The history and present status of war crimes tribunals was recently discussed by Justice Richard J. Goldstone, prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. Goldstone made his remarks at a conference sponsored by the California Institute of International Studies and Stanford University Law School.
Citing the Yugoslav tribunal as an example, Goldstone highlighted some of the difficulties experienced by international bodies that attempt to bring accused war criminals to justice. Among the problems he noted were the tribunals' ad hoc status, their lack of jurisdiction over charged persons in the absence of specific evidence, obstacles raised by the involved states, disputes over the issue of sovereignty, shortage of revenue to fund the courts' operations, and the desire of nation-states to try alleged war criminals without international oversight.
In my capacity as vice president of the World Jurists Association, I discussed with Justice Goldstone the differences between a private-citizen approach and the political approach of such trials. Some of the differences are the permanency and universality of a citizens' court, in contrast to the ad hoc and nonuniversal features of a political entity such as the Yugoslav tribunal.
Since a Citizens' World Court will not actually mete out punishment by way of enforcement, it will be able to try accused persons in absentia after appropriate notice. The enforcer would be public opinion.
The Citizens' Court would not be restricted in any way by national sovereignty or lack of jurisdictional power. It has the potential to assume jurisdiction over any case. Its jurisdiction can extend to individuals, nation-states, and public and private entities, and will not be trapped in the abyss of legalisms such as the concept of sovereignty and the definitions of "aggression."
There is one thing common to both sorts of trials--lack of funding. However, one important difference is that the Yugoslav Tribunal is financed by nation-states. The Citizens' Court would be financed solely by private funds. With public funds come all the trappings and impediments of nationalism and foreign policy, based on what is in the interest of a given nation. Private funds will free the Citizens' Court from these obstructive influences.