Transparency in International Adjudication: A Critical Analysis through the Lens of the ICTY and Global Geopolitics

The concept of transparency in the context of international adjudication is frequently praised as a fundamental characteristic of a successful judicial procedure. It is widely regarded as an objective that all adjudicative entities should strive for, as it contributes to the bolstering of their credibility and authority. This reflective essay critically examines the viewpoint that, although openness undeniably offers advantages to the international legal system, it must be weighed against other aims in the quest for justice. The paper is divided into two sections. Firstly, this analysis examines the level of transparency within the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Additionally, it provides a concise examination of the concept of assassination, specifically focusing on incidents categorized as "accidents" or "deaths."

The legitimacy of domestic court decision-makers is typically derived from their selection process or the appeal mechanism that applies to their judgements. The appointment of higher court judges typically involves a process wherein one branch of government is responsible for their selection, while their confirmation is contingent upon the approval of a second branch or committee, or alternatively, a commission vested with the authority to pick or exercise disciplinary control over magistrates. The best part being a pattern of success created by ICTY, making us cognizant and diligence to maintain the standards of such great work. Furthermore, it is important to note that domestic processes typically through an appellate process, although this is not necessarily the situation in international dispute settlement. Hence, the advocacy for increased transparency in global proceedings can serve as a valuable mechanism to bolster the credibility of international courts and tribunals, addressing concerns regarding the perceived lack of public scrutiny in the selection process of adjudicators and the absence of a mechanism to review their decisions. Although these particular elements are not susceptible to democratic procedures, transparency facilitates the public scrutiny of adjudicative procedures, enabling individuals to determine whether they will maintain mechanisms that promote responsiveness and awareness of diverse interests among adjudicative bodies, as well as the provision of comprehensive access to pertinent information.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was a judicial institution established by the United Nations that had a profound and lasting impact on the field of international humanitarian law. Its establishment provided a platform for victims to express the traumatic events they had witnessed and endured, while also demonstrating that individuals believed to have played a significant role in the commission of atrocities during armed conflicts could be held responsible for their actions. An illustrative instance can be observed in the shape of a transparent online platform that offers readers the chance to perpetually retain historical knowledge, discern recurring patterns of abhorrent occurrences, and consequently derive valuable lessons from the past. What acts of atrocity were perpetrated upon whom, for what reasons, and during which time period? What were the reasons for regarding justice as fundamental in the quest of peace and harmony? What impact does it have on the field of international jurisprudence concerning peace and politics? Is it within the authority of the Security Council to establish a Tribunal? Will the tribunal maintain independence from the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (P5)? On my read on the ICTY website which stands as a monument to those accomplishments, providing access to the wealth of resources that the Tribunal produced over the years gave details of one such horrific incident which was brought before the court and came to an end on 4 March 2008, RADOSLAV BRĐANIN was transferred to Denmark to serve 30 years of imprisonment after being convicted of Persecutions; torture; deportation; inhumane acts (forcible transfer) (crimes against humanity). This helped me empathise with situations across border and a realisation on the emphasis of Justice in pursuit of Peace in the International World Order.

Extending the need for the Tribunals, inter alia imagining Putin landing up in tribunal and what will happen then and how will it work out I can‘t help but wonder how India as a nation being fooled by Russia with it‘s clairvoyant diplomacy. Russia was never there when we wanted seek help while taking a stance against China and how it has taken support from India when India doesn‘t want to while committing horrors to Ukraine. What kind of friends literally, diplomatically and legally are we? was the first in-person meeting between the two leaders since the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February last year. They have earlier only spoken virtually. This being a historic moment has embarked a pull from the friendships i.e. India and Russia which haven‘t been purposeful (serving humanity). India is in dire need to change the International politics due to geo-political reasons and double standards maintained by Russia not only domestically but Internationally as well.

The preliminary U.S. intelligence assessment concluded that an intentional explosion caused the plane crash presumed to have killed a mercenary leader who was eulogized by Vladimir Putin, even as suspicions grew that the Russian president was the architect of the assassination. This was initially called a DEATH? The loss of assets and life of Russian mercenary chief Yevgeny Prigozhin is a personal setback. Who didn‘t looked at the Wagner chief with eyes of hope or wasn‘t inspired by him for rising against the wind. May the great leaders rise from Wagner chief‘s ashes like Phoenix as he continues to live in our hearts.

The composition, working methods, and voting procedure of the Security Council have been subject to significant criticism by most United Nations Member States since its establishment. In conjunction with the evident lack of success on the part of the Council in carrying out its responsibilities as the principal entity on matters pertaining to global peace. During the Cold War era, the prevailing discontentment among UN Member States regarding disarmament and security prompted them to take action. The Uniting for Peace resolution was adopted in the General Assembly in 19501, specifically Resolution 377 (V), as a means to provide an alternate mechanism in situations where the Security Council is unable to take action due to paralysis. Thirteen years subsequent to the initial occurrence, the persistent state of instability led to the amendment of the year 1963.The proposal under consideration is an amendment to the United Nations Charter, specifically pertaining to the augmentation of non- permanent seats within the organization from a total of six to ten. In 1993, the General Assembly established a "Open-ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Related Matters" in response to the Non-Aligned Movement's constant agitation2. The purpose of this working group was to examine and address the issue at hand. The inability to formulate specific suggestions by the Working Group might be attributed to the existence of

addressed, to some extent, during the gathering of United Nations Member States in New York in September 2005, where they will engage in discussions regarding a comprehensive overhaul of the global organization. Undoubtedly, there is a growing consensus that the United Nations, which has been in existence for six decades, requires immediate restructuring. The initial controversy pertains to the inquiry of whether the augmentation in the number of elected members should be accompanied by a corresponding augmentation in permanent seats. An alliance has been established by four nations, namely Germany, Japan, India, and Brazil, commonly referred to as the G-4. The primary objective of this alliance is to advocate for the acquisition of a seat in a prominent international organization, both for themselves and for two African nations.3 Due to the significant population and financial contributions these States provide to the United Nations, their candidacy has garnered considerable approbation from a multitude of other member nations within the UN. The four applications have been officially backed by three of the current P-5 members, namely France, the United Kingdom, and Russia, together with a majority of EU Member States and several other States. The 'Ezulwini consensus' of the African Union, which calls for allocating at least two permanent seats to African nations inside the AU, provides another grounds for the increase of permanent seats. It is also worth noting that China has publicly endorsed India's quest for a permanent place in the international community, while the United States has publicly endorsed Japan's quest for the same thing. However, the process of expanding the P-5 is expected to encounter significant challenges. Undoubtedly, the aforementioned ideas encounter significant resistance from the primary competitors of the four allied candidates, namely Italy in relation to Germany, Mexico and Argentina in relation to Brazil, and Pakistan in relation to India. Furthermore, there is a divergence of opinions regarding the allocation of permanent seats to specific countries and the number of such seats that should be granted, and it is yet to be determined if China and the United States will agree to provide seats to countries other than India and Japan, respectively. Concerning the proposal, it is clear that the majority of UN Member States favor for the abolition of the P-5's current veto authority. The African Union, the Arab League, the Group of Non-Aligned Nations, and several Western countries all support the development of such a reform. Outside of the P5, only Poland, Australia, and Singapore have publicly stated their support for the current veto power. Due to the need for the P-5's consensus and support for changing the A commonly suggested idea is the elimination of the veto power in all procedures related to Chapter VI of the UN Charter, which pertains to the peaceful resolution of conflicts. As previously mentioned, the concept was introduced by Australia during the discussions in San Francisco and initially received endorsement from France. In January 1948, China proposed a motion that bore resemblance to the Australian amendment.4 An alternative version of the proposal would limit the use of the veto power to only those actions taken by the Security Council in conformity with Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. Non-Aligned Movement's original proposal, which has since been adopted by a number of individual countries, including the Spanish, Colombian, Costa Rican, Ghanaian, Jamaican, Mexican, Brazilian, Pakistani, Peruvian, Lithuanian, and Slovak republic. The African Union and a few other UN members (including Italy, Mongolia, Singapore, and Tunisia) argue for a third idea, which is that the veto power should only prevent the Council from enacting a resolution if two or more permanent members simultaneously exercise it. Historical evidence suggests that cases of concurring vetoes have been restricted to a few 27, therefore the proposed proposal would considerably curtail the ability of a single permanent member. Some countries have proposed doing away with the veto in cases where it would have no practical effect, such as when seeking an Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice or sending observers from the United Nations. Mexico has demanded that all references to the Security Council be removed from UN Charter sections dealing with the admission, suspension, and expulsion of Member States, the nomination of a Secretary-General, and the amendment of the UN Charter. It follows that, in light of Uruguay's and Colombia's recommendations, additional proposals must have been made about the possibility of the General Assembly overriding the exercise of the veto power by a two-thirds majority. An alternative approach would be to try again to formalize procedural concerns in line with Article 27(2) of the United Nations Charter. More long-term contributors need to be examined. There should be no distinction made between the first and second rank of permanent members, as has been argued by Germany, Japan, India, and Brazil. As a result, there is an argument for granting veto power to prospective new members. According to their argument, "prospective permanent members should bear equivalent responsibilities and obligations to the existing permanent members." The African Union and the League of Arab States both agree that it is a matter of fairness and equity that all permanent members have access to the veto power should continue to have sole veto authority. A number of individual states, namely Australia, Mexico, Italy and Spain (referred to as the "Uniting for Consensus Group"), express their opposition to the expansion of the veto power in a horizontal manner. Their argument is that such a change would heighten the possibility of the Security Council experiencing paralysis, without contributing to its effectiveness or credibility. The stance expressed in the High-Level Panel Report aligns closely with the aforementioned viewpoint. Germany has expressed its commitment to supporting the sensible limitations on the use of veto power, as put forth by the 'Group of Ten', as a means to address the diverse problems at hand. Germany has proposed the inclusion of a suggestion that member States provide an explanation for their utilization of the veto power to the General Assembly. Additionally, Germany suggests that newly appointed permanent members should be prohibited from exercising the veto for a specified interim duration of 15 years.5 The concept was replicated in a preliminary a Plan for the Reorganization of the UN Security Council, which was put forth by the G-4 on the 8th of June ,2005.6 In conclusion, it is important to acknowledge that the various suggestions for increasing the number of permanent members concur on the necessity of reassessing this expansion after a timeframe of 10 to 20 years (as proposed by the G4, specifically 15 years). The G-4 motion posits that the utilization of the veto by Security Council members would be prohibited in relation to the aforementioned review process.

Article 1 of the United Nations Charter lays forth the Charter's overarching goals: the preservation of international peace and security; the elimination of threats to that peace; and the promotion of friendly relations among nations.1 Reflecting on the point whether the UN security council had paralysis over Syria or not, The resolution passed by the Security Council requested an immediate end to attacks against people, the end of arbitrary detention, kidnapping, and torture, and the lifting of sieges on populated areas in Syria but the end result came out to be just opposite of the resolution as Syrian civilians, however, have found that the resolutions and the promise they brought were empty. The conflicting parties, other UN member states, and even certain members of the UN Security Council have all either disregarded or undercut them. After the Resolutions were passed, The Syrian people, however, have seen escalating amounts of killing, damage, and suffering. The number of people in need of humanitarian aid has climbed by about a third since 2013.There are currently more than 11.6 million people in dire need of access to safe drinking water, 2013.This figure reached 5.6 million by the end of 2014 and more than 4.8 million people live in areas that assistance groups operating within Syria can either access only irregularly, or in many cases not at all, including more than 212,000 people who are still living in besieged locations, including 163,500 in Eastern Ghouta As stated in Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, the Security Council may employ the use of force in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. Sanctions on the economy and military intervention from other countries are also examples of this. The Council also creates UN Peacekeeping Operations and Special Political Missions. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has the capacity to call for these reforms, and its members and allies have the political, diplomatic, and financial clout and ability to see that they are implemented. The demands made in these resolutions are meaningless paper demands unless individual governments take actions, and we can no longer afford to disregard them. With regards to civilian protection, the UN Security Council suggested the most effective measures to be taken, including the immediate cessation of all attacks against civilians and the indiscriminate use of weapons in populated areas, the provision of medical facilities, and the end of illegal detention of civilians but none were followed and the situation got more worse as at least 76,000 individuals, including thousands of children, were reportedly killed in 2014.Seventy-five students were killed in school-related incidents in 2014. In 2014, the number of Syrians who were compelled to leave their homes and seek refuge elsewhere increased by 26%. There has been a dramatic rise in the number of Syrians in need of humanitarian assistance, with a 31% jump and an additional 1.33 million children in need of assistance. In 2014, there was an increase in the usage of explosive weapons, which have been responsible for 53% of civilian deaths since 2011.Steps that could be taken by the UN could be Stopping the flow of weapons to groups guilty of using them in atrocities is a top priority. When it comes to humanitarian aid and under siege neighbourhoods, According to Article 76 of the UN charter, the goal is to promote acknowledgment of the interdependence of the peoples of all nations and to encourage respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without regard to race, sex, language, or religion. The UNSC Calls on all parties to ensure that UN humanitarian organizations and their implementing partners have immediate, safe, and unimpeded access to affected areas, including inside and outside of officially recognized boundaries and calls on all involved to take precautions to protect those working in humanitarian

organization (NGO) assistance convoys have brought 1,130 tons of supplies across the border from Turkey into Syria. Almost no services have been provided, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) continue to encounter obstacles at border crossings, despite the supply of humanitarian aid. The number of individuals living in "hard to reach areas" increased by 2.3 million in 2013. Food aid decreased by 97% in these areas in the four months following the UNSCR. Within Syria,inter-agency convoys were able to reach 63% fewer people than in 2013.About what steps UNSC could have taken for humanitarian access as Parties to the conflict should remove administrative hurdles to relief, such as travel and working restrictions imposed by the Syrian government, as well as halt attacks on humanitarian workers. Parties to the conflict should remove administrative hurdles to relief, such as travel and working restrictions imposed by the Syrian government, as well as halt attacks on humanitarian workers. Powerful nations should urge their neighbours to Syria to streamline administrative processes for humanitarian agencies and ensure prompt access through border crossings in order to speed up the delivery of aid across the border. In regard to international contributions to the humanitarian response, The UNSC encouraged all UN members to respond to UN humanitarian pleas with financial contributions or increased support. Reiterating calls for all Member States to strengthen their resettlement efforts and offer more stable finance to which Only 57% of the total appeals for the Syria crisis were financed in 2014, down from 71% in 2013.4 the number of people in need of humanitarian aid has increased by a factor of twelve, from one million to twelve million. By year's end, the number of refugees entering neighbouring countries had reached 3.7 million, and projections for 2015 indicate that figure climbed to 4.3 million. Reflecting on this point it could be imperative for donors to provide complete financial support for the response efforts and extend their assistance to international humanitarian organizations. This support should primarily focus on enhancing the capabilities of Syrian non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Additionally, there is a need to augment funding allocations to address the needs of both refugees and impoverished local communities residing in countries neighbouring Syria. It is recommended that affluent nations increase the scope of their resettlement and humanitarian admissions initiatives to guarantee that a minimum of 5% of refugees are afforded the opportunity to seek refuge beyond their immediate region. In Regard to Political Development, The UNSC proposed that it is imperative that all involved parties effectively addresses the rightful desires of the Syrian people to which Peace negotiations took place in Moscow in January 2015, excluding the primary armed and political opposition. In February 2015, Staffa de Mistura, the United Nations Special Envoy, made an announcement stating that the Government of Syria has agreed to a temporary cessation of strikes in the city of Aleppo for a duration of six weeks. This commitment was made as part of a larger strategy known as the 'freeze' plan. Reflecting political Development aspect, the cessation of hostilities and the initiation of comprehensive peace negotiations that uphold the rights and aspirations of the Syrian population are imperative for all parties involved in the conflict could be done and It is imperative that the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and influential states prioritize the task of seeking a political resolution and extend their support to the United Nations Special Envoy in order to achieve a cessation of hostilities in the city of Aleppo.

1. Official Languages Archived 13 July 2021 at the Wayback Machine, www.un.org. Retrieved 31 December 2021. 2. "United Nations Charter". www.un.org. 17 June 2015. Archived from the original on 18 March 2022. Retrieved 20 March 2022. 3. "International Organization". National Geographic Society. 23 December 2012. Archived from the original on 16 November 2020. Retrieved 24 October 2020. 4. "'The League is Dead. Long Live the United Nations.'". National WW2 Museum New Orleans. 19 April 2021. Archived from the original on 24 February 2022. Retrieved 10 March 2022. 5. "UN Objectives". www.un.org. Archived from the original on 22 November 2018. Retrieved 22 November 2018. 6. Jump up to: a b "UN welcomes South Sudan as 193rd Member State". United Nations. 28 June 2006. Archived from the original on 3 August 2015. Retrieved 4 November 2011. 7. "UN Early years of the Cold War". peacekeeping.un.org. Archived from the original on 22 November 2018. Retrieved 22 November 2018. 8. "UN Decolonization". www.un.org. 10 February 2016. Archived from the original on 9. "Post Cold War UN". peacekeeping.un.org. Archived from the original on 22 November 2018. Retrieved 22 November 2018. 10. "Red Cross-History-Objective". International Committee of the Red Cross. 11 September 2017. Archived from the original on 23 June 2018. Retrieved 28 November 2018. 11. "League of Nations instituted". history.com. Archived from the original on 4 December 2018. Retrieved 3 December 2018. 12. "League of Nations and Manchuria invasion". www.johndclare.net. Archived from the original on 27 November 2018. Retrieved 30 November 2018. 13. "Why the League failed". johndclare.net. Archived from the original on 3 August 2018. Retrieved 3 December 2018. 14. United Nations, Dept of Public Information (1986). Everyone's United Nations. UN. p. 5. ISBN 978-92-1-100273-7. Archived from the original on 16 November 2020. Retrieved 11 November 2020. 15. Tandon, Mahesh Prasad; Tandon, Rajesh (1989). Public International Law. Allahabad Law Agency. p. 421. Archived from the original on 16 November 2020. Retrieved 11 November 2020. 16. Lauren, Paul Gordon (2011). The Evolution of International Human Rights: Visions Seen. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 140–141. ISBN 978-0-8122-2138-1. Archived from the original on 15 December 2020. Retrieved 11 November 2020. 17. "Inter-Allied Council Statement on the Principles of the Atlantic Charter". The Avalon Project. Lillian Goldman Law Library. 24 September 1941. Archived from the original on 3 August 2011. Retrieved 14 August 2013. 18. "Press Conference On Franklin Delano Roosevelt Disability Award". UN Press. Archived from the original on 20 September 2022. Retrieved 17 July 2022. 19. "Without Global Cooperation Between Great And Small Alike, No Progress And No Peace Can Last Forever, Secretary-General States". UN Press. Archived from the original on 17 July 2022. Retrieved 17 July 2022. 20. "United Nations". Wordorigins.org. 3 February 2007. Archived from the original on 31 March 2016. Retrieved 28 March 2016. Group. p. 397. ISBN 978-0-385-35306-9. Archived from the original on 8 March 2022. Retrieved 5 December 2020. 22. Roll, David (2013). The Hopkins Touch: Harry Hopkins and the Forging of the Alliance to Defeat Hitler. Oup USA. pp. 172–175. ISBN 978-0-19-989195-5. 23. Sherwood 1948, pp. 447–453. 24. Urquhart, Brian (16 July 1998). "Looking for the Sheriff". New York Review of Books. Archived from the original on 26 June 2018. Retrieved 14 February 2007. 25. "1942: Declaration of The United Nations". United Nations. Archived from the original on 8 November 2015. Retrieved 1 July 2015. 26. Schlesinger 2003. 27. Bohlen, C.E. (1973). Witness to History, 1929–1969. New York. p. 159. 28. Video: Allies Study Post-War Security Etc. (1944). Universal Newsreel. 1944. Archived from the original on 4 December 2014. Retrieved 28 November 2014. 29. "UN Milestone Dumbarton Oaks Conference". www.un.org. 4 August 2015. Archived from the original on 3 November 2018. Retrieved 22 November 2018. 30. Bohlen, C.E. (1973). Witness to History, 1929–1969. New York: Norton. p. 159. ISBN 978-0-393-07476-5. 31. ^ "Charter of the United Nations|United Nations". www.un.org. 10 August 2015. Archived from the original on 4 February 2017. Retrieved 29 December 2016. 32. "History of the United Nations|United Nations". www.un.org. 21 August 2015. Archived from the original on 7 January 2017. Retrieved 29 December 2016. 33. "San Francisco – the birthplace of the United Nations". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 29 December 2016. Retrieved 29 December 2016. 34. "1945: The San Francisco Conference". United Nations. Archived from the original on 12 January 2017. Retrieved 1 July 2015. 35. Miller, Russell A.; Bratspies, Rebecca M., eds. (2008). Progress in International Law.

36. "South Africa: Time Running Out", The Study Commission on U.S. Policy Toward Southern Africa, University of California Press, p. 31, 1981, ISBN 978-0-520-04547-7 37. Jump up to: a b c d e "UN Milestones 1941–1950". www.un.org. 4 August 2015. Archived from the original on 27 October 2017. Retrieved 1 November 2017. 38. "Poland and the United Nations". Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland. Archived from the original on 3 December 2013. Retrieved 29 November 2013. 39. Roberts, J. M. (John Morris) (1993). History of the world. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 778. ISBN 978-0-19-521043-9. OCLC 28378422. 40. Meisler 1995, p. 35. 41. Meisler 1995, pp. 58–59. 42. "UN Milestones Korean War". www.un.org. 4 August 2015. Archived from the original on 3 November 2018. Retrieved 22 November 2018.

OP Jindal Global University, Sonipat