"Hybrid" Justice in East Timor, Sierra Leone, And Cambodia: "Lessons Learned" and Prospects for the Future‪.‬

I. INTRODUCTION As is well known, the forty-five years after the completion of the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials produced a large body of new substantive international humanitarian law. However, because of the political impasses generated by the Cold War, there was a general failure to create an institutional framework in which that body of law could be applied. This situation changed radically in 1993-94, with the creation of the Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). The ICTY and the ICTR were "experimental," to borrow Justice Robert Jackson's phrase from Nuremberg, (1) in that they had no precedent to build upon other than their WWII counterparts, and those tribunals had been the product of a very different conflict and international political order. It is hardly surprising that, despite their considerable achievements, the ICTY and the ICTR did not provide a definitive institutional model for the implementation of international justice. On the one hand, they were destined to be superseded by the advent of the International Criminal Court, based upon the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. On the other hand, the U.N. Security Council, and the international community more generally, became aware of a number of features of the ICTY and the ICTR that militated against using them as a model for further ad hoc international criminal courts.