From the notorious “killing fields” of Cambodia to recent evidence of brutality in Sierra Leone, the grizzly nature of ethnic and other identity-oriented conflict incites horror, outrage, and a human desire for justice.

In response to reports of atrocities in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Rwanda the international community established ad hoc international war crimes tribunals to investigate crimes and prosecute perpetrators. Successive efforts have been made to expand the atrocities regime by forming a permanent tribunal, the International Criminal Court (ICC). Proponents support international tribunals not only as a means of holding perpetrators of atrocities accountable but also as a mechanism of peace by establishing justice and promoting reconciliation in war-torn regions. Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright proposed that, “In the end, it is very difficult to have peace and reconciliation without justice.”

I seek to identify and analyze the myriad political and procedural obstacles to establishing an effective atrocities regime by examining humanitarian norms, the strategic interests of powerful states, and bureaucratic factors. I argue that although liberal humanitarian ideas have created the demand for political action, the process of dealing with brutality in war has been dominated by realpolitik – that is, furthering the strategic interests of the most powerful states. However, by understanding the political interests and procedural obstacles involved, the international community can make institutional adjustments in the design and implementation of an atrocities regime to bridge the gap between idealpolitik and realpolitik.