Abstract
This article examines the burgeoning phenomenon of what is called globalised or externalised justice, wherein prosecutions for past atrocities take place far from the original locus of the crime, through the exercise of universal jurisdiction or the work of ad hoc tribunals. It first examines some of the pitfalls that come with the externalised justice of universal jurisdiction. In particular, doing justice far from the locus of the original crime may fail to serve many of the putative goals of prosecutions. It then examines the experience of mixed tribunals, which are developed in part as a remedy to some of the flaws of externalised justice, by holding proceedings at home, with greater local participation. The essay examines the work of the Special Panel for Serious Crimes in East Timor in some depth, as well as the early development of the Special Court for Sierra Leone. It finds that many of the flaws of distant justice are not entirely remedied by the use of mixed tribunals.