Content area
Full Text
I. INTRODUCTION
Due to recent advances in technology, images of war, torture, and genocide have now revealed to many what the darkest side of humanity looks like. Modem conflicts in Yemen, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and Ukraine, among others, cause many to wonder what can be done about the barbarity the world is facing.1 Juxtaposing this frustration is the fact that, between postWorld War II criminal jurisprudence, precedent set by ad hoc tribunals, and the abundance of legal scholarship that has been produced concerning international criminal law in the past sixty years, we now have a substantial basis for war crimes trials to hold individuals accountable for mass atrocity.
Upon this basis, many scholars can agree that the best forum for adjudication after mass atrocity would be the national court in the country in which the harm was done.2 Yet, the most prominent tribunals dealing with war crimes, including the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), and the International Criminal Court (ICC), conduct trials in countries far away from the harm.3 This takes away from the precious opportunity to sustain sovereignty and legitimacy of domestic judiciaries, aid in transitional justice and capacitybuilding in international law, and allow for international norm dissemination within post-conflict nations.
Ad hoc tribunals, namely the ICTY and the ICTR, arose in the 1990s out of the need for tribunals that were not susceptible to the "victors' justice" notion of tribunals such as the International Military Tribunal established to conduct the trials at Nuremberg.4 However, between the years 2000 and 2007, six hybrid tribunals were established in order to bring the prosecution of individuals who had committed crimes against humanity closer to the state in which the harm was done.5 Yet, the shortcomings of some of these tribunals along with the establishment of the ICC led to a decrease in the consideration of hybrid tribunals as a viable option for post-conflict adjudication.6
Despite the necessity of the ICC, it is only one mechanism with limited jurisdiction and resources. Additional mechanisms are needed to sufficiently try and punish crimes that arise out of conflicts. Further, the ICC offers little aid to countries transitioning out of a conflict and was...