Fact-Finding without Facts

Eighteen years after the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and 65 years after the post-World War II military tribunals, two fundamental questions continue to hound international and hybrid criminal tribunals: What kind of justice should they aspire to, and what can they plausibly deliver? The ongoing debate on these questions presents three very different alternatives for the future of international criminal justice. We can abandon international criminal trials as doing more harm than good, we can limit them to the core function of determining the guilt or innocence of a small number of ‘most responsible’ persons or we can reform them so that they can more successfully pursue a broad range of goals, such as postconflict reconciliation or victim empowerment. The three books under review provide valuable contributions to this debate. In Victims' Rights and Advocacy at the International Criminal Court and Rethinking International

Criminal justice · Criminal law · Criminal procedure · Criminology · Harm · Innocence · International law · Political science · Restorative justice · Sociology · Theory of criminal justice · Tribunal · War crime · International Law and Human Rights · Law