BEYOND IMPARTIALITY: HOW GEOPOLITICS AND MEDIA SHAPE ACCOUNTABILITY BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

ABSTRACT This paper explores how a nation’s geopolitical standing and its portrayal in global media shape its exposure to and accountability for international war crimes. While international criminal tribunals aim for impartial justice, this research suggests that geopolitical leverage and prevailing media narratives influence prosecutorial focus, public perception, and ultimately, justice outcomes. A comparative case study of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) is conducted. This analysis examines how differing levels of international support, strategic interests of powerful states, and the framing of conflicts by global news outlets contributed to varying investigation, indictment, and conviction patterns. The ICTR, established in response to a genocide with limited immediate Western strategic interests, faced distinct challenges compared to the ICTY, which addressed atrocities in a region more central to European and NATO concerns. The paper delves into how media portrayals, often simplifying complex conflicts into narratives of clear victims and perpetrators, can create public pressure and influence international political will. This impacts the perceived legitimacy and effectiveness of these tribunals. By dissecting these intertwined dynamics, this research sheds light on the complexities and potential biases within the international justice system. It highlights the persistent tension between the pursuit of universal accountability and the realities of global power politics and media influence. Keywords - International Criminal Law, ICC, accountability, war crimes, justice, international tribunals, United Nations etc.