This special issue features a constellation of 13 papers that were developed through cooperation of scholars engaged in an EU cost Action (ca18228, The Action). Collectively, they respond to the dominant focus on international criminal courts and tribunals (icts) in atrocity justice scholarship, and provide insights into developments across the world in addressing core international crimes. By reversing the gaze to start from states, they seek to decentre the icts as elements in a busy constellation populated by diverse nodes. As a first step on that path, Action members set out to collect data on domestic law, policy and institutions in relation to atrocity justice in a range of countries; on the relationship between the state and icts; and on civil society organisations active in relation to atrocity justice. In 2020, in Sarajevo, a data collection instrument was developed for this purpose. Using the Action network, calls for data were circulated around scholars in the field, encompassing different disciplines across law and social science. Data was published in two stages, ultimately covering 23 countries in Africa, the Americas, Asia and Europe.¹ After the publication of data, Action members and other contributors were invited to submit papers exploring, explaining, or expanding on, the data. Working papers were presented in a workshop hosted at the University of Oslo Faculty of Law in February 2024. While the selection of papers is a sub-set from the larger survey, it still covers a diversity of regions, atrocity experiences, and relationships with icts past and present.

The papers present realities from the Americas, Europe, Africa and Asia. Of the countries here, a number have been sites of atrocity crime before and after the ad hoc tribunals of the 1990s marked the beginning of a ‘justice cascade’,² although the extent to which they have been subject to international and internationalised criminal justice procedures varies significantly. Guatemala and Colombia both experienced prolonged periods of internal armed conflict, ending with peace agreements in 1996 and 2016 respectively. In Guatemala, the International Commission against Impunity assisted domestic legal processes, while in Colombia, international oversight in the form of a preliminary investigation by the International Criminal Court (icc) monitored transitional justice processes in the country through the period from 2004 to 2021, reflecting particular interactions between domestic and international justice mechanisms. The Ugandan government, which ratified the Rome Statute in 2002, self-referred its internal conflict with the Lord’s Resistance Army to icc prosecutors in 2004. The conclusion of Dominic Ongwen’s appeal in 2022 leaves outstanding the case of Joseph Kony, who remains at large. Moving from Latin America and Africa to Europe, regional variation demonstrates the global reach of atrocity justice efforts and the specificity of local conditions shaping their impact. The conflicts on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, prompted the UN to establish the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (icty) in 1993; and since 2014, Ukraine has accepted the jurisdiction of the icc, with investigative activity escalating in the wake of Russia’s full-scale attacks from 2022 onwards.

Most of the other countries have their own histories of atrocity crimes, predating the shift in international justice activity in the 1990s. Italy, Norway, Albania, Lithuania and Hungary, among other states, were sites of deportation, persecution and murder of Jewish people and others during the Holocaust, war crimes, and in the case of the last three, widespread human rights abuses under single-party authoritarian regimes in the period between World War ii and the widespread collapse of socialist regimes in Europe. Argentina’s most recent period of military rule (1976–1983) was accompanied with widespread disappearances and arbitrary killings. Bangladesh still seeks international recognition of genocide and other crimes inflicted by Pakistani forces in the 9 months preceding independence in 1971. Of all the cases in this issue, the US is the only one without domestic experience of atrocity crimes in the period since the beginning of the Second World War, but its extensive overseas deployment of troops and accompanying concerns that these could face prosecution at the icc shapes its mixed position on international criminal justice.

As expected, this diverse set of countries produces a correspondingly diverse set of stories, each reflecting different national interests, drivers, and capacities rooted in domestic politics and resources. Across the states here, a consistent and wholehearted embrace of international criminal justice, encompassing support for international bodies and domestication of international norms in law, policy and practice is elusive and vulnerable to shifts in government. In a number of papers we see the cooling of support for icts when their focus turns to states’ own citizens or those with whom they are allied, or where support conflicts with broader strategic goals. For example, Albania’s support for prosecutions arising from the wars in Yugoslavia grew in the late 1990s when conflict escalated in Kosovo and Kosovar Albanians fled to Albania in large numbers. On the other hand, as Kosovo’s political and military leaders were indicted, Albania adopted a more critical position. Likewise, as one of the states entering into bilateral agreements with the US, protecting the latter’s citizens from transfer to the icc, Albania seeks to maintain an important strategic alliance. Like a double pendulum, US support and opposition to the internationalisation of criminal justice charts a dynamic course affected by international factors (risks arising from its own international military engagements, conflicts involving other states) and the outlook of the executive branch of government. This has manifested in a swing back from the extreme position of sanctioning icc functionaries, to legislation mandating qualified support to investigation and prosecution of crimes in Ukraine, only to see the threat of sanctions revived once more in 2024, when the icc prosecutor sought arrest warrants for leaders of US ally, Israel. The case of Hungary demonstrates how states’ embrace of the norms and practices of international law reflects shifting political agenda, most recently linked to anti-immigration discourses. Other governments have sought to secure their interests by seeking to influence the icc’s focus, directing this towards opposing forces in a conflict (e.g. Uganda, Ukraine). Diversity across states may be mirrored by internal diversity or a lack of a uniform position within states. The case of Norway, a keen supporter of international justice in its foreign policy but relatively slow to match this in its domestic activity under the purview of the Ministry of Justice, is mirrored in the Italian case. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the state remains politically divided along lines that date back to ethnicised conflict and which were entrenched in a political settlement at the end of the war. In this case many steps forward in domestication of international criminal law have been achieved with the intervention of external powers. Across the thirteen cases, we observe that the broad acceptance of international criminal law and justice norms often reflects subtle differences, which influence the definition of crimes to align with domestic experiences and expectations. Conversely, we also see the significant role that domestic actors play as contributors to normative development at the international level, particularly evident in Latin American states’ efforts to criminalise enforced disappearances.

Across the work, we can see the influence of another level of governance, particularly through regional human rights courts as venues capable of challenging impunity on one side (e.g. Guatemala) while protecting the rights of accused on the other (Lithuania; Hungary); and regional political actors using conditionality as leverage (EU in Ukraine). The proposed regional court competent to prosecute international crimes under the auspices of the African Union is a development yet to come to fruition. As noted in the case of Colombia, where complementarity is in operation, it forms part of a complex, multi-level system of rule of law where international crimes can not be understood in isolation from transnational crimes defined at the level of the state.

The papers collectively highlight a complex and dynamic landscape of atrocity justice, where icts serve as crucial but not isolated nodes within a broader, interconnected framework of justice delivery. This framework, which the Action proposers anticipated, underscores the importance of understanding icts as part of a larger constellation of justice mechanisms, where influence flows in multiple directions. icts not only shape, but are also shaped by, the states and actors with which they interact. These interactions include essential aspects including financial support, personnel contributions, and the execution of sentences, as well as broader roles like norm entrepreneurship, advocacy, and cooperation in various forms. This interdependence highlights that while icts play a pivotal role in setting norms and values, their effectiveness and evolution are deeply contingent on the engagement and influence of states and other actors. The success of atrocity justice on a global scale, therefore, hinges not just on the strength of icts but on the willingness and capacity of states to prosecute international crimes within their own judicial systems.

Moreover, the papers emphasise the significant, albeit sometimes underappreciated, role of civil society in the pursuit of international justice.³ While the focus on states as primary nodes of justice is crucial, civil society organisations often drive the normative and practical developments that shape justice delivery. They play a key role in advocacy, monitoring, and even norm-setting, which complements the work of icts and state actors. The collection of papers, by integrating insights from a diverse array of national contexts and languages, provides a valuable contribution to the field, filling gaps in the predominantly anglophone discourse. This work is envisioned as a starting point, encouraging further data collection and analysis across a broader spectrum of states. Additionally, the tools and methodologies developed through this research hold potential pedagogical value, offering a framework for students in law, criminology, and international relations to apply and extend these insights. However, given the dynamic nature of the field, with significant developments occurring even as papers were being finalised, there is a clear need for ongoing data updates and analysis. The ratification of the Rome Statute by Ukraine and the conclusion of Thomas Kwoyelo’s trial in Uganda underscore the importance of viewing the papers in this collection as reflective of a specific moment in time, with an understanding that the landscape of international justice continues to evolve. By analysing past experiences and current practices, we can open pathways for future research and policy development that will better address the dynamic challenges of global atrocity justice.

Readers familiar with the peer-review process will likely appreciate the challenge of finding suitable reviewers for the 13 individual country studies included here. The editors extend their heartfelt appreciation to colleagues who gave time and constructive feedback to support the authors, and also to those who were not able to, but who nonetheless pointed us towards others who could. We are also grateful to Editor-in-Chief, Caroline Fournet, and her colleagues at International Criminal Law Review for their support throughout the journey from initial proposal to these words being printed on the page.