{"id":1473,"date":"2020-05-08T14:07:52","date_gmt":"2020-05-08T13:07:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/?page_id=1473"},"modified":"2021-11-15T17:09:48","modified_gmt":"2021-11-15T16:09:48","slug":"1473-2","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/1473-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Secretary-General’s formal note on legality of ICTY (S\/25704)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n

 <\/p>\n

The full text of the United Nation's paper in which the UN General-Secretary sets out his reasons for believing the ICTY was set up on a proper legal basis is \r\n<\/i>reproduced <\/i><\/span><\/span>below.\r\n\r\nAs you will see, Boutros Boutros-Ghali was originally inno doubt that there were only two ways in which an \r\ninternational criminal tribunal could be created by the UN under its Charter - by a decision of the General \r\nAssembly or by the creation of an international Treaty.  \r\n\r\nHe apparently changed his view, in the light of the \r\nclaimed humanitarian emergency in Yugoslavia, on the \r\nbasis of emergency powers given to the Security Council in Chapter VII of the UN Charter.  \r\n\r\nThere are two problems with this:  (i) these powers \r\nrelate exclusively to international conflict, whereas \r\nall the conflicts in Yugoslavia were civil wars that \r\nbegan before the international community forced through the illegal creation and recognition of Slovenia, \r\nCroatia and Bosnia as independent sovereign states.  TheUN has no mandate to involve itself in the internal \r\naffairs of a sovereign country;  (ii) the only precedentthe General-Secretary could offer in support of the use of these powers was the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990. This was of course an international conflict.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe UN has attempted to argue that the unilateral \r\ndeclarations of independence by Slovenia, Croatia, \r\nBosnia and Kosovo had turned the various Yugoslav \r\nconflicts into international conflicts, particularly \r\nwhen they had been recognised as new states by other \r\ncountries. This is nonsense. None of these aspiring \r\nstates met the essential conditions laid down for the \r\nrecognition of new countries in the Helsinki Final Acts,the treaty of Montevideo and other international \r\nlegislation. And there had been no'invasions' by Serb \r\nforces.  The fighting was between Yugoslavs.  The UN wasin flagrant breach of its own Charter and international law.\r\n\r\nA further point is that the powers in Chapter VII only \r\napply when there is a threat to international peace and \r\nsecurity.  Although the UN has sometimes suggested that \r\nthere was, it's quite clear that there wasn't.\r\n\r\n<\/i><\/strong>We now know that the claims of humanitarian catastrophe \r\nwere highly exaggerated. Suggestions that 250,000 \r\nBosnian Muslims had been killed in the first 6 months offighting have reduced to 100,000 on all sides during theentire Bosnian war.   US claims that 500,000 might have died in Kosovo reduced to a figure just under 4,000. \r\nBoutros-Ghali rationalised that his Chapter VII solution <\/i>\"<\/em>would have the advantage of being expeditious\" - it \r\ncertainly wasn't legal. <\/em>S\/25704 3 May 1993\r\n<\/strong><\/span><\/pre>\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n                                                  ORIGINAL:  ENGLISH\r\nREPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 2\r\n       OF SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 808 (1993)\r\n<\/pre>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
CONTENTS<\/p>\n
Introduction ...............................................\r\n<\/pre>\n
  I.  THE LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE\r\n      INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL ............................... \r\nII.  COMPETENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL .............      A.  Competence ratione materiae (subject-matter\r\n          jurisdiction) ....................................      B.  Competence ratione personae (personal jurisdiction)\r\n          and individual criminal responsibility ...........      C.  Competence ratione loci (territorial jurisdiction)\r\n          and ratione temporis (temporal jurisdiction) .....      D.  Concurrent jurisdiction and the principle of\r\n          non-bis-in-idem ..................................\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nIII.  THE\r\n      A.  The Chambers .....................................<\/pre>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
ORGANIZATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL .......\r\n<\/pre>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
1. 2. 3. 4.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Composition of the Chambers ..................\r\nQualifications and election of judges ........\r\nOfficers and members of the Chambers .........\r\nRules of procedure and evidence ..............\r\n<\/pre>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
S\/25704\r\nEnglish\r\nPage 2\r\n\r\n     B.  The Prosecutor ...................................<\/span><\/pre>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
     C.  The Registry .....................................\r\n<\/pre>\n
    \n
  1. \n
    IV. \u00a0 INVESTIGATION AND PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS .............\r\n<\/pre>\n<\/li>\n
  2. \n
     V. \u00a0 TRIAL AND POST-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS ....................\r\n     \r\nA.  Commencement and conduct of trial proceedings ....\r\n<\/pre>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n
    \n
     <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
          B.  Rights of the accused ............................  106 - 107    27\r\n      C.  Protection of victims and witnesses ..............  108 - 109    28\r\n      D.  Judgement and penalties ..........................  110 - 115    28\r\n      E.  Appellate and review proceedings .................  116 - 120    29\r\n      F.  Enforcement of sentences .........................  121 - 124    30\r\n\r\n\r\nVI. COOPERATION AND JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE .................. 125 - 127 31 VII. GENERAL PROVISIONS ................................... 128 - 138 \r\n\r\n32A. The status, privileges and immunities of the\r\nInternational Tribunal ........................... \r\n\r\n      B.  Seat of the International Tribunal ...............  131 - 132    33\r\n      C.  Financial arrangements ...........................  133 - 134    33\r\n      D.  Working languages ................................  135 - 136    34\r\n      E.  Annual report ....................................  137 - 138    34\r\n\r\n\r\nAnnex.  Statute of the International Tribunal .............Introduction\r\n<\/pre>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    1.   By paragraph 1 of resolution 808 (1993) of 22 February 1993, the Security Council decided \"that an international tribunal shall be established for the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the \r\nformer Yugoslavia since 1991\".\r\n\r\n2.   By paragraph 2 of the resolution, the Secretary-\r\nGeneral was requested \"to submit for consideration by \r\nthe Council at the earliest possible date, and if \r\npossible no later than 60 days after the adoption of the present resolution, a report on all aspects of this matter, including specific proposals and where appropriate options for the effective \r\nand expeditious implementation of the decision [to \r\nestablish an international tribunal], taking into \r\naccount suggestions put forward in this regard by MemberStates.\"\r\n\r\n3. \u00a0  The present report is presented pursuant to that \r\nrequest.\u00a0  Resolution 808 (1993) represents a further \r\nstep taken by the Security Council in a series of resolutions concerning serious violations of international \r\nhumanitarian law occurring in the territory of the \r\nformer Yugoslavia.\r\n\r\n5.   In resolution 764 (1992) of 13 July 1992, the \r\nSecurity Council reaffirmed that all parties to the conflict are bound to comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law and in particular the \r\nGeneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and that persons \r\nwho commit or order the commission of grave breaches of the Conventions are individually responsible in respect of such breaches.\r\n\r\n6.   In resolution 771 (1992) of 13 August 1992, the \r\nSecurity Council expressed grave alarm at continuing \r\nreports of widespread violations of international\r\nhumanitarian law occurring within the territory of the \r\nformer Yugoslavia and especially in Bosnia and \r\nHerzegovina,including reports of mass forcible expulsionand deportation of civilians, imprisonment and abuse of \r\ncivilians in detention centres, deliberate attacks on \r\nnon-combatants, hospitals and ambulances, impeding the \r\ndelivery of food and medical supplies to the civilian\r\npopulation, and wanton devastation and destruction of \r\nproperty.  The Council strongly condemned any violationsof international humanitarian law, including those \r\ninvolved inthe practice of \"ethnic cleansing\", and \r\ndemanded that all parties to the conflict in the former Yugoslavia cease and desist from all breaches of \r\ninternational humanitarian law.It called upon States andinternational humanitarian organizations to collate \r\nsubstantiated information relating to the violations of humanitarian law, including grave breaches of the GenevaConventions, being committed in the territory of the \r\nformer Yugoslavia and to make this information availableto the Council.  Furthermore, the Council decided, \r\nacting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United \r\nNations, that all parties and others concerned \r\nin the former Yugoslavia, and all military forces in \r\nBosnia and Herzegovina, should comply with the \r\nprovisions of that resolution, failing which the Councilwould need to take further measures under the Charter.\r\n\r\n7.   In resolution 780 (1992) of 6 October 1992, the \r\nSecurity Council requested the Secretary-General to \r\nestablish an impartial Commission of Experts to examine and analyse the information as requested by resolution 771 (1992), together with such further information as theCommission may obtain through its own investigations or efforts, of other persons or bodies pursuant to \r\nresolution 771 (1992), with a view to providing the \r\nSecretary-General with its conclusions on the evidence \r\nof grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and \r\nother violations of international humanitarian law \r\ncommitted in the territory of the former Yugoslavia.\r\n<\/pre>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    8.   On 14 October 1992 the Secretary-General submitted a report to the Security Council pursuant to paragraph 3of resolution 780 (1992) in which he outlined his \r\ndecision to establish a five-member Commission of \r\nExperts (S\/24657).  On 26 October 1992, the Secretary-General announced the appointment of the Chairman and \r\nmembers of the Commission of Experts.\r\n<\/pre>\n
    9.   By a letter dated 9 February 1993, the Secretary-\r\nGeneral submitted to the President of the Security \r\nCouncil an interim report of the Commission of \r\nExperts(S\/25274), which concluded that grave breaches \r\nand other violations of international humanitarian law \r\nhad been committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, including wilful killing, \"ethnic cleansing\", masskillings,torture, rape, pillage and destruction of  \r\ncivilian property, destruction of cultural and religiousproperty and arbitrary arrests.  In its report, the \r\nCommission noted that should the Security Council or \r\nanother competent organ of the United Nations decide to establish an ad hoc international tribunal, such a \r\ndecision would be consistent with the direction of its \r\nwork.\r\n\r\n10.  It was against this background that the Security \r\nCouncil considered and adopted resolution 808 (1993).  \r\nAfter recalling the provisions of resolutions 764(1992),771 (1992) and 780 (1992) and, taking into considerationthe interim report of the Commission of Experts, the \r\nSecurity Council expressed once again its grave alarm atcontinuing reports of widespread violations of \r\ninternationalhumanitarian law occurring within the \r\nterritory of the former Yugoslavia, including reports ofmass killings and the continuation of the practice of \r\n\"ethnic cleansing\".  The Council determined that this situation constituted a threat to international peace and security, and stated that it was determined to put an \r\nend to such crimes and to take effective measures to \r\nbring to justice the persons who are responsible for \r\nthem.  The Security Council stated its conviction that \r\nin the particular circumstances of the former Yugoslaviathe establishment of an international tribunal would \r\nenable this aim to be achieved and would contribute to \r\nthe restoration and maintenance of peace.\r\n<\/pre>\n
    11.  The Secretary-General wishes to recall that in resolution 820 (1993) of 17 April 1993, the Security Councilcondemned once again all violations of international \r\nhumanitarian law, including in particular, the practice of \"ethnic cleansing\" and the massive, organized and \r\nsystematic detention and rape of women, and reaffirmed \r\nthat those who commit or have committed or order or have\r\nordered the commission of such acts will be held\r\nindividually responsible in respect of such acts.\r\n<\/pre>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
     <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    B<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    12.  The Security Council\u2019s decision in resolution 808 \r\n(1993) to establish an international tribunal is \r\ncircumscribed in scope and purpose:  the prosecution of \r\npersons responsible for serious violations of \r\ninternational humanitarian law committed in the \r\nterritory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991.  The \r\ndecision does not relate to theestablishment of an \r\ninternational criminal jurisdiction in general nor to \r\nthe creation of an international criminal court of a \r\npermanent nature, issues which are and remain \r\nunder active consideration by the International Law \r\nCommission and the General Assembly.\r\n<\/pre>\n
    C<\/p>\n
    13.  In accordance with the request of the Security \r\nCouncil, the Secretary-General has taken into account inthe preparation of the present report the suggestions \r\nput forward by Member States, in particular those \r\nreflected in the following Security Council documents \r\nsubmitted by Member States and noted by the Council in \r\nits resolution 808 (1993):  the report of the committee of jurists submitted by France (S\/25266), the report of the commission of jurists submitted by Italy (S\/25300), and the report submitted by the Permanent Representativeof Sweden on behalf of the Chairman-in-Office of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) (S\/25307).  The Secretary-General has also sought the viewsthe Commission of Experts established pursuant to \r\nSecurity Council resolution 780 (1992) and has made use of the information gathered by that Commission.  In \r\naddition, the Secretary-General has taken into account \r\nsuggestions or comments put forward formally or informally by the following Member States since the adoption of resolution 808 (1993):  Australia, Austria, Belgium, \r\nBrazil, Canada, Chile, China, Denmark, Egypt,* Germany, Iran (Islamic Republic of),* Ireland, Italy, Malaysia,* Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan,* Portugal, \r\nRussian Federation, Saudi Arabia,* Senegal,* Slovenia,\r\nSpain, Sweden, Turkey,* United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America and Yugoslavia. He has also received suggestions or comments froma non-member State (Switzerland).\r\n<\/pre>\n
    14.  The Secretary-General has also received comments \r\nfrom the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)and from the following non-governmental organizations:  Amnesty International, Association Internationale des \r\nJeunes Avocats, Ethnic Minorities Barristers\u2019 \r\nAssociation, F\u00e9d\u00e9ration internationale des femmes des \r\ncarri\u00e8res juridiques, International Criminal Police \r\nOrganization, Jacob Blaustein Institution for the Advancement of Human Rights, Lawyers Committee for Human \r\nRights, National Alliance of Women\u2019s Organisations \r\n(NAWO),and Parliamentarians for Global Action.  \r\nObservations have also been receivedfrom international \r\nmeetings and individual experts in relevant fields.\r\n<\/pre>\n
    __________<\/p>\n
    * On behalf of the members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and as members of the Contact Group of OIC on Bosnia and Herzegovina.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    \n
    15.  The Secretary-General wishes to place on record hisappreciation for the interest shown by all the \r\nGovernments, organizations and individuals who have \r\noffered valuable suggestions and comments.\r\n<\/pre>\n
    D<\/p>\n
    16.  In the main body of the report which follows, the \r\nSecretary-General first examines the legal basis for theestablishment of the International Tribunal foreseen in \r\nresolution 808 (1993).  The Secretary-General then sets out in detail the competence of the International Tribunal as regards the law it will apply, the persons to whomthe law will be applied, including considerations as to the principle of individual criminal responsibility, itsterritorial and temporal reach and the relation of itswork to that of national courts.  In succeeding chapters, the Secretary-General sets out detailed views on the \r\norganization of the international tribunal, the \r\ninvestigation and pre-trial proceedings, trial and \r\npost-trial proceedings, and cooperation and judicial\r\nassistance.  A concluding chapter deals with a number ofgeneral and organizational issues such as privileges andimmunities, the seat of the international tribunal, \r\nworking languages and financial arrangements.\r\n<\/pre>\n
    17.  In response to the Security Council\u2019s request to \r\ninclude in the report specific proposals, the \r\nSecretary-General has decided to incorporate into the\r\nreport specific language for inclusion in a statute of \r\nthe International Tribunal.  The formulations are based upon provisions found in existing international \r\ninstruments, particularly with regard to competence ratione materiae of the International Tribunal.  Suggestionsand comments, including suggested draft articles, \r\nreceived from States, organizations and individuals as \r\nnoted in paragraphs 13 and 14 above, also formed the \r\nbasis upon which the Secretary-General prepared the \r\nstatute.  Texts prepared in the past by United Nations \r\nor other bodies for the establishment of international criminal courts were consulted by the Secretary-General, including texts prepared by the United Nations Committeeon International Criminal Jurisdiction, the \r\nInternational Law Commission, and the International Law Association.  Proposals regarding individual articles   are, therefore, made throughout the body of the report; the full text of the statute of the International \r\nTribunal is contained in the annex to the present report.\r\n<\/pre>\n
              I.  THE LEGAL BASIS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL\r\n              TRIBUNAL\r\n\r\n18.  Security Council resolution 808 (1993) states that an international tribunal shall be established for the \r\nprosecution of persons responsible for serious \r\nviolations of international humanitarian law committed \r\nin the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991.  \r\nIt does not, however, indicate how such an internationaltribunal is to be established or on what legal basis.\r\n\r\n19.  The approach which, in the normal course of events,would be followed in establishing an international \r\ntribunal would be the conclusion of a treaty by which \r\nthe States parties would establish a tribunal and \r\napprove its statute.This treaty would be drawn up and \r\nadopted by an appropriate international body (e.g., the General Assembly or a specially convened conference), \r\nfollowing which it would be opened for signature and \r\nratification.  Such an approach would have the advantageof allowing for a detailed examination and elaboration \r\nof all the issues pertaining tothe establishment of the international tribunal.  It also would allow the States participating in the negotiation and conclusion of the \r\ntreaty fully to exercise their sovereign will, in \r\nparticular whether they wish to become parties to the \r\ntreaty or not.\r\n\r\n20.  As has been pointed out in many of the comments \r\nreceived, the treaty approach incurs the disadvantage ofrequiring considerable time to establish an instrument \r\nand then to achieve the required number of ratificationsfor entry into force.  Even then, there could be no guarantee that ratifications will be received from those States which should be parties to the treaty if it is to betruly effective.\r\n\r\n21.  A number of suggestions have been put forward to \r\nthe effect that the General Assembly, as the most \r\nrepresentative organ of the United Nations, should have a role in the establishment of the international \r\ntribunal in addition to its role in the administrative \r\nand budgetary aspects of the question.  The involvement of the General Assembly in the drafting or the review ofthe statute of the International Tribunal would not be \r\nreconcilable with the urgency expressed by the Security Council in resolution 808 (1993).  The Secretary-Generalbelieves thatthere are other ways of involving the \r\nauthority and prestige of the General Assembly in the \r\nestablishment of the International Tribunal.\r\n\r\n22.  In the light of the disadvantages of the treaty \r\napproach in this particular case and of the need indicated in resolution 808 (1993) for an effective and \r\nexpeditious implementation of the decision to establish an international tribunal, the Secretary-General believes that the International Tribunal should be established by a decision of the Security Council on the basis of \r\nChapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.  Such a decision would constitute a measure to maintain or \r\nrestore international peace and security, following the\r\nrequisite determination of the existence of a threat to thepeace, breach of the peace or act of aggression.\r\n\r\n23.  This approach would have the advantage of being \r\nexpeditious and of being immediately effective as all \r\nStates would be under a binding obligation to take whatever actionis required to carry out a decision taken as \r\nan enforcement measure under Chapter VII.\r\n\r\n24.  In the particular case of the former Yugoslavia, \r\nthe Secretary-General believes that the establishment ofthe International Tribunal by means of a Chapter VII \r\ndecision would be legally justified, both in terms of \r\nthe object and purpose of the decision, as indicated in the preceding paragraphs, and of past Security Council \r\npractice.\r\n\r\n25.  As indicated in paragraph 10 above, the Security \r\nCouncil has already determined that the situation posed by continuing reports of widespread violations of \r\ninternational humanitarian law occurring in the former \r\nYugoslavia constitutes a threat to international peace \r\nand security.  The Council has also decided under \r\nChapter VII of the Charter that all parties and others \r\nconcerned in the former Yugoslavia, and all military forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina, shall comply with the provisions of resolution 771 (1992), failing which it wouldneed to take further measures under the Charter.  \r\nFurthermore, the Council has repeatedly reaffirmed that all parties in the former Yugoslavia are bound to complywith the obligations under international humanitarian \r\nlaw and in particular the Geneva Conventions of 12 \r\nAugust 1949, and that persons who commit or order the \r\ncommission of grave breaches of the Conventions are \r\nindividually responsible in respect of such breaches.\r\n\r\n26.  Finally, the Security Council stated in resolution 808(1993) that it was convinced that in the particular \r\ncircumstances of the former Yugoslavia, the \r\nestablishment of an international tribunal would bring \r\nabout the achievement of the aim of putting an end to \r\nsuch crimes and of taking effective measures to bring tojustice the persons responsible for them, and would \r\ncontribute to the restoration and maintenance of peace.\r\n\r\n27.  The Security Council has on various occasions \r\nadopted decisions under Chapter VII aimed at restoring \r\nand maintaining international peace and security, which have involved the establishment of subsidiary organs fora variety of purposes.  Reference may be made in this regard to SecurityCouncil resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions relating to the situation between Iraq and Kuwait.\r\n\r\n28.  In this particular case, the Security Council wouldbe establishing, as an enforcement measure under ChapterVII, a subsidiary organ within the terms of Article 29 \r\nof the Charter, but one of a judicial nature.  This \r\norgan would, of course, have to perform its functions \r\nindependently of political considerations; it would not be subject to the authority or control of the Security \r\nCouncil with regard to the performance of its judicial \r\nfunctions.  As an enforcement measure under Chapter VII,however, the life span of the international tribunal \r\nwould be linked to the restoration and maintenance of \r\ninternational peace and security in the territory of theformer Yugoslavia, and Security Council decisions \r\nrelated thereto.\r\n\r\n29.  It should be pointed out that, in assigning to the \r\nInternational Tribunal the task of prosecuting persons \r\nresponsible for serious violations of international \r\nhumanitarian law, the Security Council would not be \r\ncreating or purporting to \"legislate\" that law.  Rather,the International Tribunal would have the task of \r\napplying existing international humanitarian law.\r\n\r\n30.  On the basis of the foregoing considerations, the \r\nSecretary-General proposes that the Security Council, \r\nacting under Chapter VII of the Charter, establish the \r\nInternational Tribunal.  The resolution so adopted would have annexed to it a statute the opening passage of which \r\nwould read as follows:\r\n\r\n          Having been established by the Security Council \r\nacting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United \r\nNations, the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of \r\nInternational Humanitarian Law Committed in the \r\nTerritory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 \r\n(hereinafter referred to as \"the International Tribunal)shall function in accordance with the provisions of the present Statute.\r\n<\/pre>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
    \n
    \n
    <\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
    <\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
      The full text of the United Nation’s paper in which the UN General-Secretary sets out his reasons for believing the ICTY was set up on a proper legal basis is reproduced below. As you will see, Boutros Boutros-Ghali was originally inno doubt that there were only two ways in which an international criminal tribunal … <\/p>\n
    Continue reading “Secretary-General’s formal note on legality of ICTY (S\/25704)”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"yoast_head":"\nSecretary-General's formal note on legality of ICTY (S\/25704) - Balkan Conflicts Research Team<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/1473-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Secretary-General's formal note on legality of ICTY (S\/25704) - Balkan Conflicts Research Team\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"  The full text of the United Nation's paper in which the UN General-Secretary sets out his reasons for believing the ICTY was set up on a proper legal basis is reproduced below. As you will see, Boutros Boutros-Ghali was originally inno doubt that there were only two ways in which an international criminal tribunal … Continue reading "Secretary-General’s formal note on legality of ICTY (S\/25704)"\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/1473-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Balkan Conflicts Research Team\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-11-15T16:09:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/\",\"name\":\"Balkan Conflicts Research Team\",\"description\":\"Information on recent conflicts in the Balkans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/1473-2\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/1473-2\/\",\"name\":\"Secretary-General's formal note on legality of ICTY (S\/25704) - Balkan Conflicts Research Team\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-05-08T13:07:52+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-11-15T16:09:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/1473-2\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/1473-2\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/1473-2\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Secretary-General’s formal note on legality of ICTY (S\/25704)\"}]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Secretary-General's formal note on legality of ICTY (S\/25704) - Balkan Conflicts Research Team","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/1473-2\/","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Secretary-General's formal note on legality of ICTY (S\/25704) - Balkan Conflicts Research Team","og_description":"  The full text of the United Nation's paper in which the UN General-Secretary sets out his reasons for believing the ICTY was set up on a proper legal basis is reproduced below. As you will see, Boutros Boutros-Ghali was originally inno doubt that there were only two ways in which an international criminal tribunal … Continue reading \"Secretary-General’s formal note on legality of ICTY (S\/25704)\"","og_url":"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/1473-2\/","og_site_name":"Balkan Conflicts Research Team","article_modified_time":"2021-11-15T16:09:48+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Estimated reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/","name":"Balkan Conflicts Research Team","description":"Information on recent conflicts in the Balkans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/1473-2\/#webpage","url":"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/1473-2\/","name":"Secretary-General's formal note on legality of ICTY (S\/25704) - Balkan Conflicts Research Team","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-05-08T13:07:52+00:00","dateModified":"2021-11-15T16:09:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/1473-2\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/1473-2\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/1473-2\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Secretary-General’s formal note on legality of ICTY (S\/25704)"}]}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1473"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1473"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1473\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2199,"href":"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1473\/revisions\/2199"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1473"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}