Human Rights Brief
A Legal Resource for the International Human Rights CommunityFall 1996
POINT/COUNTERPOINT
Trials in Absentia in the Former Yugoslavia
by Nicole Clarke
Although the trials of war criminals from the war in the Balkans are now getting underway, the most crucial defendants remain at large. The new leaders of the former Yugoslavia refuse to comply with their responsibility under the Dayton Agreements and the perpetrators of the most inhuman acts of the war spurn the authority of the Tribunals.
There is disagreement among legal authorities over how best to counter the open defiance of indicted war criminals Ratko Mladic, Radovan Karadic and Dario Kordic. Trials in absentia would demonstrate that the international community will no longer tolerate defiance of the law. Convictions would also greatly strengthen the pressure on leaders of former Yugoslav countries to turn over their criminals. On the other hand, arresting the indicted defendants, it is argued, would effectively end the public influence of these men.
POINT: Trials in Absentia
Herman Schwartz, a leading advocate of civil liberties and prisoners' rights in the United States, is a Professor of Law at WCL and Co-Director of the Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. This article is a revised and expanded version of an article he wrote in August for The Washington Post with Lloyd N. Cutler, former Counsel to Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
COUNTERPOINT: Taking Exception
Diane Orentlicher is also a Professor of Law at WCL and is Director of the War Crimes Research Office which assists the prosecution staff of the UN tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the Hague. Her article combines parts of an article she wrote for The Washington Post in response to that of Professor Schwartz and Lloyd Cutler, with another article previously published in The L.A. Times.
| Point/Counterpoint is a regular feature of The Human Rights Brief. The purpose of the section is to encourage meaningful, intellectual discussion on contemporary issues in human rights and humanitarian law through the presentation of two diverse, though not necessarily opposing, opinions on the subject at hand. Commentaries for the Point/Counterpoint section are generally solicited by The Brief; however, the Editorial Board welcomes submissions, comments and suggestions. The newsletter does not facilitate exchange of the authors' compositions prior to publication. The views expressed in the Point/Counterpoint section are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of The Human Rights Brief, the Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, or their Directors or staff. |
The proper citation for this article in the Human Rights Brief Volume 4, Number 1, beginning at page 12 is: 4 No. 1 Hum. Rts. Brief 12 (1996).
