Page 157 - FerMUN 2020 - Futurecasters Global Young Visionaries Summit, 8th-10th January 2020

Countries of origin of the students:

France, Turkey, Greece, Morocco, United Arab Emirates

The International Court of Justice was made up of 32 members, including 4 lawyers and 16

judges.

The lawyers defending Serbia attempted to prove that the events that had occurred during

the Bosnian War were war crimes and not genocide, and that they had been carried out in
response to the actions of Bosnia.
The lawyers defending Bosnia attempted to show that the actions carried out by Serbia with

the assistance of the Serb Republic of Bosnia met the definition of genocide: they cited Article
II of the Convention, which states that genocide is the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a
national, ethnic, racial or religious group.

What was most debated was the link between the (self-proclaimed) Bosnian Serb Republic
and the Serb regime. The lawyers defending Serbia strongly denied this link. The lawyers
defending Bosnia, on the other hand, claimed that the Bosnian Serb Republic was acting under

the control of Serbia. The number of people killed during the Bosnian war was another source
of debate, as the figures provided by each of the parties were very different. It was also difficult
for Bosnia's lawyers to prove that Serbia intended to kill only Bosnian Muslims. Genocide must
be planned, and the lawyers for Bosnia had difficulty proving that Serbia's original objective

was the killing of this population.

The fact that very serious actions such as summary executions of men, women and children,

as well as rape, had been committed was not debated, but there was much discussion about
responsibility for those acts.

1 witness (presented by Bosnia) out of a total of 4 presented was considered valid by the
judges.
None of the 7 pieces of evidence presented by Serbia was accepted by the judges; 5 of the

12 pieces of evidence presented by Bosnia were accepted.

The Judges voted 12-11 for Serbia's guilt of genocide in the Bosnian war; this very close final
verdict, different from the actual verdict on the case when it appeared before the ICJ, proves

the controversy that still exists on this issue.

156