The trial of Mr Slobodan Milosevic beginning today at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague will set legal precedents for years to come
. It is the most important such case since the Nuremberg prosecution of Hitler's Nazi colleagues. On its conduct and outcome will depend the credibility and legitimacy of future exercises in international justice directed against sovereign political leaders.
Mr Milosevic is accused of genocide in Bosnia during 1992-5, and of crimes against humanity and war crimes in Croatia and Kosovo in subsequent years. During this time he was in charge of the Yugoslav government as it fought three wars to preserve Serbian power as the federation disintegrated. At least 150,000 people died and up to four million refugees were created. The prosecution accuses Mr Milosevic of having "command responsibility" for these crimes and plans to present voluminous evidence to this effect. To succeed they will have to show he knew about the atrocities and took no action to prevent them or to punish those responsible. If convicted he would be liable to lifetime terms of imprisonment.
Mr Milosevic's strategy is to contest the court's right to try him by undermining its legitimacy. He has refused to recognise its authority, saying effectively that it represents victors' justice, having been established by a small group of his enemies on the United Nations Security Council in 1993. He has forced the court to plead not guilty on his behalf and appoint three "friends of the court" to represent his interests. Mr Milosovic is well able to exploit political and diplomatic uncertainties surrounding the tribunal. That it was not endorsed by the UN General Assembly is a potential flaw in its legitimacy, given the ambiguous attitude the United States has taken towards its activities and the hostility shown to the International Criminal Court (ICC) which might succeed it. Russia, too, is reportedly unwilling to endorse the ICC and wants to see an end to this tribunal by 2007.
Despite such criticisms the court has involved over 1,000 legal and administrative staff from some 77 states and has built up an impressive record of jurisprudence. Its judgments have been scrupulous and have commanded acceptance and respect from legal peers. Its procedures have been crafted in full awareness of how they can contribute to a new body of international law. If it comes through this most important trial with that record intact the case for the International Criminal Court which may succeed it will be enormously strengthened.