European Courier
Member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2006
- Messages
- 5
There were two big trials recently, one that of Milosevic and the second one of Hussein. Both of the defendants were war criminals and both were charged with genocide. However they finished differently. Here is what I think about it: http://www.europeancourier.org/36.htm Milosevic was tried under international criminal law, being detained and given up by the new Yugoslavian authorities only after the EU promised financial help in rebuilding the country. On the other hand Saddam was caught by U.S. troops and was tried under Iraqi criminal law. The U.S. rejected the idea to hand over Saddam to international tribunal. Saddam was sentenced to death, Milosevic was never sentenced for anything and was given an opportunity to transform a courtroom into a platform from which he was accusing the West of the biggest atrocities etc. It reflects the ongoing transatlantic split, in my opinion. Europe strongly supports international law, which is in fact ineffective in prosecuting war criminals, while the U.S. rejects the idea of international criminal justice. The Bush government withdrawn Clinton’s signature on a treaty establishing International Criminal Court, while almost whole Europe ratified that treaty. So who is right about the concept of international justice, the U.S. or Europe?