1. Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal, Session on the Filipino People and the Bangsa Moro People, Antwerp, 30 October–1 November 1980, 4 (English version on file with authors), Italian version, online: 〈http://www.internazionaleleliobasso.it/wp-content/uploads/1980/10/Filippine-I_TPP_it.pdf〉.

2. DUFFETT, John, ed., Against the Crime of Silence: Proceedings of the International War Crimes Tribunal (New York: Clarion/Simon & Schuster, 1970)Google Scholar

LIMQUECO, Peter and WEISS, Petereds., Prevent the Crime of Silence: Reports from the Sessions of the International War Crimes Tribunal Founded by Bertrand Russell (London: Allen Lane, 1971)Google Scholar

KLINGHOFFER, Arthur Jay and KLINGHOFFER, Judith Apter, International Citizens’ Tribunals: Mobilizing Public Opinion to Advance Human Rights (Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Duffett, supra note 2Google Scholar

4. Ibid., at 17.

5. D'AMATO, Anthony, “Book Review of Against the Crime of Silence: On Genocide” (1969) 57 California Law Review 1035–1037Google Scholar

LYND, Staughton, “The War Crimes Tribunal: A Dissent” (1967–68) 12 Liberation 76Google Scholar

Richard A. FALK, ‘International Law and the United States Role in the Vietnam War: A Response to Professor Moore’ (1966–67) 76 Yale Law Journal 1095 at 1101Google Scholar

FALK, Richard A., The Costs of War, International Law, the UN, and the World Order After Iraq (New York: Routledge, 2008), 171 at 173Google Scholar

6. RIGAUX, François, “L'autodeterminazione nelle sentenze del Tribunale Permanente dei Popoli” in Gianni TOGNONI, ed., Tribunale Permanente dei Popoli: Le Sentenze 1979–1998 (Lecco: Fondazione Lelio Basso / Casa Editrice Stefanoni, 1998), 747 at 751Google Scholar

7. The Nuremberg analogy was not completely accurate, since the Tokyo and Nuremberg Tribunals dealt with individual criminal responsibility, while the Russell Tribunals were focused on the responsibility of the state: see e.g. Quaderni del Tribunal Russell II ^osul Brasil Cile America Latina, Prima Sessione, Sentenza, April 1974, Part I, at 13–14.

8. SARTRE, Jean-Paul, “Answer and Commentary to De Gaulle's Letter Banning the Tribunal from France” in Duffett, supra note 2, 29 at 32–33Google Scholar

9. In this context reference may be made to the human rights bodies established by the Council of Europe (in particular the European Court of Human Rights, and the European Committee on Social Rights); the Inter-American system of human rights (in particular the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights); the Organization of the African Unity / African Union system for the protection of human rights (in particular the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights); and the United Nations bodies and procedures for the protection of human rights, in particular the expert committees established under the nine core UN human rights treaties and the special mechanisms of the UN Human Rights Council (successor to the former Commission on Human Rights). There are many other bodies and procedures before which allegations of violations of human rights may also be pursued.

10. Hsien-Li, TAN, The ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights: Institutionalising Human Rights in South-east Asia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

DURBACH, Andrea, RENSHAW, Catherine, and BYRNES, Andrew, “ ‘A Tongue but no Teeth?’ The Emergence of a Regional Human Rights Mechanism in the Asia-Pacific Region” (2009) 31 Sydney Law Review 211Google Scholar

11. BAIK, Tae-Ung, Emerging Human Rights Systems in Asia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. Gianni TOGNONI, “La storia del Tribunale Permanente dei Popoli” in Linda BIMBI and Gianni TOGNONI, eds., Speranze e inquietudini di ieri e di oggi. I trent'anni della Dichiarazione Universale del Diritto dei Popoli (Rome: Epub, 2008)Google Scholar

ODINK, Janine, “The Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal” (1993) 11 Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 229CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal on East Timor, Lisbon, 19–21 June 1981, online: 〈http://www.internazionaleleliobasso.it/wp-content/uploads/1981/06/Timor_TPP_it.pdf〉 at 6 [Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal on East Timor].

14. KIRBY, Michael, “Decision of the Permanent Tribunal of Peoples in its Session on Tibet, Strasbourg, France, November 1992” (1994) 68 Australian Law Journal 135Google Scholar

15. Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal, Session on the Filipino People and the Bangsa Moro People, Antwerp, 30 October–1 November 1980, supra note 1.

16. Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal, Second Session on the Philippines, The Hague, The Netherlands, 21–25 March 2007, online: 〈http://www.internazionaleleliobasso.it/?p=130〉.

17. Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal, Hearing on Industrial Hazards and Human Rights, Bhopal, India, 19–23 October 1992, online: 〈http://www.internazionaleleliobasso.it/wp-content/uploads/1992/10/Rischi-industriali_I_TPP_it.pdf〉.

18. Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal on Industrial Hazards and Human Rights, London, 28 November–4 December 1994, online: 〈http://www.internazionaleleliobasso.it/wp-content/uploads/1994/11/Rischi-industriali_II_TPP_It.pdf〉.

19. Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal, Session on Agrochemical Transnational Corporations, Bangalore, 3–6 December 2011, online: 〈http://www.internazionaleleliobasso.it/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/37.-English-version_TPP_Bangalore3Dec2011.pdf〉.

20. BOROWIAK, Craig, “The World Tribunal on Iraq: Citizens’ Tribunals and the Struggle for Accountability” (2008) 30 New Political Science 161 at 172–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar

BLASER, Arthur, “How to Advance Human Rights Without Really Trying: An Analysis of Nongovernmental Tribunals” (1992) 14 Human Rights Quarterly 339 at 366–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21. CHINKIN, Christine, “Women's International Tribunal of Japanese Military Sexual Slavery” (2001) 95 American Journal of International Law 335CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22. Borowiak, supra note 20 at 173Google Scholar

23. On the International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan, see online: 〈http://www.japanfocus.org/-Maeda-Akira/1722〉; On the International Peoples’ Tribunal on Kashmir, see online: 〈http://kashmirprocess.org/〉.

24. Duffett, ed., supra note 2 at 12Google Scholar

25. Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal, East Timor, Lisbon, 19–21 June 1981, online: 〈http://www.internazionaleleliobasso.it/wp-content/uploads/1981/06/Timor_TPP_it.pdf〉, para. 3.4.

26. Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal, Session on Workers’ and Consumers’ Rights in the Garment Industry, Brussels 30 April–5 May 1998, online: 〈http://www.internazionaleleliobasso.it/wp-content/uploads/1998/04/Diritti-dei-lavoratori_en.pdf〉.

27. CHAMBERLAIN, Gethin, “India's Clothing Workers: ‘They Slap Us and Call Us Dogs and Donkeys’ ” The Observer (25 November 2012)Google Scholar

Thul, PRAK Chan, “Cambodia Garments ‘Tribunal’ Turns up Heat on Big Brands” Reuters (8 February 2012)Google Scholar

28. Limqueco and Weiss, eds., supra note 2 at 143–147Google Scholar

29. FALK, Richard A., “Kuala Lumpur Tribunal: Bush and Blair Guilty” Al-Jazeera (28 November 2011)Google Scholar

CUMARASWAMY, Param, “Dr M's Proposed War Crimes Tribunal a Farce” Malaysiakini (12 February 2007)Google Scholar

BYRNES, Andrew and SIMM, Gabrielle, “Peoples’ Tribunals, International Law and the Use of Force” (2013) 36 University of New South Wales Law Journal 711 at 738–740Google Scholar

30. The International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan (20 May 2013), online: ICTA 〈http://icta.m-shonan.jp/japanese/english-top.htm〉.

31. LIBARIDIAN, Gerarded., A Crime of Silence, The Armenian Genocide: Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal (London: Zed Books Ltd, 1985)Google Scholar

32. Tokyo Women's Tribunal Judgment, online: 〈http://www1.jca.apc.org/vaww-net-japan/english/womenstribunal2000/Judgement.pdf〉, para. 4.

33. BOISTER, Neil and CRYER, Roberteds., Documents on the Tokyo International Military Tribunal. Charter, Indictment and Judgements (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008) at 540Google Scholar

34. Tokyo Women's Tribunal Judgment, supra note 32, para. 8.

35. Karen KNOP, “The Tokyo Women's Tribunal and the Turn to Fiction” in Fleur JOHNS, Richard JOYCE, and Sundhya PAHUJA, eds., Events: The Force of International Law (Abingdon/New York: Routledge, 2011) at 145Google Scholar

36. TOTANI, Yuma, The Tokyo War Crimes Trial: The Pursuit of Justice in the Wake of World War II (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008) at 178–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37. Tokyo Women's Tribunal Judgment, supra note 32, para. 485.

38. The Women's Active Museum on War and Peace, online: 〈http://wam-peace.org/en/〉.

39. DOLGOPOL, Ustinia, “The Judgment of the Tokyo Women's Tribunal” (2003) 28 Alternative Law Journal 242 at 247CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40. MATSUI, Yayori, “Women's International War Crimes Tribunal on Japan's Military Sexual Slavery: Memory, Identity and Society” (2001) 19 East Asia 119 at 123CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41. Dolgopol, supra note 39 at 243Google Scholar

42. Cf. the allowance made in the Statute of the International Court of Justice for appointment of ad hoc judges in contentious cases where there is no judge of the nationality of a party to the dispute. This implicitly acknowledges a potential for national bias: ICJ Statute, art. 31 (2) and (3).

43. MACKENZIE, Ruth and SANDS, Philippe, “International Courts and Tribunals and the Independence of the International Judge” (2003) 44 Harvard International Law Journal 271Google Scholar

POSNER, Eric and FIGUEIREDO, Miguel DE, “Is the International Court of Justice Biased?” American Law & Economics Association Annual Meetings, 2005, Paper 36Google Scholar

SHALAKANY, Amr A., “Arbitration and the Third World: A Plea for Reassessing Bias Under the Specter of Neoliberalism” (2000) 41 Harvard International Law Journal 419Google Scholar

Charles N. Brower and Stephen W. SCHILL, “Is Arbitration a Threat or a Boom to the Legitimacy of International Investment Law” (2008) 9 Chicago Journal of International Law 471Google Scholar

POSNER, Eric A. and YOO, John C., “Judicial Independence in International Tribunals” (2005) 93 California Law Review 1Google Scholar

VOETEN, Erik, “The Impartiality of International Judges: Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights” (2008) 102 American Political Science Review 417CrossRefGoogle Scholar

KENNEY, Sally J., “Breaking the Silence: Gender Mainstreaming and the Composition of the European Court of Justice” (2002) 10 Feminist Legal Studies 257CrossRefGoogle Scholar

CHARLESWORTH, Hilary and CHINKIN, Christine, The Boundaries of International Law (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000) at 81–82Google Scholar

44. SIMPSON, Gerry, Law, War and Crime (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007) at 11Google Scholar

45. Boister and Cryer, supra note 33, at 83–84Google Scholar

MINEAR, Richard, Victors’ Justice: The Tokyo War Crimes Trial (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1971) at 75–86Google Scholar

46. For details of the few women on the prosecutorial team in the Tokyo Trial, see online: 〈http://www.intlawgrrls.com/2012/08/kanode-woman-at-tokyo-in-illustrious.html〉.

47. Knop, supra note 35 at 152Google Scholar

48. Dolgopol, supra note 39 at 243Google Scholar

49. Knop, supra note 35 at 147Google Scholar

50. Authors' interview with Ustinia Dolgopol, 21 March 2013.

51. Matsui, supra note 40 at 139Google Scholar

52. Dolgopol, supra note 39 at 242Google Scholar

53. World Bank Tribunal on India, Convenors, online: 〈http://www.worldbanktribunal.org/convenors.html〉.

54. Deepika D'SOUZA, “Preface: About the Independent People's Tribunal on the World Bank” in Michele KELLEY and Deepika D'SOUZA, eds., World Bank in India: Undermining Sovereignty, Distorting Development (Hyderabad: Orient Blackswan, 2010)Google Scholar

55. KELLEY, Michele and D'SOUZA, Deepika, “Conclusion” in Kelley and D'Souza, eds., supra note 54, 447 at 447Google Scholar

56. Ibid.

57. Separate opinions are relatively uncommon, though by no means unknown, in the practice of international peoples’ tribunals.

58. KELLEY, Michele, “World Bank out of India” in Kelley and D'Souza, supra note 54, 1 at 20Google Scholar

59. IYER, Ramaswamy R., “A Note of Qualification” in Kelley and D'Souza, supra note 54, 463 at 464Google Scholar

60. Accountability at the World Bank, The Inspection Panel at 15 Years (2009), online: 〈http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTINSPECTIONPANEL/Resources/380793-1254158345788/InspectionPanel2009.pdf〉, 3.

61. World Bank Inspection Panel, “Frequently Asked Questions”, online: 〈http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTINSPECTIONPANEL/0,,contentMDK:22456783~menuPK:64129479~pagePK:64129751~piPK:64128378~theSitePK:380794,00.html〉, Question 1.

62. Ibid., Question 14.

63. FOURIE, Andria Naude, The World Bank Inspection Panel and Quasi-judicial Oversight: In Search of the “Judicial Spirit” in Public International Law (Utrecht: Eleven Publishing, 2009) at 218–222Google Scholar

64. HERBERT, Tony, “Mining and the World Bank Inspection Panel” in Kelley and D'Souza, supra note 54, 163 at 174Google Scholar

65. Ibid.

66. SUZUKI, Eisuke and NANWANI, Suresh, “Responsibility of International Organisations: The Accountability Mechanisms of Multilateral Development Banks” (2005) 27 Michigan Journal of International Law 181Google Scholar

Eugenia MCGILL, “The Inspection Policy of the Asian Development Bank” in Gudmundur ALFREDSSON and Rolf RING, eds., The Inspection Panel of the World Bank: A Different Complaints Procedure (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 2001)Google Scholar

67. REINISCH, Augusted., Challenging Acts of International Organizations before National Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

68. Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal, Session on the Policies of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, 26–29 September 1988, West Berlin, online: 〈http://www.internazionaleleliobasso.it/wp-content/uploads/1988/09/FMI_BM_I_TPP_it.pdf〉 at 11.

69. Ibid., at 22.

70. Ibid.

71. Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal, The Policies of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, Madrid, 1–3 October 1995, online: 〈http://www.internazionaleleliobasso.it/wp-content/uploads/1994/10/FMI_BM_II_TPP_It.pdf〉 at 10–11 (our translation from Italian).

72. Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal on Sri Lanka, Trinity College Dublin, 14–16 January 2010, online: 〈http://www.internazionaleleliobasso.it/?p=133〉.

73. Report of the UN Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka, 31 March 2011, online: 〈http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf〉 at i.

74. The Irish Forum for Peace in Sri Lanka comprises Irish academics, peace campaigners, religious leaders, and NGO advocates, online: 〈http://www.ifpsl.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=26〉.

75. Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal on Sri Lanka, supra note 72 at 10.

76. Ibid.

77. The Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal noted that the resources used to hold the session came from the work of the NGOs which had requested the convening of the tribunal and that “no economic contribution has been derived from sources directly or indirectly related to Tamil organizations, nor to states involved in the events considered in this session”. Ibid., at 8.

78. The evidence considered is available online: 〈www.pptsrilanka.org〉.

79. The Dublin Tribunal did not decide the question whether the conflict was an international or domestic conflict, but addressed both alternatives: Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal on Sri Lanka, supra note 72, at 17.

80. Ibid., at 18.

81. Ibid.

82. Ibid., at 13.

83. “Sri Lanka Rejects Dublin Tribunal” UK Daily Mirror (14 January 2010), online: Daily Mirror 〈http://www.dailymirror.lk/index.php/news/894-sri-lanka-rejects-dublin-tribunal.html〉.

84. Report of the UN Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka, 31 March 2011, online: 〈http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf〉 at ii.

85. Ibid., at iii.

86. Ibid., at iv.

87. Ibid., at iv.

88. Ibid., at iv.

89. Ibid., at v.

90. HAVILAND, Charles, “Sri Lanka Rejects Secret UN War Report as ‘Flawed’ ” BBC News (13 April 2011)Google Scholar

91. RATNER, Steven, “Accountability and the Sri Lankan Civil War” (2012) 106 American Journal of International Law 795 at 804Google Scholar

92. Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal on Sri Lanka, supra note 72 at 23–4.

93. Ibid., at 8.

94. Ratner, supra note 91 at 808Google Scholar

95. Ibid.

96. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998, 2187 U.N.T.S. 90 (entered into force 1 July 2002) [Rome Statute]; UN Treaty status website, online: 〈http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII-10&chapter=18&lang=en〉.

97. Rome Statute, ibid., art. 13(b).

98. An effort to engage the jurisdiction was made in 2011 by the Swiss Council of Eelam Tamils and Tamils against Genocide, which requested the Prosecutor to open an investigation in relation to the alleged involvement of the Sri Lankan Ambassador to the United Nations, Palitha Kohona, a dual Sri Lankan and Australian national, in the killing of Tamil leaders, online: 〈www.tamilnet.com/img/publish/2011/02/SCETTAG_Prosecutor_v_Kohona_NoSLADep_TNet.pdf〉. The ICC website does not indicate any response from the Office of the Prosecutor to this request.

99. Sartre, supra note 8Google Scholar

100. “Dublin Tribunal Takes up Genocide Investigation” TamilNet (03 November 2012), online: TamilNet 〈http://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=35722〉; Report of the Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka (2012), online: 〈http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/The_Internal_Review_Panel_report_on_Sri_Lanka.pdf〉.

101. Borowiak, supra note 20 at 165Google Scholar

102. Falk, The Costs of War, supra note 5 at 171–197Google Scholar

103. Borowiak, supra note 20 at 162–163Google Scholar

104. Falk, The Costs of War, supra note 5 at 173Google Scholar

105. Margaret E. KECK and Kathryn SIKKINK in Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998) at 24Google Scholar

Borowiak, supra note 20 at 164Google Scholar

106. Ibid., at 163–4.

107. Ibid., at 164.

108. The International Court of Justice might be regarded as an existing mechanism that has historically failed to play a role in international dispute resolution between states and peoples seeking to exercise the right to self-determination due to its restrictive rules on jurisdiction; cf. Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo [2010] I.C.J. Rep. 403.

109. For example, evidence introduced in the Session on the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal on the European Union and Transnational Corporations in Latin America (Madrid, 14–15 May 2010) was filed with OECD contact points in Argentina and used in litigation in the US, UK, and Peru: Marcelo SAGUIER, “The Potential of Peoples’ Tribunals in Latin America to Pressure TNCs into Adopting Human Rights Responsibilities” (2010) Documento de Trabajo No. 41 Area de Relaciones Internacionales, FLASCO/Argentina, 19–20.

110. For example, the Session on the agrochemical industry “indicted” the six largest agrochemical TNCs—Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer, and BASF—for human rights violations: Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal, Session on Agrochemical Transnational Corporations, Bangalore, 3–6 December 2011, online: 〈http://www.internazionaleleliobasso.it/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/37.-English-version_TPP_Bangalore3Dec2011.pdf〉. Even if litigation had been brought against these corporations in their home states of the US, Switzerland, and Germany, it is unclear whether claims of human rights violations could have been brought against corporations.

111. For example, many peoples’ tribunals come from perspectives that are concerned about the injustices that result from globalization and the imbalances of political and economic power, and are critical of the role of international legal structures and norms that permit or even encourage such developments. One example is the role played by international law protecting intellectual property rights and the adverse impact this is claimed to have had on farmers and agriculture in developing countries, a theme explored at the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal on Agrochemical Transnational Corporations in Bangalore, 2011.

112. The Women's International War Crimes Tribunal for the Trial of Japan's Military Sexual Slavery, Judgment, online: 〈http://www1.jca.apc.org/vaww-net-japan/english/womenstribunal2000/Judgement.pdf〉 at 1.

113. The People's International Tribunal on Hawai'i used Hawaiian indigenous law, as well as international law and US law, as relevant sources: The People's International Tribunal, Interim Report, Kanaka Maoli Nation, Plaintiff v. United States of America, Defendant, Ka Ho'okolokolonui Kanaka Maoli, Hawai'i 1993 at 3.

114. Blaser, supra note 20 at 357Google Scholar

115. Case Concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia) [1995] I.C.J. Rep. 90.

116. Universal Declaration of the Rights of Peoples (the Algiers Declaration), adopted at Algiers, 4 July 1976, online: 〈http://www.algerie-tpp.org/tpp/en/declaration_algiers.htm〉.

117. Francois RIGAUX, “The Algiers Declaration of the Rights of Peoples” in Antonio CASSESE, ed., UN Law/Fundamental Rights: Two Topics in International Law (Alphen aan den Rijn: Sijthoff and Noordhof, 1979)Google Scholar

FALK, Richard A., “The Algiers Declaration of the Rights of Peoples and the Struggle for Human Rights” in Cassese, ed., ibid., 225Google Scholar

118. Borowiak, supra note 20 at 181Google Scholar