Confronting crimes against humanity

¶ … Crimes Against Humanity

Despite the fact that the use of the term 'crime against humanity' goes as far back as the Congress of Vienna (1815), when the principle of humanity is introduced in the discussion between the Great Powers, its use becomes more common during the First World War, when the Allied Power propose this term against the Ottoman Empire, deemed to be held responsible for such acts. Nevertheless, it is with the end of the Second World War and the Nuremberg Trials when the term becomes more accustomed as a specific charge against the defendants.

The creation of the United Nations as an international body that can actually hold responsible and enforce punishment against those deemed responsible of crimes against humanity may be the first real attempt to properly and efficiently fight against crimes against humanity. However, one will note and emphasize that the United Nations, through its International Criminal Court, for example, generally acts in the aftermath of the crime events and, thus, its capacity and efficiency in fighting the crimes against humanity in themselves and in protecting the victims may be limited.

However, one can consider that the positive role that the United Nations has on fight crimes against humanity and, thus, indirectly protecting the civilians from these crimes, also comes from the judicial effects of its actions. The threat of a potential future punishment and judgment may actually deter some of the individuals from committing crimes against humanity.

The problem, however, in such a case is that the United Nations usually has to collaborate with the local government and/or regional authorities in order to be able to capture the suspects and hold them responsible for the crimes against humanity they have committed. It is usually not enough to simply proclaim that someone will be judged for such crimes, they actually need to be brought physically to stand trial. No example is better than the war in former Yugoslavia and the crimes against humanity that have resulted from that conflict.

In the aftermath of the Yugoslavian Wars, both the war in Bosnia and the conflict in Kosovo, special tribunals, often referred to as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, were created in order to deal with those suspected of having committed crimes against humanity during these conflicts. The realities were in fact there: because of the ethnical tensions, the Serbs had systematically massacred Muslim Bosnians during the war in Bosnia. At the same time, this practice was repeated in Kosovo and directed towards the Muslim population in that country. This was done systematically, as a politically coordinated action, rather than in occasional, isolated cases. As such, those who had coordinated such actions, notably Serbian generals, such as M. Mladici, or the representative of local authorities (such as R. Karadjici or S. Milosevici) would have had to be prosecuted for their acts.

However, the problem that existed was previously presented. The creation of such tribunals, their legal legitimacy and their capacity to prosecute these leaders, all amount to nothing since the Serbians refused for a long period of time to turn over these suspects to be judged by the tribunal. It took a more Western leaning leadership in Belgrade and the prospect of a potential future integration in the European Union and NATO to bring the Serbs into line: Milosevici and Karadici were both turned over to the International Tribunal.

At the same time, one will also be keen to notice the effectiveness of such UN coordinated tribunals in preventing future acts of crimes against humanity. The creation of such a special tribunal to convict those guilty of such crimes for the wars in Bosnia really did nothing to prevent further crimes against humanity in Bosnia, only a couple of years later. It took the NATO bombardments for these acts to stop, in fact, not the idea that the crimes that were being committed there could be prosecuted at a later point in history. So, the capacity of the UN to implement the responsibility to protect civilians from crimes against humanity during conflict is, in fact, strongly tied with its capacity to intervene successfully in close cooperation with the authorities of the host country, which, in many cases, is almost impossible.

The problem is how to improve the activity of the UN and its capacity to limit the effects of crimes against humanity by using its judicial arm. The answer may be the use of individual organizations or entities which can work towards the apprehension and towards bringing to trial the individuals who are suspected of such crimes. The problem may still be that such entities are hard to find, as their activity is most likely to be costly and dangerous. The carrot and stick method, used in the case of Yugoslavia may still be the best method that the UN can use to improve its efficiency in these areas.

However, what to do when there are no carrots to be used, as may be the case of the Rwandan genocide. The UN set up the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, based in Tanzania, which cooperates with Rwandan authorities in what seems to be a successful collaboration. This shows what has previously been mentioned: a successful way to improve the capacity of international actors in preventing and fighting against crimes against humanity is the cooperation with local and national authorities, which can improve on the actions of international bodies like the United Nations by a deeper knowledge of the realities on the ground. The Rwandan authorities are successful in pursuing local - level and lower based individuals involved in the genocide, while the UN tribunal deals with higher and more exponential leaders who were responsible for the genocide.

However, everything that has been discussed so far showed only how the fight against crimes against humanity usually took place in the aftermath of a conflict, with the two discussed examples of the Yugoslavian Wars and of the Rwandan genocide. How can international actors and other entities improve their performance in the prevention of crimes against humanity?

In my opinion, the answer here should be a greater implication of the civil society and of the non-governmental organizations in the prevention of crimes against humanity. Many of these crimes have, in fact, as causes and explanations deep religious, ethnic or belief differences between the populations living in a certain territory. Non-governmental organizations can be implicated in working towards the assimilation of some of these differences and the potential assurance that these differences do not transform themselves into problematic causes for both conflict and crimes against humanity.