Summary of the contribution of Geoffrey Robertson QC to the Seminar

UN complicity in Bosnia: Who shall forget Srebrenica?

Organised by the City Circle in association with the Women of Srebrenica at the London School of Ecomnomics, Friday 20 July 2001

Geoffrey Robertson QC is a leading Human Rights lawyer and author of "Crimes against Humanity, the Struggle for Global Justice"

Other members of the panel were:

Hasan Nuhanovic - survivor of Srebrenica and member of the organisation "Women of Srebrenica".

Dr Yaqub Zaki – deputy director, Muslim Institute

Henry Porter (chair) – freelance journalist and author

Jeremy Bowen – BBC Correspondent

Geoffrey Robertson’s contribution focussed on whether the survivors of Srebrenica can claim legal redress against organisations or individuals of the international community.

He was of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence, for instance from the recorded words of General Mladic, that the attack on Srebrenica constitutes genocide. He then asked two questions:

1. Can international law and such bodies as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY or the Hague Tribunal) prevent genocide?

2. Was the United Nations complicit in genocide at Srebrenica?

On Question 1 Mr Robertson pointed out that although the ICTY signally failed to prevent the massacres at Srebrenica, at that time it was not functioning effectively and was not taken seriously either by the international community or by the perpetrators of crimes against humanity. The ICTY has now become much more effective, and it is possible that it and similar international bodies may have a deterrent effect in the future.

On Question 2 Mr Robertson acknowledged the difficulty faced by the UN in trying to protect the six "safe areas", an operation which it assessed as needing 34,000 soldiers, but for which only 7,400 troops were provided by member nations. However, he pointed out that, in fact, the presence of the Dutch troops in Srebrenica was used by the Bosnian Serbs to ensure that bombing did not take place. To Mr Robertson, the orders not to bomb (and it is still not clear exactly who was responsible for these, although French General Janvier and the Dutch Government remain prime suspects), and the "rule of silence" imposed by the UN and the Dutch government on those involved, constitute evidence that the UN was complicit.

Mr Roberton then asked whether anything can be done to establish exactly what happened, who was responsible for the complicity, and to achieve redress for the survivors. He suggested five possible ways forward:

1. The ICTY

There have been attempts to pressure the Hague Tribunal into indicting members of the international community, but so far their response has been that there is insufficient evidence. Hasan Nuhanovic, a member of the organisation "Women of Srebrenica" who also contributed to the seminar, added that ICTY has not dedicated an investigating team to this issue. Geoffrey Robertson suggested that there is particularly strong evidence against the commander of the Dutchbat troops at Srebrenica, Colonel Ton Karremans, and that ICTY should be encouraged to mount an investigation into Karremans’ complicity. The investigation that the ICTY carried out into the NATO bombing of Serbia was done on the strength of a brief prepared by a group of Canadian lawyers, and Mr Robertson suggested that a similar brief could be prepared and presented to the tribunal regarding Srebrenica. An alternative way to proceed against Karremans would be by court martial in the Netherlands, and pressure could be brought to bear on the Dutch government, but as they have never shown any sign of bringing charges against any of their military personnel it is unlikely that this will succeed.

2. A truth commission in the area of Srebrenica – offering amnesty in return for information.

There seems little prospect of this in the near future. Hasan Nuhanovic also spoke about the ICTY’s intention to prosecute only the "big fish", due to limited time and resources. He said that survivors of Srebrenica cannot be satisfied with this, and the presence in Republika Srpska of hundreds of people who took part in the massacres presents a huge problem, not least for the prospects of return and reintegration. The Bosnian Federation and Republika Srpska can carry out their own war crimes trials, but the current political situation in Republika Srpska means they will not arrest or try anyone.

3. An international enquiry.

The internal UN enquiry published in 1999 was self-critical, but not comprehensive. The National Assembly enquiry, which has just finished in France, was also incomplete. It is especially unsatisfactory that General Rupert Smith (commander of UN troops in Bosnia) and three SAS men reported to be present at the fall of Srebrenica were refused permission to testify by the Ministry of Defence.

4. Action for compensation against the UN.

The UN statutes have provision for compensation to those who have been injured by UN action or inaction, and there are precedents for this being paid in previous UN operations. This action would not address the issue of individual responsibility.

5. Suing the UN.

The UN statutes give it "sovereign" immunity against civil or criminal legal action. However the Pinochet case shows that such immunity can be overcome in the case of crimes against humaity. On the question of where such an action could be brought Mr Robertson cited the Alien Tort Claims Act in the United States, which has been successfully used by private individuals to bring civil cases against, for example, Ferdinand Marcos and Radovan Karadzic. In this case the action must be brought when the accused is in the United States, the award of financial compensation is the only possible outcome and there is usually little prospect of complainants actually receiving any money. However, the UN headquarters are situated in the district of New York, and the court action can be used to establish responsibility.