International law is increasingly applied in domestic courts. This can result in situations where the courts are being asked to rule on politically sensitive issues, especially issues which involve actions during armed conflicts. Domestic courts do not show a uniformity of approach in addressing cases concerning international humanitarian law, and can often be seen to differ markedly in their response. The book argues that different national courts demonstrate different functional roles in different countries. These can be situated on a scale from apology to utopia, which can be set out as follows: (1) the apologist role of courts, in which they serve as a legitimating agency of the state's actions; (2) the avoiding role of courts, in which they, for policy considerations, avoid exercising jurisdiction over a case; (3) The deferral role of courts, in which courts defer back to the other branches of the government the responsibility of finding an appropriate remedy (4) the normative application role of courts, in which they apply international humanitarian law as required by the rule of law; and (5) the utopian role of courts, in which they introduce moral judgments in favour of the protection of the individual, beyond the requirements of the law. The book investigates the rulings of five key domestic courts, those of the UK, the USA, Canada, Italy, and Israel, to understand how their approaches differ, and where their practice can be placed on the methological scale. This analysis has been assisted by the author's extensive field work, notably in Israel and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Providing a detailed understanding each court's function, the book offers a critical analysis of the courts' rulings, in which both the legal arguments and the political context of cases they have ruled on are examined. The book shows that the functional role of the national courts is a combination of contradictions and mixed attitudes, and that national courts are in the process of defining their own role as enforcing organs of international humanitarian law.

During the 1980s, thousands of Chadian citizens were detained, tortured, and raped by then-President Hissene Habre's security forces. Decades later, Habre was finally prosecuted for his role in these atrocities not in his own country or in The Hague, but across the African continent, at the Extraordinary African Chambers in Senegal. By some accounts, Habre's trial and conviction by a specially built court in Dakar is the most significant achievement of global criminal justice in the past decade. Simply creating a court and commencing a trial against a deposed head of state was an extraordinary success. With its 2016 judgment, affirmed on appeal in 2017, the hybrid tribunal in Senegal exceeded expectations, working to deadlines and within its budget, with no murdered witnesses or self-dealing officials. This book details and contextualizes the Habre trial. It presents the trial and its impact using a novel structure of first-person accounts from 26 direct actors (Part I), accompanied by academic analysis from leading experts on international criminal justice (Part II). Combined, these views present both local and international perspectives through distinct but inter-locking parts: empirical source material from understudied actors both within and outside the court is then contextualized with expert analysis that reflects on the construction and work of: the Extraordinary African Chamber (EAC) as well as wider themes of international criminal law. Together with an introduction laying out the work and significance of the EAC and its trial of Hissene Habre, the book is a comprehensive consideration of a history-making trial.