Europe, explained.
Graves at the Srebrenica genocide memorial in Srebrenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina (Adrien Fillon/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
The 1995 massacre galvanised legal accountability mechanisms that remain vital as multilateral institutions face new challenges.
Subscribe to The Informer for monthly expert analysis, and to Events for advance notice of visiting world leaders and distinguished guests.
You may unsubscribe from Lowy Institute newsletters at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
Srebrenica at 30: Why this turning point for international justice still mattersSrebrenica at 30: Why this turning point for international justice still matters
This week marks 30 years since the Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia, the worst atrocity committed on European soil since the Second World War. In July 1995, more than 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were systematically executed by Bosnian Serb forces under the command of General Ratko Mladić, despite the town having been declared a UN “safe area”. Those events still reverberate through international affairs – not only for the scale of the crime, but for the way they shocked the world into action.
For all the United Nations’ failures in the lead-up to Srebrenica, that moment also became a catalyst for the international community to collectively affirm certain principles – among them the determination to end impunity for mass atrocity. This belated collective action now looks like a high-water mark for what we came to describe as a rules-based international order, and it was the transatlantic alliance – the United States and Europe – who came together to make something happen.
The Srebrenica massacre was not the first atrocity of the Yugoslav wars, nor the last. But its cold, industrial brutality – carried out in full view of international peacekeepers – was finally too much for the world to ignore. Within weeks, NATO launched a sustained air campaign against Bosnian Serb positions. The long-stalled diplomatic process finally gained traction, culminating in the Dayton Accords, signed at the end of that year. This agreement ended more than three years of brutal conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina and provided a constitutional framework that, however imperfect, has helped maintain a fragile peace for three decades.
A Bosnian local stands in front of barbed wire outside the gate of Tuzla airbase, guarded by US NATO soldiers in 1995 (Odd Andersen/AFP via Getty Images)
I was in Sarajevo as these negotiations were being finalised, covering the Balkans for the Australian government. The atmosphere was tense but expectant, as news filtered through that the warring parties had reached agreement in Dayton. For Australia, whose interests in the conflict were shaped in part by the presence of large former Yugoslav communities at home – and by the fact that most of our humanitarian migrant intake was coming from the region at the time – this was not a distant war. It was unfolding in real time, and often through very personal channels.
At the same time, the international community also moved to establish legal accountability. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), created by the UN Security Council in 1993, was galvanised by Srebrenica’s horror. Its work gathered new urgency and profile. For the first time since Nuremberg and Tokyo, an international court was empowered to hold individuals criminally responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. The ICTY indicted and prosecuted senior political and military leaders on all sides of the conflict – including the then President of Serbia, Slobodan Milošević, the political leader of the Bosnian Serbs, Radovan Karadžić, and Ratko Mladić himself.
Today’s world is more complex – and more contested – than that of the mid-1990s. But the need for principle-based cooperation has not diminished.
Importantly, this momentum did not stop with the Balkans. The same decade saw the creation of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), following the genocide that claimed some 800,000 lives in 1994. Both tribunals laid the groundwork for the eventual establishment of the permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002. That court – though far from perfect – remains an important symbol of the international community’s aspiration to replace cycles of vengeance with the rule of law.
It is important to recall this legacy at a time when multilateral institutions are under strain. The liberal international order is being tested by rising great power rivalry, disinformation, and erosion of trust in global norms. The ICC has come under fire from multiple directions, and there is less consensus today about the conditions under which external intervention is justified.
Yet the post-Srebrenica period reminds of what is possible when principle and political will align. The response to Bosnia was not instantaneous, and it was far from flawless. But when the international community finally acted with resolve, it brought tangible results: military pressure that changed facts on the ground, diplomatic agreements that ended war, and legal frameworks that pushed back against impunity.
Vijecnica Library, Sarajevo, 2021, watching a live broadcast of the UN court in The Hague as it upheld a 2017 life sentence for former Serb commander Ratko Mladic, also known as the "Butcher of Bosnia", for his role in the genocide (Samir Jordamovic/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
Australia was a supporter of this international push – not just in moral and diplomatic terms, but also through practical contributions. Australian investigators, lawyers and police officers played important roles in the ICTY and ICTR processes. We can be proud of that history, and it is worth recalling at a moment when our national debate is increasingly focused on the Indo-Pacific. Upholding international norms should not only be something we support when it is convenient, or when the theatre of conflict is nearby. Australian public support for our government’s approach to Ukraine suggests that this is well understood.
The legacy of Dayton is not without its difficulties. Bosnia and Herzegovina today is again facing some tough political challenges, with rising nationalist rhetoric and growing concerns that the Serb-majority Republika Srpska may attempt to secede. The constitutional architecture created by Dayton – which institutionalised ethnic division – has made functional governance a constant challenge. Yet even with these tensions, the peace has largely held for decades. That is an achievement worth acknowledging.
In reflecting on Srebrenica and its aftermath, we are reminded of the dual capacity of the international system: to fail catastrophically, and also to adapt, repair and act. The horrors of Bosnia and Rwanda helped galvanise a new era of international justice and collective action. Today’s world is more complex – and more contested – than that of the mid-1990s. But the need for principle-based cooperation has not diminished. If anything, it has grown.
As we mark this sombre anniversary, we honour the victims not only by remembering them, but by defending the very idea that the international community has a role – and a responsibility – to stand against such crimes. Srebrenica was a turning point. Building on its legacy seems a real challenge today, but it is worth the effort.
About the author
Ian Kemish
Ian Kemish is is a former Nonresident Fellow of the Lowy Institute.
The most-pressing world events explained by Lowy Institute experts and global contributors, in your inbox, every Thursday.
You may unsubscribe from The Interpreter at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
