## Facts

- During the Bosnian war, the UN designated Srebrenica a protected “safe area” and deployed UNPROFOR; the Netherlands contributed a battalion (Dutchbat) stationed at a compound in Potočari.
- On July 11, 1995, Bosnian Serb forces captured Srebrenica, and thousands of Bosnian Muslim civilians sought refuge at the Dutchbat compound.
- Hasan Nuhanović worked at the compound as an interpreter for the UN and was eligible for evacuation as local UN personnel.
- Nuhanović’s father, mother, and brother were inside the compound but were not on the evacuation list.
- On July 13, 1995, Dutchbat ordered the three relatives to leave the compound during evacuations, despite knowledge (or constructive knowledge) of a serious risk of death or ill-treatment if they were expelled.
- After leaving, the three were killed by Bosnian Serb forces or affiliated groups.
- The district court dismissed Nuhanović’s civil claims, reasoning the conduct was attributable to the UN due to transferred operational control.
- The court of appeal reversed, holding the conduct attributable to the Netherlands under an “effective control” test and wrongful under Bosnian law supplemented by human rights norms.
- The Netherlands sought cassation, disputing attribution and wrongfulness.

## Issues

1. Whether Dutchbat’s expulsion of the three men from the compound was attributable to the Netherlands under public international law despite Dutchbat’s UN mandate and command structure.
2. Whether, if attributable, the expulsion was wrongful under the applicable substantive law, including the role of international human rights norms.
3. Whether courts should defer broadly to operational military judgments in assessing peacekeeping conduct affecting fundamental rights.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court dismissed the State’s cassation appeal and affirmed the judgments holding the Netherlands liable.
- The Court held Dutchbat’s relevant conduct was attributable to the Netherlands because the Netherlands exercised effective control over that specific conduct.
- The Court accepted the possibility of dual attribution: the same conduct may be attributable to both a troop-contributing state and the UN.
- The Court upheld the finding of wrongfulness under Bosnian tort law, informed by fundamental rights norms (including the right to life and the prohibition of inhuman treatment).
- The Court rejected near-total judicial restraint that would effectively preclude review of peacekeeping conduct affecting fundamental rights.
- The Court accepted that the Netherlands’ human-rights obligations applied extraterritorially given its effective control over the compound and the persons at issue.

## Legal Principles

- Attribution of peacekeeping conduct turns on “effective control” over the specific act, not solely on formal command arrangements.
- Conduct of a national contingent in a UN mission may be subject to dual attribution to both the UN and the troop-contributing state where each has effective control.
- A state can incur extraterritorial human-rights obligations where it exercises effective control over persons, even outside its territory.
- Wrongfulness in civil liability may be assessed under the law of the place of harm, with interpretation informed by generally recognized human-rights standards.
- Judicial review of operational decisions is available where fundamental rights are implicated; broad deference cannot nullify legal accountability.

## Conclusion

The Dutch Supreme Court held the Netherlands civilly liable for Dutchbat’s decision to expel Nuhanović’s relatives from the UN compound, concluding the conduct was attributable to the state under an effective-control test (with possible dual attribution) and wrongful under applicable tort law as informed by core human-rights protections.


State of the Netherlands v. Nuhanović, No. 12/03324 (Neth. 2013)