Challenges to the Universality of International Humanitarian Law: A comparative analysis of the ICTY Tadic case and ICC jurisdiction in Sudan

Since the implementation of the Geneva Conventions, International Humanitarian Law has remained a critical aspect of International Law and has redefined the way the world conducts warfare and perceives armed conflict. The line between what constitutes internal affairs with domestic jurisdiction and that which meets the threshold of armed conflict has continued to shrink. Due to the controversial nature and ramifications of determining the jurisdiction between states and international institutions, it is essential to develop a thorough understanding of what constitutes International Humanitarian Law and where it is headed. The goal of this research is to analyze the history of International Humanitarian Law from its origins, its controversies and its successes in order to paint a picture of what its future holds. This has been done through the use of numerous studies and court decisions carried out by the organizations responsible for the implementation and interpretation of International Humanitarian Law such as the ICRC, ICC, UNSC and established ad hoc Tribunals such as the ICTY and ICTR. The results of this research has concluded that treaty law and customary law relating to International Humanitarian Law are undergoing a period of significant transformation. Universalisation has lost significant support and customary law has been left to pick up the pieces, the outcome of which predicts a future where states become emboldened in their resistance to increased jurisdiction from international bodies and future International Humanitarian Law treaties become increasingly difficult to garner significant support.