The fight against impunity remains a key challenge for the international community, as efforts to hold perpetrators of serious international crimes accountable are increasingly strained by geopolitical rivalries, fragmented enforcement and weak political will. This paper examines three accountability mechanisms – international criminal tribunals, universal jurisdiction and transitional justice – through comparative analysis and case studies. International criminal tribunals, from ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda to the International Criminal Court, have advanced legal norms and secured landmark convictions. Yet, their legitimacy is weakened by high costs, slow trials, selective enforcement and limited cooperation from states. Universal jurisdiction allows national courts to prosecute atrocities irrespective of territorial or personal links. Its growing use in Europe, especially in cases linked to Syria and Ukraine, demonstrates potential, although inconsistent application and political frictions limit its effectiveness. Transitional justice, through truth commissions, reparations and institutional reforms, offers societies pathways to reconciliation and peace, but faces recurring challenges of political interference, resource scarcity and insufficient victim participation. Case studies from the Balkans, Ukraine, Ethiopia, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Colombia, Syria and Israel-Palestine highlight that no single mechanism is sufficient. Instead, effective accountability requires context-sensitive and context-specific combinations of tools. The paper concludes with recommendations for strengthening the European Union’s global role. Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP Read more