3

Wikipedia says that:

The International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) (ICT of Bangladesh) is a domestic war crimes tribunal in Bangladesh set up in 2009 to investigate and prosecute suspects for the genocide committed in 1971 by the Pakistan Army and their local collaborators, Razakars, Al-Badr, and Al-Shams during the Bangladesh Liberation War.

Firstly, according to my understanding, there were some offers from international organizations which the Bangladeshi government refused. Correct me if I am wrong.

Secondly, it was not formed to try international (e.g. Pakistani) war criminals as Pakistan was not part of the tribunal.

Why was the ICT (International Crimes Tribunal) in Bangladesh named "International"?

2
  • 1
    The ICT is not called “international”, the crimes in question are. In the name of international courts like the ICTY or ICC both adjectives (“criminal” and “international”) describe attributes of the court but not here, cf. “International Crimes Tribunal” vs. “International Criminal Tribunal […]”. – Relaxed Feb 5 at 8:44
  • Can you state when and where Bangladesh refused international assistance - the wikipedia article doesn't appear to make that claim. – Mozibur Ullah Feb 5 at 12:55
4

Because the crimes it investigated were the international crimes of "Genocide", "Crimes against humanity" and "Crimes against peace". These crimes are part of the structure of international criminal law, which developed after world war II in the context of the Nurenburg trials. The Allied powers tried, convicted and punished individual Nazis of "Crimes against humanity" even though no such crime existed on the German Statue.

The international powers determined that certain acts are criminal no matter where they occur and can be punished regardless of local law. These can be called "International Crimes" and the tribunal was set up to try people accused of these international crimes.

1
  • more citation needed. – user366312 Mar 6 at 4:21
-2

According to the linked article, the UN Development Office offered support on setting up a International War Crimes Tribunal in 2009. According to DAWN this offer was accepted. It also points out that the EU had voted positively on three resolutions before it on the setting the Trribunal.

The Tribunal is International, as the crimes that it is adjudicating on are crimes in International Law and are international in scope.

4
  • "The Tribunal is International, as the crimes that it is adjudicating on are crimes in International Law and are international in scope" is a non-sequitur and a misleading use of the term. There are many examples of courts dealing with international law in general and especially with similar crimes a purely national context (e.g. this). By contrast, international jurisdictions are typically created by a treaty (ICC) or UNSC resolution (ICTY), which this tribunal wasn't. – Relaxed Feb 5 at 14:20
  • Even hybrid courts like the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia or the Special Tribunal for Lebanon have been approved by a vote in the UNSC or general assembly and include foreign judges. – Relaxed Feb 5 at 14:25
  • @Relaxed: It's not a non-sequiter, the crimes themselves: Crimes of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity were advocated by Internatiinal Law and it's obvious that the tribunal in this case was taking their cue from International Law. To say this 'doesn't follow' is a non-sequirer itself. It so obviously does. The Tribunal in Cambodia was set up by a request by the then two co-Presidents of Cambodia to the UN and so it's no surprise there that the UN had a hand in setting them up, after all that was exactly what the request dignified and was requesting. I don't see ... – Mozibur Ullah Feb 5 at 14:32
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – CDJB Feb 6 at 12:24

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .