Although international criminal law (ICL) has its roots in the 1500s or
earlier, the normative development of this body of law only really picked up
within the past century or so. Even though some aspects of ICL remain
uncertain, its recent development has been fairly swift and robust. Thus, ICL doctrines
are fully capable of reasoned application today to hold individuals responsible
for international crimes they commit, such as war crimes and gross violations
of international human rights.
Unfortunately, as Jack Donnelly points out, it seems that
the procedural mechanisms for enforcing ICL do not deserve such kudos. The two
principal avenues for prosecuting alleged international criminals –
international tribunals and domestic courts – are simply not up to the task.
Their inadequacy is evidenced, for example, by the fact that U.N. Secretary
General Ban Ki-moon still has to plead for
protection of human rights and an end to mass atrocities.
International criminal tribunals are not effective mechanisms because
they tend to be expensive and overburdened, and proceedings often take many
years to start and many more years to conclude. The title of a recent Forbes article on the ICC
says it all: “International Criminal Court: 12 Years, $1 Billion, 2 Convictions.”