Since 1945, international criminal justice has been one continuous construction site, an expression of the attitude of international stakeholders and policymakers that favours temporary solutions to contemporary problems. Even with the creation of the ICC that has not really changed. This chapter will set out a few fundamental and rather radical ideas that aim at initiating a thorough rethinking of the way criminal proceedings at the international level are regulated and run today. It sees itself very much as a call for a principled re-evaluation and for a move away from the attempts of the last two decades of arriving at a genuine amalgam of diverse systems by the method of judicial trial and error. The existing model(s) is/are an exemplary expression of the temporariness of international law, because it/they proceed(s) from a refusal by international law-makers to engage in drafting a permanent model that retains fairness standards while striving for maximum efficiency and that is meant to be applied across the board to any (new) tribunal—an approach that would lead to much greater certainty of law than is currently the case because of an increase in cross-institutional comparability. The chapter contends that while both adversarial and judge-led systems in their own national settings can achieve comparable levels of fairness, they differ in efficiency and that a judge-led model is better suited for the international arena and should be made the foundation for any future permanent procedural framework. However, the temporary nature of the present system which mainly uses adversarial models is based to a large extent on an unprincipled reliance on supposedly ‘ready-made’ and ‘tried and tested’ solutions from as well as the experience of staff employed at previous tribunals. The use of the adversarial model is thus not based on a principled evaluation of its usefulness and effectiveness in the international context but on a default attitude of the lawyers creating and populating international tribunals, and possibly the diplomatic community in the wider sense.

International criminal justice is based to a large extent on extrapolations from criminal-law research on domestic systems. The difficult exercise of arriving at a common denominator is exacerbated by the systemic dichotomy of the so-called common-law and civil-law models, which, in turn, have now been joined by a third contender: public international law. Each of these has its own methods of approaching the task of solving legal problems. This paper queries the inter-model conversation that is happening so far and asks the question as to whether it is necessary to hold this discussion at a much more fundamental level than it would seem has been the case so far. It does so at the example of the relationship between German and English and Welsh law, but its concerns and conclusions merit consideration for the entire debate between the systems.

In the wake of their so-called ‘completion strategies’,1 both the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and for Rwanda (ICTR), creations of the UN Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, have for some time grappled with the question of how to unclog their congested dockets and dispose of those accused which are generally viewed as ‘small fry’. The fact that many of the accused have had to spend very long, some say excessively long, times in the custody of the Tribunals prior to and during trials, led the Tribunals to devise a mechanism for the transfer of cases to national jurisdictions, preferably those of the national States of the defendants, which were mostly identical to the post-conflict countries. The mechanism was an amendment of Rule 11bis of their Rules of Procedure and Evidence (RPE) which allowed the Tribunals to refer cases to the national courts under certain circumstances. It is helpful to trace the history of the Rule. For the sake of simplicity, only the ICTY2 will be looked at here, as there are no real differences in substance with regard to the ICTR as far as the latest version of the Rule3 is concerned.