Combining ownership and neutrality in the prosecution of international crimes: Theory and reality of mixed tribunals

Abstract

Mixed tribunals, a new type of courts prosecuting international crimes, have been welcomed with the assertion that they combine the neutrality of international courts and the ownership of domestic courts. Examining the current examples of mixed courts in Kosovo, East Timor, Sierra Leone, Cambodia and Bosnia and Herzegovina this article reveals, however, that it is problematic to ascribe this potential to mixed tribunals as a category. The category of mixed tribunals appears to be very heterogeneous in itself. The common defining and distinguishing feature, panels with national and international judges, can go some way towards providing both ownership and neutrality. However, other, not defining and even not common features of the courts, such as their establishment history, legal order, location and outreach programmes, appear to be as important. Consequently, if mixed tribunals are established with the expectation to combine neutrality and ownership, mixed panels as such do not suffice. From the moment of the establishment to the dissemination of the judgments, various other factors have to be taken into consideration for this expectation to be fulfilled. © Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM).