Essay --

FROMMathilde RenouTOMs. Charlotte IrwinREMemorandum on Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, Decision on interlocutory Appeal 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. Also kn feature as Dule Tadic, this former leader of Serbian paramilitary forces has been indicted in 1995 . The self-renunciation team had fulfilled a preliminary motion for freeing of the charges based 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 International Tribunal . ISSUEDusko Tadic (hereinafter the Appellant) contested the jurisdictio n (or the competence as it is referred in the French magnetic declination of the case) of the International 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 mental hospital 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 warranter Council acting under Chapter VII of the united Nations Charter is lawfully entitled to establish an international criminal tribunal?RULEUnder article 36(6) edict of the salute , the Court asserted its right to the principle of... ... of Procedure , and rejected the first ground of appeal of the Appellant based on an unlawful administration of the International Tribunal .CONCLUSIONThe Appeals Chamber rejected the heading of the appellant related to the lack of 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.