‘International courts and tribunals established during the period of proliferation in the 1990s are characterised by their specialisation and increasing involvement of non-state actors. This strongly suggests that the days of purely inter-state courts playing a prominent role in international law are long gone’. Critically examine this statement, citing relevant practice in support of your answer.

Introduction

This essay critically examines the assertion that international courts and tribunals established during the 1990s proliferation are defined by specialisation and the growing role of non-state actors, rendering purely inter-state courts obsolete in international law. The 1990s marked a significant expansion of international judicial mechanisms, driven by global demands for justice and accountability. This analysis will explore the characteristics of these courts, assess the involvement of non-state actors, and evaluate whether inter-state courts have indeed lost prominence. By drawing on specific examples and academic perspectives, the essay aims to provide a balanced view on this evolving landscape.

Specialisation of International Courts and Tribunals in the 1990s

The 1990s witnessed a notable proliferation of international courts and tribunals, often tailored to address specific issues, reflecting a shift towards specialisation. For instance, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), established in 1993, and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), set up in 1994, were created to prosecute war crimes and genocide in specific conflicts (Schabas, 2006). Unlike traditional inter-state courts such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which handles broad disputes between states, these tribunals focus on individual criminal responsibility, demonstrating a departure from purely state-centric adjudication. Furthermore, the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1998 through the Rome Statute institutionalised this trend towards specialised jurisdiction over international crimes (Cassese, 2008). This specialisation arguably addresses complex, context-specific issues more effectively, suggesting a reduced reliance on generalist inter-state mechanisms. However, the ICJ continues to play a vital role in state disputes, indicating that specialisation complements rather than fully replaces traditional structures.

Increasing Involvement of Non-State Actors

Another defining feature of 1990s tribunals is the increasing role of non-state actors, including individuals, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and international organisations. For example, in the ICC, NGOs have been instrumental in advocacy, evidence gathering, and victim representation, influencing proceedings beyond traditional state participation (Glasius, 2006). Similarly, individuals as victims or perpetrators are central to the mandates of the ICTY and ICTR, a stark contrast to the state-exclusive focus of the ICJ. This involvement reflects a broader conceptual shift in international law towards recognising non-state entities as stakeholders in justice processes. Indeed, as Glasius (2006) argues, this trend democratises international law by amplifying voices beyond state governments. However, this does not entirely diminish the relevance of inter-state courts, as states remain key players in initiating cases and enforcing decisions at bodies like the ICJ.

Are Inter-State Courts Obsolete?

While specialised tribunals and non-state actor involvement suggest a transformation in international adjudication, it would be premature to conclude that inter-state courts are obsolete. The ICJ, for instance, continues to resolve critical disputes, such as territorial and maritime conflicts, which are inherently state-centric (Thirlway, 2016). Cases like the 2019 dispute between Ukraine and Russia over Crimea illustrate the enduring relevance of inter-state mechanisms in addressing geopolitical tensions. Therefore, while the proliferation of specialised tribunals indicates a diversification of international law, inter-state courts retain a significant, albeit arguably less dominant, role. The coexistence of these systems suggests a hybrid model rather than a complete replacement.

Conclusion

In conclusion, international courts and tribunals from the 1990s are indeed marked by specialisation and increased non-state actor involvement, as evidenced by the ICTY, ICTR, and ICC. These developments highlight a shift towards more nuanced and inclusive judicial mechanisms in international law. However, the continued relevance of inter-state courts like the ICJ demonstrates that traditional structures are far from obsolete. Arguably, the future of international adjudication lies in a balanced interplay between specialised and inter-state systems, reflecting the complex, multifaceted nature of global legal challenges. This hybrid approach ensures that both state and non-state interests are adequately addressed, maintaining the dynamism of international law.

References

• Cassese, A. (2008) International Criminal Law. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press.
• Glasius, M. (2006) The International Criminal Court: A Global Civil Society Achievement. Routledge.
• Schabas, W. A. (2006) The UN International Criminal Tribunals: The Former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone. Cambridge University Press.
• Thirlway, H. (2016) The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice: Fifty Years of Jurisprudence. Oxford University Press.