{"id":2352,"date":"2022-02-23T10:33:52","date_gmt":"2022-02-23T09:33:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/?page_id=2352"},"modified":"2022-02-23T12:52:13","modified_gmt":"2022-02-23T11:52:13","slug":"germany-on-trial-for-nato","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/germany-on-trial-for-nato\/","title":{"rendered":"Germany on Trial for NATO"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">When reading the article below, useful to bear in mind that:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">official investigations revealed that only 2% of the precision armaments used by NATO in the Kosovo war hit military targets.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">as a defensive alliance, NATO had no authority whatsoever to launch an aggressive war against a sovereign nation<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">NATO had not even sought UN approval for its 78-day bombing campaign<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>20\u00a0October\u00a02003<\/p>\n<p><strong>Germany on Trial for NATO<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>BELGRADE, Serbia and Montenegro<\/p>\n<p>In a landmark trial that opened last\u00a0week in\u00a0Bonn, 35 Serbs are suing Germany over the 1999 NATO bombing of the\u00a0Serbian\u00a0town of Varvarin, which killed 10 civilians and wounded 17.<\/p>\n<p>The lawsuit&#8211;supported by the human rights group Amnesty\u00a0International&#8211;is\u00a0the first of its kind in Europe. It could open the way for trials\u00a0against other\u00a0NATO member states that participated in the 1999 bombings against the\u00a0Federal\u00a0Republic of Yugoslavia (now Serbia and Montenegro) at the height of the\u00a0Kosovo\u00a0conflict.<\/p>\n<p>The trial opened on 15 October at a Bonn tribunal with a request for 1\u00a0million euros ($1.17 million) in compensation for the wounded and the\u00a0families of\u00a0those killed in the NATO bombardment. Pacifists demonstrated in support\u00a0of the\u00a0victims in front of the courthouse.<\/p>\n<p>Germany has refused to admit responsibility, claiming that its soldiers\u00a0did\u00a0not participate directly in the bombing of Serbia. But German lawyers\u00a0representing the plaintiffs say that Berlin, as a NATO member, is\u00a0responsible for the\u00a0attacks. According to the victims\u2019 lawyer, Ulrich Dost, Germany is\u00a0being sued\u00a0because it neglected to avoid civilian victims.\u009d<\/p>\n<p>NATO cannot be sued as an organization, but NATO member countries can\u00a0be sued\u00a0individually.<\/p>\n<p>FESTIVAL FATALITIES<\/p>\n<p>The plaintiffs and Amnesty International are arguing that on 30 May\u00a01999,\u00a0NATO bombed a purely civilian target in the town of Varvarin. The\u00a0bombing\u00a0occurred in the midst of the NATO campaign aimed at pushing Yugoslav\u00a0troops, led by\u00a0Slobodan Milosevic, out of the southern Serbian province of Kosovo. At\u00a0the\u00a0time, Kosovo was wracked by a violent conflict between Belgrade\u00a0security forces\u00a0and Albanian separatist guerrillas.<\/p>\n<p>Varvarin, with 4,000 inhabitants, is situated some 150 kilometers\u00a0(about 75\u00a0miles) south of Belgrade and 150 kilometers north of Kosovo. It\u00a0contained no\u00a0military or industrial bases and was not being used at the time for any\u00a0military\u00a0transports.<\/p>\n<p>On Sunday, 30 May 1999, the country was celebrating one of the holiest\u00a0Orthodox holidays, Duhovi (Day of the Spirits), and throngs of people\u00a0had gathered\u00a0at the market near the town\u2019s bridge.<\/p>\n<p>At 1:25 p.m., two F-16 NATO warplanes appeared in the sky over\u00a0Varvarin.\u00a0Suddenly, they fired two 2,000-pound laser-guided bombs, sending\u00a0vehicles and\u00a0people crashing into the river below. Then the planes doubled back and\u00a0fired two\u00a0more bombs, hitting the bridge&#8217;s central support column. The bridge\u00a0collapsed\u00a0into the Morava River, along with all the vehicles and pedestrians that\u00a0were on\u00a0it.<\/p>\n<p>According to a New York Times report that cited eyewitness accounts,\u00a0after\u00a0the first strike, people rushed from the nearby market to help those\u00a0injured on\u00a0the bridge. Then the planes came back and struck again, unleashing two\u00a0bombs\u00a0that smashed the bridge off its concrete supports and sent lethal\u00a0shrapnel\u00a0flying up the street into the marketplace.\u009d<\/p>\n<p>The casualties continued to pile up. Rescuers who went to help the\u00a0first\u00a0victims were hit in the second wave of bombings. Witnesses said blood\u00a0and body\u00a0parts were everywhere. A total of 10 people died in the attack and 17\u00a0were\u00a0seriously wounded. The youngest fatality was a 15-year-old girl named\u00a0Sanja\u00a0Milenkovic.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>NATO: BRIDGE WAS LEGITIMATE TARGET<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThere was no military excuse for the attack,&#8221; plaitiffs&#8217; lawyer Dost\u00a0told\u00a0the Bonn court last week. &#8220;It was directed at civilians. This is a\u00a0crime.\u201d\u009d<\/p>\n<p>Dost said the lawsuit is based on a 1977 protocol of the Geneva\u00a0Convention.\u00a0Article 52 of Protocol 1 states that &#8220;Attacks shall be limited strictly\u00a0to\u00a0military objectives,&#8221; defined as &#8220;those objects which by their nature,\u00a0location,\u00a0purpose or use make effective contribution to military action.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>At the time of the bombardment, NATO defended its actions. Spokesperson\u00a0Jamie\u00a0Shea said, \u201cNATO does not attack civilian targets, we attack\u00a0exclusively\u00a0military targets and take every precaution to avoid inflicting harm on\u00a0civilians.\u201d\u009d<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThis was a major line of communication and a designated and\u00a0legitimate\u00a0target,\u201d\u009d NATO said in a statement from its supreme commander at the\u00a0time, General\u00a0Wesley Clark.<\/p>\n<p>Amnesty International doesn&#8217;t agree, and has called the Varvarin\u00a0bombing\u00a0proof that NATO \u2018did not always meet its legal obligations in\u00a0selecting targets\u00a0and in choosing means and methods of attack.\u2019<\/p>\n<p>A follow-up investigation showed the Varvarin bridge could support\u00a0weight\u00a0only up to 12 tons, less than the weight of most military vehicles.<\/p>\n<p>Immediately after the Varvarin bombing, NATO decided it would no longer\u00a0attack certain objectives, such as bridges, when many civilians were\u00a0likely to be\u00a0in the vicinity.<\/p>\n<p>Amnesty International argues that such policy changes were \u201cbasic\u00a0precautions\u00a0that should have been adopted from the start of the campaign, in order\u00a0to\u00a0ensure that NATO\u2019s rules of engagement did not allow for breaches of\u00a0the laws of\u00a0war.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The Varvarin bombing came after a series of other deadly &#8220;erroneous&#8221;\u00a0bombings\u00a0by NATO. More than 150 people died when two refugee columns in Western\u00a0Kosovo\u00a0were bombed (Meja on 14 April, Korisa on 14 May); more than 80\u00a0civilians died\u00a0in attacks on buses (Luzane on 1 May, Savine Vode on 3 May) and trains\u00a0(Grdelica, 12 May); and hundreds of civilians died in bombings in\u00a0Aleksinac,\u00a0Surdulica, and Nis. In Belgrade, employees of RTS state television and\u00a0the Chinese\u00a0Embassy were also killed by NATO bombs.<\/p>\n<p>When the NATO bombing campaign ended, Carla Del Ponte, chief prosecutor\u00a0for\u00a0the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in\u00a0The\u00a0Hague, told the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) that there was\u00a0\u201cno basis\u201d\u00a0to open an investigation into NATO&#8217;s actions.<\/p>\n<p>Without elaborating, the ICTY review committee concluded that\u00a0\u201cneither an\u00a0in-depth investigation related to the bombing campaign as a whole nor\u00a0investigations related to specific incidents are justified.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>German pacifists demonstrated in support of the victims on the trial&#8217;s\u00a0opening day, carrying banners that read, \u201cPay damages to the victims\u00a0of NATO\u00a0bombings in Varvarin.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>NO LEGAL PRECEDENT<\/p>\n<p>For reasons similar to the ITCY\u2019s, NATO Secretary-General George\u00a0Robertson\u00a0rejected calls for an investigation, and he denounced Amnesty\u00a0International\u2019s\u00a0allegations as \u201cbaseless and ill-founded.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>When the Serb families first asked German lawyers to help them seek a\u00a0legal\u00a0judgement against NATO, few observers believed the case would make it\u00a0to trial.\u00a0But after more than a year of painstaking work gathering evidence and\u00a0making\u00a0the necessary legal submissions, Dost was able to file the Varvarin\u00a0victims\u2019\u00a0claim for damages.<\/p>\n<p>The case has drawn considerable atttention. Even the German Defense\u00a0Ministry\u00a0felt obligated to respond, in 2002, that \u201cnot a single German soldier\u00a0or plane\u00a0of the Bundeswehr participated in the attack.\u201d\u009d<\/p>\n<p>But Dost argues that no matter which nation\u2019s planes carried out the\u00a0assault\u00a0on Varvarin, Germany is guilty of illegally causing damages to the\u00a0population\u00a0by virtue of its membership in NATO and its acquiescence in the bombing\u00a0raids.<\/p>\n<p>At the Bonn trial, a representative of the ministry, Holger Zetzsche,\u00a0expressed \u201cdeep regret\u201d for the death of civilians. The president\u00a0of the Bonn\u00a0tribunal, Heinz Sonnenberger, admitted the case was \u201ca new area\u201d\u00a0for the German\u00a0justice system.<\/p>\n<p>Citing German World War II casualties, Sonnenberger also noted that in\u00a0the\u00a0past, the courts have ruled against individuals seeking compensation\u00a0from governments for wartime victims. \u201cOur fathers could not sue Russia or\u00a0other\u00a0countries,\u201d\u009d he said at a Bonn press conference.<\/p>\n<p>But Zoran Milenkovic, the father of the youngest Varvarin victim,\u00a015-year old\u00a0Sanja, called for the setting of a new legal precedent. &#8220;It is\u00a0important that\u00a0the world knows what happened that day,&#8221; he said. &#8220;This crime should\u00a0not be\u00a0forgotten.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The court expects to reach a decision by 10 December.<\/p>\n<p>&#8211;by Sasa Grubanovic<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">Court&#8217;s verdict:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\"><span style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: small;\">The court found the action admissible but rejected it on its merits. It stated that there is no rule in international law which would give individuals a direct right to claim compensation for violations of that body of law, except in cases where a treaty provides for the contrary, as in the field of human rights. According to the court, relevant international humanitarian treaties provide only for compensation between States themselves. As for the North Atlantic Treaty, it too is applicable only between States. The court also stated that there is no possibility to derive, from the reference made by Article 25 of the Basic Law to the general rules of international law, a right that could be applicable in Germany to directly claim compensation under international law. Finally, no basis for compensation in such a case exists under German domestic law on State responsibility itself, in particular because these rules do not apply in time of armed conflict, international humanitarian law then intervening as <\/span><span style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: small;\"><i>lex specialis.<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: Arial; font-size: small; color: #ff0000;\">The decision to dismiss the claims was confirmed by the decision of the Higher Regional Court of K\u00f6ln of 28 July 2005 and Federal Supreme Court of 2 November 2006.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>[<span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">Source: https:\/\/ihl-databases.icrc.org\/applic\/ihl\/ihl-nat.nsf\/caseLaw.xsp?documentId=68B0F1AE9FE47209C12575D10049B010&amp;action=openDocument&amp;xp_countrySelected=DE&amp;xp_topicSelected=GVAL-992BUA&amp;from=state]<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>When reading the article below, useful to bear in mind that: official investigations revealed that only 2% of the precision armaments used by NATO in the Kosovo war hit military targets. as a defensive alliance, NATO had no authority whatsoever to launch an aggressive war against a sovereign nation NATO had not even sought UN &hellip; <\/p>\n<p class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/germany-on-trial-for-nato\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Germany on Trial for NATO&#8221;<\/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":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v18.2 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Germany on Trial for NATO - 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=\"http:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/germany-on-trial-for-nato\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Germany on Trial for NATO - Balkan Conflicts Research Team\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"When reading the article below, useful to bear in mind that: official investigations revealed that only 2% of the precision armaments used by NATO in the Kosovo war hit military targets. as a defensive alliance, NATO had no authority whatsoever to launch an aggressive war against a sovereign nation NATO had not even sought UN &hellip; Continue reading &quot;Germany on Trial for NATO&quot;\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"http:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/germany-on-trial-for-nato\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Balkan Conflicts Research Team\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-02-23T11:52:13+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/#website\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/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\":\"http:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/germany-on-trial-for-nato\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/germany-on-trial-for-nato\/\",\"name\":\"Germany on Trial for NATO - Balkan Conflicts Research Team\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2022-02-23T09:33:52+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-02-23T11:52:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/germany-on-trial-for-nato\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"http:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/germany-on-trial-for-nato\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/germany-on-trial-for-nato\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"http:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Germany on Trial for NATO\"}]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Germany on Trial for NATO - 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":"http:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/germany-on-trial-for-nato\/","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Germany on Trial for NATO - Balkan Conflicts Research Team","og_description":"When reading the article below, useful to bear in mind that: official investigations revealed that only 2% of the precision armaments used by NATO in the Kosovo war hit military targets. as a defensive alliance, NATO had no authority whatsoever to launch an aggressive war against a sovereign nation NATO had not even sought UN &hellip; Continue reading \"Germany on Trial for NATO\"","og_url":"http:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/germany-on-trial-for-nato\/","og_site_name":"Balkan Conflicts Research Team","article_modified_time":"2022-02-23T11:52:13+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Estimated reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"http:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/#website","url":"http:\/\/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":"http:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"http:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/germany-on-trial-for-nato\/#webpage","url":"http:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/germany-on-trial-for-nato\/","name":"Germany on Trial for NATO - Balkan Conflicts Research Team","isPartOf":{"@id":"http:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/#website"},"datePublished":"2022-02-23T09:33:52+00:00","dateModified":"2022-02-23T11:52:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"http:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/germany-on-trial-for-nato\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["http:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/germany-on-trial-for-nato\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"http:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/germany-on-trial-for-nato\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"http:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Germany on Trial for NATO"}]}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2352"}],"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=2352"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2352\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2357,"href":"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2352\/revisions\/2357"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.balkan-conflicts-research.com\/archive\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2352"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}