FROM: Mathilde Renou TO: Ms. Charlotte Irwin RE: Memorandum on the Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, ICTY Appeals Chamber DATE: 06 December 2013 FACTS Dusko Tadic is a Bosnian Serb accused of crimes against humanity, the first of which were the collection, mistreatment and the killing of Bosnian and Croat Muslims in the former Yugoslavia in 1992. Also known as “Dule” Tadic, this former leader of the Serbian paramilitary forces was indicted in 1995. The defense had filed a preliminary motion to dismiss the charges based on the incompetence of the court, which was first rejected by the Trial Chamber which refused, among others, to investigate the legality of the creation of the court. Against this rejection, the defense proposed a cross-appeal to contest, among other things, the "illegal foundation of the International Tribunal". ISSUE Dusko Tadic (hereinafter the appellant) contested the jurisdiction (or "competence" as the case is known) of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and complained about "an error of law on the part of the Chamber of first instance”, and contested in particular the legitimacy of the institution of the Tribunal. Therefore the questions are as follows. Does the Court have the power to determine its own jurisdiction, i.e. its own legal basis, by affirming the principle of "competence de la competence"? By extension, does the United Nations Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, legitimately have the right to establish an international criminal court? RULE Pursuant to Article 36(6) of the Statute of the Court, the Court affirmed its right to the principle of... ... half of the document ...... of the proceedings, and rejected the first ground of appeal of the appellant based on an illegitimate institution of the International Tribunal. CONCLUSION The Appeals Chamber rejected the appellant's claim that the ICTY lacked jurisdiction, affirming its power to determine its own jurisdiction. The Court affirmed its “jurisdiction of jurisdiction” under Article 36 (6) of the Statute of the ICJ by holding that the tribunal was legitimately and lawfully established under Chapter VII of the United Nations and reaffirmed that the Council of United Nations Security had the legitimacy to establish a "subsidiary body", i.e. a tribunal, of international law, respecting the rule of law. With this decision, the Court affirmed its ability to determine and exercise its jurisdiction over its own jurisdiction, better known as the principle of “compétence de la compétence”.”.