Yugoslavian Dissolution Trial
Over View:
Jack Campbell
Stefan Stojanovic
Isabella Barreiro Seiden
The Balkans had been full of different ethnicities ever since the very beginning. When the Slavs moved into the land, they ran into the Greeks who had already settled there. Things were peaceful for the Slavs and the Greeks until the Ottoman Empire came and took over all the Balkan states. North of Albania, are Catholics, and to the North east, Orthodox Christians. This frightened the Christians, which triggered the Crusades. The Crusades started tension between the Albanians and the Slavs. At the same time, there were also tensions within the Slavs themselves. Catholics in the Northwest West of Yugoslavia and the Orthodoxies in the East. All these ethnic tensions were released during different conflicts. For example, during WW2, the Nazi Germans and the fascist Italians invaded Yugoslavia, which at the time was a monarch kingdom. When the kingdom was invaded, King Peter II and his advisors left Yugoslavia during the invasion and were exiled in London, England. The Italians had gained complete control, so they made a deal with the Catholic Croatians. The Croatians were permitted to be free and be part of the axis power, as long as they helped to “cleanse” the Balkans from Orthodox Christians, Serbs, Muslims, and Gypsies. This created a minor genocide of Serbs, Gypsies, and Muslims. The Serbs never forgot the Croatians betrayal even after the war ended, and the Germans and Italians left. Thankfully, no problems between the Serbs and Croats arose after the war. The reason nothing between the Serbs and Croats occurred was because Josip Broz Tito came into power with his Communist Party. A large part of Tito’s Policy was being very strict when it came to nationalism in the other republics. Unfortunately, in 1980, Josip Broz Tito passed away. His power and rule was the only thing that kept Yugoslavia united. Suddenly, all the nationalism in all the republic started rising up and there was no way for the political leaders to control it.
Serbia’s perspective on the conflict is that the Serbians are not entirely responsible for the breakup of Yugoslavia, however it is as well the responsibility of the other republics of Yugoslavia due to the large amount of nationalism that had been kept up for years. The reason the Serbs seem that they are to blame is because they are the majority of the population in Yugoslavia, and since the Serbs were the most populated, they had the strongest nationalism.
Annotated Bibliography:
The Yugoslavian War
A. What information are you taking away from this resource?
B. Why is this a reliable source? (What qualifies it as a reputable source?)
C. How will the source support your research and help you understand the conflict?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/yugoslavia_01.shtml
Judah, Tim. "Yugoslavia: 1918 - 2003." BBC News. BBC, 17 Nov. 11. Web. 5 May 2013.
A) This article has information in the categories of the south slavs, an unhappy kingdom, Tito's Yugoslavia, descent into chaos, and new identities, each giving information on the what happened to Yugoslavia.
B) BBC is a reliable source because it is a well known news website and it was last updated in 2011, and the website was evaluated by easybib as credible.
C) This website will give me specific information that will help me understand the overall topic and what happened in Yugoslavia.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4997380.stm
"Timeline: Break-up of Yugoslavia." BBC News. BBC, 22 May 2006. Web. 06 May 2013.
A) This article gives a timeline of how yugoslavia broke up, starting in 1991 to 2006. It explains what happened to the country in the years 1991-1992, 1995, 1999, and 2000-2003, each set of years are information and important details towards why the country broke up.
B) BBC is a reliable source because it is a well known news website, the website was evaluated by easybib as credible.
C) This article will give me details of what happened in the later years of the Yugoslavian War and how they contributed towards the separation.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/media-disinformation-on-the-war-in-yugoslavia-the-dayton-peace-accords-revisited/899
Lucas, James A. "Global Research." Media Disinformation on the War in Yugoslavia: The Dayton Peace Accords Revisited. N.p., 7 Sept. 2005. Web. 06 May 2013.
A) The article gives more information about the war and how it started after the death of Tito.
B) The website was evaluated by easybib as credible, as well as it is a dot ca.
C) I will be able to use this information to help my understanding about how the war begn and what caused it, and to help me understand the overall topic.
http://staff.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/lect25.htm
"The Yugoslav Civil War." The Yugoslav Civil War. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 May 2013.
A) The website contributes information about the beginning of the separation of croatia and croatian nationalism, as well as other information of how the country split and separated.
B) This is a credible website because it is an dot edu.
C) I will use this to contribute to my research as the beggening of the separation and how they separated.
http://www.unc.edu/depts/europe/teachingresources/balkan-crisis.pdf
"What Happened to Yugoslavia? The War, The Peace and the Future." Www.unc.edu. N.p., 2004. Web. 5 May 2013.
A) This PDF is an in depth description of the war, including background, a war in the making, war, tough decisions, milosevic on trial, keeping the peace, and mapping out the future.
B) This is a dot education PDF, and it is credited with the Center for European Studies UNC– Chapel Hill.
C) this article will give me indepth information about different components to the trial, including information about the trial of Melosevich.
Laws of War Trial Reflection
Jack Campbell
3
Dissolution of Yugoslavia
5/3/13
Over the course of the project I learned many things about the trial that I was unaware of before. I learned all about the events that took place that lead up to the war, including trade embargoes and how the republics would alternate leaders. I also learned about the Yugoslavian war as a whole, before the projects I did not know much about the war, but throughout the project I learned about all the events that took place during the war, including the first shot that was fired to the massacres that happened. I also learned all about how the legal process is organized, meaning how the lawyers ask questions and how the judges respond.
A personal highlight and something that surprised me throughout the trial would be when Goran Jelsič began ranting during his time on the witness stand. It especially surprised me because it seemed very rehearsed, however I had no knowledge he was going to do that.
I believe that I deserve a 10 on the effort of this project because I spent a lot of time researching the topic, working with many of the lawyers, checking in on and keeping track on their work and progress, and arranging and collecting the information and papers. I did a lot of the work while we prepared by everyday checking in on the lawyers and making sure they are doing what they should be doing, as well as working with them and solving any confusion between people.
On a scale between one and ten I would give my self a 9. During the trial I did not speak as much as I wanted to, however I did participate a lot. I wrote a lot of the opening statement, and the majority of the closing statement, as well as I cross examined, and spoke most of the opening statement. I also contributed to the redirecting and the cross examinations when I did not speak by giving questions to the other lawyers and helping research.
I would recognize Ryan Gardiner for his effort into the cross examinations of our whitenesses, I believe he did a very good job at it and his questions were very good. As well as the evidence their side presented was well prepared.
Based on our trial conviction “Serbia was fully responsible for the dissolution of Yugoslavia, I would rule Serbia innocent due to the fact that both parties participated in acts that broke up the countries and caused succession.
If I were to do the trial over again, I would work more on my cross examination, unfortunately I asked the prosecution to share their statements with me 4 times, and Isabella, however she only shared one and it was the day before, however I did research using the whiteness summary. I would of just have done a lot more research.
Something next year that would be good it some more explanation of what the trial is going to be, it seemed to be very unorganized on both sides, as well as the lawyers and whiteness did not seem to be productive, and we could solve this with a more structured set up where the lawyers and whiteness could work together and work with the head lawyers.