According to this article, Mladic's conviction by International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague found widespread international support. However, this opinion is not shared by all leaders (my emphasis):

However, the Serb member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mladen Ivanic, said the court had not shared justice among Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks.

"The Hague Tribunal has brought distrust instead of trust, and instead of reconciliation, it will lead to new political conflicts. The verdict of General Mladic shows that they continue with a negative attitude towards the Serbs and that the Hague Tribunal will remain remembered for not sharing justice but politics," Ivanic said.

Ivanic accused political interference in this case. This made me wonder about how judicial independence is ensured in such cases.

According to Wikipedia, "Judicial Independence is vital and important to the idea of separation of powers". However, separation of powers seems to be a concept at the state level, not international level:

The separation of powers, often imprecisely and metonymically used interchangeably with the trias politica principle, is a model for the governance of a state.

Question: How is judicial independence ensured for International Tribunals? Theoretically, they operate at an international level and classic separation of powers (state level) does not directly apply to them.

  • 1
    I haven't researched a lot but hope scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/… will explain some of the points. – Shantanu Hebbar Dec 13 '17 at 7:28
  • 1
    It's not really surprising that someone who is also an ethnic Serb partisan thinks the verdict is political. balkaninsight.com/2017/11/22/… It would be more relevant if someone who wasn't Serbian thought there was bias. – pjc50 Apr 8 '19 at 9:47
  • I put a bounty on this quite upvoted question and I thought I would get answers describing the process how judges for the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague are appointed and what possible interactions there are on the independence of the judges. Surprisingly, there are no answers so far. Should I try to answer it myself and can I appoint the bounty to myself? Or should I just hope somebody else writes an answer today or tomorrow... – Trilarion May 28 '19 at 14:53
  • Research seems to show that there might be very significant bias in ICJ. The ICC in particular has been criticized for being complacent with the greater powers, and at the same time incisive with smaller states (mostly African). It does not help that countries like China, US, Russia, Indonesia, etc., are not signatories. Moreover the US has threatened sanctions if any Americans are prosecuted, effectively extending the red carpet to any other nation wanting to do the same. The situation is far from ideal. – armatita Jun 10 '19 at 14:42

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .