Those problems have been alluded to and I shall run through them in short order. That term has been applied to the Nuremberg tribunals, but no one would deny that the 20 volumes of detailed evidence of Nazi crimes that was gathered at Nuremberg are anything other than an historical source of the first significance. It is true, for example, that Stalin had a judge sitting at Nuremberg. However, just because we cannot bring everyone to justice, that does not mean that we should not bring to justice those people who are capable of being put on trial. Perhaps a more serious objection relates to the issue of enforcement.
Some criminals are too strong to be brought to trial.
However, the idea is at least put in the back of their minds that, if one day in future they lose power, they may then be pursued and be held accountable for their actions. The court is still worthwhile from that point of view. That time did come and the court will make it more probable that it will come for other people. There is little disagreement about the court in respect of the issues of civilian atrocities, genocide and crimes against humanity. The real concern applies to whether normal military action or honest mistakes made during normal military action could end up being defined as war crimes.