Several challenges arise in responding to atrocity crimes in contemporary practice. First, there is not the same proactive vision for justice in the U.N. Security Council as existed in 1993 and 1994. Second, reflecting upon the practice of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and recent controversial judgments, the question looms whether judges properly evaluate how mass atrocity crimes occur within the particular characteristics of the overall situation or overall conflict. Third, the great value of international criminal tribunals and internationally-created hybrid tribunals is that they create a clear public record of events that, through the rigorous investigation and prosecution of atrocity crimes, rebut attempts at denial or revisionism by politicians and extremists. Further, a new paradigm in international affairs should be formulated, one that compels effective, timely, and significant multilateral responses directly aimed at lawless forces engaged in atrocity crimes and bold enough to act swiftly with lawful justification even in the absence of Security Council authorization thwarted by the veto power.
