1.

How has the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia contributed in the
establishment of the International Criminal Court? Discuss with reference to principles of
criminal law that have been adopted by the Rome Statute.
A1. During the early 1980 and the late 1990 there was a dramatic shift in the geo political situation
in Europe due to the fall of the Soviet Union. In the 1990 hostilities erupted in the Yugoslavia along
ethnic lines. Violent conflict broke out in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina which were then followed
by further violent clashed in Kosovo and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. These conflicts
were extremely brutal and inhumane. The united nations realized the gravity of the situation and
officially acknowledge the situation in September 1991, pleading all sides to follow humanitarian norms.
Due to the suspicion of wide spread atrocities being inflicted upon civilian populations the united
nations sent a committee of experts in 1992, in light of the sheer brutality of the conflict the united
nations set up the The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslaviain 1993 resolution 827
contained the statue for the ICTY. The ICTY was the first tribunal established by the united nations to
tackle crimes committed during conflict. As far as the international stage was concerned judicial
precedents were nonexistent in regards to such issues, the ICTY laid the ground work for future
international courts in relation to war crimes. The jurisdiction of the ICTY was ground breaking and was
a giant leap towards an international criminal court. It is considered the first truly international criminal
court to determine individual criminal responsibility. The ICTY convicted 48 accused individuals for
various breaches of international law.

The statue of the ICTY gave it the ability to prosecute individuals in relation of grave breaches of
the Geneva convention article 2, violations of the laws or customs of war , genocide and crimes against
humanity. These same principles are mostly retained in the Rome statue but also includes crimes of
aggression instead of breaches of the Geneva convention. The ICTY had very little precedent in how to
conduct its proceeding in relation to procedure and evidence collection and had to set precedent in
those regards. The international criminal court used the precedents set under the ICTY as a guide to its
own inner workings. Article 7 of the ICTY statue deals whit individual criminal responsibility which is a
general principle embodied in the Rome statue under article 25. It states that an individual will be
individually responsible for a crime committed by him, the ICTY set the initial ground work for this
principle on the international stage. The fact that jurisdiction was explicitly laid out along with the
crimes being dealt with showcased adherence to the principle of Nullum crimen sine lege and is
represented in article one of the ICTY statue.

The general principle of Nulla poena sine lege i.e an individual can only be prosecuted under
offences in the statue was also laid down at an international level by the ICTY as individuals indicted had
to be proven guilty on the four grounds listed in article 2,3,4 and 5. Article 9 of the ICTY embodied the
principle of Non-retroactivity ratione personae, stating that no individual shall be prosecuted for crimes
before the commencement of the statue despite the statue coming into force in 1993 and article 9
stating crimes committed after 1991. The Tadic case was pivotal in establishing the legitimacy of the
tribunal, the appeal chamber judges stated that the tribunal had been legitimately and legally been
formed under the un charter and found that the tribunals supremacy over national courts was valid. The
appeals chamber also found that the conflict was not merely national in nature. Article 7 sub clause 3 of
the ICYT statue deals with the responsibility of superiors in such manners this in a precursor to the
genera principle of the responsibility of commanders and other superiors in the commission of war
crimes contained in article 28. Sub clause 4 of article 7 ICTY is the precursor to the principle of superior
orders and prescription of law held in article 33 of the Rome statue, which states that an individual shall
not be absolved of guilt if he committed a crime upon the orders of a superior.

Based upon the groundwork laid down by the ICTY the International Criminal Tribunal for
Rwanda (ICTR) was established in1994. It was formulated in response to atrocities committed in Rwanda
In 1994, its provisions mirrored the ICTY in a number of manners. The case of Prosecutor v. Kanyabashi
challenged the legality of the tribunal as the matter in Rwanda was an internal matter. The tribunal ruled
that the crimes committed in Rwanda were a threat to international peace and therefore the united
nations were justified in setting up the ICTR.

The ICTY and the ICTR along with the Tokyo and Nurnberg trials laid the foundation for the
international criminal court, which was established in 1998 when a 120 states were signatories to the
Rome statue which established the international criminal court the ICC can prosecute individuals on the
basis of crimes mirroring those dealt with by the ICTY and the ICTR namely a) The crime of genocide,
Crimes against humanity, War crimes and The crime of aggression. A number of the general principles
along with the base of the ICC was formulated by the legal groundwork performed by the two-precursor
tribunals with emphasis upon the ICTY.

2. With respect to the Dispute Settlement Mechanism of the World Trade Organization
(WTO), it is said that ‘The priority is to settle disputes and not to pass judgement’.
Critically analyse the role of WTO-Dispute Settlement Body in light of the above
statement.
The WTO is an international body with the objective of ensuring freer and fairer trade between
member states. The primary rule book of the WTO is GAAT the GAAT is a set of agreements that ensure
a non- discriminatory trading system. GAAT deals with a majority of trade between nations in relation to
goods and textiles, it ensures tariff barriers implemented do not discriminate between different
countries with similar circumstances. The primary goal of the WTO is to settle disputes not pass
judgement. International public law is a dance of geo political considerations along with legal
obligations, countries especially those with large militaries and relative economic security are hard if not
impossible to police. The WTO was created with the aim of solving disputes, disputes between countries
are most effectively solved through internal compliance. Member countries must agree to implement
the decisions of a WTO panel. In the event of a dispute the dispute is dealt with in accordance with the
dispute settlement understanding. Article 23 of the dispute settlement understanding (DSU) states that
recourse must be attained by abiding by the procedures and rules of the DSU. Relief ought to be
attained by following the procedures enshrined in the DSU. The DSU encourages individuals to settle
their disputes through consultation first and foremost. Consultations are covered under article 4 of the
DSU, consultations are the most preferred means of dispute settlement as they are mutually satisfactory
and avoid expensive and time consuming litigation. Article 4.2 states the undertaking of states to
afford adequate opportunity for consultation. A request for consultation must be replied in 10
days and consultation begun in 30 days, if no reply is received party can proceed to establish a
panel or if the dispute is not resolved in 60 days since the commencement of the consultations,
A request for consultation is seen as a formal dispute under the DSU and under 4.4 must follow
guidelines of submission. The WTOs main aim is to ensure the smooth and fair functioning of
the international trade system and not to police states. It must ensure effective and acceptable
means of dispute resolution amongst members in order to ensure it achieves its goal of a
functioning international trade system.
Due to this endeavor consultations are encouraged; members can even ask the director
general of the WTO to mediate during consultations. If one the off-chance consultations fail
countries can set up a panel though the primary goal it to solve disputes in mutually acceptable
manners, that is through consultations. A majority of the WTO cases are solved through
prolonged consultation and mediations as those methods are more cost effective and
efficacious in resolving disputes between countries. All WTO members have stated that they
will use multi-lateral methods of dispute resolution through the DSU instead of unilateral
approaches. The DSU also lays down strict timelines related to the commencement and
procedures to be followed making the process more reliable.
If countries cannot settle their disputes through consultations only then does a expert
panel get set up. Under article 6 if the complaining party so wishes a panel is to be established
to adjudicate the dispute. Under a panel the complainant can ask the panel to uphold its rights
under the WTO argument. The request for a panel must be made in writing along with whether
consultations where held, along with a summary of issues and events. Further in the spirt of
dispute settlement not judgment the panelists are chosen by the countries in question through
consultation and only if this fails are panelists chosen by the WTO. The panelists consist of
experts form different countries and their finding is then forwarded to the dispute settlement
body which can reject it based upon consensus.
The panel gives its finding upon the matter at hand and if it is found that a member is
violating the WTO agreement in any manner will recommend the violating member to conform
to the agreement as per article 19 along with recommended actions. Article 20 provides for the
time frame and article 21 with implementation, a member must report back to the panel with
its intention in implement within 30 days of adoption. A member must state its objection to a
panel report 10 days before the meeting during which the report is considered for adoption.
The goal of the panel is to bring the violating member in conformity of the WTO agreements.
The goal of dispute settlement is apparent in the DSU, the goal is to resolve disputes not pass
judgments. The DSU stresses the prompt adoption of recommendations for the benefit of all
members. If a member does not comply the aggrieved member can take action approved by
the dispute settlement body through multilateral affirmation
The case between Venezuela and the united states in relation to discrimination against
gasoline imports in 1995. A year later the dispute panel submitted its report, the united states
appealed. The Dispute Settlement Body adopted the report on 20 May 1996, one year and four
months after the complaint was first lodged. The united states and Venezuela then took six
months consulting each other on what the united states should do, the united states agreed to
amend its regulation in relation to Venezuela. herein also the states mostly solved their dispute
through consultation and mutually acceptable solutions the panel just helped steer them the
correct way.
The WTO dispute settlement mechanic clearly is geared towards the peaceful and
mutual settlement of disputes not passing binding judgments upon actors that can choose to
ignore them, trade wars are a reality and something the WTO was created specifically to avoid