Essay --

FROMMathilde RenouTOMs. Charlotte IrwinREMemorandum on Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, Decision on Interlocutory call forth on Jurisdiction, ICTY Appeals houseDATEDecember 06, 2013FACTSDusko Tadic is a Bosnian Serb charge of crimes against humanity amongst which the foremost were the collection, the mistreatment and the killing of Bosnian Muslims and Croats in the originator Yugoslavia in 1992. Also known as Dule Tadic, this former leader of Serbian paramilitary organisation forces has been indicted in 1995 . The Defence team had fulfilled a preliminary drift for dismissal of the charges based on the tribunal lack of jurisdiction which was to begin with rejected by the Trial Chamber which refused, amongst others, to investigate the legitimacy of the entry of the tribunal . From this dismissal, the Defence team filed an interlocutory appeal to contest, amongst others, the illegal foot of the International court . ISSUEDusko Tadic (hereinafter the Appellant) contested the jurisdic tion (or the competence as it is referred in the French version of the case) of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and alleged an error of law on the part of the Trial Chamber , and contested particularly the legitimacy of the validation of the Tribunal. Therefore the questions are the following. Does the Tribunal has the power to go down its own jurisdiction, i.e. its legal foundation by take a firm stand the rationale of comptence de la competence? By extension, does the UN Security Council acting at a lower place Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter is lawfully entitled to establish an world(prenominal) criminal tribunal?RULEUnder article 36(6) Statute of the royal court , the Court asserted its right to the principle of... ... of Procedure , and rejected the stolon ground of appeal of the Appellant based on an unlawful establishment of the International Tribunal .CONCLUSIONThe Appeals Chamber rejected the heading of the appellant r elated to the lack of jurisdiction of the ICTY by asserting its power to determine its own jurisdiction. The Court affirmed its comptence de la comptence nether Article 36 (6) ICJ Statute by arguing that the tribunal has been lawfully and legitimately founded under Chapter VII of the United Nations and reaffirmed that The UN Security Council had the legitimacy to establish a ancillary organ, i.e. a tribunal, under international law respecting the rule of law. By ruling on this decision, the Court has asserted its capacity to determine and to go its competence on its own jurisdiction, best known as the principle of comptence de la comptence.