In light of the horrific events of the Holocaust, which lacked a legal definition and regulation, the International Community and therefore the Nuremberg Tribunal recognised the urgent need of finding an adequate solution to this legal vacuum. Following several attempts of codification, finally in 1948 the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted the Genocide Convention. Said Convention defined genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group” (Art. II, Genocide Convention, 1948). The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) replicated the definition, but prosecuting the perpetrators of said actions and proving the required factual and mental element still poses challenges. After a brief overview of the International and European Community’s inadequate response to the Bosnian War (1992-1995) and the outcome of said inadequacy, the paper will analyse the relevant legal framework of genocide, focusing on the crime's codification and challenges in proving the intent above. Finally, the paper will present Ratko Mladić’s case before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which led to the individual's prosecution and life sentence for the crime of genocide in the Srebrenica massacre.

Between 2016 and 2023, the US signed extensive bilateral Defence Cooperation Agreements (DCAs) with Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway as part of a strategy conceived to ensure regional security. The evolving security challenges in the Nordic and Baltic regions, exacerbated by Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, paved the way for the conclusion of the DCAs. These agreements were crucial to Finland and Sweden’s entry to NATO, as they had already legitimised and governed US presence on their territories. Under the DCAs, the US Armed Forces have been granted unrestricted access to almost all military infrastructures and bases of these countries (Edvardsen, 2023). In addition to that, these agreements aim to enhance defence capabilities through joint exercises, training missions and logistical support. From the jurisdictional point of view, all Nordic countries renounced their right to exercise their criminal jurisdiction over US military personnel. The Nordic countries are not the only ones who have signed bilateral agreements in the field of defence with the United States. For instance, Poland and the Baltic states have both recently concluded similar treaties. Consequently, it is necessary to consider this phenomenon not as a series of isolated events but as a part of a broader pattern of bilateral defence cooperation agreements designed to increase the American presence in the Nordic-Baltic region. This, in turn, facilitates the deployment of equipment and personnel in the event of an emergency. This paper will analyse the influence of bilateral defence cooperation agreements on the European Union’s security and defence framework, with a focus on those between the US and Nordic countries,. In this regard, some argue that this kind of cooperation undermines the Union’s efforts to advance towards a real common security and defence policy through separate negotiations with the Transatlantic partners. Others claim that the DCAs with the Nordic states enhance European security. In fact, leveraging their EU membership / as EU Member States, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland could act as catalysts for a more cohesive European Defence integration framework. The paper also examines the evolution of Nordic countries’ relations with the United States in the defence field, as well as their type of regional cooperation within the Nordic Defence Cooperation (NORDEFCO). In any case, the purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that, due to the current challenges and the slow advancement of the EU in the field, the Nordic countries did not have other choice but to pursue this course of action, even though this system can lead to several inefficiencies at the European level.