punishment of crimes such as genocide and state sanctioned torture outside and above the level of individual states, regimes in a period of transition can go about the work of building new forms of state and governance free from fears of reprisal yet confident that justice is being served. This justice fulfillment can be an integral part of the drive toward moving forward into a new future. The notion of a permanent international court responsible for charging crimes against humanity is neither novel nor uncontested. Historically, there have been several attempts and half-starts on the way to this goal. But recently the idea has become a political reality. The International Criminal Court officially came into its authority in 2002, though not without serious opposition. The position of the ICC is to charge individuals with criminal offenses in cases where it may not possible or politically feasible to do so in their home countries.
             The structure and jurisdiction of the ICC are areas of consideration, but the basic structural framework was hashed out in the Rome Statute in 1998. Although a fledgling entity that has yet to hear or pass judgment on any actual cases, the establishment of the Court is major step on the road toward an international sense of justice and a reflection of the increasing trend toward internationalization of government structures. The importance of this organization for the field of transitional justice cannot be undervalued. By offering a venue for prosecution outside the constraints of the state, the opportunity for punishing the worst offenders will increase by leaps and bounds. The controversy behind the institution however, is not to be discounted. In the past the international system was predicated on the notion of sovereign states, with loose and relatively ineffectual suprastate institutions to bind them. The creation of an entity like the International Criminal Court represents a serious threat to state ...