This article offers a U.S. perspective on the creation of the Yugoslav and Rwanda criminal tribunals as each nears its conclusion following more than twenty years of judicial proceedings. During the period in which the tribunals were created, one of us (MJM) was the Acting Legal Adviser or Principal Deputy Legal Adviser of the U.S. Department of State, and the other (DS) was Senior Adviser and Counsel to the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations and was subsequently the first U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues. Given the leading role played by the United States in the process of creating the tribunals, we hope that our perspective might help to illuminate the critical issues faced at that time.

We are delighted to participate in this symposium on the legacy of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda (Tribunals; respectively, ICTY and ICTR). We have been asked to offer reflections on the Tribunals’ impact on substantive international criminal law (ICL)—in particular, the definitions of crimes and the modes of liability. Given the enormity of the topic, we can offer only a cursory and impressionist sketch of the terrain, and draw attention to a few intriguing features along the way. We will not attempt to survey the Tribunals’ jurisprudence or the related academic literature. Instead, our aim is simply to highlight three themes underlying the Tribunals’ elaboration of substantive legal standards. For the nonspecialist, this sketch may provide a helpful overview of the evolution of ICL. For the specialist, this sketch may bring into slightly sharper relief some underlying patterns in the Tribunals’ work. We will also offer some broader thoughts about the Tribunals in the overall arc of ICL, and how their structure and priorities have left a lasting, distinctive imprimatur on ICL.

In 2014, a year of memorial ceremonies commemorating the twentieth anniversary of the Rwandan genocide, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) marked its own twentieth year with the launch of a “legacy website.” With the closing of the Tribunal scheduled for December 2015, the question of its legacy had become increasingly pressing. The website premiered a video that “celebrates the accomplishments of the ICTR” in a “visually compelling” style. Blurring the distinction between documentary account and film trailer, the video begins with iconic images of the African continent: a boy rolling a hoop down a dirt road; laborers ferrying wares; women in colorful dresses tending children. These scenes of daily life are interrupted by images of men wielding machetes and corpses, interspersed with the figure of the radio, reminding the viewer that the 1994 genocide was encouraged through broadcasts inciting Hutus to take up arms against their Tutsi neighbors. The video lists the Tribunal’s contributions to international criminal law, but also describes a much broader impact: “a record of legal reform in Rwanda, and outreach, education, legal training, and healing.” Young boys leap into a body of water to punctuate the final term, suggesting the hope of a new Rwanda. The narrator proclaims, “today in Rwanda, it’s safe to listen to the radio again: the sound is of a nation rebuilding.” The film’s final words reach beyond the Rwandan context, affirming that ours is “a world pushing forward despite great imperfection, each day closer to a time when international law offers justice to all people, everywhere.”

A strange thing about the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) is that for most of its life, it has thought about its death. The Tribunal, of course, kept getting a reprieve. But today it seems more likely than not that the ICTY will indeed close down sometime in 2017, after the conclusion of the two cases it currently has at trial. Yet even after its closure, the ICTY will continue in a sort of un-death, through the unfortunately named Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals, which will complete retrial and appellate proceedings in the cases currently tried before the ICTY.

It is with the deepest regret that the Journal records the passing of John Jackson—teacher, scholar, contributor to this Journal and longtime member of its editorial board, and pioneer of international trade and economic law. The following is a tribute to John in recognition of his immense contribution to international law.

In 1969, World Trade and the Law of GATT was published. In some sense, this was the beginning of what is known today as international trade law. Based on meticulous research into documents of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which hitherto had barely seen the light of day and certainly not the eyes of scholars, the work was to be”pragmatic” and designed to address the “intricate complexity” of the law of GATT and to be of use to “the government or GATT official, the private attorney and the legal scholar.” The scale was ambitious but characteristically expressed in modest terms.

The number of countries in which domestic courts are actively engaged with major public affairs has increased markedly since the early 1990s. In many transitional states, in particular, domestic courts have ruled on great constitutional controversies, which influence the national political process. They have also taken an active role in the application of international law— especially human rights treaties—and at times treat such treaties as a “New Standard of Civilization.” In particular, domestic courts have at times invoked international law in becoming more aggressive toward the executive branch. This trend has been one normative element inspiring some theorists to propose a new field known as comparative international law. This article highlights a different set of elements that become manifest in assessing the rapid overall rise in references to, and application of, international law by courts in China in recent years.

Know your limits. This familiar adage is not an inspirational rallying cry or a recipe for bold action. It serves better as the motto for the tortoise than the hare. But, after many false starts over the past twenty years, states were well advised to heed it when negotiating the Paris Agreement. While it is still far too early to say whether the Agreement will be a success, its comparatively modest approach provides a firmer foundation on which to build than its more ambitious predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol.