Reporters and other observers at the frontline of conflict often voice frustration that their reports and efforts hardly dent the public consciousness and do little to change an intolerable situation; but the fact is that accurate, timely, and thoughtful coverage of war crimes can have an impact far beyond any immediate calculation.

Perhaps the most dramatic recent example of the impact of that kind of reporting is the establishment of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Visual and written reports of the plight of the victims of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia jolted the Security Council into taking the unprecedented step of creating a court as its own sub-organ. Never before had it even been contemplated or suggested that it should use its peacekeeping powers to that end. That ethnic cleansing was happening in Europe and that the Cold War had come to an end were crucial to the endeavor. There can be no doubt, however, that it was media exposure that triggered the decision.

When I arrived in The Hague as the first chief prosecutor of the tribunal, its credibility was at a low ebb in consequence of the unconscionable delays by the UN in committing the resources necessary to enable it to begin its work properly. Many in the international community doubted whether the politicians really intended or wished it to become an effective body. I was keenly aware that without media support the tribunal would have floundered. In my first year in office I spent a substantial part of my time briefing journalists from many countries. With very few exceptions they wished the tribunal to succeed and they responded to my calls for positive and supportive coverage.

Even our early small advances received wide media coverage. I refer, for example, to Germany deferring to the jurisdiction of the tribunal in the case of Dusko Tadic, who was accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Bosnian War; and the publicity given to the earlier indictments albeit against so-called small fish. The nongovernmental organization (NGO) community added its voice in helping to mobilize public opinion and pressurize governments. This support played a vital role in convincing the General Assembly to devote considerable funds to the tribunal. As a result, too, some governments began to take their obligations more seriously. Domestic legislation was passed by the parliaments of a number of countries to enable their authorities to comply with requests and orders of the tribunal. Pressure was placed on the warring parties to cooperate with the prosecutor's office—some did so, and that made it more difficult for others not to. That there was nothing like full compliance was a source of frustration and disappointment. The point is that without the public attention the tribunal would have failed early in its life.

Now that the international community is on the way to creating a permanent criminal court and the work of the two ad hoc tribunals continues apace, it is time to ask what lessons have already been learned. Perhaps the most important concerns the difficult challenge of combining high quality reporting of situations of conflict with news value. There is a general lack of public understanding of humanitarian law, which places an additional burden on journalists reporting on these matters. Also, the relationship between war correspondents and international courts has already created a tension.

As international tribunals are established, journalism has gained a new and as yet undefined dimension. Journalists have very different mandates, modes of operating, routes to access information, and thresholds of proof in comparison with judicial bodies. The two functions should not be confused. It is important that reporters stay reporters—that is, uncover and write the story (and the story behind the story) for the general public.

Yet often there is overlap. A practical example: In 1991 a group of South African policemen shot into crowd of fifty thousand demonstrators outside Johannesburg. Many were killed and many more injured. As usual in such situations there were contradictory accounts of what gave rise to the shooting. I was appointed by then-President de Klerk to investigate the incident. A few days before the public inquiry was due to begin a videotape was delivered anonymously to my chambers at the courthouse. It showed the police lining up and the front of the crowd in the minutes before and at the time of the shooting. This footage played a material role in enabling me to conclude that the shooting was unjustified and that the policemen who fired were criminally responsible for their conduct. The policemen were prosecuted and the government paid substantial damages to the victims and survivors. One can imagine the agonizing which preceded the decision on the part of the reporting team to send me the videotape—how they weighed the general rule of not providing such evidence for court proceedings against the unique proof they had of the events in question. Judging by the crowd’s reaction to them, I had a strong suspicion that the film was produced by a crew of an American television company. Whoever they were, I was most grateful for their action, which enabled many innocent victims to obtain a large measure of justice. So far as I am aware, the video was never broadcast, and this illustrates the uncertain tension that journalists feel about publishing or broadcasting controversial events without knowing the precise limits of the law or law enforcement.

A better knowledge of the laws of war, to which this book makes a unique contribution, will improve the quality of reporting and enhance public awareness. The parties to conflict usually know what is legal, what is illegal, and what is criminal conduct in war. But reporters do not and they should, as should the public. War is likely to be with us for some time to come. Humanitarian law pragmatically accepts the reality of war, as must we all. If carefully applied, knowledge of that law will assist the public in grasping a critical but often hidden dynamic in conflict.

Injudicious use of the terminology of the laws of war runs the risk for the observer of missing the mark, diluting the impact. Parties to a conflict, particularly those accused of war crimes, may actually stage the commission of atrocities, complete with witnesses, photos, and tapes, as part of a ruthless propaganda campaign to win sympathy and political support. A knowledge of the relevant law would enable reporters to ask pertinent questions and help them determine what is important to investigate—most likely, of course, at great risk to themselves. Hence there’s an even greater need for measures to protect journalists.

There are now added reasons to encourage interest in this body of law. One is the rapid development of humanitarian law, especially since the atrocities in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the work of the two tribunals in interpreting what had been vague, often contradictory or confusing statements of the law.

Should the role of reporters extend to taking part in tribunal prosecutions? This is not covered in the conventions, nor is it likely to be. Not infrequently journalists come across evidence of war crimes—as eyewitnesses, in discovering a mass grave, or through being privy to statements made by commanders in the heat of action. Like aid workers and Red Cross or Red Crescent delegates, if reporters become identified as would-be witnesses, their safety and future ability to be present at a field of battle will be compromised. In my opinion the law takes too little account of that reality.

I would therefore support a rule of law to protect journalists from becoming unwilling witnesses in situations that would place them or their colleagues in future jeopardy. As already indicated, the same should apply to humanitarian aid workers and Red Cross or Red Crescent delegates. They should not be compelled to testify lest they give up their ability to work in the field, but they may of course testify voluntarily.

As this century comes to an end there is a paradox. Humanitarian law and international human rights law have never been more developed; yet never before have so many innocent civilians been the victims of war crimes, and never before have human rights been violated more frequently. This state of affairs will not improve absent a mechanism to enforce those laws and the norms they embody. The international community is coming to realize this—hence the two ad hoc tribunals and the move toward a permanent International Criminal Court. Reporters are entitled to much credit for these positive developments. If these new enforcement mechanisms are to succeed they will need the continued vigilance of the media and greater public awareness. To that end this unique publication is an invaluable resource.