This Master Class will cover legal, political and historical aspects of genocide.

The course will deal, on the one hand, with the general topic of genocide identifying the ‘politics of genocide’ (in particular the politics lying behind genocide allegations when they are first made and politically motivated interference that can occur in the course of genocide trials) and, on the other hand, with the failure of the International Community to prevent genocidal crimes from happening, while they are in progress or in the future.

More specifically, the Master Class will deal with the genocide in BiH in the 1990s.

In 1993 the UN, despite – perhaps because of – its inability to stop the war and the mass atrocities committed against Bosnian Muslim civilians, established the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) as the first post-Nuremburg international criminal tribunal. Students on the course may conclude, on the basis of multidisciplinary analysis, that the ICTY’s foundation did not, and could not, compensate for failures at the political, diplomatic and military levels to stop the war in BiH. They will learn how the ICTY’s functioning as a court did not prevent the war in Kosovo in 1999, or facilitate smooth normalisation of relations in the post-conflict period that followed the Balkan Wars of the 1990s, or deliver substantial reconciliation.

History: Mass atrocities trials produce extensive trial records that eventually become historical sources. At every war crimes trial, history will inevitably be discussed because, first, all sides – prosecution and all accused – will use the historical background to explain the conflict and its violent nature from their points of view. Second, all sides might call expert witnesses on history to inform or educate the judges about the conflict. Third, every trial record will become a historical source and might contribute to new or extended historical interpretations of the given historical period. Yet, the lawyers and judges may draw very different conclusions from those drawn by historians, despite working from the same trial records.

Politics: New post-conflict political elites will try to interpret the ‘Legal Narrative’ as told in the courtroom and Legal Justice as articulated in court judgments to their own ends. There are different ways for political elites to (ab)use mass atrocities trials in achieving objectives other than justice. They might use trials to influence the processes of shaping collective memory about the conflict or by stressing the wrongdoings and criminality of the ‘other side’ in the conflict while downplaying the role of their own side. They might try to use the existence of war crimes courts to get rid of political rivals by influencing the indictment strategy of the courts – for example, by selectivity in what incriminatory evidence they provide to an international prosecutor from state archives. They may use the mass atrocities trials for immediate political objectives, such as accession to the EU.

Society: What is the impact of mass atrocities trials on post-conflict societies? What is the reaction of the victims, of the Media and of NGOs? How easy or difficult is it for non-specialists to understand legal proceedings and to appreciate the impact of ‘Retributive Justice’, which is perpetrator oriented? What about ‘Restorative Justice’, which is victim oriented? How does one achieve reconciliation in post-conflict societies where the perpetrators and victims remain living close to, or even intermingled with, each other? Should reconciliation be a goal of Retributive Justice at all?

Target Group: MA and PhD students of Law, History, Sociology, Politics, International Relations, Journalism, European Studies and related subjects.