“Crossroads of International Criminal Law”

From 30 October to 1 November 2025, the “Serbian Association for International Criminal Law” (SUMKP 2001), based in Belgrade and the Beijing-based “World Forum on Crime and International Criminal Law” (IFCCLGE), jointly held an international scientific conference in Belgrade. Eighty-three academics, legal experts and representatives of international organisations from many countries were invited to share their knowledge on current and fundamental international criminal law issues. The conference was entitled: “Crossroads of International Criminal Law”.

The topic was chosen in light of the global tectonic shifts in the transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world. In addition to contributions from various countries, key topics were discussed at two roundtables: “Introduction of the new criminal offence of ‘political genocide’ into international criminal legislation”. The second roundtable was entitled “On the Hague Ad Hoc Tribunal, the Residual Mechanism and the initiative to annul all decisions of these bodies.”
  Participants from the following countries were represented: Egypt, Albania, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, China, Germany, Georgia, Greece, Italy, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, North Macedonia, the Republic of Srpska, Russia, Switzerland, Serbia, Spain, Uganda and Hungary.
  Professor Sreto Nogo, President of SUMKP 2001, who worked for many years in the Yugoslav Ministry of Justice and as a high-ranking official in the Serbian government, warmly welcomed the conference participants. He said that international relations were increasingly influenced by power politics in the face of a changing world order. He stated that meaningful global reform required the participation of China. Nogo was highly critical of the International Criminal Court (ICC) – not to be confused with the International Court of Justice (ICJ). He warned against double standards and the politicisation of the UN special tribunals (ad hoc criminal courts convened by the United Nations). He called for people to raise their voices, for example by submitting a proposal to the UN Security Council (see below).
  The opening speech was given by Italian Professor Pino Arlacchi, President of the IFCCLGE and former Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director of the United Nations Drug Control Programme. His speech focused on the current wars. They contradict the founding principles of the UN, which are “to save future generations from the scourge of war” and “maintain international peace”. “Every day there is terrible news. What can be done to protect ourselves?” he asked. The vision outlawing war was already laid down in 1928 in the Kellogg-Briand Pact, but it failed to gain acceptance. Civil society must not remain silent about conflicts. As history shows, the same fate could befall us. He praised the UN Charter as a document that aims at preventing armed conflicts. In view of today’s prevailing practice of the “legal use of force”, Arlacchi called for a restructuring of the UN, while retaining the best aspects of the current system. “It is not impossible to achieve this; it just requires the will and perseverance of people to create a more humane world”, he concluded.

Wide range of topics

Following the opening speeches, the participating countries had the opportunity to report on the status of their research and areas of focus. The focus was on national and transnational criminal law provisions and considerations. The range of topics was very broad. Here are just a few of the topics from the conference programme:

• “Criminal liability of company directors for omissions in relation to the actions of their subcontractors” (Brazil),

• “Challenges of AI and money laundering in the application of international criminal law” (Spain),

• “Organ transplantation: various control strategies” (Serbia),

• “Enforcement international sentencing jurisprudence in Northern Uganda” (Uganda),

• “Preventing flight and migration: international social work in crisis situations” (Germany),

• “Efficiency and effectiveness of the International Criminal Court” (Albania),

• “Is international criminal jurisdiction feasible and desirable today? Lessons from the ad hoc tribunals and the ICC” (Greece),

• “Extradition requests and immunity of the accused in international crimes” (Georgia),

• “Abuse of big data modelling technologies in the digital economy” (China).

Professor Sergey Baburin, politician and constitutional lawyer from Russia, delivered a message of greeting from Alexander N. Savenkow, Director of the Institute for State and Law at the Russian Academy of Sciences. In his greetings he praised the conference topic as being highly relevant. International criminal law, which has been the basis for the international legal order and peaceful coexistence between states since the Nuremberg Trials, is now facing global changes due to new forms of international crime. This requires a reassessment of existing legal instruments and the development of effective mechanisms for criminal prosecution. Baburin spoke about the “civilisational nature of the challenges facing international law today”. International relations are very unstable today. The war in Ukraine is also a war between civilisations. In the field of family life, Western societies lack respect for elder people. A state should emanate kindness and friendliness, i.e., be a moral state. International law has been distorted, particularly with regard to the loss of sovereignty. As an example of double standards, he cited the 1999 war in Yugoslavia, where NATO carried out a “humanitarian intervention”. The West did not intervene in the genocide in Ukraine in 2014. He proposed incorporating moral and spiritual values into international law.

Political genocide and special tribunals

Lively and sometimes controversial discussions took place at the two roundtables. The first roundtable focused on the proposal to introduce “political genocide” (policide) as a new offense in international criminal law. Professor Jove Kekenovski (North Macedonia) provided an introduction to the topic (here according to the written text):
  “Political genocide constitutes the systematic and intentional abuse of political power, institutions and international mechanisms for the purpose of denying, erasing or redefining the national, cultural, and political identity of a people or a community, undermining or abolishing the right of a people to self-determination and self-identification”. Today, there exist forms of systematic destruction of political and cultural identity that do not require the use of physical force; yet, political genocide can produce consequences for the political, cultural and national identity of a community equally destructive as those of classical genocide. The extension of existing international criminal law to include the offence of “political genocide” seeks to create a legal basis for sanctioning such acts. “This is also a civilisational obligation to preserve diversity, freedom and political autonomy of peoples in contemporary world.” A corresponding resolution was adopted at the conference.
  It was fascinating to observe how each country’s history and culture was reflected in the individual contributions to the discussion. One participant from Azerbaijan preferred to refer to the genocide of the Armenians as a “war against Armenia”. Another participant from Egypt considered it unnecessary to create new terms. A participant from Greece compared the discussion about the term political genocide with the term colonialism and neo-colonialism. Instead of adding a new term to international criminal law, he suggested that the historical context should be taken into account in each case; Palestine was the best example of this; in the war in Ukraine, for example, the language ban (Russian); in Cuba, for example, the blockade. Establishing a federal system would be the way to resolve the conflicts in the Balkans as a whole. Another participant from the Republic of Srpska pointed out that the protection of minorities was also an issue. A participant from Russia recalled the ethnic cleansing in Greece and concluded that the term political genocide was like a scalpel and should be used as such.
  The discussion at the second roundtable was just as lively. The topic here was the ad hoc UN court for the Yugoslav Wars. A participant from Montenegro stated that 70 per cent of those arrested were Kosovars and only 30 per cent were Serbs, and: there had also been massacres of Serbs in Kosovo. Carla del Ponte had once said that NATO was an ally of the special tribunal, which meant that it could not be challenged. The poor treatment of prisoners in The Hague was also discussed. A participant from Greece called for the release of the prisoners; this would require the involvement of the international legal community, for example by having 100 lawyers protest in front of the prison in The Hague. He also emphasised that the ICC did not represent the international community.
  At the end of this discussion forum, an initiative was proposed to be addressed to the UN Security Council. The Council is called upon “to adopt a resolution annulling all decisions on the establishment of the ‘International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia’”. It also calls for the annulling “of all legal consequences of the convictions rendered against any persons prosecuted before the ICTY or its legal successor, the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals”.
  The resolution stated “that the International Criminal Court (ICC) – established by the Rome Statute – constitutes an adequate and necessary foundation for the reaffirmation of international justice through the adjudication of an independent and impartial court competent to try those accused of genocide or other serious international crimes, in accordance with the principles of sovereignty, the rule of law and general international law.”

Accountability

Another proposal was put forward by Srđan Aleksić, a Serbian lawyer and legal representative of numerous victims who developed cancer as a result of DU bombing during the 1999 Yugoslavian War. He referred to the consequences of the war and the massive damage to the environment and health, and proposed launching an initiative to hold NATO accountable.
  One participant drew attention to the environmental damage caused in 1999, for example in Kosovo. His proposal: Environmental crime (ecocide) should be added to the list of international crimes.
  A participant from Georgia saw double standards as the main problem in the application of law. There is too much political influence. “We must adhere more closely to conventions”, he said. “In international criminal law, as in administrative law, it is always a question of power.”
  The various contributions and discussions were characterised by a high degree of seriousness and objectiveness. Language barriers were overcome with the help of professional translators and the spontaneous assistance of some of the participants. The exceptionally hospitable welcome during the three days and the friendly atmosphere contributed greatly to the success of the conference. •