Challenges of Domestic Prosecution of War Crimes: Jurisdiction, Politics, and Capacity

Abstract

World war crimes prosecutions strive to deter future atrocities and promote global accountability by punishing the worst human rights and humanitarian law abuses. Despite these goals, domestic war crimes prosecution is complicated by jurisdictional issues, political influence, and judicial system capacity. When international mechanisms like the International Criminal Court (ICC) claim jurisdiction over crimes committed in sovereign territories, often far from global legal centers, national sovereignty and the international mandate for justice clash. National courts often struggle to align their domestic legal frameworks with international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute, resulting in justice inconsistencies and prosecution gaps. Political issues hinder domestic prosecution since governments may be unwilling or unable to prosecute political leaders, military personnel, or other state stability actors. In post-conflict societies, prosecuting war crimes may threaten fragile political settlements, destabilize transitional governments, or spark new violence, forcing justice to be balanced against national security and social stability. Over and above political constraints, capacity-related constraints hinder domestic war crimes prosecution. After conflict or with developing judicial infrastructures, many jurisdictions lack the legal institutions, resources, and qualified staff to conduct complicated investigations and prosecutions that match international standards. Domestic courts cannot prosecute these cases because to a lack of judicial infrastructure, trained judges and prosecutors, forensic and investigation capabilities, and specialized court facilities. This study explores jurisdiction, politics, and capability through theoretical and doctrinal analysis, case studies from Rwanda, Sudan, and Ukraine, and a critical literature survey. Rwanda's Gacaca courts show how community-based, innovative domestic mechanisms can address massive caseloads and foster reconciliation, Sudan shows how political obstruction and lack of cooperation with international institutions impede accountability, and Ukraine shows the institutional challenges of adapting na Using the complementarity principle, which prioritizes national jurisdiction but allows international intervention when domestic systems are unwilling or incapable, the study examines hybrid tribunals and international cooperation as ways to fill gaps where domestic courts cannot prosecute.