Supporters of today’s international criminal tribunals say that their work builds on the post-World War II tribunals in Nuremberg and, to a lesser degree, Tokyo. As a matter of legal doctrine, that is true. The category of “crimes against humanity”, for example, was developed at Nuremberg and is now a central element in many prosecutions. But there is a critical difference between now and then. The courts in Nuremberg and Tokyo were part of a broader political project that aimed to rehabilitate Germany and Japan, respectively, both socially and economically, not simply to try guilt or innocence or hand out harsh punishments. These were military courts that operated with military efficiency, and the Allies could then focus fully on the reconstruction of these countries. Yet, the international courts for the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and the new International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague, on the other hand, operate under civilian law and provide generous protection to defendants. The result is a ballooning of the court timelines and costs. For instance, it took the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) 10 years to complete the same number of trials that Nuremberg conducted in less than a year. Indeed, it is clear that, because of their protracted proceedings and excessive costs, today’s war crimes trials cannot serve the decisive political and social function that Nuremberg did.