Thoughts

As with Amanda and Grace, i see this as about tribunals such as the ICTY/R as being inadequate, and i guess the Q leaves room for arguments re the adequacy of alternatives eg the ICC [although i reckon the focus is on the crappiness of ICTY/R, since that's what the Q specifically asks]. Thoughts as to why international tribunals just don't cut it (in no particular order):

• What is justice? (I don't think this is the time for deep debate, but do think the issue needs to be at least vaguely addressed, since it is in the question) - if we mean acknowledgment of crimes committed, holding those who committed crimes accountable, and punishing those accountable, then do the tribunals achieve this? One argument as pointed out in the class is that (cf Pinochet) many of those who actually committed the crimes are still in prison and have not been put on trial because these tribunals are underfunded/under-resourced - that these tribunals can only try the head honchos (and couldn't even get this done in the case of Pinochet) and so do not achieve justice in this sense.   
• These tribunals are set up by the SC which poses two problems re justice:  
•   1. SC/P-5/veto issue - if that lot don't have an interest in the matter, or have an interest in avoiding the setting up of a tribunal (eg they don't want to mess up what is a good trading alliance) then the tribunal will not come into existence. Obv this won't achieve justice (eg Bush has arguably...committed war crimes (allowed them to be committed) but i don't see a ICTAmerica being set up to try him). The fact that Americans can be held to trial under ICC is precisely why US won't sign up to it, whereas not much fuss is made against these ad hoc tribunals coz they really are unlikely to be created in certain powerful states.
• 1.5 Related to this is the issue of eg individs from NATO countries not being tried at the ICTY - they helped to set it up/provide much of the funding, its v unlikely that they would be tried (icty is tres expensive and all the costs are dealt with by UN members)
  
• 2. The UN/SC are under public scrutiny and as with other courts are often under pressure to 'be seen' to be doing something ('show trials') - if there's a humanitarian crisis going on somewhere, they may set up a tribunal knowing full well from the start that they want to 'punish the bad guy' - ie it may not be the fairest of trials - eg ICTY, most prosecutions were Serbs, yet crimes against Serbs were not brought to justice...arguably. The statutes creating the tribunals may in themselves be written so as to lead to the desired result (it's possible, esp since the tribunals are creating for that very specific purpose)
  
• Again, issue re what we mean by justice and the impartiality of judges: a bit like the Eurovision song contest, you know whose going to vote which way before he voting begins - there will be some biased [ie because of the country 'under trial' and relations with their own state] judges in there
• The tribunals are based in Geneva - i can;t think why this is shit just now, but i assume there are reasons...i'll come back to this later if my mind starts working properly. Maybe there's something about cultural relativism [ie in the application of laws - compare eg to the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal which was set up for Saddam Hussein and co - he was hanged/hung and some may argue that this was justice. I don't fully understand this tribunal, i don't think its international although i think those who set it up claimed they were doing so under the SC powers - which reminds me of other point (already mentioned i think) that these tribunals may not even be legit since the SC may not have the power to set them up] in there, that often comes up...West imposing its idea of what are human rights/massive lack of connection to the states in which the crimes were committed.  
• The tribunals have no power of arrest, so in addition to being v.slow (and hence many prisoners are not tried), many of those who committed crimes continued to roam free.
• Is focusing on an individual the best way to attain justice? Many crimes against humanity can only work not because of a single leader but because of the massive support he gains from his 'followers' - so should the 'state'/the 'system' be held responsible? And does prosecuting a few randoms who happened to be put to trial amount to justice? This links in to my 'show trials' point above. Is this more like 'symbolic justice' and is this truly justice? 
• Was it the ICTY or R or both that developed the law on rape? Either way - is this justice? Creating new crimes and then holding those who committed this crimes responsible for them - isn't this a bit retro-active and therefore kinda wrong? (obv i think they created brill laws which i reckon should be translated to domestic law also - dont want u to think i am a fan of the baddies...)

I can;t think of anything else right not. Plus i seem to be falling asleep. 8.30 is pretty damn late.