Talk:Momčilo Krajišnik

message: This section is very confusing and not accurate. The source cited does not support the text and it is an opinion piece by  "Edina Becirevic is senior lecturer at the Faculty of Criminal Justice Sciences in Sarajevo." The publisher, the Institute for War & Peace Reporting, makes it clear that "The opinions expressed in IWPR Online are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Institute for War and Peace Reporting."
An indication that this is an opinion piece is provided by the last three sentences "The judges in the Krajisnik case said they had established that genocide took place, but were not convinced the Serb leadership intended to commit it. They appear to lean toward a school of thought which sets extremely high standards of proof for genocide. To them, the Srebrenica massacre was one “genocidal incident” in the broader ethnic cleansing of Bosnia. In his book “States of Denial”, Stanley Cohen says that avoiding the use of the word genocide in situations of armed conflict gives other countries an excuse not to intervene. This may help explain why the term was so studiously avoided during the Bosnian war." One can turn that around and say that those who suffered the most in the Bosnian War had a vested interest in portraying the incidents of as genocide to give other countries an excuse to to intervene in situations of armed conflict. 
In another opinion piece from the same source on the Bosnian Genocide Case (judgement February 2007) "Dr Larissa van den Herik, an assistant professor in public international law at Leiden University, ... dismisses the claim made by some academics that genocide is too difficult to prove - but rather is a narrowly defined legal definition, which is sometimes charged in circumstances where it doesn't apply. In this particular case, she says, a gap in international law meant the Genocide Convention had to be used. "The only way for Bosnia to go to the ICJ was to allege genocide. There is no Crimes against Humanity Convention providing for jurisdiction for the ICJ," she said. She is concerned that too much focus is placed on the crime of genocide, which is often erroneously held up by victims, the media - and even ad hoc tribunal judges - as the crime of crimes. "Genocide and crimes against humanity are of equal gravity, yet everyone feels that genocide is worse and carries an extra stigma," This preoccupation with genocide is particularly prevalent in the former Yugoslavia, she said. "There, if you are a victim of genocide, does that mean you a higher status of victim?""
What judgement in this case actually ruled was
The first paragraph refers to section 5.2.2:
The first paragraph of  5.6.2 (867) can be interpreted as is done by Edina Becirevic, but equally it can be read that for a genocide to take place then crimes against humanity such as those described in 5.2.2 are be committed. The second paragraph (868) is ambiguous, it does not make it clear if the number of people killed (around 3,000 out of the total population) meets the "[substantial] in part" criteria of the CPPCG -- The court did not have to answer this question because in the last paragraph (869) the court did not find that beyond reasonable doubt that there was "intent to destroy".
All in all, given the February 2007 ICJ judgement in the Bosnian Genocide Case was given after this section was written (before 5 December 2006), I think this section should be deleted as there is no evidence presented that the conviction of Krajisnik for crimes against humanity and not for genocide is a controversial issue among disinterested (neutral) observers. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Acquittal of genocide