Security Council
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
|---|---|---|
| Interlocutory Decision on Jurisdiction - 02.10.1995 |
TADIĆ Duško (IT-94-1-AR72) |
|
|
36. […] In sum, the establishment of the International Tribunal falls squarely within the powers of the Security Council under Article 41. See also paras 31, 38. |
Other instruments
UN Charter: Article 41. |
|
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
| Decision on Extension of Mandate - 15.09.2006 |
KRAJIŠNIK Momčilo (IT-00-39-AR73.2) |
|
|
15. The Appeals Chamber recalls that the UN Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter as a legislator, has adopted the Statute and established the Tribunal as an instrument for the exercise of its own principal function of maintenance of peace and security, i.e., as a measure contributing to the restoration and maintaining of peace in the former Yugoslavia. While the UN Security Council is not a judicial organ and is not provided with judicial powers, it exercises, in discharge of its functions, both decision-making and executive powers,[3] including those related to the mandates of the Tribunal’s Judges.[4] [1] The Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić a.k.a. “Dule”, Case No. IT-94-1-AR72, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995 (“Tadić Decision”), para. 38. [2] Ibid., para. 37. [3] Id. [4] For example, pursuant to Article 13ter of the Statute, the ad litem judges of the Tribunal are elected by the General Assembly from a list submitted by the Security Council. |
||
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
| Decision on Extension of Mandate - 15.09.2006 |
KRAJIŠNIK Momčilo (IT-00-39-AR73.2) |
|
|
16. Without assuming competence to adjudicate on the validity of a resolution passed by the Security Council, the Appeals Chamber considers that the UN Security Resolution 1668/2006 was directed to administrative matters and did not interfere with the Tribunal’s judicial function. 17. The Appeals Chamber notes that the Security Council is not required to amend the Tribunal’s Statute in order to reflect all its resolutions. Contrary to what the Appellant appears to submit, the Security Council can address an administrative matter either by amending the Tribunal’s Statute or by simply adopting a resolution – as it did. Thus, the ability to decide on a case by case basis whether to extend an ad litem judge’s mandate and/or the three year cumulative service limitation falls within the Security Council’s discretionary powers.[1] The Appeals Chamber accordingly sees no merit in the Appellant’s arguments in this respect. [1] See supra, para. 15 [reproduced below]; also see similar UN Security Council Resolutions, the most recent being S/RES/1705 (2006) of 29 August 2006, adopted following respective requests from the President of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (“ICTR”) and the UN Secretary-General, and authorizing Judge Solomy Balungi Bossa to continue sitting in the Butare case until its completion notwithstanding Article 12ter(2) of the ICTR Statute and the fact that by doing so she may exceed her elected term as an ad litem Judge; furthermore, UN Security Council Resolution S/RES/1482 (2003) of 19 May 2003 for the ICTR, extending the term of Judge Maqutu (permanent Judge) for purposes of finishing the Kamuhanda and the Kajelijeli trials, but not the Butare trial. By the same resolution, the UN Security-Council decided to extend mandates for Judges Dolenc and Ostrovsky (permanent Judges) to finish the Cyangugu case and for Judge Pillay to finish the Media case, which they began before expiry of their term of office. |
||