Also, some may argue that punishing those who simply took orders is immoral in that they had no choice. Furthermore, these tribunals and their hanging of common soldiers does not do much to deter war crimes. According to McMorran, many believe it is unlikely that men and women like Hitler and Stalin would have been deterred by the prospect of a war crimes tribunal. These men did what they did because they actually believed it was right. As one can see, it takes a certain state of mind to be able to wage this kind of war. These men acted as if they were on a crusade. It is unlikely that they would have stopped because they knew a war crimes tribunal was in their future. This model also applies to many of the other acts of aggression that have occurred since World War Two. The Rwandan genocide was fueled by those who believed the extermination of a people group was correct, and the September 11 terrorists also had a higher motivation.

Finally, war crimes tribunals do not necessarily help...

Instead, the tribunals can actually deter the progress of countries working together. Instead of allowing for reconciliation, the tribunals pit one country against another again. Thus, the countries are encouraged to relive their hatred. McMorran suggests that another type of post-war justice system, the truth and reconciliation commissions, are believed by some to be better for the healing of two wounded states.
While war crimes tribunals often result in decisive action against a loosing nation's war criminals, they are not necessarily successful. Because they do not always punish those who are giving orders, deter war crimes, or encourage countries to move on together in peace, they cannot be labeled institutions that work.

Works Cited

McMorran, Chris. "International War Crimes Tribunals." July 2003. Beyond Intractability. 21 October 2008. Beyond Intractability. http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/int_war_crime_tribunals/