Despite having gained significant traction in the last century, the promise of international justice risks being overshadowed by the reality of impunity as global conflicts multiply and respect for international norms erodes.
Following the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials for atrocities committed during the Second World War, international justice mechanisms have largely emerged over the past three decades: the creation of international tribunals to prosecute atrocity crimes committed in Rwanda and Yugoslavia in the 1990s; the establishment of a permanent international tribunal, the International Criminal Court (ICC), in 2002; the increasing use of hybrid tribunals for atrocities committed in Cambodia, East Timor, Kosovo, Lebanon, and Sierra Leone; and, more recently, ongoing efforts to establish a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine.
An equally important development in the global architecture for international justice has been the growing embrace of the principle of universal jurisdiction (UJ) by states: a long-established legal tool which allows national courts to investigate and prosecute core international crimes even when those crimes were committed outside of their own borders. There has been an exponential rise in UJ investigations and prosecutions in the last three decades, with successful prosecutions against ISIS members, a Russian mercenary leader, and a former finance minister from The Gambia.
Even with these historic developments, however, impunity for atrocity crimes remains all too prevalent. International institutions tasked with delivering accountability frequently struggle with limited mandates, political deadlock, and inadequate enforcement power. Key governments undermine the ICC through sanctions against prosecutors conducting investigations and even ICC member states refuse to execute its international arrest warrants. There is no unified, coherent global system to track and extradite fugitives to ensure perpetrators are held accountable. Finally, there is inadequate funding for and political commitment to both international and national accountability efforts.
Meanwhile, perpetrators — both state and non-state actors — are leveraging new technologies to tighten control, silence opposition, and commit abuses with alarming efficiency. Survivors of mass atrocities continue to encounter systemic barriers that prevent them from accessing justice, from political resistance to weak legal infrastructure.
Strengthening the global system for international justice is essential to ensure there are no safe havens for perpetrators of atrocity crimes. This requires a dynamic approach in an international justice ecosystem where institutions like the ICC work alongside proceedings under universal jurisdiction and legal efforts are paired with non-judicial measures like transitional justice and reparations. A truly effective justice architecture must prioritize survivors and elevate local and hybrid solutions.