‘Pillar of Shame’: Civil Society, UN Accountability and Genocide in Srebrenica

Part of the Springer Series in Transitional Justice book series (SSTJ)


On March 30, 2010, the Court of Appeal of the Hague rejected an appeal brought by the association ‘Mothers of Srebrenica’ against the United Nations (UN) and the Netherlands. The ‘Mothers of Srebrenica’ demanded that the UN and the state of the Netherlands be held accountable for not preventing the genocide committed in Srebrenica in July 1995. Disappointed by the outcome of the legal proceedings, ‘Mothers of Srebrenica’ and the German ‘Center for Political Beauty’, together with a number of Bosnian and German activists and artists, launched the project ‘Pillar of Shame’. The aim of this project was to collect 16,744 shoes as a symbolic representation of the lives lost in the Srebrenica genocide. Drawing on interviews with the campaign’s founders, this chapter analyses the ‘Pillar of Shame’ project, which aimed to construct a permanent monument from the collected shoes as a reminder of UN shame and responsibility for not preventing the genocide. This chapter argues that ‘informal’ civil society campaigns are an ever-evolving part of transitional justice processes and the significance of the ‘Pillar of Shame’ project lies in mobilizing cross-border activism, in terms of bringing together Bosnian citizens and German artists under the joint pledge ‘not to forget’. However, while the campaign crossed national borders, it failed to traverse ethnic borders in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BH) since it did not engage citizens of Serb origin either in BH or in Serbia. The chapter contends that although the project is significant because it mobilizes activism across national borders, it fails to overcome the significant challenges that exist in creating coalitions across ethnic divisions.


Civil Society United Nations Transitional Justice Security Sector Reform Similar Campaign 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Anheier, H. 2004. Civil society: Measurement, evaluation, policy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Anonymous. 1986. Tragedy of the gypsies. Information Bulletin No. 26. Vienna: Dokumen-tationszentrum des Bundes Jüdische Verfolgte des Naziregimes.Google Scholar
  3. Ajami, F. 1996. The mark of Bosnia: Boutrous-Ghali’s Reign of Indifference. Foreign Affairs May/June 1996.Google Scholar
  4. Arriaza, L., and N. Roht-Arriaza. 2010. Weaving a braid of histories: Local post-armed conflict initiatives in Guatemala. In Localizing transitional justice: Interventions and priorities after mass violence, ed. R. Shaw and L. Waldorf. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Appeal Court in The Hague, Judgment, 30 March 2010, Case Number District Court: 07–2973.Google Scholar
  6. Armakolas, I., and Vossou, E. 2008. Transitional justice in practice: The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and beyond. UNISCI Discussion Papers, 21–58.Google Scholar
  7. Batliwala, S. 2002. Grassroots movements as transnational actors: Implications for global civil society. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 13(4): 393–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boesenecker, A., and L. Vinjamuri. 2011. Lost in translation? Civil society, faith-based organizations and the negotiation of international norms. International Journal of Transitional Justice 5(3): 345–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. BBC News. 2002. Dutch Government quits over Srebrenica, 16 April 2002. Accessed 13 December 2011.
  10. Charter, D. 2008. Victims’ relatives battle to Sue UN over Srebrenica massacre. The Times, June 19, 2008.Google Scholar
  11. Crossley-Frolick, K. 2011. The European Union and transitional justice: Human rights and post-conflict reconciliation in Europe and beyond. Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice 3(1): 33–57.Google Scholar
  12. Campbell, C., and F. Ni Aolainn. 2003. Local meets global: Transitional justice in Northern Ireland. Fordham International Law Journal 26(4): 871–892.Google Scholar
  13. de Greiff, P. 2006. The handbook of reparations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duijzings, G. 2007. Commemorating Srebrenica: Histories of violence and the politics of memory in Eastern Bosnia. In The new Bosnian mosaic: Identities, memories and moral claims in a post-war society, ed. X. Bougarel, G. Duijzings, and E. Helms, 141–166. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  15. Dudai, R., and H. Cohen. 2010. Dealing with the past when the conflict is still present: Civil society truth-seeking initiatives in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (228–252). In Localizing transitional justice, ed. Rosalind Shaw and Lars Waldorf. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Efendi, F. Returnee to Srebrenica. Stub srama—Pillar of shame. Accessed March 2, 2012
  17. Erjavec, K., and Z. Volčič. 2007. War on terrorism as a discursive battleground: Serbian recontextualization of G. W. Bush’s Discourse. Discourse & Society 18(1): 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fischer, M. ed. 2006. Peacebuilding and civil society in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Ten years after Dayton. Berghof Foundation for Conflict Studies, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Franovic, I. 2008. Dealing with the past in the context of ethnonationalism. The case of Bosnia–Herzegovina, Croatia and Serbia. Berghof Occasional Paper no. 29.Google Scholar
  20. Hinton, A.L., ed. 2010. Introduction: Towards an anthropology of transitional justice. In Transitional justice: Global mechanisms and local realities after mass violence, pp. 1–22. Rutgers: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hancock, I. 2001. Review essay: The Nazi persecution of Gypses. Journal of Genocide Research 3(1): 120–127.Google Scholar
  22. Hovil, L., and M.S. Okello. 2011. Editorial Note. International Journal of Transitional Justice 5(3): 333–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. ICTJ website, Retrieved from: Accessed 2 March 2011.
  24. Kent, L. 2011. Local memory practices in east Timor: Disrupting transitional justice narratives. International Journal of Transitional Justice 5(3): 434–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kurspahić, K. 2003. Prime time crime: Balkan media in war and peace. Washington: United States Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lewy, G. 2000. The Nazi persecution of Gypsies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. McEvoy, K., and L. McGregor (eds.). 2008. Transitional justice from below: Grassroots activism and the struggle for change. Oxford: Hart.Google Scholar
  28. MacDonald, D. 2002. Balkan Holocausts? Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  29. McFee, G. 2009. Are the Jews central to the Holocaust? The Holocaust History Project,
  30. Nettelfield, L. 2010. Courting democracy in Bosnia-Herzegovina: The Hague tribunal’s impact in a postwar state. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Nathan, A. 1999. China and the international human right regime. In China joins the world: Progress and prospects, ed. E. Economy and M. Oksenberg. New York: Council on Foreign Relations.Google Scholar
  32. Radio Netherlands Worldwide. Srebrenica Relatives’ Case Against UN Rejected, 30 March 2010. Accessed 13 March 2012.
  33. Olsen, T., L. Payne, and A. Reiter (eds.). 2010. Transitional justice in balance: Comparing processes, weighing efficacy. Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace Press.Google Scholar
  34. Parish, M. (2012). ‘Two decades on, Bosnia’s divisions are self-imposed. Balkan Insight, 9 April.Google Scholar
  35. Pressekit. 16.744 Shoes: The United Nations in Court, May 2010. On file with the author.Google Scholar
  36. Ramet, S. 2005. Thinking about Yugoslavia. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rubio-Martin, R. (ed.). 2009. The gender reparations: Unsettling sexual hierarchies while redressing human rights violations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Roht-Arriaza, N. 2006. The new landscape of transitional justice. In Transitional justice in the justice-first century: Beyond truth and justice, ed. N. Roht-Arriaza and J. Mariezcurrena. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rosenubaum, A. (ed.). 2009. Is the Holocaust unique?: Perspectives on comparative genocide. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  40. Subotic, J. 2009. Hijacked justice: Dealing with the past in the Balkans. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Schoenberner, G. 2010. Ein Copyright auf Schuhe?. Denkmalsdebaten. Gedenkstattenrundbrief 158/12. On file with author.Google Scholar
  42. Stover, E. 2005. The witnesses: War crimes and the promise of justice in The Hague. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  43. Simic, O., and K. Daly. 2011. One pair of shoes, one life: Steps towards accountability for genocide in Srebrenica. International Journal of Transitional Justice 5(3): 477–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Simic, O. 2009. Remembering, visiting and placing the dead: Law, authority and genocide in Srebrenica. Law Text Culture 13: 273–311.Google Scholar
  45. Shaw, R., and L. Waldorf (eds.). 2010. Localizing transitional justice: Interventions and priorities after mass violence. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. UN General Assembly. 1999. Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to General Assembly resolution 53/35: The fall of Srebrenica, A/54/549, 15 November 1999.Google Scholar
  47. Urban Walker, M. 2010. Truth telling as reparations. Metaphilosophy 41(4): 525–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Van der Merwe, H. 2009. Delivering justice during transition: Research challenges. In Assessing the impact of transitional justice: Challenges for empirical research, ed. H. Van der Merwe, V. Baxter, and A. Chapman. United States Institute for Peace: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  49. Wachman, A. 2001. Does the diplomacy of shame promote human rights in China? Third World Quarterly 22(2): 257–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wachtel, A., and C. Bennett. 2009. The dissolution of Yugoslavia. In Confronting the Yugoslav controversies, ed. C. Ingrao and T.A. Emmert, 13–47. Purdue: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Woodward, S.L. 1995. Balkan tragedy. Chaos and dissolution after the cold war. Washington DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Griffith Law SchoolGriffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations