Response to Nevenka Tromp: Read the verdict and other documents carefully, and you will find the international armed conflict in the verdict

By Dr. sc. Enver Išerić

---

After the final verdict for Jovica Stanišić and Franko Simatović, the heads of the State Security Service of Serbia, we citizens and legal professionals of Bosnia and Herzegovina should wait for the address of "the one and only person who knows how to interpret the verdicts of the Hague Tribunal, the best, shortest, and simplest," so that we can try to understand what it is all about.

Anything else we might read and conclude from reading that, and other verdicts, would be superficial and wrong, so it should not be taken seriously. This could be concluded from the announcement of Nevenka Tromp's guest appearance on a television show, after the verdict against Stanišić and Simatović was delivered.

In addition, it should be emphasized that Nevenka Tromp is a political scientist, not a lawyer (at least according to her biography), but it should certainly not be forgotten that she has extensive experience working at the Hague Tribunal.

Thus, Nevenka Tromp stated, "I don't know where the emphasis, triumphalism, and euphoria are coming from that Serbia was convicted for participating in the war." She also states that "the verdict does not contain an international armed conflict." Well, from this statement of hers, it is evident that she is not the one and only person who knows how to interpret the verdicts of the Hague Tribunal. Why?

Because we all know that the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia prosecutes individuals for war crimes they committed, not states. From the verdict against Stanišić and Simatović, it is very clear that there was a joint criminal enterprise involving the highest political and military officials of Serbia, the Republika Srpska, and the Republika Srpska Krajina, depending on the time and place of the crime (Slobodan Milošević, Radmilo Bogdanović, Radovan Stojičić
(Badža), Mihalj Kertes, Milan Martić, Milan Babić, Goran Hadžić, Radovan Karadžić, Ratko Mladić, Momčilo Krajišnik, Biljana Plavšić, and Željko Ražnatović-Arkan).

And if all these individuals were part of a joint criminal enterprise, and they were, as determined by the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Courts, then it is logical that the states whose officials were part of the joint criminal enterprise are responsible for the consequences of their actions.

Article 1 of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts establishes that "Every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that State," and Article 2 establishes that "there is a wrongful act of a State when conduct consisting of an action or omission constitutes a breach of an international obligation of that State." The act is considered wrongful only under international law, and the admissibility of such an act under the domestic law of a State does not affect the qualification of that act as wrongful under international law. The Draft Articles on International Law distinguish between ordinary "international delicts" and "international crimes." An international delict is an internationally wrongful act of a State, regardless of the subject of the violated obligation.

An international crime is a breach of an international obligation by a State that is essential for the protection of the fundamental interests of the international community, and such a breach has been recognized as an international crime by the entire international community.

International crimes include violations of obligations that prohibit aggression, colonial domination, genocide, slavery, apartheid, and the like. The difference between international delicts and international crimes, besides the degree, is also reflected in
the nature of their harmful consequences. International delicts affect the interests of only the violated states concerned, while international crimes violate the interests of the entire international community, and very often individuals.

The General Assembly adopted the definition of aggression on December 14, 1974, which has the force of a recommendation to the Security Council to qualify the acts listed in the resolution as an attack or aggression, acting within the meaning of Article 39 of the Charter. According to this definition, aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of another State, or the use of armed force in any other way inconsistent with the UN Charter.

According to this definition, aggression, among other things, includes the sending by, or on behalf of, a State of armed bands, groups, irregular forces, or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State so grave as to amount to the above-mentioned acts, or significant participation by a State therein.

The UN Security Council may also decide that other acts constitute aggression. The resolution further emphasizes that no considerations of any nature may serve as a justification for aggression, and that aggression entails international responsibility, and that an aggressive war constitutes a crime against international peace.

Therefore, is it now clear that Serbia participated in the war and that "the verdict contains an international armed conflict"? The acts mentioned in the verdict against Stanišić and Simatović constitute aggression. It does not have to be explicitly stated in the verdict. That is why we have the definition of aggression, and from that, we draw conclusions. As a rule, a state is responsible for the actions of its organs only when they are performing their functions. When an authorized person does not act on behalf of their state but in a personal or other capacity, then, under international law, that person's act is not an act of the state, and the state is not responsible for it.

A state is also not responsible for the acts of unauthorized individuals or groups who are not its officials and who act in a personal capacity.

To conclude and state very clearly to Ms. Tromp, the verdict against Stanišić and Simatović leads to the conclusion that Serbia committed aggression against Bosnia and Herzegovina, that there was an international armed conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that Serbia is responsible for the aggression and war crimes committed by its organs or authorized persons such as Simatović and Stanišić.

Speaking about the revision of the verdict rendered by the International Court of Justice, which found Serbia responsible for genocide in Srebrenica for failing to prevent genocide when it could have, Nevenka Tromp stated that a revision cannot be initiated again. And she is right. We all know that. But her statement, "One could go to the UN, tell them that the political leadership deceived the Bosniaks," which is actually an answer to the question of what could be done regarding this issue in
the international community, suggests that her statements regarding this matter should not be taken seriously at all.

The United Nations and its bodies are not some village clubs where one could act in such a manner. There are very clear procedures and responsibilities of states and their organs. The fact that Bosnia and Herzegovina, with the help of the international community, has received a constitution that practically does not allow for a decision to be made on submitting a request for revision, as requested by the International Court, is another matter and for another analysis.