Court Rules Dutch State Responisble For Srebrenica Deaths

[grumbler]

That is idiotic.  The Dutch were not even serving under the authority of the Dutch state.

As the case demonstrated, this is not entirely true.

I always figured the Serbs were responsible.

In a liability case, there actually can be more than one party at fault.  In fact, responsibility can be split any number of different ways, and in different proportions.

I haven't read the verdict, but my instincts are to be skeptical of these kinds of findings.  It seems to me that the Dutch acted under duress, and that the circumstances of the Gutless-Gutless Gali's (may he roast in hell forever) decision-making didn't leave them a chance to defend themselves and avoid the duress.

[Gups]

Yeah. This is a great blow against injustice. 

I hear the Dutch actually engineered the whole thing, and laughed as they threw babies into the air and bayonetted them.

What was that? I am mistaking these lies for lies from an entirely different war? Well ok. Sometimes I get confused.

BY THE RAMPANT IDIOCY. 

[And yes, your response is predictable, jacombler.]

This post is a great blow against basic comprehension. If you'd bothered to read the article you'd have seen it is only about three people and it only states that the Dutch can't claim immunity as part of the UN peacekeeping force.

[dps]

Good luck getting any nations to agree sending their soldiers to observe genocides after this decision.

Well, that's a potential problem--it could make states unwilling to have their forces serve under the UN banner if they are liable for the actions of those troops while the actions were taken at the direction of the UN rather than the state.  But from a legal standpoint, why wouldn't the state be liable?  They voluntarily put their forces under UN command.  If the state wasn't comfortable with the rules of engagement the UN put in place, they could have withheld or withdrawn their forces.  Were there was a legal mechanism by which the UN could compell a state to provide forces to the UN, it would be different.

[Barrister]

Decisions of a dutch court are not likely to be very persuasive anywhere outside of the Netherlands.

Now this decision may discourage the dutch from participating in UN peacekeeping missions, but I am hard pressed to see it have wider repercussions than that.

[grumbler]

Well, that's a potential problem--it could make states unwilling to have their forces serve under the UN banner if they are liable for the actions of those troops while the actions were taken at the direction of the UN rather than the state.  But from a legal standpoint, why wouldn't the state be liable?  They voluntarily put their forces under UN command.  If the state wasn't comfortable with the rules of engagement the UN put in place, they could have withheld or withdrawn their forces.  Were there was a legal mechanism by which the UN could compell a state to provide forces to the UN, it would be different.

I'm not sure what argument you are making here.  If you are arguing that, because the Netherlands "voluntarily put their forces under UN command," that they are negligent if the UN is negligent, you are wrong.  The only way the Dutch are negligent in that case is if they knew, or should have known, that the UN would be negligent.

And Gutless-Gutless Gali (MHRiH) didn't use the UN rules of engagement in this case, he made up his own as the crisis developed. 

I don't know why the Dutch government was unable to assert duress as the justification for turning over the civilians to the Serbs.  I'd have to see more of the case to find that out.  But I think there is no question but what the civilians were turned over because the Dutch government told its soldiers to do so, after the Serbs had over-run the town and were threatening the base.

[crazy canuck]

I don't know why the Dutch government was unable to assert duress as the justification for turning over the civilians to the Serbs.  I'd have to see more of the case to find that out.  But I think there is no question but what the civilians were turned over because the Dutch government told its soldiers to do so, after the Serbs had over-run the town and were threatening the base.

If I have time I am going to look at the decision today.  One thing that struck me about the case from news reports was the reliance issue.  The Dutch troops told the locals that the area they held was a safe zone and that people who felt threatened by the Serbs should come to that area.  Many took the Dutch up on their promise that the zone was safe and then the Dutch handed them over.

On the face of it those are hard facts to overcome.  The Dutch forces knew the circumstances they were in before they represented their zone was safe and the locals relied on the representation.  The Dutch essentially reneged on their promise.  On the face of it the duress defence would be hard to make out.  The promise of a safe zone was made with the knowledge that the Serbs had an army in the in area and that the Serb army was threatening the very people to whom safety was being promised.

It might be that the rules of engagement changed between the time the promise of a safe zone was made and the time the Serbs threatened to attack.  I could see that as the basis of an arguable case.  As I said, I will have to look at the facts found by the Court.

[grumbler]

If I have time I am going to look at the decision today.  One thing that struck me about the case from news reports was the reliance issue.  The Dutch troops told the locals that the area they held was a safe zone and that people who felt threatened by the Serbs should come to that area.  Many took the Dutch up on their promise that the zone was safe and then the Dutch handed them over.

Actually, the Dutch government had nothing to do with declaring any safe zones.  That was the UN.  the Dutch battalion just happened to be the one that was sent to guard the safe zone.  The Dutch didn't hand over very many Bosnians.  Most of the people that were killed were killed when the Dutch soldiers were told by Gutless-Gutless Gali (MHRiH) to stand down and not resist the Serbs.  The victims being addressed in the lawsuit, as far as I know, were all actually in the Dutch Army camp, not in the town.  By the time the Dutch government was involved in the discussions over whether or not to turn over those people, the Dutch battalion's military situation had already been hopelessly compromised by G-G Gali's (MHRiH) decision to betray the Bosnians.

On the face of it those are hard facts to overcome.  The Dutch forces knew the circumstances they were in before they represented their zone was safe and the locals relied on the representation.  The Dutch essentially reneged on their promise.  On the face of it the duress defence would be hard to make out.  The promise of a safe zone was made with the knowledge that the Serbs had an army in the in area and that the Serb army was threatening the very people to whom safety was being promised.

Are you sure of all your facts?  How did the Dutch government know G-G Gali (MHRiH) would betray the mission, for instance?

[crazy canuck]

Actually, the Dutch government had nothing to do with declaring any safe zones.  That was the UN.  the Dutch battalion just happened to be the one that was sent to guard the safe zone.  The Dutch didn't hand over very many Bosnians.  Most of the people that were killed were killed when the Dutch soldiers were told by Gutless-Gutless Gali (MHRiH) to stand down and not resist the Serbs.  The victims being addressed in the lawsuit, as far as I know, were all actually in the Dutch Army camp, not in the town.  By the time the Dutch government was involved in the discussions over whether or not to turn over those people, the Dutch battalion's military situation had already been hopelessly compromised by G-G Gali's (MHRiH) decision to betray the Bosnians.

You are correct about the initial safe zones being declared by the UN.  The representation I am talking about occured after that.  When the Dutch were already in their zone and the Serb army was advancing in the area the Dutch promised safety to people who entered their compound.  Approximately 5000 people took them up on that promise.  Those 5000 we handed over to the Serbs apparently in exchange for 20 or so Dutch troops who were being held hostage by the Serb forces.

It is that reliance I am talking about and in those circumstances I find duress argument difficult to understand.  If the Dutch were not willing to fight to keep their promise of the safety of their own compound they should not have made the promise at all.  Those 5000 would have then had an opporunity to continue to flee. The essence of a reliance case is that a person acts on a representation of another to their detriment.  That seems to be exactly what happened here.

[dps]

How did the Dutch government know G-G Gali (MHRiH) would betray the mission, for instance?

Well, the fact that he was a UN official should've been a clue.

[alfred russel]

On the face of it those are hard facts to overcome. 

I have no legal knowledge regarding this, but from a practical point of view I don't see why it is hard to overcome. There aren't truly "safe zones" in a war zone. That is basic common sense. There are just some places safer than others. If you are going to create legal responsibilities to protect a population because you advised them that certain areas are safer, you are going to deter the practice of giving advice to populations under danger.

[grumbler]

[You are correct about the initial safe zones being declared by the UN.  The representation I am talking about occured after that.  When the Dutch were already in their zone and the Serb army was advancing in the area the Dutch promised safety to people who entered their compound. 

Got a source for this?

It is that reliance I am talking about and in those circumstances I find duress argument difficult to understand.  If the Dutch were not willing to fight to keep their promise of the safety of their own compound they should not have made the promise at all.

If the Dutch made an independent promise (it must have been on the 10th of July, because by the 11th the camp was already full) it would certainly have been their responsibility to keep it.  I have never heard of any such promise.

Those 5000 would have then had an opporunity to continue to flee. The essence of a reliance case is that a person acts on a representation of another to their detriment.  That seems to be exactly what happened here.

The overwhelming majority of the 5,000 were evacuated safely by the Serbs, being mostly women and children.  There was nowhere for them to fell anyway.  The men and boys were, of course, killed, and the young women raped.

However, would you concede that there is no such reliance case if the Dutch did not, in fact, independently promise safety to those who entered their compound on July 10th and 11th?

[Barrister]

[You are correct about the initial safe zones being declared by the UN.  The representation I am talking about occured after that.  When the Dutch were already in their zone and the Serb army was advancing in the area the Dutch promised safety to people who entered their compound. 

Got a source for this?

*runs screaming for the hills*

[grumbler]

If you are going to create legal responsibilities to protect a population because you advised them that certain areas are safer, you are going to deter the practice of giving advice to populations under danger.

That is good.  Just about the worst advice to give is that which makes the recipient decide to do something that gets him or her self killed.  Giving that kind of advice should be punished.

[grumbler]

*runs screaming for the hills*

Buh-bye!

[The Brain]

If you are going to create legal responsibilities to protect a population because you advised them that certain areas are safer, you are going to deter the practice of giving advice to populations under danger.

That is good.  Just about the worst advice to give is that which makes the recipient decide to do something that gets him or her self killed.  Giving that kind of advice should be punished.

Italy had the right idea with the earthquake murderers.