Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 2
The Legal Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Difficulties with Implementation . . . . . . . . 4
Non-Cooperation by States . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Non-Cooperation by the International Community . 8
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Works Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
In the early 1990s, the fragmentation of the former Yugoslav Federation led to an outbreak of civil warfare and ethnic violence in the Balkans, particularly in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Concentration camps, mass murders, mass expulsions, and other indicators of genocide became widespread, and the term "ethnic cleansing" was added to the 20th century's lexicon of horrors.
The international community was originally slow to react. France and Russia had deep historical ties to Serbia, going back to the last great outbreak of ethnic violence in the region, which had helped to trigger the First World War. Turkey had equally strong ties to the Bosnian Muslims, whose ancestors had converted to Islam when the region was ruled by the Ottoman Turkish empire. The United States was subject to various internal pressures, ranging from public outcries over news reportage of ethnic cleansing to pressure from ethnic communities such as Serbian-Americans, plus a general reluctance to become bogged down in an ethnic conflict. James Baker, Secretary of State in the administration of George H.W. Bush, said that "we do not have a dog in that fight" [Feffer 1]. After coming to office in 1993, the Clinton administration originally took the same view.
Evidence of extensive human rights violations appeared in Bosnia-Herzegovina almost as soon as war broke out there in 1992. The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) reported mass murders and concentration camps, and French and Italian lawyers' groups reported on further ...