State sovereignty
Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
---|---|---|
Appeal Judgement - 19.05.2010 |
BOŠKOSKI & TARČULOVSKI (IT-04-82-A) |
|
33. Furthermore, the Appeals Chamber recalls that while the UN shall not “intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State [,] this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII [of the UN Charter]”.[1] This Tribunal was established by the UN Security Council acting under Chapter VII for the purpose of prosecuting serious violations of international humanitarian law.[2] Thus, even if the FYROM conducted an “anti-terrorist” operation in Ljuboten on its own territory, it cannot, based on its sovereignty, claim that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over any serious violations of international humanitarian law committed during this operation, provided it was in the context of an armed conflict. Consequently, the Trial Chamber’s findings on NLA activities[3] did not affect the Trial Chamber’s determination on its jurisdiction over the present case. 34. The Appeals Chamber further notes that the presidential statements and resolutions of the UN Security Council cited by Tarčulovski called for international involvement, stating that violence by Albanian extremists was affecting the peace and stability in the entire region.[4] […] The Security Council did not state that the situation in the FYROM was a purely domestic matter or distinguishable from other conflicts in the region. Nor did it state that it was outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. 35. Furthermore, while the Security Council mentioned the need to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the FYROM and underlined the responsibility of its Government for the rule of law in its territory,[5] this does not show that the Security Council excluded the Tribunal’s jurisdiction for any serious violations of international humanitarian law committed during the internal armed conflict on the territory of the FYROM. [1] Article 2(7) of the UN Charter. See also Tadić Jurisdiction Decision, para. 56. [2] UN Security Council Resolution 827, 25 May 1993 (S/RES/827 (1993)). [3] E.g., Trial Judgement, paras 30-31, 103, 133, 138-140, 153-154, 161, 163, 229, 232 and 279. [4] Ex. 1D230 (UN Security Council Press Release, SC/7026, and UN Security Council Resolution 1345, 21 March 2001, S/RES/1345(2001)); Ex. 1D343 (Statement by the President of the UN Security Council, 12 March 2001, S/PRST/2001/7) and Ex. 1D346 (UN Security Council Resolution 1371, 26 September 2001, S/RES/1371(2001)). [5] Ex. 1D230 (UN Security Council Press Release, SC/7026, and UN Security Council Resolution 1345, 21 March 2001, S/RES/1345(2001)); Ex. 1D343 (Statement by the President of the UN Security Council, 12 March 2001, S/PRST/2001/7) and Ex. 1D346 (UN Security Council Resolution 1371, 26 September 2001, S/RES/1371(2001)). In this context, the Appeals Chamber recalls that the Security Council required “all parties [to the conflict in the FYROM] to act with restraint and full respect for international humanitarian law and human rights” (Ex. 1D230 (pp. 11-12), UN Security Council Resolution 1345, 21 March 2001, S/RES/1345 (2001)). |
Other instruments UN Charter: Article 2(7); Chapter VII |