with the ethnic cleansing of Bosniaks from Bosniak ethnic territories in Eastern Bosnia and Central Podrinje. In neighbouring Bratunac, Bosniaks were either killed or forced to flee to Srebrenica, resulting in 1,156 deaths etc.

So, you don't have to worry, I'll provide the exact paragraphs from the verdicst. The above quotes are just examples...Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The above does not prove that that crimes against humanity led to the Srebrenica genocide. For that you would need a source that explicitly stated it. Also they second paragraph 12 is not accurate (it seems to be from the Wikipedia Srebrenica_massacre#1992 ethnic cleansing campaign and is not a quote -- The give away is the use of the term "Bosniak" which was not used in the judgement). The given source's Paragraph 12 starts "During the conflict the Central Podrinje region, which included Srebrenica, was an area of significant strategic importance. For the Bosnian Serbs, control of this region was necessary in ..."(ICTY, Prosecutor vs. Krstic Judgement) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Why didn't you put the rest of the quote:

For the Bosnian Serbs, control of this region was necessary in order to achieve their minimum goal of forming a political entity in Bosnia. As stated by General Radovan Radinovic, the Defence military expert:

Serbs intended to preserve Bosnia and Herzegovina as a component part of the former state. That was indeed their fundamental, long-term, and political objective in Bosnia and Herzegovina.Why? I don’t think it is very difficult to understand that. They wanted to live in the same state with other Serbs, and the only state that could guarantee that was the former Yugoslavia... the Serbs realised that the area of Central Podrinje had a huge strategic importance for them. Without the area of Central Podrinje, there would be no Republika Srpska, there would be no territorial integrity of Serb ethnic territories; instead the Serb population would be forced to accept the so-

called enclave status in their ethnic territories. The territory would be split in two, the whole area would be disintegrated, and it would be separated from Serbia proper and from areas which are inhabited almost 100 per cent by Serb populations. General Sefer Halilovi also emphasised the strategic importance of the Central Podrinje region for the Bosnian Serbs. In his view the political agenda of the Serbs was to eliminate the Drina River as a border between “Serb states”.

The above proves that Serbs:

DoB, it is not our purpose make analysis, draw conclusions or lead the reader to draw conclusions per WP:OR. We should simply relate in as NPOV a way as possible, what the major sources say, not try to put pieces together to form or support our own conclusions. Please, do not make this into a partisan issue.Osli73 20:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision 23:30, 25 November 2007

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
  • Footnote 1 does not support the WP:SYN "... in a limited legal sense, with the specific intent (dolus specialis) to destroy Bosniaks in the area"
  • Footnote 2 does not support "The term Bosnian Genocide is used to ... to the crimes against humanity and war crimes during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War" What is says with the only mention of Crimes Against Humanity is "ICJ President Rosalyn Higgins noted that there is a lot of evidence to prove that crimes against humanity and war crimes had been committed in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The International Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction over them, because this case deals 'exclusively with genocide in a limited legal sense and not in the broader sense sometimes given to this term '."
  • Footnote 3 which supports "to describe the ethnic cleansing campaign and persecution conducted by Serb, and to a lesser extent Croat secessionist authorities (Republika Srpska and Herzeg-Bosnia" has no mention of the word genocide in it.
  • So AFAICT footnotes 1,2,3 are used in such a way as to create a WP:SYN for the first sentence in Revision 23:30, 25 November 2007 --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The sentence "The term is used by academics[8][9][10][11][12] and human rights institutions.[13][14][15]" is misleading because it combines papers from before and after the ICJ ruling. It also includes links to pages which are by any measure not WP:RS reliable sources for example a "coeducational, nonsectarian day and five-day boarding school for students in grades seven through twelve" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The sentece is OK. The sources are not about term validity, but the term usage. Grandy Grandy (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Citation have to be from verifiable reliable sources. If all you are doing is including an unreliable source source to justify the sentence then you are using them to synthesise a position which falls foul of WP:SYN. All you need to do is include reliable sources and comment on those within the Wikipedia policies. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Compromise suggestion

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

How about we redirect the article to either the Bosnian Genocide Case and/or (through disambiguation) the Srebrenica massacre articles since the material in this article is more or less based on those two articles. The more I read this article the more I feel that it is mainly about politically motivated interpreations of these two events (ie the Bosnian Genocide Case and the Srebrenica massacre and the following ICTY case). How about it? CheersOsli73 (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This was suggested before see above #Possible disambiguation for more views on this suggestion --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not 100% clear to me how/that the discussion above actually suggests just redirecting to those two articles and, if so, that any of the following discussion directly refers to it. Would you support it?Osli73 (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the term Bosnian genocide, now and then. Not about Srebrenica massacre. Grandy Grandy (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC) You are not talking about compromise, this is just example of hiding the truth. I don't agree with your suggestion, of course, because you didn't make any compromise by now, you just push your introduction, and delete other sources. Grandy Grandy (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

GG, the way I see it, what it comes down to is:

  1. the ICTY has found the Srebrenica massacre to be a case of genocide
  2. the ICJ has found that that there was no general genocide in Bosnia during the war, but while it acknowledged the ICTYs finging on the Srebrenica massacre it has found that Serbia was not responsible for it (though it could have done more to stop it and find those responsible for it).
  3. some people disagree with #1 and #2 above on various grounds.

Do you agree with points 1-3 above? If that is the case, it would seem to me that the most objective way to relate the article is to either just focus on #1 and #2 or, if it can be handled in a NPOV, also include some comments regarding #3, though this should be limited to the opinions/argumentation expressed by various parties. It would be incorrect to present these as anything but minority views. Do you also agree on this approach? If so I don't see why we should not be able to cooperate constructively here (without personal attacks).Osli73 (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


OK, on the basis of what I write above and in the spirit of WP:BB I've made a number of edits to GGs version taking out and/or changing what I didn't like. Comments?Osli73 (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
See #Introduction section below. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of legalistic approach to defining genocide - should we mention it?

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

We're talking a very legalistic approach here. I'm not sure if it's right or wrong but it might be worthwhile to mention that it is questioned what role Courts should have in defining genocide. There's quite a good article in the Telegraph on the problems of making genocide denial illegal. Here's a quote from the article:

"Genocide claims and war crimes tribunals are highly political and are often linked to controversial Western military interventions. Should this be unquestioned? Is it right for judges to settle such arguments?"[4]

Is this something we could/should at least mention somewhere in the article, perhaps in the Controversy section?Osli73 (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be mentioned, but I don't see how a "controversy" section would fit into this article. In fact, I'm somewhat opposed to having one because of the mess that they usually turn out to be on comparable articles. Rather, I would put it somewhere in a subsection on the ICJ ruling dealing with differing reactions. Live Forever (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

My thinking was that since there is a significant minority that criticises the ICJ findings (and a small one critical of the ICTY finding) then this should be mentioned in the article somewhere. These criticisms do not relate strictly to the court cases (although they often surface as a result of these) but to the 'discussion' about there was genocide or not. Again, just coming back to the issue of whether we should allow court ruling to set the limits.Osli73 (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Genocide indictments section

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I would like to say, that I worked very hard to gather very valuable information about ICTY genocide cases and the accused. I sourced almost all of it. So please try not to delete it anymore. Thanks. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


Introduction

Latest comment: 16 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion

The way I see things right now: I am not fundamentally opposed to the opening of Osli's introduction, but I added information about the perpetrators and the fact that the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by them were not isolated incidents but part of a greater campaign. I added a sentence mentioning the widespread characterization of this campaign as genocide by academic groups, human rights organizations and genocide scholars; it is completely referenced and I would think - at least in pre-ICJ terms - something that we can all agree on. I retained the casualty statistics as the closing line of the first paragraph, but added a figure to illustrate the disproportionate percentage of Bosniak victims as this is a key fact. As a side note, however, the source for the casualty statistic should match the format of the other citations, whether by actually citing the said wikipedia article (afaik perfectly acceptable) or citing the original source. I'm more or less content with this being the opening paragraph to the article, and would hope that the other users can agree to it as well.

I have not touched the second paragraph besides removing the closing sentence and shifting its sources to the paragraph above. Nonetheless, I feel that it should change to reflect the development of the legal definition of genocide. That is to say, more emphasis should be placed on the changing scope of the legalistic definition of genocide, as per the summary in ECHR judgement earlier this year. Once this is complete, I believe a third paragraph should close out the introduction with information on remaining genocide indictments, and continuing academic recognition of the secondary definition. Live Forever (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"or to the greater campaign of crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by nationalist Serb forces during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War." What is the verifiable reliable source for this claim that it is still true since the ICJ ruling earlier this year? No reliable source is given that this is still true. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The sentence in question does not state that the said campaign was genocide, but that the term "Bosnian genocide" is used to refer to the said campaign - your comment is a fallacy. Live Forever 06:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Live you write "and continuing academic recognition of the secondary definition." what continuing academic recognition? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Martin Shaw, Marko Attila Hoare, Helen Fein, Benjamin Moore, Jack Luzkow, etc. etc. etc. And if you continue to ignore this, I will write a detailed overview of your consistent denial of sources contributed by other editors, blatant misrepresentation of the presented information, and even skewing of Wikipedia policy in an attempt to render them impermissible - something that, with all due respect, I hope the editors involved in this meditation case will take into account. Live Forever 06:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
You mentioned books by Fein, Hoar higher up the page, but as I mentioned at the time I could not find a review of the books that mentioned there analysis of a wider Bosnian Genocide, (or there analysis in those books of the ICJ Judgement) and asked you for citations. Moore, Luzkow are working on the same project, so usually one would only mention the more senior academic. As to your suggestions "... attempt to render them impermissible" I would direct you attention to this edit I made (Revision as of 11:53, 23 November 2007) and would point out to you that not one of web pages that have been cited would qualify as the best form of third party sources (peer reviewed articles). I have only included them to show that that despite the World Court judgement there is a minority view that a wider genocide took place and as I wrote yesterday "However to date there have been no more than a handful of articles (and most of those are not verifiable reliable sources) that have been discussed on this talk page that continue to support the contention that the ICJ was wrong and there was a wider genocide." If the ICJ had rule the other way there would have been a handful of article that stated that the ICJ was wrong and there would have been hundreds of articles explaining to the English speaking public what had happened during the wider Bosnian genocide (as defined by the ICJ). --Philip Baird Shearer 10:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Some comments:
  1. I've taken out the characterization of the Serb forces and the claim that it was a "campaign" which leads the reader into seeing it as genocide, while the ICJ judgement seems to point to it not being genocide.
As with Philip's comment above, you've misconstrued my wording to suit your point of view. In fact, the existence of a campaign of war crimes by Serb nationalist forces exists completely independent of whether the said campaign amounted to genocide - a fact acknowledged by the ICJ itself - and the sentence you've removed makes no pretense to the contrary. While we're at it, "Serb nationalist forces" is a perfectly valid characterization of the responsible faction for both the Srebrenica massacre and the greater campaign, and one that you can find in any college-level history textbook in the English-speaking world. In fact, it's a far more accurate and correct characterization than, as you say, "Serb forces", which implicates an entire ethnic group in war crimes committed by political extremists. Live Forever 06:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. putting in "campaign of war crimes" you are leading the reader to draw a conclusion which the ICJ did not make. That is why I removed it.Osli73 10:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. yes, there are sources describing the Bosnian Serb forces as "Serb nationalist forces". However, the point is that this is not how they are typically described. The media typically refer to them as "Bosnian Serb forces"[5] as does the ICTY.Osli73 10:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. I'm not sure what I think about the casualty figure. Is this also leading the witness, since the definition of genocide is not how many are killed but why? On the other hand, the lopsided casualty figure is the main argument used by those who, despite/before the ICJ judgement, argue that there was a wider genocide in Bosnia. I propose linking the casualty figure to their argument.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you add in the casualty figure yourself? Either way, as far as I'm concerned, feel free to link the casualty figure to "their argument", as long as "their argument" refers to the sentence I just contributed and is done in a neutral manner. Live Forever 06:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with the way the casualty figure is mentioned in the article intro at the moment (ie linked to the counterargument by those who disagree with the ICJ finding).Osli73 10:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. I've moved the section to the end of the intro, after we have mentioned the ICJ judgement and added back PBS's mention of these views being "prior" to the ICJ judgement (though I'm not sure that these people have stopped feeling this way just because of the judgment, which I propose to discuss in the Controversy section, see talk above):
Osli73 (talk) 12:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It is not (or ought not to be) feelings, it should be about perspective and opinions. As Keynes one famously said "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?". The international court cases have changed the rules, because joining the dots from the details of earlier ICTY cases, it seemed reasonable to presume that the legal position was swinging towards a wider meaning for the crime of genocide (The ICTY's arguments about "in part" is a good example of this broadening). This has lead to a rash of academic books and articles on all sorts of prior events which were re-assessed in light of a broader meaning of genocide. For example over the last few years a number of articles have been published arguing that the ethnic and religious clearances of the native Irish Catholic population ("to Hell or Connaught") by Cromwell's lot was a genocide. If the World Court (ICJ) had supported the Bosnian Government's position, by now there would have been hundreds of articles written about the wider genocide in Bosnia, and it would also have had a massive impact on lots of previous events that would have been reassessed in light of the ruling. It is likely that now the World Court has ruled that ethnic cleansing in itself is not enough for there to be a genocide, there will be less articles, both about a wider genocide in Bosnia in the 1990s and about a genocide in Ireland during the middle decades of the 17th century. But more importantly it will also affect other cases in the future. I think it is naive of people to try to ignore the ramifications of the World Courts ruling by pretending that it has not had a profound effect on perceptions of what a genocide is, both within the world news media and academic studies on genocide. Now I may be wrong, but I think that the emphasis should be on WP:PROVEIT if one wishes to put into a Wikipedia article a view that disagrees with the findings of the World Court because such views fall within WP:REDFLAG. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
PBS, I see your point. I just felt that there is a risk that the article focuses too much on court cases and missing that there is a sizeable opinion who claim that there was a wider campaign of genocide nonetheless and that unless the article clearly explains this position and the reasoning behind it, it will not cover all of the types of situations where the term "Bosnian genocide" is or has been used.Osli73 13:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
"sizeable opinion who claim that there was a wider campaign of genocide" I know you are playing devils advocate and trying to add in a POV that you may not totally agree with (and "all strength to you"), but I know there are others who have contributed to this talk page who believe it to still be true. However to date there have been no more than a handful of articles (and most of those are not verifiable reliable sources) that have been discussed on this talk page that continue to support the contention that the ICJ was wrong and there was a wider genocide. I think the best commentary on this issue I have read do date was the one I mentioned earlier the opinion piece by Phon van den Biesen the Deputy Agent of Bosnia-Herzegovina before the International Court of Justice, which accepts the judgement but points out that although the crime of a wider genocide was not committed, war crimes and crimes against humanity may well have been and those who are accused of such crimes can still be taken to court for those crimes. I think that is a much better and more constructive way to go than trying to argue that there was a wider genocide. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
  • Osli73 reduced much of the controversy section, and put it just after the introduction which he also reduced very much. There is no way I'll accept that version as it was sourced, and the sources were removed just like that. The Dragon of Bosnia 17:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with the reduced controversy section? I've simply stated that there are differing views and and that this is a controversial issue. I've removed the argumentation and qualification of these arguments which is blatantly POV. That they are sourced is besides the point.
No. Basically there were two (three) sides to the conlfict: Bosniaks/Bosnian government, the Bosnian Serbs/Republika Srpska and the Bosnian Croats. Yes, all three parties were supported by various outside forces and factions, but they generally did not act on their own. Regarding the "Scorpions", this was an issue in the ICJ case, and they basically determined that the Scorpions unit may have had a Serbian origin, but they were not acting on the behest of the Serbian government. Just like various Croatian and Muslim/Mujahedeen units.
We are talking about Serb forces here. So they are Serbs not just Bosnian Serbs. The Dragon of Bosnia 11:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Their origins are not important, (because many armies are made up of soldiers of different nationalities), it depends on their chain of command. Did they report to Bosnian Serbs commanders or Serbian commanders? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe his insistance on Serb rather than Bosnian Serb is that one of the main arguments by the Bosnian government in its case against Serbia at the ICJ was that a paramilitary unit of Serbian origin, the Scorpions, participated in the Srebrenica massacre and that this constituted Serbian government complicity in the massacre (and therefore in genocide). The ICJ did not find that there was compelling evidence for this to be the case. I believe that by insisting on "Serbian" rather "Bosnian Serb" DoB (and others) want to lead the reader to their own belief, despite the ICJ findings to the contrary.Osli73 13:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Dragon, we should stick to the commonly used wording. Both the ICTY and media use the term "Bosnian Serb forces" to describe the forces. Again, this is not the place for your own analysis (see WP:OR).Osli73 13:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

OMG! Guys?! What are you talking about? The man just clearly wrote Osli shouldn't change Serb forces into Bosnian Serb forces because there were other Serbs participated in genocide. He didn't say: it should be changed into Serbian forces instead of Serb. And also, there were other units, not just Scorpions mentioned in ICJ verdict, Tigers, Red berrets etc. Grandy Grandy 14:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Serb forces" is actually even worse than "Serbian forces", if someone notices the distinction at all, because it sounds like an accusation against an entire ethnicity rather than a particular state. More importantly, the word "X forces" normally presupposes a state if such a state exists, and the thin disctinction between Serb (ethnic Serb) and Serbian (of the state of Serbia) is insufficient to change that. For most nationality words in English, such a distinction doesn't even exist, so few readers would pay attention to it. The word "Serb" in such a context still implicates the state of Serbia proper, which is precisely one of the most disputed parts, as everyone knows. The forces in this case were principally those of an (unacknowledged) state entity, Republika Srpska. Next, there were ethnic Serb volunteers from other countries, there were also Greeks and what not; still, the forces per se were Republika Srpska (i.e. Bosnian Serb) forces. The ethnicity of various volunteers and mercenaries doesn't change the overall allegiance of the army. The reason why you can say there are Australian forces in Iraq fighting alongside the American forces is because they are sent there by the Australian government; if they were volunteers or paramilitaries fighting for the holy cause of Anglo-Saxon brotherhood, avenging 9.11 or whatever, you still wouldn't be able to call them "Australian forces", or, God forbid, to describe the combination of the regular US forces and the volunteers with the general "ethnic" term "Anglo-Saxon forces".--91.148.159.4 15:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC) (there's no guarantee that I'm coming back to answer any more, as I don't always have the same amount of sparetime; but in case Dragon's side prevails, please make sure my sourced edits to his version are preserved or at least addressed rather than uncermoniously reverted as they were the first time)

By genocide do you mean the Srebrenica massacre? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

List of war criminals

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

From the history: Grandy Grandy (rv to version of mine with the neutral introduction and dragon's lists of war criminals)

why is that list preferable to a version that gives more details? --Philip Baird Shearer 15:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

reverting Grandy's revert

Latest comment: 16 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion

I've reverted Grandy's recent revert to an older version preferred by him. As I see it, there are quite a lot of problems with it. Howver, here is a list of some the most glaring ones (in my opinion) and the reason why I reverted it:

  1. complicated wording in the introductory sentences
  2. intro wording about a Serbian "campaign" leads the reader to believe that there was a wider campaign to commit genocide in Bosnia (outside the Srebrenica massacre) although the ICJ has found there was not.
  3. introducing the civilian deaths figure (which is quoted as a percentage of the total number of deaths) as a stand-alone argument (POV) without stating that it is the main argument used by those who disagree with the ICJ findings
  4. not mentioning the ICJ findings that there was not any wider genocide in Bosnia (outside of Srebrenica) until quite far down in the article, although this is a key finding relating to the topic of the article
  5. writing "Serb" when in fact all findings refer to "Bosnian Serb" - again, reading the reader to believe that there was some kind of link between the Serbian government and the massacre in Srbrenica.
  6. unsourced list of "Individuals indicted of Genocide"
  7. POV presentation of "Controversy"~

To avoid a revert war I suggest that we list specific areas of disagreement and address them individually. Osli73 15:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that all findings refer to "Bosnian Serb". Here are the verdicts by the ICTY in Tadić and Mucic cases about Serbian involvment during the Bosnian war. This is not the story about foreign volunteers: Russian, Arab, German, Greek, British etc. which are just nus product of the Serbian aggression. This is about Serbian state:

Tadic, (Appeals Chamber), July 15, 1999, para. 156, 162: “It is sufficient to show that [the Yugoslav Army] exercised overall control over the Bosnian Serb Forces. Such control manifested itself not only in financial, logistical and other assistance and support, but also, and more importantly, in terms of participation in the general direction, coordination and supervision of the activities and operations of the VRS [the Army of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina/Republika Srpska]. This sort of control is sufficient for the purposes of the legal criteria required by international law.” “[F]or the period material to this case (1992), the armed forces of the Republika Srpska were to be regarded as acting under the overall control of and on behalf of the FRY [the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)]. Hence, even after 19 May 1992 the armed conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina between the Bosnian Serbs and the central authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina must be classified as an international armed conflict.” See also Tadic, (Appeals Chamber), July 15, 1999, para. 87.

Mucic et al., (Appeals Chamber), February 20, 2001, para. 33, 48, 50: “The Trial Chamber’s finding as to the nature of the conflict prior to 19 May 1992 is based on a finding of a direct participation of one State on the territory of another State. This constitutes a plain application of the holding of the Appeals Chamber in Tadic that it ‘is indisputable that an armed conflict is international if it takes place between two or more States,’ which reflects the traditional position of international law. . . .” “Although the Trial Chamber did not formally apply the ‘overall control’ test set forth by the Tadic Appeal Judgement, . . . the Trial Chamber’s legal reasoning is entirely consistent with the previous jurisprudence of the Tribunal.” “The Trial Chamber came to the conclusion, as in the Tadic case, that the armed conflict taking place in Bosnia and Herzegovina after 19 May 1992 could be regarded as international because the FRY remained the controlling force behind the Bosnian Serbs armed forces after 19 May 1992. . . . [T]his Appeals Chamber is satisfied that the facts as found by the Trial Chamber fulfil the legal conditions as set forth in the Tadic case.”

Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia 08:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


Dragon,

  1. you are only discussing of just the few issues I listed
  2. both the ICJ nor the ICTY use "Bosnian Serb" in relation to the two cases being discussed here (Srebrenica massacre and the Bosnia v Serbia case). So does media. I have given you the links above. We are not the ones to discuss wether or not it was an international conflict or not.

Osli73 08:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

As you can see ICTY concluded that: It is sufficient to show that [the Yugoslav Army] exercised overall control over the Bosnian Serb Forces. Such control manifested itself not only in financial, logistical and other assistance and support, but also, and more importantly, in terms of participation in the general direction, coordination and supervision of the activities and operations of the VRS [the Army of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina/Republika Srpska]. This sort of control is sufficient for the purposes of the legal criteria required by international law. After this we cannot talk about "Bosnian Serb"...The Dragon of Bosnia 10:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


Interesting as those quotes are, I think you will find this selected extract from the ICJ judgement even more interesting because the ICJ considered the ICTY Tadić Judgment and dismissed it in relation to genocide and as the ICJ ruling is the superior court and its judgement is more recent than the ICTY Tadić Judgment that we should lay aside those arguments presented by the ICTY. See

  • The test of responsibility Paragraphs 379-384.[6]

Here are some selected paragraphs but I suggest that you read all of 379-384

399. This provision must be understood in the light of the Court’s jurisprudence on the subject, particularly that of the 1986 Judgment in the case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) referred to above (paragraph 391). In that Judgment the Court, as noted above, after having rejected the argument that the contras were to be equated with organs of the United States because they were “completely dependent” on it, added that the responsibility of the Respondent could still arise if it were proved that it had itself “directed or enforced the perpetration of the acts contrary to human rights and humanitarian law alleged by the applicant State” (I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 64, para. 115); this led to the following significant conclusion:
“For this conduct to give rise to legal responsibility of the United States, it would in principle have to be proved that that State had effective control of the military or paramilitary operations in the course of which the alleged violations were committed.” (Ibid., p. 65.)
403. The Court has given careful consideration to the Appeals Chamber’s reasoning in support of the foregoing conclusion, but finds itself unable to subscribe to the Chamber’s view. First, the Court observes that the ICTY was not called upon in the Tadić case, nor is it in general called upon, to rule on questions of State responsibility, since its jurisdiction is criminal and extends over persons only. Thus, in that Judgment the Tribunal addressed an issue which was not indispensable for the exercise of its jurisdiction. As stated above, the Court attaches the utmost importance to the factual and legal findings made by the ICTY in ruling on the criminal liability of the accused before it and, in the present case, the Court takes fullest account of the ICTY’s trial and appellate judgments dealing with the events underlying the dispute. The situation is not the same for positions adopted by the ICTY on issues of general international law which do not lie within the specific purview of its jurisdiction and, moreover, the resolution of which is not always necessary for deciding the criminal cases before it.
404. This is the case of the doctrine laid down in the Tadić Judgment. Insofar as the “overall control” test is employed to determine whether or not an armed conflict is international, which was the sole question which the Appeals Chamber was called upon to decide, it may well be that the test is applicable and suitable; the Court does not however think it appropriate to take a position on the point in the present case, as there is no need to resolve it for purposes of the present Judgment. On the other hand, the ICTY presented the “overall control” test as equally applicable under the law of State responsibility for the purpose of determining ⎯ as the Court is required to do in the present case ⎯ when a State is responsible for acts committed by paramilitary units, armed forces which are not among its official organs. In this context, the argument in favour of that test is unpersuasive.
405. It should first be observed that logic does not require the same test to be adopted in resolving the two issues, which are very different in nature: the degree and nature of a State’s involvement in an armed conflict on another State’s territory which is required for the conflict to be characterized as international, can very well, and without logical inconsistency, differ from the degree and nature of involvement required to give rise to that State’s responsibility for a specific act committed in the course of the conflict.
406. It must next be noted that the “overall control” test has the major drawback of broadening the scope of State responsibility well beyond the fundamental principle governing the law of international responsibility: a State is responsible only for its own conduct, that is to say the conduct of persons acting, on whatever basis, on its behalf. That is true of acts carried out by its official organs, and also by persons or entities which are not formally recognized as official organs under internal law but which must nevertheless be equated with State organs because they are in a relationship of complete dependence on the State. ...
(5) Conclusion as to responsibility for events at Srebrenica under Article III, paragraph (a), of the Genocide Convention
413. In the light of the information available to it, the Court finds, as indicated above, that it has not been established that the massacres at Srebrenica were committed by persons or entities ranking as organs of the Respondent (see paragraph 395 above). It finds also that it has not been established that those massacres were committed on the instructions, or under the direction of organs of the Respondent State, nor that the Respondent exercised effective control over the operations in the course of which those massacres, which, as indicated in paragraph 297 above, constituted the crime of genocide, were perpetrated.
The Applicant has not proved that instructions were issued by the federal authorities in Belgrade, or by any other organ of the FRY, to commit the massacres, still less that any such instructions were given with the specific intent (dolus specialis) characterizing the crime of genocide, which would have had to be present in order for the Respondent to be held responsible on this basis. All indications are to the contrary: that the decision to kill the adult male population of the Muslim community in Srebrenica was taken by some members of the VRS Main Staff, but without instructions from or effective control by the FRY.
As for the killings committed by the “Scorpions” paramilitary militias, notably at Trnovo (paragraph 289 above), even if it were accepted that they were an element of the genocide committed in the Srebrenica area, which is not clearly established by the decisions thus far rendered by the ICTY (see, in particular, the Trial Chamber’s decision of 12 April 2006 in the Stanišić and Simatović case, IT-03-69), it has not been proved that they took place either on the instructions or under the control of organs of the FRY.
414. Finally, the Court observes that none of the situations, other than those referred to in Articles 4 and 8 of the ILC’s Articles on State Responsibility, in which specific conduct may be attributed to a State, matches the circumstances of the present case in regard to the possibility of attributing the genocide at Srebrenica to the Respondent. The Court does not see itself required to decide at this stage whether the ILC’s Articles dealing with attribution, apart from Articles 4 and 8, express present customary international law, it being clear that none of them apply in this case. The acts constituting genocide were not committed by persons or entities which, while not being organs of the FRY, were empowered by it to exercise elements of the governmental authority (Art. 5), nor by organs placed at the Respondent’s disposal by another State (Art. 6), nor by persons in fact exercising elements of the governmental authority in the absence or default of the official authorities of the Respondent (Art. 9); finally, the Respondent has not acknowledged and adopted the conduct of the perpetrators of the acts of genocide as its own (Art. 11).
415. The Court concludes from the foregoing that the acts of those who committed genocide at Srebrenica cannot be attributed to the Respondent under the rules of international law of State responsibility: thus, the international responsibility of the Respondent is not engaged on this basis.

I hope this brings some clarity to the issue, because AFAICT the argument is best summed up in paragraphs 405 and 406, is that the ICJ does not consider that the ICTY conclusions while suitable for the Tadić criminal case, they are not for the Bosnian Genocide Case and the ICJ draws different conclusions for states involved in genocide. Hence to use the ICTY Tadić case to argue that the Serb army was in control is misleading with regards to genocide. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

@PBS, Didn't we all agree to use both ICTY and ICJ sources? That's why we use "according to" reference when presenting findings...Grandy Grandy (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It is standard practice to use more recent court cases from similar courts or superior ones to interpret earlier ones. That is how case law grows. It is misleading to quote the ICTY judgement in the Tadić case when a superior court dealing with alleged genocide by a state has considered that part of the ICTY judgement and dismissed it as not applicable to a state's involvement in genocide. Sometimes this type of interpretation can be difficult to make unless one is an expert on international law, but in this case the ICJ has been explicit and any reasonably educated person can read the section "The test of responsibility" in the ICJ judgement and see that this is true. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
IMHO The article is going to read like a high school essay if we include the something like "According to the ICTY Tadić case the Serbian Army was in control for the purposes of considering Tadić criminal responsibility for war crimes, but the superior World Court considered this judgement and dismissed it findings when deciding that Serbia did not have control over the armed forces that committed genocide in Bosnia." Why on earth would we want to include something like this in the article? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
In the case Bosnia v Serbia The ICJ was specificially asked to deal with the question of whether Serbia was responsible for Genocide in Bosnia (by whatever form). To this specific question, the ICJ found that (a) only the Srebrenica massacre constituted genocide and (b) Serbia could not be held responsible for it (though it could have done more to stop it or find those who were responsible). Given this clear cut anser from the ICJ it's not really logical to pull up an older case by a lower court on a case which only partially deals with the issue and does not come to any precise resolution. Please stop this silliness.Osli73 (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. There is also Mucic case with the same conclusion as in Tadić case:

Mucic et al., (Appeals Chamber), February 20, 2001, para. 33, 48, 50: “The Trial Chamber’s finding as to the nature of the conflict prior to 19 May 1992 is based on a finding of a direct participation of one State on the territory of another State. This constitutes a plain application of the holding of the Appeals Chamber in Tadic that it ‘is indisputable that an armed conflict is international if it takes place between two or more States,’ which reflects the traditional position of international law. . . .” “Although the Trial Chamber did not formally apply the ‘overall control’ test set forth by the Tadic Appeal Judgement, . . . the Trial Chamber’s legal reasoning is entirely consistent with the previous jurisprudence of the Tribunal.” “The Trial Chamber came to the conclusion, as in the Tadic case, that the armed conflict taking place in Bosnia and Herzegovina after 19 May 1992 could be regarded as international because the FRY remained the controlling force behind the Bosnian Serbs armed forces after 19 May 1992. . . . [T]his Appeals Chamber is satisfied that the facts as found by the Trial Chamber fulfil the legal conditions as set forth in the Tadic case.”

But, there is also an explanation about ICJ and Tadić case (this is Sense source, you can find it above):

In one point, particularly important for the evaluation of any role Serbia may have had in the Srebrenica massacre, the International Court of Justice veered away from the factual and legal findings of the ICTY Appeals Chamber in the Dusko Tadic case. In the judgment delivered in July 1999, the Appeals Chamber found that the VRS was "under overall control" of Belgrade and the Yugoslav Army, which meant that they had funded, equipped and assisted in coordination and planning of military operations. Had the International Court of Justice accepted this finding of the Tribunal, Serbia would have been found guilty of complicity in the Srebrenica genocide. Instead it concluded that the Appeals Chamber in the Tadic case "did not attempt to determine the responsibility of a state but individual criminal responsibility:, and that “Serbia’s leaders were not involved” in the appellate proceedings.

So, Serbia was very involved, but ICJ made a strange decision in order to avoide the findings in Tadić case, although it based its verdict on the same ICTY findings but without Serbia. It concluded that the Appeals Chamber in the Tadic case did not attempt to determine the responsibility of a state but individual criminal responsibility, which is seen by many people and human rights institutions as a pure political decision, some judges made their own opinion of this (you can read it in the official ICJ site). Anyone there is still Mucic ICTY case.The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

So "The" let me get this clear in my mind, you think that any legal judgement in this area that you disagree with is a "strange decision" and is a "pure political decision" but those you agree with are not either strange or political. Do you think that we should put such views into a Wikipedia article or should we base it on legal precedent and judgements whether we agree with them or not? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No I don't think. I just say there are other verdicts. (Both sources are relaible per WP:RS, we should combine it). The world isn't perfect, BTW. There are no perfect sources, just more or less relaible. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If you do not think so why did you state "but ICJ made a strange decision"? Do you think that the ICTY cases that reached their conclusion before the ICJ Bosnian Genocide case are more reliable sources than the ICJ case? What is you understanding of how legal precedence works? Is it the same as that described in the Wikipedia article Precedent? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Because it was also an opinion of some other judges. Both sources should be included, because Wikipedia is all about it: different perspectives of the same topic. There is no precedence thing in Wikipedia, just relaible sources. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand your answer. Are you are unfamiliar with the legal concept of precedent? I ask this question because I assume that you are not living in a jurisdiction that uses common law and you may not be familiar that international law draws heavily on the concept of precedent (hence the comment one sees in the laws of war about customary law) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The point is that you should be able to see that the ICJ rejected (about as strongly as it could) the ICTY Tadic case analysis, that the Serb governmental institutions were in the chain of command, any other court that was to examine a similar case today would rely on the superior courts, more recent judgement which is the ICJ judgement. So it is no use bringing up cases from before the ICJ judgement that rely on the Tadic case as the does the Mucic et al. "This constitutes a plain application of the holding of the Appeals Chamber in Tadic" further the Mucic et al was a similar case to Tadic (Breaches of GCs and laws or customs of wa) it was not a genocide case which gives it much less credibility as a reliable source for a Bosnian Genocide. If you want to use it then you must fined a reliable source post the ICJ judgement that argues that it is still a relevant to genocide in Bosnia -- personally I would be very surprised if a reliable source would do so, because of the concept of precedent. One only has to read the ECHR Jorgic v. Germany judgement (12 July 2007) to see precedent being applied. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Formal mediation

Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-11-23 Bosnian Genocide and User_talk:Addhoc#Ping

Now that the request for mediation by the Mediation Cabal has been closed and AFAICT we are no nearer to a solution than we were before (A compromise version written by user:Osli73 since the mediation started seems to have run into the same problems as the previous version and does not seem to be a way forward), so I think it is time to move on to formal mediation by the Mediation Committee. As I made the request for the last two stages: an RfC (on 24 October 2007) and by the Mediation Cabal (on 23 November 2007), I think that for balance it would be a good idea if the request for formal mediation were to come from those who think that less emphasis should be placed on the ICJ February judgement, however if they do not wish to present the case I am willing to do so. Also if anyone has another suggestion before a formal mediation request is presented can they please suggest it here. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As no one else has placed a request for formal mediation, I have done so see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Bosnian Genocide --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
See listing now also under Wikipedia:Requests for mediation --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Grandy Grandy why did you disagree with formal mediation? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, if we are to resolve these conflicts I don't see any other way. Please explain.Osli73 (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Because I am the only one here who made a real effort to make compromise, you are here just to revert. It is so obvious. @OSLI73, Your edits are Sneaky Reverts, so why bother?! Grandy Grandy (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
On what points do you consider that you have compromised? What was you position on these points before and after your compromise? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
If one compares these two edits by you between 11 October 2007 and 2 January 2008 there seems to be few changes in the text so when did you "make real effort to make compromise"? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted to the version focusing on the latest ruling by the ICJ. I can only understand User:Grandy Grandy's unwillingness to participate in formal mediation or to discuss on the talk page as a lack of sincere interest in the article.Osli73 (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Problems with DoB and GG's version of the article

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
See also Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-08 Bosnian Genocide —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip Baird Shearer (talk • contribs) 22:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather than continuing a silly revert war I though I'd take a break and outline what my problems with the version supported by DoB and GG are:

  1. Claim 1: General: the text claims that there was a wider genocide in Bosnia although the ICJ has found that there was not. This key finding by the ICJ on the specific issue of wether there was a "Bosnian genocide", outside of the Srebrenica massacre, is not mentioned at all. Instead, it presents the matter as if it was established that there was a wider genocide during the Bosnian war (e.g. already the introduction states "This article refers to genocide during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War. Other cases of genocide in the same region during World War II are covered in other articles" which is a controversial statement in itself.). This clearly constitutes WP:OR.
  2. Claim 2: after stating that "Bosnian Genocide" can refer to the Srebrenica massacre the introduction goes on to claim that it also refers "to the crimes against humanity and war crimes during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War,[2] to describe the ethnic cleansing campaign and persecution conducted by Serb, and to a lesser extent Croat secessionist authorities (Republika Srpska and Herzeg-Bosnia[3]) in Bosnia and Herzegovina on political, racial and religious grounds in the context of a widespread attack on the Bosniak civilian population." However, this claim is not supported by any of the sources. Instead, the sources refer to the number of Bosniak civilians killed in the war, that there were widespread war crimes, etc. However, the conclusion that this constitutes "Bosnian Genocide" is made by DoB and GG, not the sources. This is WP:OR. This is WP:OR.
  3. Claim 3: the text referred to in Claim 2 above claims that Bosnian Genocide only refers to Bosniaks killed, not Croats or Serbs. However, this is also not supported by sources. Again, WP:OR.
  4. Claim 4: the sources cited for the claim that the term "Bosnian Genocide" is widely used to refer to wider war crimes in Bosnia in fact do not support this. Source no. 8 (Nobles School) is from a US high school's web site presenting a Bosniak author, not really a strong academic source. It uses the word "Bosnian genocide" but goes on to link this to the 1995 Srebrenica massacre. Source no. 9 (Opendemocracy.com) is a criticism of the ICJ ruling by a UK Marxist/leftist professor of sociology (Martin Shaw). Although his article claims that there was a wider Bosnian genocide (in it he states "The Bosnian genocide began in spring 1992 when Bosnian-Serbian nationalists...") the article is not an academic publication and the website Opendemocracy.com is cannot be considered a well established, commonly accpeted and reliable source for claims. Source no. 10 (UCR course) does contain the words "Bosnian Genocide" in the title but does not go on to actually discuss what it considers constitutes this genocide. Also, it too general a document to serve as a source for the claim that the term is generally used to refer to the wider war crimes claimed by DoB and GG. Source no. 11 is from a unknown (and dodgy looking) website called WoldScience.net. That the website has the motto "Long before it’s in the papers" clearly shows that it is not a good source to begin with. The actual article itself also does not describe the use of the word "Bosnian genocide" claimes by DoB and GG. Source no. 12 (Uni. of Omaha, Nebraska) is a pdf file with lists of course names / workshops (or so it appears) two of which contain the words "Bosnian Genocide". However, there is no further description of what this refers to or text. It is clearly not a source for the claims made by the authors. Source no. 13 (savedarfur.com) links to what appears to be a list of 'actions' by the save darfur organization which contains the word "Bosnian genocide" but provides no further useful description of it. It is not a sufficient source for the claim made by DoB and GG. Source 14 (Human Rights Watch) describes the ICTYs charges against S. Milosevic which included "geocide". First of all, these charges were for specific and individual acts of alleged genocide (he died before a verdict could be reached). However, the article does contain a statement by the director of the Intl. Justice Program of HRW saying "Based on our field investigations during the war in Bosnia, we believe that the 'ethnic cleansing' there was an effort to eliminate the Bosnian Muslim population from parts of the country. The genocide counts are important for those hundreds of thousands of victims". This would support the claim that ethnic cleansing amounts to genocide. However, this is alone cannot be sufficient to support the claim that the term "Bosnian genocide" is widely used to refer to ethnic cleansing when the absolute majority of sources use it to refer to the charges/verdict against people involved in the Srebrenica massacre. Source no. 15 (Missouri Humanities Council) describes a set of meetings by "community leaders" with members of St. Louis Bosniak community, including meetings at the "Grbic Restaurant". Hardly a good source for this type of claim (which it does not support to begin with).
  5. Claim 5: the article cites convictions for individual acts of genocide (eg that of Jorgic) to incorrectly promote the claim that there was wider genocide in Bosnia.
  6. Claim 6: when describing the outcome of the ICJ ruling on the specific matter of wether there had been a wider genocide in Bosnia and wether Serbia was an accomplice in it the article does not refer the key finding of the court "The intent to commit genocide, the judges of the International Court of Justice found, has been proven beyond reasonable doubt only in the case of the Srebrenica massacre in July 1995. It has been qualified as genocide in judgments delivered by the ICTY. While it confirmed that the Bosnian Serb forces had committed genocide in Srebrenica, the highest world court did not find that this crime could be attributed to the then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The court concluded that the direct perpetrators of genocide, regardless of the assistance and support they received from Belgrade, could not be regarded as its "bodies or agents". Serbia's involvement in the conspiracy to commit genocide and its participation in genocide has not been proven, the Court found."
  7. Claim 7: it provides long lists of people indicted and/or convicted of acts of genocide. Not only does this not describe the term "Bosnian genocide" but also does not state that none of these were for the claimed wider "Bosnian genocide" but for individual acts (and therefore not known as "Bosnian genocide").
  8. Claim 8: the Controversy section gives the impression that it is only "Serbs" who claim that there was no wider genocide in Bosnia (while at the same time cherry picking legal claims to support/imply that there was). Again, the authors fail to mention the key findings of the ICJ on the specific issue of wether there was a wider genocide in Bosnia and if Serbia was responsible for it - for which the court in both cases concluded negative answers.
  9. Claim 9: the sentence (in the introduction) "Of the 97,207 documented casualties in Bosnian War, 83 percent of civilian victims were Bosniaks" gives the impression that 83% of 97,000 were Bosniak civilians killed, omitting to mention the total number civilians, to which the 83% refers, was 39,684. Again, I believe this imprecise description of civilian casualties it used to falsely lead the reader to conclude that there was a wider Bosnian genocide. Again an example of WP:OR.

Osli73 (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Informal mediation 2008-01-08

Latest comment: 16 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion
see Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-01-08 Bosnian Genocide

Could we start by examining the lead section? Looking at this diff part of the disagreement appears to be about the inclusion of:

"and to a lesser extent Croat secessionist authorities (Republika Srpska and Herzeg-Bosnia)."

This statement doesn't appear to be fully justified from paragraph 642 of ICTY judgment - is a better citation available? Addhoc (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the first part of the sentence ("The term Bosnian Genocide is used to refer either to the genocide committed by Serb forces in Srebrenica in 1995..."), what I have a problem with is the rest of that sentence ("...or to the crimes against humanity and war crimes during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War,[2] to describe the ethnic cleansing campaign and persecution conducted by Serb, and to a lesser extent Croat secessionist authorities (Republika Srpska and Herzeg-Bosnia[3]) in Bosnia and Herzegovina on political, racial and religious grounds in the context of a widespread attack on the Bosniak civilian population"), it presents the facts as if the term "Bosnian Genocide" is widely used to describe ethnic cleansing and war crimes in Bosnia during the war, something which there is no evidence for (pls see my entry in the section above). Is that what you are referring to above?Osli73 (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, currently the reference cited doesn't fully support the text. Addhoc (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually I prefer the wording in the lead that we had in place before mediation started. I have gone along with other versions in an attempt to reach a compromise but I do not think that they are as clear as:
The term Bosnian Genocide is used to refer either to the Srebrenica massacre, or — prior to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling on the Bosnian Genocide Case in February 2007 — the term Bosnian Genocide had been used by some academics, and human rights officials, to describe the allegations made by the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina that there had been a wider genocide in Bosnia during the during the 1992-1995 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
A version as of 21:56, 25 November 2007 with reference stripped out. I think this is clearer because there are dozens of articles in English language newspapers etc circa 1993 which use the term genocide and ethnic cleansing in the same article, but next to none in the last year. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether the term "Bosnian genocide" refers to the one act of genocide in Srebrenica or the overall ethnic cleansing campaign aimed at executing or removing all Bosnian Muslims from Bosnia. I believe it is clear that when people refer to the genocide committed in Bosnia they are not referring only to Srebrenica but the entire ethnic cleansing campaign.

Here is text from the Milosevic indictment which clearly uses the term genocide to describe the entire ethnic cleansing campaign:

"From on or about 1 March 1992 until 31 December 1995, Slobodan MILOSEVIC, acting alone or in concert with other members of the joint criminal enterprise, planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted the planning, preparation and execution of the destruction, in whole or in part, of the Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat national, ethnical, racial or religious groups, as such, in territories within Bosnia and Herzegovina, including: Bijeljina; Bosanski Novi; Bosanski Samac; Bratunac; Brcko; Doboj; Foca; Sarajevo (Ilijas); Kljuc; Kotor Varos; Sarajevo (Novi Grad); Prijedor; Rogatica; Sanski Most; Srebrenica; Visegrad; Vlasenica and Zvornik. ... By these acts and omissions, Slobodan MILOSEVIC committed... genocide, punishable under Articles 4(3)(a) and 7(1) and 7(3) of the Statute of the Tribunal."

Here the International Herald Tribune uses the term genocide to refer to the ethnic cleansing campaign: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/03/13/yugosl12885.htm This is just one of numerous examples in the media.

Here is an exhaustive list of 1267 books, buttons, and various items that refer to Bosnia and genocide. A review of several pages with 10 books or items per page shows that the reference of genocide in Bosnia is not limited to Srebrenica but rather the entire ethnic cleansing campaign. http://www.google.com/products?hl=en&q=books+on+the+Bosnian+genocide&um=1&ie=UTF-8

When people refer to O.J. Simpson murdering Nicole, they are refering to O.J. taking a knife and nearly decapitating her. If it is a question of what they mean when they refer to O.J. murdering Nicole, it is not a question of what was proven in court; it is, to be redundant, a question of what they mean when they refer to "O.J. murdering Nicole." Clearly, unless a specific conversation or book about Srebrenica, when people refer to genocide being committed in Bosnia, they are referring to the entire ethnic cleansing campaign. I am surprised that one would try to argue otherwise. Fairview360 (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No one is disputing that before the ICJ judgement on February 26, 2007 some people referred to a general Bosnian genocide. The dispute is since the ICJ judgement if it is still in use.
The Milosevic indictment you refer to is dated Dated "this 22nd day of November 2001" [7]. There were two earlier indictments (Louise Arbour Prosecutor 22 May 1999) [8] and Carla del Ponte Prosecutor 29 June 2001 [9] neither of which mentioned genocide. He died on 12 March 2006 [10]. The Herald article you refer to is dated March 13, 2006. As for the list of books one needs to look at the books published in 2007,2008 a Google book search returns returns 5 in English.
  • GLOCALIZATION: The Human Side of Globalization as If the Washington Consensus Mattered Paper back (second edition February 2, 2007) -- Before the ICJ ruling
  • Sin and Evil: Moral Values in Literature March 28, 2007 -- very close to the ICJ ruling -- mentions the Bosnian genocide in the same sentence as several other genocides. Not clear if it mean the general genocide but probably does.
  • The Psychology of Genocide, Massacres, and Extreme Violence: Why "Normal" People Come to Commit Atrocities. May 30, 2007, Not clear if the author means a general genocide or the Srebrenica massacre.
  • The Limits of Bodily Integrity: Abortion, Adultery, and Rape June 2007 -- Probably to a general genocide but only cites the ICTY not the ICJ.
  • An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure June 2007 -- Is a footnote and a citation to a reference on the ICJ Bosnian Genocide Case Preliminary Objections 11.7.1996
Notice that in all cases there is only one mention of the term Bosnian genocide and none of these analyse the genocide. Also there have been no books referring to the Bosnian Genocide since June last year, so it is quite possible, given the lead time in that these books were already at the publishers/printers before the ICJ verdict.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The term Bosnian Genocide was not rendered obsolete by the ICJ judgement. In fact, it remains very much in use in current academic, legal, and public discourse. Andras J. Riedlmayer of Harvard University continues to this day to lecture on the cultural destruction of Bosnia as part of the Bosnian Genocide. Prof John Weiss of Cornell University continues to teach his course on the Rwandan, Darfur, and Bosnian genocide. House Resolution #679 currently being considered in committee in the US Congress refers to the Bosnian genocide. The current indictments active now today against Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic charge both with genocide throughout areas controlled by the VRS. On November 25, 2007, the St. Louis Holocaust Museum and Learning Center based in St. Louis Missouri USA opened an exhibit called "Prijedor: Lives from the Bosnian Genocide". That exhibit remains open to this day and will continue into the spring of 2008. On March 27, 2008, Cornell University's Institute for Public Affairs will be hosting a talk entitled "the path to reconciliation and co-existence in a post-genocidal society". Indeed, now and for many future generations to come, people will be talking about the Bosnian genocide. Fairview360 (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
As the term Bosnian Genocide can either refer to the Srebrenica massacre or to a wider genocide as put forward by B&H in the Bosnian Genocide Case could you please provide sources and quotes that show the people you mention mean a wider genocide than the Srebrenica mssacre? BTW the in a previous version of this article we had "Martin Shaw has criticized the ICJ judgement (see below). In addition, the Fontbonne University has contributed research to a project documenting a wider genocide which is to be presented in an exhibition titled "Prijedor: Lives From the Bosnian Genocide."Holocaust Museum and Learning Center (Prijedor: Lives From the Bosnian Genocide (Prijedor: Lives From the Bosnian Genocide Missouri Passages Volume 4, No. 10: October 2007, Published by Missouri Humanities Council Students Participate in Groundbreaking Exhibit, website of Fontbonne University, 1 October 2007. A Brief History of the Bosnian Genocide). So those sources are covered. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I checked the House of Representatives Bill H. Res. 679 5 September 2007, and the genocide mentioned in that bill is the Srebrenica massacre as there are three references in the bill. Paragraph 4: to those found guilty by the ICTY of genocide have been in relation to the Srebrenica massacre. Paragraph 5: The ICJ case (that found that Srebrenica massacre only genocide). Paragraph 6: Srebrenica and other areas of eastern Bosnia was another description given by the ICJ for the victims of the Srebrenica massacre. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Nothing PBS has stated here refutes the above given examples. Noticibly absent from PBS' rebuttal is any mention of the ICTY indictments against Mladic and Karadzic which, as part of the charge of genocide, specifically name cities throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina. Furthermore, PBS ignores section F of House Resolution 679 which clearly shows that the resolution considers the entire ethnically cleansed area of RS to be the result of genocide.
It appears that Osli73 and PBS are intent on foisting upon wikipedia the myth that the ICJ decision proved that genocide did not occur. In fact, the chamber stated that genocide "actus reus" did occur. It was a question of intent "mens rea" of the particular defendents and the available evidence, evidence the ICJ was not permitted however ICTY does still possess and can use in the case against Karadzic and Mladic. One can continue to produce ample evidence of the ethnic cleansing campaign being referred to as genocide in academic, legal, and public discussion. However, it appears Osli73 and PBS are intent on ignoring the evidence being provided while complaining that others are not willing to engage them ad nauseum in providing this evidence over and over again. Fairview360 (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Did you see my request above to "please provide sources and quotes that show the people you mention mean a wider genocide than the Srebrenica mssacre?" Let us be clear no one is refuting that the term was in use, but it is difficult to refute post ICJ examples when sources for those examples are not given with quotations showing that they refer to a general Bosnian genocide and not "just" the the Srebrenica massacre. I have looked up those that I can find on the net and they do not seem to support you assertion that "The term Bosnian Genocide was not rendered obsolete by the ICJ judgement. In fact, it remains very much in use in current academic, legal, and public discourse.". If it is very much in use where are the large number of sources post February 2007 that note the ICJ judgement but still insist that wider genocide did take place?
As to the two ICTY charges. A they were laid before the ICJ judgement and we have know way of knowing if the incitement is not worded that way so that it can be used as a bargaining position by the prosecutor because to date the prosecutors office has plea bargained away charges of genocide for lesser charges more often than they have seen the case through to the end. And as this article points out (while criticising the ICJ judgement) "Dr Robert Cryer, an expert on international criminal law from the University of Nottingham... doesn’t think that future cases at the ICTY, involving former officers of the Serbian military and secret services in relation to their alleged role Bosnian conflict, will be greatly affected by the ICJ judgment.", but it also says that "Professor Johannes Houwink ten Cate, a historian at the Netherlands War Documentation Centre and a professor of genocide studies ... believes that the [ICJ] judgment 'must' affect the future trials at the ICTY of Momcilo Perisic, the former head of the Yugoslav army, and Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic, alias Frenki, former commanders of the Serbian state security services". Choose the expert you prefer :-)
I find it strange that some people who accept that Srebrenica was a genocide because several international courts have ruled it to be, will not accept that there was no general genocide because the ICJ has so ruled. Presenting so forcefully in this article what appears to me to be a fringe view on the general genocide debate -- that the ICJ's analysis of the "intent" was too restrictive (and so ethnic cleansing and the other crimes committed while implementing it was genocide), is in my opinion as wrong as attempting to present in the first paragraph of the Srebrenica genocide in the fringe view that no genocide took place because the ICTY interpretation of "in part" was too broad. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fairview360, a reply to the above:

  • I don't agree with your interpretation of the ICJ judgmenet. As far as I understand, "genocide" requires intent and not simply a genocidal act. This was the case with the Srebrenica massacre - it was the intent to kill the Bosniak population of the town that mattered, not the number of people killed. As I understand it, the ICJ did not find (enough?) evidence of intent in this case and thus came to the conclusion that no wider genocide had occured.
  • I agree that the Mladic (and probably also Karadzic) indictments include charges of genocide based on that he (according to the indictment) "planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted the planning, preparation or execution of the intentional partial destruction of the Bosnian Muslim national, ethnical, racial or religious group." Although the prosecution does not use the word "Bosnian genocide" this is what they mean. Thus, I have nothing against stating that the ICTY indictments against Mladic and Karadzic include charges for wider genocide against the Bosniak population during the war. Though it should be noted that these allegations/indictments have not been tried by the court. Also, I'm not sure of what importance it is that these indictments were written prior to the outcome of the ICJ case (probably no importance, but maybe it should be noted?).
  • I don't agree with you reg. House of Rep. Bill 679. To begin with it refers to the Srebrenica massacre. Second, the bill is only in the first step of the judicial process ("This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process where the bill is considered in committee and may undergo significant changes in markup sessions").[11]

I have no problem mentioning that the ICTY indictment against Mladic and Karadzic include charges of wider genocide in Bosnia and that there are those who disagree with the ICJ case (mentioning these persons and why, in general, they disagree). However, this should be after we have described the judgement of the ICJ on the matter. It's an issue of finding the right balance in the article. The problem with the version supported by GG and TDoB was that it completely glossed over the ICJ and ECHR findings and gave undue weight to the "wider Bosnian genocide" argument.Osli73 (talk) 09:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


There is a reference which fully support the text:

SERBIA FOUND GUILTY OF FAILURE TO PREVENT AND PUNISH GENOCIDE:

  • The world's highest court concluded that the crimes, such as mass killing, rapes, detention, destruction or deportations, committed during the 1992 -1995 war, are acts of genocide according to the Convention, but could not be qualified as genocide (dolus specialis).
There are two terms. Genocide dolus specialis, and acts of genocide, both confirmed by ICJ. The first one is referred to Srebrenica genocide, the second one - acts of genocide (such as mass killing, rapes, detention, destruction or deportations, committed during the 1992 -1995 war)- is referred to the wider crimes committed in Bosnia, know as Bosnian genocide.
  • ICJ President Rosalyn Higgins noted that there is a lot of evidence to prove that crimes against humanity and war crimes had been committed in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The International Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction over them, because this case deals "exclusively with genocide in a limited legal sense and not in the broader sense sometimes given to this term ".

So, there is a broader sense of the term, which is sometimes given to it. --Grandy Grandy (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That is an interpretation from one source from a little known news agency neither Reuters or AP and sources with their own reporters like the BBC agree and it is contradicted by the press release put out by the ICJ on February 26 2007.
Indeed, the article in Sense Agency starts off stating "The judgment delivered by the International Court of Justice today confirmed that the Bosnian Serb forces committed the genocide in Srebrenica in July 1995." (my bold). The sentence(s) you are reffering to - "The world's highest court concluded that the crimes, such as mass killing, rapes, detention, destruction or deportations, committed during the 1992 -1995 war, are "acts of genocide" according to the Convention, but could not be qualified as genocide. The Court found that it had not been proven that those crimes had been committed with a specific intent "to destroy as such" the protected group of Bosnian Muslims in part or as a whole" states that while these individual acts might have amounted to "acts of genocide" they did not amount to a general genocide of the Bosnian population, as claimed by the government of BiH. Hence, no "Bosnian Genocide" in the wider sense claimed by GG and DoB.Osli73 (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You're wrong this is well know agency, specialized for ICTY/ICJ trials, supported by EU and USA. --Grandy Grandy (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
It is not clear to me which part of Osli73's statement you are describing as wrong. Please explain further. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

disambiguation page

Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I think it is very telling that he first article that appears on a Google search for "Bosnian Genocide" is this article. None of the first page of articles returned are post February 2007 and from reliable sources. Last year I said that if there were a number of academic articles published that still maintain that a wider genocide took place then there would be a need for such an article as this. However after nearly a year there have been fewer than half a dozen articles and all of those are of dubious quality that continue to argue for a wider genocide. A number of books have been cited as possible sources on this talk page, but requests for page numbers and quotes have not been forth coming.

I think we should seriously reconsider making this page a disambiguation page to the Srebrenica genocide and the Bosnian Genocide Case. If there is a need for an article that lists genocide prosecutions bought after the Bosnian war then that should be created with a name like List of Bosnian genocide prosecutions. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. As academic sources and major media today only use the term "Bosnian genocide" to refer to the Srebrenica massacre (or to the "ICJ Bosnian Genocide case") we should disambiguate the article to either refer to the Srebrenica massacre article or the Bosnian genocide case. The criticism of the ICJ's verdict could then be related in the latter article.Osli73 (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been bold and converted the page to a disambiguation page. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. See earlier comments. Grandy Grandy (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Which earlier comments? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Been brazen and presumptuous would be a better description of PBS deleting this entire article. Fairview360 (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not delete the page. I converted it to a disambiguation page. This is not a new suggestion see the section at the top of this page. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
PBS is making a distinction without a difference. "Converting it to a disambiguation page" includes deleting the article.Fairview360 (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


potential for a quality article

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

There is actually potential here for an interesting and informative article which would describe what actually happened and how it has been interpreted in the legal, academic, and public arenas. This version of the intro http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnian_Genocide&oldid=186152787 shows that even within the legal arena it is a matter of interpretation with both the wider legal interpretation of genocide (such as the Dusseldorf conviction establishing genocide) and the narrower legal interpretation (such as the ICJ decision leading to acquittal of genocide charges) both being legitimate according to the Genocide Convention of 1948. Then there is also the question of available evidence and how evidence with the ICTY may lead to a conviction for a wider genocide throughout Bosnia even according to the narrower interpretation of genocide which has prevailed within ICTY and ICJ circles. Of course, the article should not be simply a presentation of the different legal interpretations of genocide and available evidence and how it applies to the mass killings in Bosnia, but also a description of those mass killings, the actual subject matter of the article, namely, the ethnic cleansing campaign of which the Srebrenica massacre was a part.Fairview360 (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The only problem is that the ICJ (and since reinforced by the ECHR) has dismissed the wider interpretation of the term "Bosnian genocide" which you would like to describe. Thus, to use this article to describe the ethnic cleansing campaign in Bosnia, would be to mislead the reader that the ethnic cleansing and war crimes committed during the war consituted genocide. Hence, we are stuck with either describing the legal discussion on the issue or redirecting to the Srebrenica massacre, which is the only case of "Bosnian genocide" which is widely accepted.Osli73 (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not think that this is the right article for the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the early 90s in Bosnia, because this is an article on genocide and apart from the Srebrenica genocide, there is no wide spread agreement among scholars and legal circles that the other actions fall within the definition of genocide. If it does not exist an article on "ethnic cleansing in Bosnia", or some similar title, could be written that describes the the actions and the subsequent prosecutions for crimes against humanity and war crimes, that were committed by the parties to the Bosnian War. There is a strong argument for saying the Bosnia accused Serbia of genocide because it was the only way that Bosnia could have Serbia tried by the ICJ, because there was no case to answer for before the ICJ for the -- just as serious -- allegation of crimes against humanity, because the ICJ has no remit to hear such cases: Dr Larissa van den Herik, an assistant professor in public international law at Leiden University ... dismisses the claim made by some academics that genocide is too difficult to prove - but rather is a narrowly defined legal definition, which is sometimes charged in circumstances where it doesn't apply. In this particular case, she says, a gap in international law meant the Genocide Convention had to be used. "The only way for Bosnia to go to the ICJ was to allege genocide. There is no Crimes against Humanity Convention providing for jurisdiction for the ICJ," she said. She is concerned that too much focus is placed on the crime of genocide, which is often erroneously held up by victims, the media - and even ad hoc tribunal judges - as the crime of crimes." "Genocide and crimes against humanity are of equal gravity, yet everyone feels that genocide is worse and carries an extra stigma," she said.(Caroline Tosh Genocide Acquittal Provokes Legal Debat, TU No 491, Institute for War & Peace Reporting 2 March 2007.) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Osli73 has demonstrated here why many editors choose not to participate in the discussion page and rather simply edit. Osli73 has been provided with ECHR source material (see link below) summarizing the ECHR decision upholding Nikolic's genocide conviction as follows: "it was for the German courts to decide which interpretation of the crime of genocide under domestic law they wished to adopt. Accordingly, the applicant's conviction for genocide was not in breach of Article 7 § 1 of the Convention." The source material states clearly the fact that the ECHR upheld the genocide conviction of Nikolic. The ECHR decision clearly states that the Nikolic conviction was not in violation of the Genocide Convention of 1948. And yet, Osli73 claims above that the ECHR dismissed the basis for the conviction. Simply not true. Meanwhile, PBS provides dead links while engaging in the specious argument that one can not take the ICTY's indictments at face value because, according to PBS, "we have know way of knowing if the incitement (indictment) is not worded that way so that it can be used as a bargaining position." Well according to the same logic, "we have no way of knowing" if PBS argues the way he does just as a bargaining position and therefore his statements can be ignored.
http://sim.law.uu.nl/SIM/CaseLaw/hof.nsf/233813e697620022c1256864005232b7/c71ce8eeaf4c09a0c1257313002ef90e?OpenDocument
Fairview360 (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The link, as you must have known, was a courtesy link and rather than criticising it for no longer working perhaps in line with What to do when a reference link "goes dead" you could have fixed it. The ECHR makes the point that in 1992 when the crimes were committed that a lawyer could have advised the defendant that his actions could well be in breach of German law. But it also makes the point that this is at variance with current International legal opinion. So if the defendant committed the same crime today the German courts (like the courts in every state that is a party to the European Convention on Human Rights) must take into account the ruling by European Court of Human Rights, which means that the legal opinion given today would most likely be different from that given in the 1990s because of the rulings by the ICTY and the ICJ. The ICTY's indictments were put out before the ICJ and to date only one persons conviction for genocide has been upheld through the appeal process, What makes you think that the current outstanding indictments are any more an indicator than all the other indictments that did not end in a successful conviction or genocide?. Besides the current proposed wording that I put in place does not prohibit the interpretation of a wider genocide it just points out that it is a view held by a minority of scholars. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bosnian_genocide/Archive_2&oldid=801992989"