B: International Criminal Courts and
Tribunals Exam Questions with correct
Solutions 2025/2026 Already Graded A+
How are criminal tribunals determined? - ANS-Principally, as either national or international.
The former are established by national law, the latter by either treaty or by a Chapter VII security
council resolution. However, in reality these are two ends of a spectrum, with considerable
overlap in the middle.
How can we describe the areas of jurisdiction? - ANS-- international courts with jurisdiction over
crimes defined by international law;
- national courts with jurisdiction over crimes defined by national law (which could include
international offences);
- hybrid courts which have jurisdiction over a mixture of national and international offences.
What forms do hybrid courts take? - ANS-- tribunals located within the national court system,
which have international elements (such as international judges or funding) and jurisdiction over
international crimes; or
- international tribunals (established by Ch7 or by treaty) which have jurisdiction over
international crimes (e.g. murder as a war crime), but also have authority to prosecute crimes
defined within a national legal system (e.g. ordinary murder).
Why do problems of classification arise? - ANS-National and international tribunals are
described by a formal approach; while hybrid tribunals are described by a descriptive approach
(i.e. grouping tribunals by their common features). For example, the Special Court for Sierra
Leone has jurisdiction over international and national crimes committed in that state, and is
staffed by judges from that state. What type of court is it?
What is the limit of the powers of a treaty? - ANS-States may only exercise through a treaty
those powers that each state party would have individually.
What is the consequence of this on international courts? - ANS-The tribunal will have
jurisdiction either over a) offences committed in the territories of, or by nationals of, both state
parties; or b) offences that are subject to universal jurisdiction which any state could prosecute.
What principle does this appear to render nugatory? - ANS-The principle that treaties are only
binding on state parties. A court so created could lawfully exercise jurisdiction over: a) offences
, committed on the territory of a state party by nationals of a state which is not a party to the
treaty; and b) any offences that are subject to universal jurisdiction.
What is the limitation of this? - ANS-A treaty based court cannot infringe the rights of states that
are not parties.
What does this mean in practice? - ANS-That states may be cautious in granting treaty-based
courts universal jurisdiction in order to avoid international disputes. Treaty based courts will not
be able to compel non-parties to produce or surrender defendants, witnesses, or evidence.
Also, questions of state immunity will arise for non parties.
What are major examples of treaty-based international criminal tribunals? - ANS-The
permanent International Criminal Court; the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg.
What are the principal examples of courts established by Chapter VII? - ANS-The International
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for
Rwanda (ICTR). Each was established by the UN in response to a particular crisis (wars in
Yugoslavia; Genocide in Rwanda; both saw crimes of extraordinary magnitude committed along
ethnic or religious lines). They are sometimes referred to as ad hoc tribunals.
Why is the politics of the ICTY interesting? - ANS-Far from clear that the Security Council
expected the CTY to ever start work. Commentators at the time believed it was a threat to bring
warring factions to the negotiating table, rather than an intention to create a workable court.
Why is the politics of the ICTR interesting? - ANS-Rwanda voted against the establishment of
the tribunal, and despite having called for a UN tribunal did not support the ICTR because:
- it had a narrow and temporal jurisdiction, covering only events from 1/1 to 31/12 1994; the
government claimed the genocide covered a much broader period;
- initially consisted of only two chambers, six judges, a prosecutor, and an appeal chamber,
shared with the ICTY. Given the enormous crimes and vast numbers of perpetrators, this
seemed modest.
- thought the location of the court outside Rwanda would lessen its educative impact on a
culture of impunity in Rwanda.
- absence of death penalty before the ICTR would lead to a disparity in sentencing;
commanders before the ICTR would get life sentences, while lower ranking perpetrators would
be executed.
What is one advantage of establishing the courts under Ch7? - ANS-The mandatory nature of
SC resolutions; if the Resolution mandates states to co-operate with the tribunal and renders
immunities nugatory, all UN members are required to comply. The UN SC has a mandate to
protect international peace and security, and its Resolutions override all other international law
obligations, except jus cogens.
Tribunals Exam Questions with correct
Solutions 2025/2026 Already Graded A+
How are criminal tribunals determined? - ANS-Principally, as either national or international.
The former are established by national law, the latter by either treaty or by a Chapter VII security
council resolution. However, in reality these are two ends of a spectrum, with considerable
overlap in the middle.
How can we describe the areas of jurisdiction? - ANS-- international courts with jurisdiction over
crimes defined by international law;
- national courts with jurisdiction over crimes defined by national law (which could include
international offences);
- hybrid courts which have jurisdiction over a mixture of national and international offences.
What forms do hybrid courts take? - ANS-- tribunals located within the national court system,
which have international elements (such as international judges or funding) and jurisdiction over
international crimes; or
- international tribunals (established by Ch7 or by treaty) which have jurisdiction over
international crimes (e.g. murder as a war crime), but also have authority to prosecute crimes
defined within a national legal system (e.g. ordinary murder).
Why do problems of classification arise? - ANS-National and international tribunals are
described by a formal approach; while hybrid tribunals are described by a descriptive approach
(i.e. grouping tribunals by their common features). For example, the Special Court for Sierra
Leone has jurisdiction over international and national crimes committed in that state, and is
staffed by judges from that state. What type of court is it?
What is the limit of the powers of a treaty? - ANS-States may only exercise through a treaty
those powers that each state party would have individually.
What is the consequence of this on international courts? - ANS-The tribunal will have
jurisdiction either over a) offences committed in the territories of, or by nationals of, both state
parties; or b) offences that are subject to universal jurisdiction which any state could prosecute.
What principle does this appear to render nugatory? - ANS-The principle that treaties are only
binding on state parties. A court so created could lawfully exercise jurisdiction over: a) offences
, committed on the territory of a state party by nationals of a state which is not a party to the
treaty; and b) any offences that are subject to universal jurisdiction.
What is the limitation of this? - ANS-A treaty based court cannot infringe the rights of states that
are not parties.
What does this mean in practice? - ANS-That states may be cautious in granting treaty-based
courts universal jurisdiction in order to avoid international disputes. Treaty based courts will not
be able to compel non-parties to produce or surrender defendants, witnesses, or evidence.
Also, questions of state immunity will arise for non parties.
What are major examples of treaty-based international criminal tribunals? - ANS-The
permanent International Criminal Court; the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg.
What are the principal examples of courts established by Chapter VII? - ANS-The International
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for
Rwanda (ICTR). Each was established by the UN in response to a particular crisis (wars in
Yugoslavia; Genocide in Rwanda; both saw crimes of extraordinary magnitude committed along
ethnic or religious lines). They are sometimes referred to as ad hoc tribunals.
Why is the politics of the ICTY interesting? - ANS-Far from clear that the Security Council
expected the CTY to ever start work. Commentators at the time believed it was a threat to bring
warring factions to the negotiating table, rather than an intention to create a workable court.
Why is the politics of the ICTR interesting? - ANS-Rwanda voted against the establishment of
the tribunal, and despite having called for a UN tribunal did not support the ICTR because:
- it had a narrow and temporal jurisdiction, covering only events from 1/1 to 31/12 1994; the
government claimed the genocide covered a much broader period;
- initially consisted of only two chambers, six judges, a prosecutor, and an appeal chamber,
shared with the ICTY. Given the enormous crimes and vast numbers of perpetrators, this
seemed modest.
- thought the location of the court outside Rwanda would lessen its educative impact on a
culture of impunity in Rwanda.
- absence of death penalty before the ICTR would lead to a disparity in sentencing;
commanders before the ICTR would get life sentences, while lower ranking perpetrators would
be executed.
What is one advantage of establishing the courts under Ch7? - ANS-The mandatory nature of
SC resolutions; if the Resolution mandates states to co-operate with the tribunal and renders
immunities nugatory, all UN members are required to comply. The UN SC has a mandate to
protect international peace and security, and its Resolutions override all other international law
obligations, except jus cogens.
