Judging war crimes

The Hague and Arusha war-crimes tribunals have had two major accomplishments: they administer 'international' justice, not victor's justice; and they have established in practice their right to indict and try individuals despite the national character of the crimes and those individuals' formal subjection to national sovereignties. These accomplishments are nonetheless limited since they rest on an international consensus which could prove ephemeral. Neither the UN Security Council nor the General Assembly are legitimate democratic institutions: there is no true institutional embodiment of the international popular interest. US and Chinese opposition to plans for a permanent international criminal court does not help. Achievements in the 1990s towards extending the rule of law and establishing justice in international relations thus remain incomplete, contested and ultimately fragile.