"A person has a better chance of being tried and judged for killing one human being than for killing 100,000." --Former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

I. Introduction

For far too long the international community willingly circumnavigated the issue of whether it had a duty to intervene in post-conflict adjudication or reconciliation of NationStates. This reality persisted even for much of the modern human rights era that has otherwise been full of movements encouraging action on an international scale. And while the international community has at times meddled too much or too little in the affairs of Nation-States, when justice fails at existing domestic venues, an international response becomes the only remaining recourse.

In the years following World War II, the international community has frequently responded to gross human rights violations with admonishments, proclamations, and even the occasional sanction. In the aftermath of crises, countries were left to their own initiatives on how to prosecute or otherwise respond to their citizens' offenses. This passive approach was altered by the creation of two international tribunals with the authority to prosecute individuals for specific violations of international criminal law. This movement renewed interest in establishing a permanent body with similar authority to prosecute violations worldwide. The unique function of these international criminal institutions reflects evolving notions of justice and perhaps even remorse that more had not been done to combat the abuses before they erupted on such grand scales. The establishment of these tribunals was in no way the only possible response for the international community. It was, however, the only feasible means of accomplishing the goals of punishing offenders, deterring future violators, and promoting greater stability in the regions most affected. This Article examines the punishment theories underlying the international criminal courts and the sentences imposed to accomplish those objectives. Part II provides a historical background to the international criminal institutions since World War II. Part III examines the leading theories of punishment that inform (to varying degrees) the courts' analysis--retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and reconciliation. Part IV focuses on the punishments available to and the actual practices of the tribunals in sentencing defendants.