ABSTRACT
The recent proliferation of international tribunals permits us to address questions that we once (enviously) had to leave to our domestic colleagues. Now we too can focus on real law—real cases decided by real judges. This chapter takes seriously liberal internationalists' belief that the proliferation of international dispute settlement mechanisms merits examining them as complex institutions capable of having a distinct normative impact on the behavior of states. It criticizes five half-truths that often underlie discussions of proliferating international dispute settlers. It is important to recognize, however, that each of these half-truths may be half-true as well as half-false. The chapter illustrates how half-truths applied produce only weak arguments in favor of international justice. Many of the arguments for international trials for al Qaeda are weak not because they are wrong but because they presuppose their own correctness.
