Former Yugoslavia, Special Agreements between the Parties to the Conflicts Case Study
Order ID: 89JHGSJE83839 Style: APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages: 5-10 Instructions:
Former Yugoslavia, Special Agreements between the Parties to the Conflicts Case Study
1. Do the two agreements qualify the conflicts? Could the ICRC have suggested the Memorandum of Understanding of November 27, 1991 (MoU) if it had qualified the conflict between Croatia and Yugoslavia as an international one? Could Agreement No. 1 of May 22, 1992 (A1) concern an international armed conflict? (GC I-IV, Arts 2, 3 and 6/6/6/7; P I, Art. ]
1)
2.
a. Why does the ICRC suggest such agreements? Why do the parties conclude such agreements? Who are the parties to the two agreements? Who is bound by the two agreements?
b. Is the MoU binding for the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia and Croatia? Is A1 binding on Bosnia and Herzegovina? Is it acceptable that A1 places the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and political parties on an equal footing? (GC I-IV, Art. 3(3))
c. What difficulties could the ICRC foresee when it invited the parties to negotiate those agreements? How did it overcome those difficulties?
3. Does Art. 3 of the MoU give captured combatants prisoner-of-war status? May Croatian soldiers who formerly served
in the Yugoslav Peoples Army and fall into the power of Yugoslavia be sentenced for high treason?
4.
a. Do Art. 4(1) of the MoU and Art. 2.3(2) of A1 provide the same protection to civilians deprived of their liberty as the
IHL of international armed conflicts, less protection, or better protection? (GC IV, Arts 37, 41, 76, 78 and 79)
b. Is a Serb inhabitant of western Slavonia, whose ancestors lived for 400 years in that part of Croatia and who isarrested by the Croatian police, in the power of the adverse party in the sense of Art. 4(1) of the MoU? Is a Bosnian
Muslim inhabitant of Banja Luka, whose ancestors lived for 400 years in that part of Bosnia and Herzegovina and who
is arrested by the Bosnian Serb police, in the power of the adverse party in the sense of Art. 2.3(2) of A1? Is a Serb
inhabitant of Sarajevo, whose ancestors lived for 400 years in the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina and who is
arrested by the Bosnian police, in the power of the adverse party in the sense of Art. 2.3(2) of A1? What are the
advantages and disadvantages of thus labelling persons as protected persons according to their ethnic origin? Is
there any other way to apply the law of international armed conflict?
5.
a. Is there any prohibition of forced displacements in the MoU? In the IHL of international armed conflicts? Where? Why
was that provision not included in the MoU? Did the practice of ethnic cleansing therefore not violate IHL in the
conflict between Croatia and Yugoslavia? (GC IV, Art. 49)
b. Is there a prohibition of forced displacements in A1? Does its wording come from the law of international or of non-international armed conflicts? (GC IV, Art. 49; P I, Art. 85(4); P II, Art. 17)
6.
a. Can you imagine why Art. 6 of the MoU and Art. 2.5 of A1 exclude Arts 43-47 of Protocol I from their reference to the
Protocols rules on the conduct of hostilities?
b. Was there any obligation for combatants to distinguish themselves from the civilian population in the conflict
between Croatia and Yugoslavia? (HR, Art. 1; GC III, Art. 4(A); P I, Arts 44(3) and 48; P II, Art. 13)
7. Do Art. 9 of the MoU and Art. 2.6 of A1 on humanitarian assistance correspond to the IHL of international armed
conflicts, or does it go further? If yes, on which points? (GC IV, Arts 10, 23,
59-61, 108-109, 142; P I, Arts 69, 70, 81)
8.
a. Which rules on implementation do the two agreements contain? Which implementation mechanisms provided for in
the IHL of international armed conflicts are not mentioned? Can you imagine why the parties did not want to mention
those mechanisms?
b. Are there any provisions on war crimes in the two agreements? Which elements of IHLs grave breaches regime do
the agreements lack? Are those gaps crucial, taking into account that the national legislation of the former Yugoslavia,
in which the rules of IHL on grave breaches were incorporated, was taken over by its successor States? By accepting a
rule of behaviour of the IHL of international armed conflicts in the agreements, did a party thereto necessarily also
undertake to treat a violation of that rule as a grave breach if it is so qualified by IHL? Under those agreements, can the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia prosecute any violation of the IHL of international armed
conflicts that is qualified as a grave breach? Only if the rule violated is contained in the agreements? Only if it also
violates customary IHL?
c. What are the differences between the rules on implementation contained in the two agreements? Can you explain
them?
d. Why is the ICRC, in Art. 12 of the MoU, so circumspect about an enquiry into allegations of violations? Arent
enquiries an important means of implementing IHL? Shouldnt the ICRC conduct an enquiry itself, due to its knowledge
of the field, its expertise in IHL and its well-recognized neutrality and impartiality, at least if both parties agree to it doing
so? Can you imagine the reasons for the ICRCs extreme prudence in this regard?
e. What is the purpose of a mechanism such as that provided for in Art. 5(1) of A1?
f. Does the MoUs Art. 14(1) incorporate all of the Geneva Conventions into the MoU? To which units is Art. 14(1)
intended to apply? Does that provision make any sense?
9.
a. What are the advantages and disadvantages of such agreements? Can they be interpreted and applied without
reference to the whole of IHL?
b. Was the MoU applicable in the conflict between local Serb inhabitants of parts of Croatia (in particular the Krajinas)
and the government of Croatia? Even if Yugoslavia no longer had any control over the activities of those local Serbs?
c. Was A1 applicable in the armed conflict in the Bihac area between autonomist Bosnian Muslim followers of Mr. Abdicand Bosnian government forces?
Former Yugoslavia, Special Agreements between the Parties to the Conflicts Case Study
RUBRIC
Excellent Quality
95-100%
Introduction 45-41 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Literature Support
91-84 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Methodology
58-53 points
Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score
50-85%
40-38 points
More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.
83-76 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.
52-49 points
Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality
0-45%
37-1 points
The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.
75-1 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.
48-1 points
There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow Former Yugoslavia, Special Agreements between the Parties to the Conflicts Case Study
Former Yugoslavia, Special Agreements between the Parties to the Conflicts Case Study