It was extremely important for the international community to step in and secure justice for the citizens of Yugoslavia, since order and justice was failing. The enforcement of human rights and establishing the foundation for effective conflict resolution and post conflict development has been one of the guiding principles of the ICTY.
The establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia by the United Nations was one of the precedents which paved the way for multilateral action by the international community and nation-states concerned about the declining administrative conditions of former Yugoslavia. However there are a few shortcomings with the ICTY. One of the major shortcomings is that it is an organization which is ad hoc in nature, which in turn makes it a very problematic institution having a number of limitations. It might have some shortcomings; however the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages of The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. And the major advantage of having ICTY is that it lays the groundwork for international law and politics and helps in the establishment of the International Criminal Court or the ICC. The ICC serves as a permanent mechanism which enforces justice. Peter Radan(2002, p.201) states ‘With the exception of Bosnia-Hercegovina, for all the secessions of and within Yugoslavia’s republics, it was explicitly claimed that they were justified on the basis of the right of peoples to self-determination. This is apparent from the various declarations of independence and constitutions adopted by the seceding entities. Bosnia-Hercegovina was a special case due to the absence from that republic of a dominant national group. However, self-determination was still a significant factor. The political programmes and actions of each of its three major political parties were manifestations of the right of the respective nations to self-determination. The Serbs and Croats