Advertisement

Netherlands International Law Review

, Volume 62, Issue 2, pp 279–294 | Cite as

Attributing the Conduct of Dutchbat in Srebrenica: the 2014 Judgment of the District Court in the Mothers of Srebrenica Case

  • Paolo PalchettiEmail author
Article

Abstract

The question of allocating responsibility for the conduct of Duchbat in Srebrenica is one of the many legal issues raised by the tragic events of July 1995. In the judgment of 16 July 2014 in the Mothers of Srebrenica case—the last in time of a string of decisions rendered by Dutch courts on this issue—the District Court of The Hague attributed to the Netherlands a number of acts taken by Dutchbat prior and after the fall of Srebrenica. The present article aims at assessing the principles of attribution which were relied upon in this judgment. It is submitted that the District Court went too far in attributing certain acts to the sending state but was at the same time too quick in excluding the attribution of other acts. On the whole, and taking more broadly into account all the judgments relating to the massacre in Srebrenica, the impression is that, so far, Dutch courts have gone in the direction of widening the possibility of attributing to the sending state the conduct of a national contingent in peacekeeping missions. The refusal to base attribution on the status of peacekeeping forces as UN organs, the recognition that the state may have effective control even in the absence of instructions to the contingent, and the admission of the possibility of dual attribution are among the main pillars on which the position of Dutch courts rely.

Keywords

International responsibility Attribution of conduct United Nations Peacekeeping forces Dutchbat Reparation to victims 

References

  1. Condorelli L (1995) Le statut des forces de l’ONU et le droit international humanitaire. Rivista di Diritto Internazionale 78:879–906Google Scholar
  2. Condorelli L (2014) De la responsabilité internationale de l’ONU et/ou de l’État d’envoi lors d’actions de Forces de Maintien de la Paix: l’écheveau de l’attribution (double?) devant le juge néerlandais. QIL 1:3–15Google Scholar
  3. D’Argent P (2014) State organs placed at the disposal of the UN, effective control, wrongful abstention and dual attribution of conduct. QIL 1:17–31Google Scholar
  4. Dannenbaum T (2010) Translating the standard of effective control into a system of effective accountability: how liability should be apportioned for violations of human rights by member state troop contingents serving as United Nations peacekeepers. Harv Int Law Rev 51:113–192Google Scholar
  5. Jacob P (2013) Les définitions des notions d’‘organe’ et d’‘agent’ retenues par la CDI sont-elles opérationnelles? Revue belge de droit international 47:17–44Google Scholar
  6. Leck C (2009) International responsibility in United Nations peacekeeping operations: command and control arrangements and the attribution of conduct. Melb J Int Law 10:346–364Google Scholar
  7. Messineo F (2014) Attribution of conduct. In: Nollkaemper A, Plakokefalos I (eds) Principles of shared responsibility in international law: an appraisal of the state of the art. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 60–97Google Scholar
  8. Milanovic M (2012) Al Skeini and Al Jedda in Strasbourg. Eur J Int Law 23:121–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ryngaert C (2013) Netherlands Judicial Decisions on Public International Law ‘Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), State of the Netherlands v. Mustafić et al., State of the Netherlands v. Nuhanović, Judgments of 6 September’. Neth Int Law Rev 60:441–446Google Scholar
  10. Ryngaert C (2014) Srebrenica continued. Dutch District Court holds the Netherlands liable for cooperating with Bosnian Serbs. Neth Int Law Rev 61:365–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Sari A (2012) UN Peacekeeping operations and Article 7 ARIO: the missing link. Int Org Law Rev 9:77–85Google Scholar
  12. Sari A, Wessel RA (2013) International responsibility for EU military operations: finding the EU’s place in the global accountability regime. In: Van Vooren B, Blockmans S, Wouters J (eds) The EU’s role in global governance: the legal dimension. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 126–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Seyersted F (1961) United Nations forces: some legal problems. Br Yearb Int Law 37:351–475Google Scholar
  14. Spagnolo A (2014) The ‘reciprocal’ approach in article 7 ARIO: a reply to Pierre d’Argent. QIL 1:33–41Google Scholar
  15. Spijkers O (2014) Emerging voices: responsibility of the Netherlands for the genocide in Srebrenica—the Nuhanović and Mothers of Srebrenica cases compared. Opinion Juris. http://opiniojuris.org/2014/07/23/emerging-voices-responsibility-netherlands-genocide-srebrenica-nuhanovic-mothers-srebrenica-cases-compared/. Accessed 3 Aug 2015
  16. Tsagourias N (2011) The responsibility of international organizations for military missions. In: Odello M, Piotrowicz R (eds) International military missions and international law. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 245–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MacerataMacerataItaly

Personalised recommendations