Defining Genocide Out of Existence: The ICJ Verdict in Bosnia vs. Serbia

Abstract

The International Court of Justice's decision to acquit Serbia of genocide against the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina, but find it guilty of failure to prevent and punish genocide at Srebrenica, has been widely praised as a sensible 'compromise' verdict that upheld a strict legal definition of genocide. Yet a closer look at the text of the decision reveals the elements of supposed 'compromise' to have taken precedence over legality. The Ice's concept of 'genocidal intent', as one that must stand alone, without any related mofives such as the goal of forced expulsions or ethnic homogeneity, is selfcontradictory and reductionist to the point of absurdity. Its decision to acquit Serbia and Bosnian Serb forces of genocidal intent in 1992, but fault Serbia for failing to prevent a predictable genocide in Srebrenica is inconsistent. The Id refused to see a genocidal pattern in the atrocities of 1992 and refused to accept the systematic destruction of the Bosniak cultural heritage as evidence of genocide. On the basis of the Id's reasoning, even large parts of the Nazi extermination of Jews would fail to constitute genocide. In this text discussion of inconsistencies and absurdities of the Id's decision leads to the conclusion that this historical judgment is politically motivated.