The Nuremberg trials in 1945-46 set the gold standard: war is a crime, and leaders can’t hide behind sovereignty. But today, that promise is mostly empty. A new book by Lawrence Douglas, The Right Wrong Man, digs into why the system fails so often. The short answer? Power protects power. Judges, politicians, and generals all have reasons to look the other way.

Take Slobodan Milošević. The former Serbian leader was the first European head of state indicted for war crimes. Prosecutors spent years building a case. He died in 2006 before a verdict. His trial dragged on for six years, but he never faced real consequences. That’s not justice—it’s a warning to others that delay is the real punishment.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague has convicted just 12 people since 2002. Twelve. Meanwhile, wars rage in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, and Congo, with little fear of prosecution. The ICC’s cases often target lower-level figures, not the leaders who start the wars. That’s because the court relies on countries to hand over suspects—and no powerful country will ever arrest its own.

Politics is the biggest block. The U.S. doesn’t recognize the ICC’s authority. Russia, China, and Israel ignore its warrants. Even when countries like Sudan hand over suspects, trials drag for decades. Omar al-Bashir, Sudan’s former dictator, was indicted in 2009 for genocide in Darfur. He’s still free, living openly in Sudan and flouting the court. The message is clear: if you’re rich or connected, you’re untouchable.

Then there’s the problem of evidence. War crime trials need ironclad proof—videos, documents, witness testimony. But war zones are chaotic. Evidence vanishes. Witnesses get intimidated or killed. Prosecutors often rely on secondhand accounts, which defense lawyers shred in court. The Rwanda tribunal spent $2 billion convicting just 61 people. The cost alone scares countries from even trying.

Even when convictions happen, punishment is weak. The ICC’s harshest sentence is life in prison. But most convicts serve just a few years before being released for “good behavior.” That’s not justice—it’s a slap on the wrist. Victims see no real accountability, just more delays and excuses.

The system works best when the target is already weak. Charles Taylor, Liberia’s former president, was convicted in 2012 for war crimes in Sierra Leone. But he was already out of power, hiding in Nigeria. His trial took six years and cost $250 million. It worked because no one powerful was protecting him. Most war criminals don’t get that luxury.

What’s next? The ICC’s prosecutor, Karim Khan, keeps pushing for cases against Israel and Hamas over the Gaza war. But Israel won’t hand over suspects, and the U.S. will block any ICC moves. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, keeps demanding justice for Russian atrocities. But Russia ignores the court, and the West can’t force it to act. The system is stuck—promising justice it can’t deliver.

What You Need to Know

  • Source: Foreign Policy
  • Published: May 15, 2026 at 18:20 UTC
  • Category: Politics
  • Topics: #foreign-policy · #geopolitics · #diplomacy · #war · #conflict · #does

Read the Full Story

This is a curated summary. For the complete article, original data, quotes and full analysis:

Read the full story on Foreign Policy →

All reporting rights belong to the respective author(s) at Foreign Policy. GlobalBR News summarizes publicly available content to help readers discover the most relevant global news.

Curated by GlobalBR News · May 15, 2026

🇧🇷 Resumo em Português

A justiça internacional nunca cumpriu sua promessa: oitenta anos após os julgamentos de Nuremberg, que estabeleceram as primeiras regras contra crimes de guerra, a maioria dos responsáveis por atrocidades segue impune. Enquanto o mundo celebra o marco histórico que inaugurou a ideia de que crimes contra a humanidade não podem ficar impunes, a realidade mostra um cenário desolador: promotores não conseguem deter os perpetradores, tribunais são ignorados por potências e a impunidade se tornou regra, não exceção.

O caso brasileiro é emblemático dessa falência global. Embora o país tenha sido palco de graves violações durante a ditadura militar (1964-1985), nenhum agente do Estado foi condenado por crimes contra a humanidade no sistema interamericano ou em cortes nacionais — um reflexo do quanto a justiça internacional depende da vontade política dos Estados. A manutenção do sigilo sobre documentos da época, a recusa em extraditar criminosos ou até mesmo a revogação de leis que anistiam torturadores, como ocorreu recentemente no Brasil, demonstram como a impunidade é estrutural. Para os falantes de português, a lição é clara: mesmo quando o direito internacional avança, sua aplicação esbarra na soberania nacional e na falta de pressão internacional consistente.

O próximo passo não poderia ser mais urgente: sem vontade política de romper com a cultura da impunidade, a promessa de Nuremberg continuará a ser letra morta.

🇪🇸 Resumen en Español

El legado de los juicios de Núremberg, que hace 80 años sentaron las bases para juzgar los crímenes de guerra, sigue siendo una asignatura pendiente: la impunidad sigue siendo la norma más que la excepción. A pesar de los avances legales, la mayoría de los responsables de atrocidades siguen libres, evidenciando una brecha entre el derecho internacional y su aplicación real.

La incapacidad para hacer justicia plena se debe a la falta de voluntad política de los Estados, que anteponen intereses geopolíticos a la rendición de cuentas, y a los obstáculos prácticos para perseguir delitos cometidos en zonas de conflicto. Para los hispanohablantes, este problema adquiere especial relevancia en un mundo donde países de la región han sido escenario de graves violaciones a los derechos humanos, desde las dictaduras del Cono Sur hasta los conflictos actuales en Centroamérica. La lección es clara: sin cooperación internacional y presión constante, los crímenes más atroces seguirán sin castigo.