BETWEEN THE HAGUE AND THE HYBRID: COMPARATIVE DEFENCE RIGHTS IN INTERNATIONAL AND HYBRID CRIMINAL TRIBUNALS

Abstract

This article examines how structural differences between international criminal tribunals and hybrid courts affect the protection and practical functioning of defence rights. While both models formally endorse fair trial guarantees and equality of arms, their institutional designs produce divergent outcomes in practice. Through a comparative analysis of The Hague-based tribunals and selected hybrid courts, the study shows that defence rights are more consistently operationalised in fully international institutions due to greater structural independence, standardised legal aid systems, and autonomous defence structures. By contrast, hybrid tribunals embedded within domestic legal systems and reliant on host-state cooperation often translate international defence standards into uneven and constrained practice. The article argues that these structural limitations risk reducing defence rights to symbolic guarantees, undermining procedural fairness and the legitimacy of international criminal justice. By focusing on the functional consequences of institutional design, this study contributes to socio-legal and criminological scholarship on international courts and highlights the central role of the defence in sustaining credible justice mechanisms.