Since Nuremberg, international justice has tried war crimes. The ICTY and ICTR developed international law, while the ICC attempted to establish a permanent institution to prosecute war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. It's unclear how well these institutions deliver justice. This article reviews international tribunals' war crimes prosecution and victim justice. The Nuremberg Trials defined war crimes and established individual culpability, while the ICC built an international criminal justice system. ICTY and ICTR activities in former Yugoslavia and Rwanda advanced international law in the 1990s. Despite delays, budget constraints, and prosecutorial selectivity, these courts produced significant convictions and legal precedents. The Rome Statute created the ICC in 2002 to prosecute the worst crimes indefinitely, but limited state participation, political bias, and allegations of its inability to enforce verdicts without powerful member states have hampered its effectiveness. This article analyzes these tribunals' legal, political, and practical issues and strengths and weaknesses. How efficient are international tribunals at prosecuting perpetrators? Are crimes prevented, peace promoted, and accountability guaranteed?It also casts doubt on tribunals that try weaker leaders but ignore crimes committed by bigger nations. Although these problems remain, international tribunals continue to adapt, and this study argues that improving present practises, victim engagement, and ICC assistance can increase their efficacy. This study advocates improving enforcement procedures, addressing political realities that affect prosecutions, and boosting state-international cooperation by applying Nuremberg Trial lessons to the ICC. International tribunals, such as the ICC, must adapt to evolving global power and justice dynamics to effectively
Khetarpal et al. (Thu,) studied this question.