Justified grievances? A quantitative examination of case outcomes at the international tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)

Scholars have long debated the impartiality of the ICTY. Some argue that the Tribunal is biased while others argue that it fairly and impartially seeks justice for all the victims of the war. The present study offers a narrower approach to the question of possible bias by examining whether certain case variables were associated with case outcomes. The results show strong evidence of an association between the ethnicity of the accused (and of the victims) and the verdict and years sentenced, which calls into question the Tribunal’s impartiality. Nonetheless, the main goal of this study was not to question or dispute its decisions but to assess the validity of certain grievances against the Tribunal. For instance, the Serbs feel the Tribunal has not delivered justice for their victims and—as a result—their ‘collective suffering’ has been disavowed by the other communities in the region as well as by the West. Western political elites have largely rejected the validity of the Serbs’ claim and have attributed their belief to a denial by the Serbs of their role in the war. Unfortunately, the contentious nature of this debate has contributed to the lack of peacebuilding and reconciliation efforts in the region.