Introduction This paper delves into the crime of genocide which is the systematic destruction of a particular group of people based on their religion, race, or ethnicity. It is described as an act of heinous barbarism since it violates an individual’s basic human right to live (Shaw, 2012). This paper will thus delve into the cases of Darfur and Rwanda and will investigate the shortcomings of the ICC and ICTR in bringing justice to the victims of such massacres. This paper assumes that international institutions as they are now lack sufficient authority, the means of enforcing their decisions, and the presence of a sufficient framework for the administration of justice which results in their dubious record in administering justice in cases involving genocide. The Nature of the Cases In the cases of Darfur and Rwanda, hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed in what can only be described as a systematic annihilation of a people for no reason other than racial bias. In their attempts to prosecute those responsible, the ICC and the ICTR attempted to resolve such cases utilizing the tools that were made available to them. Issues with the Administration of Justice in the Case of Darfur When examining the case of Darfur, it can be noted that three specific factors prevented “true justice” from being administered, these encompass: the abstained votes from the U.S. and China in voting for a resolution for the administration of punitive actions, the lack of jurisdiction of the ICC in Sudan and lastly the lack of enforceability wherein the incumbent President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan could be brought to justice (Totten & Markusen, 2006). Abstained votes from the U.S. and China The main issue with the abstained votes from the U.S. and China when it came to administering a resolution to the issue of genocide within Darfur originates from the fact that neither nation would willingly want to set sufficient precedent for an outside organization to interfere in the domestic affairs of a state (Totten & Markusen, 2006). What must be understood is that without the approval of two of the most powerful members of the security council, no effective action could be done to commit to any form of enforcement of the ICC’s judgment through either economic or military means. This is based on the theory of realism in international relations wherein it is stated that states are the primary actors in international relations and, as such, their actions cannot be unilaterally dictated by a mere organization that is not a state. In the case of China, it advocates a foreign policy initiative of non-interference in the domestic affairs of states and repeatedly utilizes such a position in all its international dealings (Totten & Markusen, 2006). One of the reasons behind this is due to the fact it has its history of human rights violations in the form of the Uighers in the Xingiang region which the Han majority within China practically forced out of their native region. Thus, in the case of China, it would not want to set sufficient precedent for its actions to be judged. While such a situation does not exist in the case of the U.S., the fact remains that its domestic policy agenda is thoroughly against outside interference