| dc.description.abstract | This study exammes the question of whether or not International Criminal Tribunals (K'Ts) in executing their mandate especially m post conflict situations interfere and/or compromise the national security or even the national security strategies of states. It analyses the rationale of establishing ICTs and their role in ensuring justice and accountability within states where international crimes have allegedly been committed, the role and conceptualization of national security and the relationship between ICTs and national security. The conceptual framework adopted in this study is that of state sovereignty which emphasizes non interference
with the internal affairs of a state. The study while using this concept argues that states in exercise of their sovereignty cede some of it by entering into international treaties.
In examining the rationale of ICTs, issues and philosophy relating to ICTs are discussed. The development of international criminal law (lCL) and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is analyzed including the need to punish individuals who hold the highest responsibility in the commission of international crimes. In addition, the merits and justification that informed the establishment of UN based ad hoc courts and the treaty based ICC including the differences between them and the laws applicable by different ICTs are also addressed. The concept of national security is examined from both the traditional perspective that emphasizes physical security of the state and the contemporary one that addresses the individual. In examining the relationship between ICTs and national security, various issues that include tension between the interests of justice and political interests are discussed. The study adopted both primary and secondary sources of data. At the end of the study, the analysis proves the hypothesis that the functioning of ICTs does not interfere with the national security agendas of states but is in fact complementary. | en_US |
