International criminal justice is one of the main cornerstones of contemporary interventionism and it is the most original. Criminal tribunals were created for the former Yugoslavia in 1993 and for Rwanda in 1994 - in the former case, against the will of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia itself, which found itself subject to a highly intrusive jurisdiction to which it had not consented. Croatia and Bosnia sent representatives to the Security Council meeting which voted the Resolution creating the Tribunal but they too never expected to be subjected to the ICTY: they assumed that it was for Serbs only.
Since these two ad hoc tribunals were set up, there has been a proliferation of other international tribunals, of which the most important is obviously the International Criminal Court which grew out of the two ad hoc tribunals. This organistion pursues an overtly globalist agenda, claiming jurisdiction over states (and heads of state) which have not signed its Rome Statute. Created on the initiative of a group of NGOs chaired by the head of the World Federalist Movement, the ICC clearly aims to establish jurisdiction over the whole planet and thus to create a world state: its constant propaganda about the number of states which have signed the Statute obscures the fact that many of these are micro-states and that the Court has in fact been ratified by States representing less than 30% of the world's population. The biggest players on the world stage have remained firmly outside the ICC, which underlines that interventionism cannot justify itself in the name of universalism.
On this page you will find information about the work of international criminal tribunals and about the contradictions and weaknesses in the project of setting up jurisdictions to apply international humanitarian law to the whole planet.