A Case Study in Underachievement: The International Courts and Genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two international courts—the UN's International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ)—have established that genocide occurred in Srebrenica in Bosnia in 1995. Germany's courts have concluded that genocide occurred in both Northern and Eastern Bosnia in 1992, and an appeal against a conviction for genocide on this basis was dismissed by a third international court—the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Yet, there has been minimal international punishment of genocide in Bosnia. Serbia was convicted by the ICJ only of a failure to prevent and punish genocide. Only one middle-ranking individual has been definitely convicted of a genocide-related charge by the ICTY; three others of similar or lower rank have been convicted but are appealing the convictions. Only six individuals from Serbia or Montenegro were ever indicted by the ICTY for war crimes in Bosnia and no one has yet been convicted. Of the two most notorious Bosnian Serb genocide suspects—Ratko Mladić and Radovan Karadžić—the first has not yet been arrested while the second was arrested only in July 2008 and has not yet been convicted. International awareness that systematic mass murder occurred in Bosnia and the courts' conclusive verdict that at least some of this involved genocide have translated into minimal punishment of the perpetrators. This paper explores the reasons why international justice has underachieved in regards to the mass murder in Bosnia by examining the structural weaknesses, political pressures, and errors of judgment that have hampered the international courts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".