Talk:Joint criminal enterprise

International relations: Law Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law.

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A bad article[edit]

This article is, to put it bluntly, bollocks - plainly written by someone who has little knowledge of the legal issues and has a POV animus against the ICTY. I'll have a go at rewriting it from scratch (there's not much that can be salvaged). -- ChrisO (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is bad.I agree on everything ChrisO said.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is bollocks. Joint criminal centerprise may be applied in the Yugoslav example, but it is far wider than that. 203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for any offence caused but 8 years on from the opening comment on this page but this article is still rubbish. I'd argue that the legal side of this article should be merged with Common_purpose as it is clearly derivative of that subject. The commentary about the Yugoslavian trials should be stripped out and put with an appropriate article dealing with the war and its aftermath. Thoughts please? Chris (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be mentioned in books about Sebrian bullshit[edit]

wanted to defend Serbs in the Yugoslav republic of Croatia, so he helped recruit soldiers to fight in the armies opposing the Croatian militias. They joined local Serbs who were terrified by the policies of Franjo Tudjman and the terror that he unleashed.

What terror,WTF are you guys talking about???????????

F serb ultranationalists..--(GriffinSB) (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be re-witten in a NPOV way or it has to be deleted. It's totaly biased.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious template -- joint criminal enterprise[edit]

I have added two dubious templates to the article.

The first is for the statement "The court has determined, through a series of trials, that the Serbian political and military leaders participated in a joint criminal enterprise."

The court may have determined that some members of the "Serbian political and military leaders participated in a joint criminal enterprise." but they should be listed as not all leaders have been found guilty. -- PBS (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not all, but it is correct to say "many Serbian political and military leaders".--Mladifilozof (talk) 12:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have added many to "that many Serbian political and military leaders participated in a joint criminal enterprise." Why did you choose many over some? "Many" needs a neutral reliable source that states "many" because "many" is a statement of fact but it carries a POV as does "some". --PBS (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not enterprise of a few unimportant individuals. It was cooperation of top members of Serb war and political elite of that time.--Mladifilozof (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wording does not state their relative importance, it states quantity -- "many". Such an assessment needs a citation. See also my comment below about what does "Serb" mean in this context. -- PBS (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT the "joint criminal enterprise" was not "the plotters' goal [of ] the creation of Greater Serbia from the disintegrating Yugoslavia", but specific criminal enterprises to commit crimes such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The second one is on the phrase "According to the Court" because it implies that there is no distinction between what the prosecutors alleged and the final judgements. The list needs to be separated into those accused of being members of a joint criminal enterprise by the prosecution and those found guilty of being members of a joint criminal enterprise. For example the prosecution alleged that Slobodan Milosevic was part of a joint criminal enterprise to commit genocide, but he was not found guilty of such a crime. -- PBS (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a further problem with the article and its use of the term "Serb" as it does not make clear if it means ethnic Serbs (such as Bosnian Serbs) or Serbs of Serbian nationality -- those Serb military and political leaders of the Serbian state. -- PBS (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of Yugoslav Wars, term "Serb" ussualy means ethnic Serbs, not exclusively citizen of Serbia. See also definition of "Serbian forces" in the article.--Mladifilozof (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ICJ judgement in the Bosnian Genocide Case is clear in making a distinction between servants of the Serbian state and those ethnic Serbs in Bosnia when it declared that there was a genocide in Bosnia but the Serbian government was no complicit in that genocide. What is your English language source for claiming that this distinction is not the usual one and I would have thought that the opinion of the ICJ is of enough significance to be noted in this article. -- PBS (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mladifilozof you have not produced a source that support the assertion "In the context of Yugoslav Wars, term "Serb" ussualy means ethnic Serbs, not exclusively citizen of Serbia. The article says "Complicity in a joint criminal enterprise included also "Serbian forces", that includes the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA)," What specific "joint criminal enterprise" and what is the source for the statement? -- PBS (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not assertion in the article but on the talk page. We were discussing and I told you my opinion. If you find term "Serb" dubious we could use term "ethnic Serb" instead. Furthermore, complicity in a joint criminal enterprise to create Greater Serbia included different "Serbian forces" (JNA, VRS, SVK, paramilitary and others). The source for the statement is Šešelj indictment, as you can see in the article.--Mladifilozof (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Criminal Enterprise[edit]

"The Court has determined, through a series of trials, that some of the top Serbian political and military leaders participated in a joint criminal enterprise. The indictments maintain that the participants' goal was the creation of Greater Serbia from the disintegrating Yugoslavia."

AFAICT from reading the transcripts of the judgements there was not one/"a" joint criminal enterprise but several different ones under common law they would be called conspiracies eg conspiracy to commit genocide.

The juxtaposition of the second sentence implies that the participants' goal was the creation of Greater Serbia was in itself a Joint Criminal Enterprise. Is there an English language source that claims that the ICTY and the ICJ found that there was one overriding conspiracy and that working towards a greater Serbia was in itself the one and only "Joint Criminal Enterprise" (if it were then what does that make those who are working towards the goal of making the EU a fully soverign state?). -- PBS (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is over a month since I put this question on this talk page. If no reliable source is given to support the synthesis I will remove it. -- PBS (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there was not one/"a" joint criminal enterprise but several different ones. Anyway, ICTY Appeals Chamber concluded that all Milošević's actions in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo were part of one joint criminal enterprise to create a ethnically pure Greater Serbia through the commission of the crimes:

The prosecution's argument that [...] the allegations made in the three indictments [Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo] were all part of a common scheme, strategy or plan on the part of the accused [Slobodan Milošević] to create a "Greater Serbia", a centralised Serbian state encompassing the Serb-populated areas of Croatia and Bosnia and all of Kosovo, and that this plan was to be achieved by forcibly removing non-Serbs from large geographical areas through the commission of the crime charged in the indictments. Although the events in Kosovo were separated from those in Croatia and Bosnia by more than three years, they were, the prosecution claimed, no more than a continuation of that plan, and they could only be understood completely by reference to what had happened in Croatia and Bosnia.^[1]
— Decision of the ICTY Appeals Chamber; 18 April 2002.

You have asked what is the difference between "the goal of making the EU a fully soverign state" and the goal of making Greater Serbia? The key difference is because Serb leaders tried to make Greater Serbia "by forcibly removing non-Serbs from large geographical areas through the commission of crimes". --Mladifilozof (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then the crimes are "by forcibly removing non-Serbs from large geographical areas through the commission of crimes" not the wish to create a greater Serbia, and the joint criminal enterprise(s) is the collection of people who participated in and conspired over those crimes, the motivation for carrying out those crimes may or may not be part of a crime as defined under internal treaties (for example to commit genocide). But that does not mean that the aspiration to create a greater Serbia was a crime any more than the wish to see a United Ireland is a crime. Crimes are committed when illegal coercion is used to achieved the aspirations, the aspiration itself is not a crime. -- PBS (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At a research level I could not find the quote in a document called "Decision of the ICTY Appeals Chamber; 18 April 2002" could you provide a link to it? I did find was this Appeal Chamber Decision: Reasons for decision on prosecution interlocutory appeal from refusal to order joinder 8-04-2002 is this the same document? Because if it is then the quote is taken out of context (also the document does not used funny foreign squiggles on "Slobodan Milosevic" as are misused in the quote above). The ruling is I think quite complicated to understand, because the trial judges made an error in law and they also made an error in fact the appeal judges it is summed up their findings paragraph 21: "A joint criminal enterprise to remove forcibly the majority of the non-Serb population from areas which the Serb authorities wished to establish or to maintain as Serbian controlled areas by the commission of the crimes charged remains the same transaction notwithstanding the fact that it is put into effect from time to time and over a long period of time as required." However the appeal points out that "there is no reference to a "Greater Serbia" plan in the Kosovo indictment and the only reference to it in the Croatia and Bosnia indictments is in relation to other individuals." (see paragraph 10) which implies that the quote (extracted from paragraph 8) is misleading if one assumes from reading it that the crime is the wish to create a "Greater Serbia". -- PBS (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the aspiration itself is not a crime, but the crimes were "natural and foreseeable consequences of the purposes of this joint criminal enterprise". Milosevic's Indictment (bosnian)

Looks like "Decision of the ICTY Appeals Chamber; 18 April 2002" and Appeal Chamber Decision 8-04-2002 is this the same document. I have corrected quotation by adding: "The prosecution's argument that [...]".--Mladifilozof (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The prosecution does not say that "forcibly removing non-Serbs from large geographical areas" was a crime what it said was to do this the Joint Criminal Enterprise "commission of the crimes charged in the indictment". This is further explained in Footnote 41: "charged through the commission of crimes which are in violation of Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Statute of the Tribunal."

This is a tautology: "but the crimes were 'natural and foreseeable consequences of the purposes of this joint criminal enterprise'" unless the accused is accused of conspiring to commit a crime then there would be no joint criminal enterprise. It is not clear to me if the joint criminal enterprise has to result in a crime other than the conspiracy to commit a crime. Clearly in the case of Genocide there has to be physical biological destruction as well as the intent to commit genocide. I would like to see this clear up as a point of law.

The problem here is that in the "essentially adversarial nature of the proceedings at the International Tribunal." (Reasons for Decision on the Prosecution Motion Concerning Assignment of Counsel 4 April 2003) -- unlike a magisterial system common on the European continent) you would expect the prosecution to paint as black a picture as they can of Milosevic just as you would expect him to to argue forcefully that he is innocent of all charges. The means that the initial position of the prosecution may not be anywhere close to the opinion of the judges who are also acting as the jury. This has reduced the usefulness of this quote because it is not the findings of the court, which is what was intimated before. -- PBS (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Decision of the ICTY Appeals Chamber; 18 April 2002

Serbian JCE historical map[edit]

Someone repeatedly removes this historical map, directly connected with Joint Criminal Enterprise and with accusations against Šešelj, Milošević and others. If someone thinks that this image is not appropriate, let's discuss it here.--Mladifilozof (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think this image is simple but provide a good explanation of what was happening at the time.--MaGioZal (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Decision of the ICTY Appeals Chamber; 18 April 2002; Reasons for the Decision on Prosecution Interlocutory Appeal from Refusal to Order Joinder; Paragraph 8

Indictments to Croat leaders[edit]

I have moved the {{Multiple issues}} template down to a subsection I have not edited, as I think that the section I have edited not longer warrant the template. -- PBS (talk) 23:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not see the reason for this template within this section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Joint criminal enterprise. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Decision of the ICTY Appeals Chamber; 18 April 2002

[2] Decision of the ICTY Appeals Chamber; 18 April 2002; Reasons for the Decision on Prosecution Interlocutory Appeal from Refusal to Order Joinder; Paragraph 8

[1]

[1]