Expert: Countersuit decision "logical"

International law expert Tibor Varadi has said that the Serbian government's decision to counter-sue Croatia was a "logical move". On Dec. 31, the government announced it would be suing Croatia for genocide against the ethnic Serb population during the 1991-95 conflict in Croatia before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Expert: Countersuit decision "logical" Ten years ago, Croatia filed similar charges against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SRJ) covering the same war. "The move by the Serbian government is a logical one. I still have some hope that there would be a last minute meeting and realization that it would be more rational to leave the matter to history and individual; responsibility," Varadi told Tanjug. Varadi, who was one of Serbia's legal representatives during Bosnia-Herzegovina's case against it, also involving charges of genocide, said that back then he advocated the view that the ICJ should declare itself not competent to rule on the matter, and not just because of the legal issues, but because it would be bad for the relations between the two countries to continue the conflict in court as well. "I think that the truth should be sought through individual responsibility, and not through confrontation between countries," Varadi remarked. He explained that the ICJ could only decide on whether a country had committed or assisted in genocide. Varadi feels that Serbia's countersuit is unlikely to end with a conviction. "We know that the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has neither convicted nor even indicted anyone for genocide regarding the Croatian conflict. Therefore, it is unlikely that this process could end in conviction," Varadi stated. He also pointed out that there could be no question of ICJ's competence concerning the countersuit because it had already declared itself competent when Croatia filed the original charges.

Expert: Countersuit decision "logical"

Ten years ago, Croatia filed similar charges against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SRJ) covering the same war.

"The move by the Serbian government is a logical one. I still have some hope that there would be a last minute meeting and realization that it would be more rational to leave the matter to history and individual; responsibility," Varadi told Tanjug.

Varadi, who was one of Serbia's legal representatives during Bosnia-Herzegovina's case against it, also involving charges of genocide, said that back then he advocated the view that the ICJ should declare itself not competent to rule on the matter, and not just because of the legal issues, but because it would be bad for the relations between the two countries to continue the conflict in court as well.

"I think that the truth should be sought through individual responsibility, and not through confrontation between countries," Varadi remarked.

He explained that the ICJ could only decide on whether a country had committed or assisted in genocide.

Varadi feels that Serbia's countersuit is unlikely to end with a conviction.

"We know that the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has neither convicted nor even indicted anyone for genocide regarding the Croatian conflict. Therefore, it is unlikely that this process could end in conviction," Varadi stated.

He also pointed out that there could be no question of ICJ's competence concerning the countersuit because it had already declared itself competent when Croatia filed the original charges.