Criminal justice for human rights abuses committed during periods of political repression or dictatorship is one of the great challenges to post-con?ict societies. In many cases, there has been no justice at all. Sometimes serious political concerns that e?orts at accountability might upset fragile peace settlements have militated in favour of no action and no accountability. In many cases, the outgoing tyrants have conditioned their departure upon a pledge that there be no prosecutions. But thinking on these issues has evolved considerably in recent years. Largely driven by the view that collective amnesia amounts to a violation of fundamental human rights, especially those of the victims of atrocities, attention has increasingly turned to the dynamics of post-con?ict accountability. At the high end of the range, of course, sit the new international criminal justice institutions: the ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the Special Court for Sierra Leone, the various ''hybrid'' tribunals in Kosovo, East Timor and Cambodia, and the new International Criminal Court. But in terms of sheer numbers, the most signi?cant new institutions are truth and reconciliation commissions. Of va- able architecture, depending upon the prerogatives of the society in question and the features of the past con?ict, they have emerged as a highly popular mechanism within the toolbox of transitional justice. In some cases, the truth commission is held out as an alternative to criminal justice.

As the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda enter the final phase of their work, it is an appropriate time to reflect on the significant contribution that these unique institutions have made to the development of international criminal law. Judgments issued by the ad hoc Tribunals have served to clarify and elucidate key concepts and principles of international criminal law. On several occasions, this practice and jurisprudence has pushed the progressive development of this dynamic and growing branch of international law.
Judicial Creativity at the International Criminal Tribunals examines the specific contribution made by the judges of the Yugoslavia and Rwanda Tribunals to the development of international criminal law in the areas of substantive crimes, criminal liability, defences, general principles, fair trial rights, and procedure. The essays illuminate the law on these topics while pointing to key areas where the Tribunals have advanced the understanding of particular concepts and principles. Several contributions address the theories of interpretation employed by the Tribunals' judges and the challenges presented by judicial creativity in international criminal trials.
As the caseload grows for the International Criminal Court and the international criminal justice project continues to flourish, it is important to take stock of the achievements to date of international criminal bodies. This collection of essays provides a thoughtful analysis by judges, practitioners, and scholars of international criminal law of the profound changes in the field enacted by the judges of the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia.

A constant yet oftentimes concealed practice in war has been the use of informers and collaborators by parties to an armed conflict. Despite the prevalence of such activity, and the serious and at times fatal consequences that befall those who collaborate with an enemy, international law applicable in times of armed conflict does not squarely address the phenomenon. The recruitment, use and treatment of informers and other collaborators is addressed only partially and at times indirectly by international humanitarian law. In this book, Shane Darcy examines the development and application of the relevant rules and principles of the laws of armed conflict in relation to collaboration. With a primary focus on international humanitarian law as may be applicable to various forms of collaboration, the book also offers an assessment of the relevance of international human rights law.

International courts and judicial bodies play a formative role in the development of international humanitarian law. Judges, Law and War examines how judicial bodies have influenced the substantive rules and principles of the law of armed conflict, and studies the creation, application and enforcement of this corpus of laws. Specifically, it considers how international courts have authoritatively addressed the meaning and scope of particular rules, the application of humanitarian law treaties and the customary status of specific norms. Key concepts include armed conflicts and protected persons, guiding principles, fundamental guarantees, means and methods of warfare, enforcement and war crimes. Consideration is also given to the contemporary place of judicial bodies in the international law-making process, the challenges presented by judicial creativity and the role of customary international law in the development of humanitarian law.

International courts and judicial bodies play a formative role in the development of international humanitarian law. Judges, Law and War examines how judicial bodies have influenced the substantive rules and principles of the law of armed conflict, and studies the creation, application and enforcement of this corpus of laws. Specifically, it considers how international courts have authoritatively addressed the meaning and scope of particular rules, the application of humanitarian law treaties and the customary status of specific norms. Key concepts include armed conflicts and protected persons, guiding principles, fundamental guarantees, means and methods of warfare, enforcement and war crimes. Consideration is also given to the contemporary place of judicial bodies in the international law-making process, the challenges presented by judicial creativity and the role of customary international law in the development of humanitarian law.

Criminal justice for human rights abuses committed during periods of political repression or dictatorship is one of the great challenges to post-con?ict societies. In many cases, there has been no justice at all. Sometimes serious political concerns that e?orts at accountability might upset fragile peace settlements have militated in favour of no action and no accountability. In many cases, the outgoing tyrants have conditioned their departure upon a pledge that there be no prosecutions. But thinking on these issues has evolved considerably in recent years. Largely driven by the view that collective amnesia amounts to a violation of fundamental human rights, especially those of the victims of atrocities, attention has increasingly turned to the dynamics of post-con?ict accountability. At the high end of the range, of course, sit the new international criminal justice institutions: the ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the Special Court for Sierra Leone, the various ''hybrid'' tribunals in Kosovo, East Timor and Cambodia, and the new International Criminal Court. But in terms of sheer numbers, the most signi?cant new institutions are truth and reconciliation commissions. Of va- able architecture, depending upon the prerogatives of the society in question and the features of the past con?ict, they have emerged as a highly popular mechanism within the toolbox of transitional justice. In some cases, the truth commission is held out as an alternative to criminal justice.