Page | 4
LIST OF CASES/ SOURCES
1. Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Judgment (Sept. 2, 1998).
2. Prosecutor v. Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Decision on the Defence Motion on
Jurisdiction (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia, Aug. 10, 1995).
3. Prosecutor v. Charles Taylor, Case No. SCSL-03-01-T, Judgment (Special Court for
Sierra Leone, May 18, 2012).
4. Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, Case No. ICC-02/05-01/09, Warrant of
Arrest (Mar. 4, 2009).
5. Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06, Judgment Pursuant
to Article 74 of the Statute (Mar. 14, 2012).
6. Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Judgment (Int’l Crim. Trib.
for Rwanda, Sept. 2, 1998).
7. Prosecutor v. Jean Kambanda, Case No. ICTR-97-23-S, Judgment and Sentence
(Int’l Crim. Trib. for Rwanda, Sept. 4, 1998).
8. Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Appeals Chamber Judgment (Int’l
Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia, July 15, 1999).
9. Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07, Judgment Pursuant to
Article 74 of the Statute (Mar. 7, 2014).
10. The Nuremberg Judgment, 41 Am. J. Int’l L. 172 (1947).
Page | 5
Abstract
International criminal courts have changed the way the world thinks about justice. Their rise
from the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals to the International Criminal Court-marks a real
shift. Now, it’s not just states on trial for unspeakable crimes; individuals face the
consequences, no matter how powerful they are. These courts anchor a global system that
demands answers for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. It doesn’t matter if
someone holds political sway or command over armies-the idea is simple: no one stands above
justice.
This paper unpacks how these courts operate. It digs into their legal roots, how they claim
authority, and the logic behind complementarity, which shapes when and how they act. The
work tracks the path from ad hoc tribunals like the ICTY and ICTR to the founding of the ICC,
showing how each step carved out new ground for holding people accountable.
But the story isn’t just about legal mechanics. These courts face real-world obstacles. Political
pushback, trouble enforcing rulings, doubts about their legitimacy, it’s all in the mix. The paper
takes a hard look at whether these institutions actually prevent future atrocities or just make for
good headlines. By weaving together doctrinal analysis with a broader critique, this study joins
the bigger conversation: How do we rethink international criminal justice so it keeps pace with
shifting global power and the ongoing fight for human rights?
Keywords: International Criminal Court, Global Accountability, Complementarity,
ICTY, ICTR, International Criminal Law, Justice, Sovereignty.
Page | 6
[Link]
Chasing global accountability through international criminal justice stands out as one of the
most important legal shifts of the modern era. Instead of focusing just on states, the world now
holds individuals even presidents and generals responsible for crimes that cross borders.
Building international criminal courts (ICCs) marks a shared decision to defend the core values
of humanity, summed up by the old phrase hostis humani generis enemies of all mankind 1.
International criminal law really took off after World War II. The Allied powers set up the
International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg in 1945 and the International Military
Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) in Tokyo in 1946. For the first time, these courts declared
that people could be personally liable under international law, even if they acted for their
countries2. The Nuremberg Trials, especially, set the standard for everything that followed. The
IMT Charter broke down crimes into three major categories crimes against peace, war crimes,
and crimes against humanity. That framework still shapes how international criminal law works
today. 3
But after that initial burst of momentum, the project stalled. The Cold War split the world’s
major powers, making a permanent international tribunal impossible. Only in the 1990s after
the horrors in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda did the idea of universal accountability
return. The United Nations Security Council4 created two new courts: the International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) 5 in 1993 and the International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in 1994. These ad hoc tribunals brought international criminal
law back to life and proved it could actually work, not just in theory.
Everything changed with the Rome Statute in 1998. When it took effect in July 2002, the world
finally got the International Criminal Court (ICC) the first permanent court with authority to
1
The Nuremberg Judgment, 41 Am. J. Int’l L. 172 (1947).
2
Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Aug. 8, 1945, 82 U.N.T.S. 279
3
Id. art. 6
4
S.C. Res. 827, U.N. Doc. S/RES/827 (May 25, 1993); S.C. Res. 955, U.N. Doc. S/RES/955 (Nov. 8, 1994)
5
Antonio Cassese, International Criminal Law 13 (3d ed. 2013).
Page | 7
try individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression 6.
The ICC introduced the idea of complementarity: it only steps in when national courts can’t or
won’t handle genuine cases. 7
People saw the ICC’s launch as a breakthrough for international cooperation and moral
progress. Still, its path hasn’t been easy. Critics accuse it of selective justice, political meddling,
and stretching its own powers. And the refusal of major players the United States, Russia,
China, and India to join or stay in the ICC has cast doubt on how universal and legitimate its
reach really is.
So, the “architecture of global accountability” built around these courts is a complex system,
mixing treaty-based, ad hoc, and hybrid mechanisms, all working together to enforce the laws
of humanity. 8 Whether this patchwork succeeds or fails depends on the constant tug-of-war
between law and politics and on how the world chooses to balance sovereignty with justice.
The next sections will dig into how these different courts actually function, what they aim to
achieve, and how well they hold up when faced with the hard realities of global politics. 9
6
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, July 17, 1998, 2187 U.N.T.S. 90.
7
Id. art. 17.
8
William A. Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court 94–96 (6th ed. 2020).
9
Mahmood Mamdani, Darfur, ICC and the New Humanitarian Order, 83 J. Int’l Aff. 53, 60 (2009)
Page | 8
2. Scope and Objectives
Studying international criminal courts drops you right into the middle of law, morality, and the
tangled web of global politics. This research digs into how these courts whether permanent
fixtures or set up for a specific crisis shape what global accountability actually means. Do they
really turn international law into enforceable justice, or just talk a good game? Let’s break
down what this inquiry covers.
1. Scope of the Study
This paper looks at the institutional, legal, and political sides of international criminal courts
(ICCs). The main focus is the International Criminal Court (ICC) created by the Rome Statute,
but I’ll also bring in comparisons from ad hoc and hybrid tribunals think the International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Tribunal for
Rwanda (ICTR), the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), and the Extraordinary Chambers
in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC).
Geographically, I’m interested in places where international criminal courts actually stepped
in to confront massive breaches of humanitarian and human rights law. We’re talking genocide,
crimes against humanity, war crimes the big, ugly stuff. I’m not getting into domestic or quasi-
judicial truth and reconciliation commissions, except for the occasional mention when they
help flesh out how different justice systems can work together.
Time-wise, this study stretches from just after World War II when the world first started
holding individuals criminally responsible under international law right up to how the ICC
operates today, especially in conflicts like Sudan, Ukraine, and Palestine.
2. Objectives of the Study
I want to unravel how global accountability is built by taking apart the structure and operation
of international criminal courts. More specifically: