Essay --

FROMMathilde RenouTOMs. Charlotte IrwinREMemorandum on Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, Decision on Interlocutory call forth on Jurisdiction, ICTY Appeals ChamberDATEDecember 06, 2013FACTSDusko Tadic is a Bosnian Serb accused of crimes against humanity amongst which the foremost were the collection, the mistreatment and the killing of Bosnian Muslims and Croats in the former Yugoslavia in 1992. similarly known as Dule Tadic, this former leader of Serbian paramilitary forces has been indicted in 1995 . The Defence squad had fulfilled a preliminary motion for dismissal of the charges ground on the tribunal lack of jurisdiction which was primarily rejected by the Trial Chamber which refused, amongst others, to investigate the legitimacy of the creation of the tribunal . From this dismissal, the Defence team filed an interlocutory appeal to contest, amongst others, the illegal foundation of the world-wide Tribunal . ISSUEDusko Tadic (hereinafter the Appellant) contested the jurisdiction (or the competence as it is referred in the French version of the case) of the foreign 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 establishment of the Tribunal. therefore the questions are the following. Does the Tribunal has the power to determine its own jurisdiction, i.e. its legal foundation by asserting the principle of comptence de la competence? By extension, does the UN surety Council playing under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter is lawfully entitled to establish an international criminal tribunal?RULEUnder article 36(6) Statute of the judicial system , the judicial system insist its right to the principle of... ... of Procedure , and rejected the first ground of appeal of the Appellant based on an unlawful establishment of the International Tribunal .CONCLUSIONThe Appeals Chamber rejected the heading of the appellant related to the lack o f jurisdiction of the ICTY by asserting its power to determine its own jurisdiction. The Court affirmed its comptence de la comptence under 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 subsidiary 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 exercise its competence on its own jurisdiction, best known as the principle of comptence de la comptence.