{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015714285714285715, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008571428571428572, 'mean_word_length': 5.3108108108108105, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Part A: Articles: International Criminal Courts: A Political View

This article addresses international criminal courts in the 1990s, against the background of a growth in third-party adjudication in international relations as a whole. Given lack of knowledge about the final evolution of three courts reviewed, the author is cautious in assessing whether the condition of international relations allows for successful criminal courts that achieve more good than bad. The UN ad hoc court for former Yugoslavia faced difficult obstacles during 1993–1996. The author believes Western parties were correct in not pressing for trials of certain political leaders, although the context could change. He is sceptical that the UN ad hoc court for Rwanda can break the cycle of ethnic violence in the Great Lakes region of Africa. He does not believe major military powers will actively support a UN standing criminal court, even should the General Assembly vote it into being. In conclusion, the author believes that States will continue to make inconsistent choices about what human rights policies, including support for criminal courts, should be pursued in different contexts. International relations, or even the community of liberal democracies, is not yet characterised by a situation in which systematic concern for individual responsibility under the rule of law trumps other policy considerations.