How effective are international criminal tribunals? An analysis of the ICTY and the ICTR

Abstract

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) were established by the United Nations in 1993 and 1994 to apprehend and try individuals suspected of committing war crimes including genocide. The crimes that are prosecuted by these courts are the same, and the structure of the tribunals is also similar (indeed, they both share the same appellate court). However, the mandate of the ICTR is much more narrow and is limited both in terms of the period of time under investigation (one calendar year) as well as being limited to crimes that were committed only in Rwanda. Given the mandate and structure of these tribunals, many question their effectiveness. This article examines these tribunals and measures effectiveness by examining not only the number of indictments that have been handed down but the actual number of individuals apprehended. One of the criticisms of both tribunals is that the lack of success in apprehending suspects diminishes the deterrent effect of the tribunals. Based on a case study of the ICTY and the ITCR, we find that the lack of effective apprehension has reduced the deterrent effect of the tribunals and provided one of the primary justifications for the creation of an international criminal court.