It should be uncontroversial that the United States is among the world's leaders in supporting the development of international courts and tribunals. For example, in the economic arena, the United States has long been dedicated to the resolution of disputes through specialized tribunals, and we have continued that commitment through our cooperation with dispute settlement panels under the World Trade Organization. We have also been a leading advocate of ad hoc tribunals to resolve disputes between investors and states pursuant to bilateral and multilateral investment agreements.

This chapter, however, focuses on two other categories of international courts and tribunals: (1) tribunals for the resolution of state-to-state disputes over the rights and obligations of states under international law, such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and (2) criminal tribunals through which the international community seeks to hold individuals accountable for war crimes and other atrocities, including the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR), the Special Court for Sierra Leone, and the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Contrary to what is sometimes suggested, the United States believes that such state-to-state and criminal tribunals make valuable contributions and has therefore supported them in both word and deed. International courts and tribunals can assist states in resolving disputes that they have been unable to settle through ordinary diplomacy. They can provide an alternative to the resolution of disputes or the adjudication of criminal liability through domestic courts that may be ill equipped or ill suited to address particular matters.