Chapter 11: International Law & Human Rights – Aliens, Asylum, and Humanitarianism

11.4: International Courts and Tribunals: Seeking Justice in a Complex World

When a country violates international law or an individual commits crimes against humanity, where can the victims turn for justice? Domestic courts often lack the authority to prosecute leaders of sovereign nations, and political interests frequently shield powerful figures from accountability. This is where international courts and tribunals come into play, attempting to uphold justice beyond national borders. Whether settling disputes between states, prosecuting war criminals, or helping societies rebuild after mass atrocities, these institutions play a crucial role in enforcing international law. However, their effectiveness is often challenged by questions of jurisdiction, state sovereignty, and the willingness of the international community to enforce rulings. The 2009 film District 9 provides an unexpected but illuminating lens to examine these issues. While the movie is set in a fictional world where aliens are segregated and abused by human authorities, the themes of war crimes, legal accountability, and systemic oppression reflect real-world cases that international courts have tried to address. By exploring the role of global legal institutions, we can better understand how the world attempts—sometimes successfully, sometimes not—to hold states and individuals accountable for their actions.

Some disputes between nations can be resolved diplomatically, but when legal conflicts arise, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) serves as the primary judicial body of the United Nations to settle them. Established in 1945, the ICJ handles cases such as border disputes, treaty violations, and state responsibility for human rights abuses. Its rulings, however, are only binding if the involved states recognize its authority—an issue that frequently undermines its effectiveness. One notable case was Nicaragua v. United States (1986), in which the ICJ ruled that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting Contra rebels against the Nicaraguan government. The U.S. refused to comply with the ruling, demonstrating how powerful nations can ignore international legal decisions without facing direct consequences. In District 9, the South African government and the private military contractor MNU operate with impunity, violating ethical and legal norms without accountability. If an entity like the ICJ existed in that universe, it could theoretically mediate disputes over the aliens’ treatment and determine whether international law had been violated. However, much like in real-world cases, the enforcement of justice would still depend on the cooperation of powerful actors. When states fail to uphold human rights, attention often shifts from inter-state disputes to the prosecution of individuals—a task for the International Criminal Court (ICC).

While the ICJ deals with state-to-state conflicts, the International Criminal Court (ICC) focuses on individual accountability, prosecuting those responsible for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Unlike the ICJ, which only hears cases involving states, the ICC targets leaders and military officials who commit atrocities. Since its establishment in 2002, the ICC has issued arrest warrants for figures such as Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, accused of genocide in Darfur, and Congolese warlord Thomas Lubanga, convicted for using child soldiers. However, the court has been criticized for disproportionately prosecuting African leaders while powerful states, like the U.S., China, and Russia, refuse to recognize its jurisdiction. The ICC’s mission would be particularly relevant in District 9, where MNU officials engage in forced evictions, illegal medical experiments, and extrajudicial killings. If the events of the film were real, the ICC could investigate and prosecute those responsible for human rights violations against the aliens. Yet, as in our world, the question remains: Would those in power comply, or would they dismiss the court’s authority? Given these challenges, international justice has often relied on ad hoc tribunals to address specific conflicts. Check out the video below to review the differences between the ICJ and the ICC.

Some of the most notorious crimes in modern history have been addressed not by permanent institutions, but by ad hoc tribunals—temporary courts set up to prosecute war crimes and genocide. These tribunals were crucial in delivering justice after conflicts like the Yugoslav Wars and the Rwandan Genocide. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), for example, convicted Serbian leaders responsible for ethnic cleansing in the 1990s, while the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) prosecuted those behind the mass slaughter of Tutsis in 1994. Although these courts achieved some measure of justice, they were often slow, politically constrained, and criticized for selective enforcement. The situation in District 9 could potentially warrant a similar tribunal—if the international community recognized the aliens as a persecuted group, a post-conflict tribunal could be established to hold MNU and South African officials accountable. However, just as in real-world cases, legal action would depend on whether those in power allowed the tribunal to function. The question of jurisdiction—who has the authority to try such cases—remains one of the biggest obstacles to international justice.

When courts attempt to prosecute individuals or states, the issue of jurisdiction often arises, determining whether a court has the legal authority to hear a case and enforce its decisions. In international law, jurisdiction is especially complicated because states fiercely protect their sovereignty, resisting external interference in their internal affairs. For example, when the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin in 2023 for alleged war crimes in Ukraine, Russia dismissed the ruling, arguing that the ICC had no authority over its citizens. Similarly, China rejects external criticism of its treatment of Uyghur Muslims, framing it as a domestic issue rather than a human rights violation. In District 9, jurisdictional issues would be a major roadblock to legal accountability. If an international court sought to prosecute MNU officials, would the South African government cooperate? Would an alien government, if one existed, have the legal standing to bring a case forward? Just as international courts struggle to prosecute war criminals in powerful states, the film highlights how jurisdictional debates can prevent justice from being served. Given these limitations, some societies turn to alternative methods of justice—such as restorative justice—to address past atrocities.

Traditional criminal trials focus on punishment, but restorative justice offers an alternative approach that prioritizes reconciliation and repairing harm. This method has been used in post-conflict societies to help communities heal after mass violence. One of the most famous examples is South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), which allowed victims and perpetrators of apartheid-era abuses to testify about their experiences in exchange for amnesty. The goal was not just to punish individuals, but to create a shared historical record and promote national unity. In District 9, a restorative justice approach might involve acknowledging the injustices committed against the aliens and offering reparations or legal protections rather than simply prosecuting individuals. However, just as in real-world cases, the challenge is whether those in power are willing to participate in reconciliation efforts. The film’s ending, which leaves the aliens still marginalized and oppressed, suggests that true justice requires more than legal rulings—it demands political will and societal change.

The pursuit of international justice is an ongoing struggle, balancing legal principles with political realities. While the ICJ seeks to resolve disputes between nations, the ICC prosecutes individuals for crimes against humanity, and ad hoc tribunals address specific conflicts. However, challenges related to jurisdiction and state sovereignty often limit the effectiveness of these institutions. In cases where legal accountability is difficult to enforce, societies may turn to restorative justice to rebuild after human rights abuses. District 9 serves as a compelling metaphor for these challenges, illustrating how power dynamics, legal obstacles, and resistance to accountability can prevent justice from being served. Whether in the real world or a fictional universe where aliens are the oppressed minority, the question remains: How can the global community ensure that international law is more than just words on paper, but a true force for justice?