Dutch Must Pay Srebrenica Compensation
 

Would this be considered a precedent by the ECHR and make the UK liable for compensation for Basra, Helmand and everywhere we we have had troops?

Netherlands to pay compensation over Srebrenica massacre

Historic' ruling sets precedent that countries providing troops as UN peacekeepers can be held legally responsible for crimes

The Netherlands has been ordered to pay compensation for the deaths of Bosnian Muslims in the 1995 Srebrenica massacre in a ruling that opens up the Dutch state to compensation claims from relatives of the rest of the 8,000 men and youths who died.

The judgment by Holland's supreme court is the final decision in a protracted claim brought by relatives of three Muslim men who were expelled by Dutch soldiers from a United Nations compound during the Balkans conflict then killed by Bosnian Serb forces. Although the case related only to the murder of three victims, it confirms the precedent that countries that provide troops to UN missions can be held responsible for their conduct.........

The Dutch court ruling held that in the chaos of the Serb takeover of Srebrenica, UN commanders no longer had control of the troops on the ground and "effective control" therefore reverted to Dutch authorities in the Hague.

The human rights lawyer Liesbeth Zegveld, who represented the Bosnian families, called the ruling historic because it established that countries involved in UN missions can be found legally responsible for crimes, despite the UN's far-reaching immunity from prosecution. "People participating in UN missions are not always covered by the UN flag," she said..............

It's about time they gave these damn lawyers a gun and told them you try it.... The world is becoming a total farce and its all the fault of lawyers and do gooders..

What will this result in?. Countries refusing to send troops for fear of being sued? One can only wonder who is paying these people's court costs as well.

But Nutty.....can you not see the rightness of this decision? I mean after all....everything is so neat and easy during Civil Wars, Ethnic Cleansing Actions, and other Wars and Misdemeanors that take place around the World.

Why every Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marine has a Law Book and Crystal Ball stashed away in their Bergen for use when things happen that are not nicely tied up in Blue Ribbon and handed to them with pomp and ceremony.

I guess we just need to start referring to them more often.

Steep slope....Tea Cart....and we know where this is headed.

It's hard enough to get countries to provide troops to the UN as it is. Indeed, many cash-starved armies of the world supply troops to the UN just to receive an income. If it now comes with a cash liability I guess these minor nations may think again!

Ah well, the UN death march continues.

"It confirms the precedent that countries that provide troops to UN missions can be held responsible for their conduct."

Hardly a radical concept.

I can how effective filing a civil suit against a Moroccan Army Private can be if they somehow did something that gave cause to a civil action. Which Court would have jurisdiction say if said Moroccan was doing UN Duty in Somalia and an Ethiopian merchant got injured or killed due to some failure of the Soldier to perform a duty in some way?

Whilst I completely agree with the sentiments expressed above, could I point out that (unless I have misread) this is a Dutch court ordering the Dutch government to pay compensation...not an outside agency. Thus it is peculiarly Dutch foot-shooting exercise and not a great deal to do with anybody else.

Unfortunately, within Europe, once a precedent has been set in one country appellants in others appeal their cases up to the ECHR which favours the idea of extending their remit and enforce it as a common human right to all under their jurisdiction.

The briefing by a Dutch judge stressing the limited nature of the case is a forlorn attempt to prevent the inevitable international application

Well, shouldn't the Dutch have some responsibility?

Assuming you are right, then the worst that can happen is that any European government that provides forces for UN peacekeeping operations may be held liable in law for the wrongful conduct of their forces, but only in circumstances where that government had effective control of its own forces at the material time (i.e. they were no longer under effective UN control).

Ok, explain what you would have done?

What I would have done or not done isn't your concern. What the Dutch did and didn't do makes them party to this suit and a witness to genocide.

Appalling memory. Certainly not their finest hour but here's hoping none of us are ever placed in their position.

I spent some time in Sreb and can assure you that the small Dutch contingent had no chance of protecting this 'safe' haven. The UN's generally limp wristed policies with regard to their involvement (or not!) in the course and conduct of the war essentially cleared the way for the Serbs unfortunately.

Hindsight's a great thing but I suspect if someone had made a robust (and possibly suicidal) stand against the Serbs once their intentions were clear then we might have saved a few thousand lives...........

The actions of the Dutch at Srebrenica were nothing short of negligent in allowing genocide to happen under their own noses, there was no hint of actually defending the place, numbers of troops notwithstanding. At least they've recognised this in recent years.

The Dutch might have been stationed In Sreb but they certainly weren't the only UN nationality aware of what was happening....if we are 'blaming' the Dutch for not having the temerity to take out a few Serbs and make a stand then we need to take a close look at the whole UNPROFOR command...!

You asked the question - shouldn't the Dutch have some responsibility? I will rephrase my question as you are unwilling to state what you would have done. Let me put it this way - what do you suggest the Dutch forces should have done to avoid the accusation of being "witness" to genocide? Define witness by the way - in my simple mind I understand the word in its basic meaning - not implying complicity or approval of the events that occurred. I await some realistic suggestions from you as to what 400 lightly armed troops could have done to oppose a heavily armed force of much greater size fighting virtually on its own ground, constrained as the Dutch were by the rigorous restrictions placed on UN forces by their rules of engagement?

That is total tosh Laarbruch72, had the Dutch resisted then they would have been wiped out, to a man. Their OC took the correct action to save his men, unaware that a massacre, rather than loss of control of an area, was about to take place. One might also ask why the commanders on the ground didn't order a considerable reinforcement of the UN troops already there when they became aware the Dutch were no longer in control.

Tankertrashnav has it right here:

I love the 20:20 hindsight of some...

The on-site commander did what he thought was correct at the time and like all tense or combat situations did not have the benefit of a multi-person and multi-year review period to critique the situation and call the shots.

I don't think it's hindsight to say it was negligent to place a lightly armed battalion in place and marginally support them knowing the absolute brutality of the enemy.

Tanker
Find someone else to play with. This isn't about what I would have done.