## Facts

- Duško Tadić was accused of serious violations of international humanitarian law allegedly committed in the Prijedor area of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992.
- The Trial Chamber denied a defense motion challenging the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, rejecting challenges to primacy and subject-matter jurisdiction and declining to rule on the Tribunal’s establishment.
- The defense sought an interlocutory appeal, presenting a three-part challenge: (1) unlawful establishment of the Tribunal, (2) unlawful primacy over national courts, and (3) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The Appeals Chamber addressed both its competence to hear an interlocutory jurisdictional appeal and the merits of the jurisdictional challenges.

## Issues

1. Whether the Appeals Chamber had authority to hear an interlocutory appeal on jurisdiction.
2. Whether the Tribunal was unlawfully established because the UN Security Council lacked power to create it.
3. Whether the Tribunal’s primacy over national courts is valid under the governing instruments and international law.
4. Whether the Tribunal had subject-matter jurisdiction over the charged conduct, including whether an “armed conflict” existed and the temporal and geographic scope required for crimes to be sufficiently connected to it.

## Decision

- The Appeals Chamber held it had authority to entertain an interlocutory appeal on jurisdiction.
- The Appeals Chamber held the Tribunal was lawfully established by the UN Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
- The Appeals Chamber upheld the Tribunal’s primacy over national courts as a valid feature of the Tribunal’s design.
- The Appeals Chamber held the Tribunal had subject-matter jurisdiction over the alleged crimes and articulated a general definition of “armed conflict.”
- The interlocutory appeal was dismissed.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate authority to hear interlocutory jurisdictional challenges may be inferred from the statutory appellate framework read together with applicable procedural rules where immediate review is necessary to resolve foundational jurisdictional questions.
- The UN Security Council may create a criminal tribunal as a Chapter VII measure to address threats to international peace and security, including through establishment of a subsidiary organ with judicial functions.
- Tribunal primacy over national courts may be established to ensure effective prosecution of serious international crimes and to address risks of impunity or partial domestic proceedings.
- International humanitarian law applies in both international and non-international armed conflicts; a violation requires a nexus to an armed conflict.
- An armed conflict exists whenever there is resort to armed force between States or protracted armed violence between governmental authorities and organized armed groups, or between such groups, within a State.
- The temporal and geographic reach of an armed conflict, for jurisdictional purposes, extends beyond the immediate time and place of active hostilities; it is sufficient that alleged crimes are closely related to ongoing hostilities within the territory controlled by the parties.

## Conclusion

The Appeals Chamber confirmed the Tribunal’s authority to hear an interlocutory jurisdictional appeal, upheld the Tribunal’s lawful establishment and primacy over national courts, and sustained subject-matter jurisdiction by defining armed conflict broadly and requiring only a close relationship between the alleged crimes and the hostilities.


Prosecutor v. Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1 (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia App. Chamber Oct. 2, 1995)