Why Radovan Karadzic is sulking in his cell

Radovan Karadzic, the Bosnian Serb leader, is charged with the gravest crimes against humanity for his role during the Bosnian war, including genocide. Yet when his trial started on Monday, he was absent, sulking in his cell at the UN Detention Centre in The Hague. He simply refused to turn up, arguing that he needed another nine months to prepare his defence.

So why wasnt he forcibly removed by several burly warders (in plentiful supply, even at the comfortable 'Hague Hilton', as the detention centre has been dubbed) and forced to take his place in the dock?

The answer lies in an interesting mix of legal, moral and PR issues.

The legal issue is clear: the rules of all the UN tribunals - for the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone - and of the new International Criminal Court do not allow for force to be used to bring those charged to the courtroom. None of the tribunals has used force against recalcitrant detainees.

The moral and PR issues are intertwined. International criminal justice - the idea that dictators and warlords who commit crimes against humanity should be brought to account - is a new and developing area of jurisprudence. The UN tribunals are rooted in the Nuremberg trials after the end of the Second World War. But the trials of leading Nazis took place after a world war and the defeat of Germany. The moral imperative was clear.

Karadzic may want to be removed from his cell by force. It would be a PR victory

The UN tribunals, while a welcome development, operate in shades of grey. All through the Bosnian war, Radovan Karadzic and his boss and paymaster, Slobodan Milosevic, the Serbian president who died in detention, were courted by western leaders as peacemakers, even though western intelligence services and governments had full and comprehensive knowledge of the horrors for which Karadzic and Milosevic were responsible.

As new and developing institutions, the UN tribunals are still finding their way through the thickets of international diplomacy. The application of international humanitarian law, like all law, demands a certain gravitas and theatre.

The UN tribunals all place great emphasis on what they call outreach work: persuading the local people, victims and perpetrators to cooperate with their proceedings and accept their legitimacy. What might work at the Old Bailey – simply dragging a prisoner into the dock - would look like an admission of failure in The Hague.

Which is why Karadzic may even want to be removed from his cell by force. It would be a PR victory of enormous significance, allowing him to portray himself as a victim, instead of perpetrator.

But now, court officials have snatched back the initiative by continuing proceedings without him. They may even impose a defence lawyer, although that would cause further delays. "The tribunal is a UN body and thus far has been unable to use force," says spokeswoman Nerma Jelacic. "However the fact that proceedings are underway in the absence of the accused shows that the trial chamber and the tribunal are in control of the situation, not the accused."

Adam Lebor is the author of  'Complicity with Evil: The United Nations in the Age of Modern Genocide', published by Yale University Press. ·