Search This Blog

Friday, December 21, 2012

Why the Gotovina Appeals Judgment Matters

When the ICTY Appeals Chamber issued its ruling exonerating Gen. Gotovina, and ordering him released, the decision sent shock waves throughout the region.  In Serbia, the decision was met with consternation, anger and resentment.  In Croatia, the decision was met with jubilation and relief, and Gotovina was given a hero’s welcome upon his return to the country.

As Marko Milanovic has ably articulated, this dualistic popular sentiment is cause for concern among those who care about the tribunal’s long-term legitimacy and success.  The decision fueled resentment among Serbs who view the tribunal as victors’ justice.  And more concerning, according to Marko, it reinforces a Croatian narrative that the Croats were pure victims of Serbian aggression who fought back with only legitimate and lawful methods of warfare.  For Marko, this constructed narrative whitewashes a much more complicated reality on the ground.

From a legal perspective, the Appeals decision is also a worrisome development.  The two most important principles of the Law of Armed Conflict are the principles of distinction and proportionality.  The principle of distinction outlaws the direct targeting of civilians, while the principle of proportionality outlaws the launching of attacks against legitimate military targets that will cause civilian deaths that are disproportionate to the military value of the legitimate target.  These are simple principles, but they are difficult for courts to apply in practice.  Although one might have predicted otherwise, there have been virtually no guilty verdicts for launching disproportionate attacks at the ICTY.  The Gotovina Trial Chamber Judgment was one of the few.  And now that verdict has been overturned. 

I am not saying that the Appeals Chamber was wrong in making this decision, but I am saying that the jurisprudence as a whole has taken a wrong turn when proportionality is almost entirely absent from the ICTY’s case law.

Turning to the principle of distinction, the Appeals Chamber concentrated its analysis on a 200-meter standard used by the Trial Chamber.  Under this standard, the Trial Chamber determined that artillery shells falling more than 200 meters from a legitimate military target constituted evidence of indiscriminate shelling of a residential area.  Although this standard was based on expert testimony heard during the trial, the Appeals Chamber noted that the standard is not one that can be found anywhere in international law.  The Trial Chamber appears to have basically made it up (or at the very least conferred upon it a significance it did not deserve).

There are two points here.  First, the majority and dissent in the Appeals Chamber agreed that the 200-meter standard was ill advised, though they disagreed about the consequence of this observation.  For the majority, the ill-advised 200-meter standard was the legal foundation for the entire Trial Chamber decision, without which the conviction crumbled.  For the dissent, the unfortunate 200-meter standard was just one aspect of the case against Gotovina, for which there was still a substantial foundation even without the 200-meter standard.

Second, was the 200 meter standard even necessary?  This might have been a situation where the Trial Chamber said too much, making themselves subject to reversal because they are articulated a legal standard (if it even was a legal standard) that was not defensible.  But what if they had articulated no legal standard at all?  What then?

How is this possible, you ask?  It is very possible.  The Trial Chamber could have examined the entire spectrum of facts, including the known location of military targets, the known location of civilian deaths, the number of civilian deaths, and then stated that these facts amounted to a legal conclusion of an indiscriminate attack against civilians or even a disproportionate attack against civilians.  Period.  Had the Trial Chamber done this, their decision would have been subject to less scrutiny, and might even have withstood the appeal.

There’s an irony here, of course, and one that I often point out to my students in other contexts.  When a court applies the law to the facts, they are obligated to state reasons for their decisions (although juries do not).  In announcing that decision, they justifiably feel compelled to articulate standards that explain the basis for that decision.  But when they do so, they often get reversed if the standard or legal theory is ill advised. 

This creates a law of perverse incentives.  Trial Chambers (and courts generally) should be as terse as possible with their explanations if they want to be successful.  Although this renders their decision-making process comparatively opaque, it might immunize them from eventual reversal on appeal.  But that’s not the type of judicial decision-making we want to encourage.


Attorney Online said...

You seem to be a good lawyer and know a lot about appeals. On the legal forum of Attorney Online we started a discussion about what are appeals. Please join the discussion and express your opinion. Moreover you can write there articles and posts to Attorney Blog. If you know many good attorneys, you can invite them to submit their contacts to Attorney Directory. It is free and lifetime. If you know interesting legal news, you can also publish them.

Anonymous said...

Question: if the 200 m standard was testified to by an expert at trial, why didn't the Trial Chamber cite that reference in the judgement? Isn't it true that the Appeals Chamber found the TC was in error precisely because it was never mentioned at trial (hence no reference cited)?

Jens David Ohlin said...

The standard was based on expert testimony from the trial, in the sense that the TC heard testimony regarding a 400-meter margin of error but the TC decided that a 200-meter margin of error was generous enough and should guide their analysis in lieu of a 400-meter standard. There was an amicus brief on precisely this issue. The majority decision of the AC ultimately held that the 200 meter standard was flawed, though the dissent disagreed that the flawed analysis was fatal to the verdict.

Gwen said...

I guess juries aren't required to do the same because of all the viewpoints people would have.

Unknown said...

Wow never knew what I'd assignment writing service australia
find when I clicked on the link

marko said...

Timing is vital when wanting to switch an advance bundle. Choosing the best home advance bundle is very troublesome on the grounds that they all appear to be identical and the thoughts are all very fascinating and appealing. cash advance

Unknown said...

WB HS result 2017
Assam Board 12th Result 2017
HPBOSE 12th Result 2017
Maharashtra Board HSC Result 2017

Emily said...

UP Board 12th Result 2017
Kerala DHSE +2 Result 2017 10th 2017
Kar 2nd Puc Result 2017
MP Board 12th Result 2017

Sarah Saad said...

اسعار يتم تنظيف خزانات بالمدينة المنورة
شركات تنظيف خزانات بالمدينة المنورة 2017
اهم شركات تنظيف خزانات بالمدينة المنورة

Sarah Saad said...

اهم شركات نقل العفش بالقطيف
شركة تنظيف خزانات بالمدينة المنورة
كيف يتم تنظيف الخزانات بالمدينة المنورة

Sarah Saad said...

اسعار شركات نقل العفش بالقطيف
نقل اثاث بالقطيف 2017
كيفية نقل العفش بالقطيف

Assignment Help said...

Such a nice blog and i appreciate your all efforts about your thoughts. it's really good work. well done.I would like to share something really helpful for education.
hnd assignment help

Pervez Joarder said...

We've been over joyed May very well noticed the following advice. A great internet site by using fantastic written content that can be everything that we'd like. You will have carried out some first-rate a job! By now follow this construction company westchester county Cheers in support of marvelous articles and other content.

Sheraz Khan said...

I think that these matters should be discussed with dissertation writing service so that we could be able to find some better ideas. However, sometime a good writer can also keep things up.

Anjali Arya said...

The hectic world, a usual silhouette of wrinkled-faces and lack of time & good people make absolute absence of Love in our lives. Only a smile means to exist in the whole world bringing itself a Comet of Love. So it takes you believe onCall Girls in Goaliable to fulfill your lives with real sense of love. Check our other Services...
Call Girls in Hotels in Lucknow
Call Girls in Lucknow
Escorts in Goa
Escorts Service in Goa
Escorts Service in Lucknow