This Development analyzes and critiques recent cases on Milosevic's in propria persona defense. Contrary to some arguments that the assignment of counsel will aid the trial process, it contends that the ICTY cannot impose counsel because all of the reasons that it used to justify its ruling are inadequate. This Development specifically argues that the "fair and expeditious" rationale, with its emphasis on judicial management, does not legitimize the Tribunal's decision to retract Milosevic's right to self-representation. In fact, it is a poor proxy for justice and may countervail any type of fairness that the ICTY wishes to achieve in its proceedings. This Development concludes that the Tribunal should formally sustain Milosevic's right to self-representation so as to bolster its own legitimacy and positively influence the acceptance of present and future international tribunals. To these ends, the Development is divided into three parts. In the First Section, the Development will piece together and analyze the various rationales that the ICTY used to justify the imposition of counsel. There will be a corresponding focus on cases outside of the ICTY, particularly from other war crimes tribunals such as the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda ("ICTR") and the Special Court for Sierra Leone ("SCSL"). These arguments will be critically assessed and ultimately rejected in the Second Section. The Third Section will question the adequacy and application of the "fair and expeditious" rationale to impose counsel on Milosevic. In a brief Conclusion, the reasons for rejecting the recent decisions from the ICTY will be reassessed.
"A "Fair and Expeditious" Trial: A Reappraisal of Slobodan Milosevic's Right to Self-Representation before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia,"
Chicago Journal of International Law:
2, Article 15.
Available at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cjil/vol6/iss2/15