News Analysis: What does ICJ's rejection of Croatia, Serbia genocide claims mean?

The International Court of Justice (ICJ)'s rejection of the claims of genocide of both Croatia and Serbia on Tuesday came as no surprise, experts told Xinhua.

The ICJ judgment came almost 20 years after the end of the Croatian war in the former Yugoslavia when the legal proceedings between the two countries came to an end at the Peace Palace in The Hague.

"The result was widely expected by many who were following the proceedings," said Sophie Rigney, researcher and teacher of international criminal law and human rights at the University of Melbourne Law School.

"This follows on from the findings of the Court in the 2007 Bosnia Genocide case, where the Court found only limited instances of genocide in Bosnia, and did not allocate responsibility to Serbia for them," she told Xinhua.

The judgment is unlikely to have any impact on the proceedings at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), said the former defense legal assistant at the ICTY.

"The cases at the ICTY that had direct bearing on this case in terms of dealing with the same events have been mostly finalized. The remaining ICTY cases deal mainly with the responsibility of the Bosnian Serbs in Bosnia," said Rigney.

"The ICTY has quite a different jurisdiction, dealing with criminal law and the application of genocide in the criminal context," she said. "Genocide is very difficult to be established but has previously been established at the ICTY in the criminal context."

Peter Robinson is a legal advisor for war crimes suspect Radovan Karadzic at the ICTY, which is also based in The Hague. The 69-year-old former Bosnian Serb leader is charged with two counts of genocide, against Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats in Bosnian cities in 1992 and for genocide related to the massacre in Srebrenica in 1995.

Karadzic was transferred into the Tribunal's custody in July 2008 and his trial commenced in October 2009.

The ICJ ruling should bolster Karadzic's chances of being acquitted of Count One, genocide in the cities of Bosnia in 1992, because an intent to displace a group is not equal to an intent to destroy the group, Robinson said, but adding "it will not affect the other genocide count he faces related to Srebrenica."

In July 1995, Srebrenica was taken by the troops of former Bosnian Serb Army commander Ratko Mladic, who is also in court at the ICTY. After the fall, more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslim males were killed.

The ICJ, the highest United Nations court, ruled that indeed crimes have been committed during the Croatian war in former Yugoslavia from 1991 to 1995 and these crimes had the characteristics of a genocide, a deliberate attempt to destroy a group based on nationality, race, religion or ethnicity. However, the evidence that the perpetrators also had a preconceived plan to exterminate a population was lacking, the court ruled.

"The most interesting aspect for me, as an international criminal defense lawyer, was that the ICJ adopted a high standard of proof for genocide," Robinson added.

In 1999 Croatia was the first to file a case at the ICJ against Yugoslavia, of which Serbia was a part at that time, and Serbia responded in January 2010 with its own counter-claim over alleged genocide committed by the Croats. On Tuesday Croatia's claim was rejected by 15 votes to two, while Serbia's claim was rejected unanimously.

"Croatia's purpose was to establish that it was the victim of genocide for historical and political purposes," Robinson added. "Serbia was simply defending itself, and then counter-claiming as a tactic to settle the case."

According to Iva Vukusic, a Croatian-born researcher and analyst in The Hague, the purpose of the claims was primarily in playing domestic politics.

"The case is about the Genocide Convention and whether the two countries violated it through their actions in the conflict in the early 1990s," she said.

"This case is not new and both states could have withdrawn it because it was quite clear the violence has been committed by, and against, both groups but that it did not reach the level of genocide," she said.

"The ICTY dealt with the conflict extensively through criminal proceedings and hasn't found genocide in Croatia, against Croats or Serbs. So, this really is no surprise," she said.

"With this result, one I believe is just, it does not mean much in Serbia and Croatia," said Vukusic, a researcher at Utrecht University who worked for the Special War Crimes Department of the Prosecutor's office in Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina.

"There is very little understanding about the complexities of this case even among high level officials in both countries, not to mention the public," Vukusic said.

"Both countries will continue with their respective largely black and white narratives and the public will continue believing what it already believes," she added.

According to Karadzic's legal adviser Robinson, the judgment is not of great importance for Croatia and Serbia or to international justice.

"It shows that money spent on lawyers would have been better spent on reparations for victims and both states were ill served by this litigation," Robinson said.

For Rigney, the verdict was not historic in terms of international justice, but also not meaningless.

"It's important to note that the Court did make a record of the events during the wars, and the atrocities that were committed, by both sides, and against both sides, have been documented," she said.

"It is important to have this document for a full understanding of the wars, so that the space for denial or historical revisionism is limited,"

said Rigney.

"Although the claims were dismissed, factual findings were still made regarding events. Hopefully these factual findings can give some solace to victims, and provide a foundation for these countries to transition to their future," she said. Endi