Every international war crimes court has attracted controversy, but none more than the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC). Now in its twilight years, the ECCC has sparked robust debate since the late 1990s, before it was even launched. During negotiations aimed at creating a tribunal to address crimes of the Khmer Rouge, United Nations (UN) officials and others debated whether a court acceptable to Cambodia would be worthy of UN support. Today, the fulcrum of debate is whether the ECCC was ‘worth the effort’ it has required. While myriad aspects of the ECCC’s performance are crucial to its legacy, this Article explores one question of overarching importance: whether the court’s performance has justified a central risk the UN assumed when it agreed to support the court — that case selection would be improperly influenced by the Cambodian government. More particularly, it assesses performance against two criteria: How well have safeguards against such interference worked? Are survivors of Khmer Rouge atrocities and other Cambodian citizens satisfied with ECCC justice?

中文翻译：

---

'值得努力'？

每个国际战争罪法庭都引起了争议，但不外乎柬埔寨法院特别法庭（ECCC）。如今，ECCC 已步入暮年，自 1990 年代后期甚至推出之前就引发了激烈的辩论。在旨在建立一个法庭来处理红色高棉罪行的谈判期间，联合国（UN）官员和其他各方就柬埔寨可接受的法院是否值得联合国支持进行了辩论。今天，争论的焦点是 ECCC 是否“值得付出努力”。尽管 ECCC 表现的无数方面对其遗产至关重要，但本文探讨了一个至关重要的问题：法院的表现是否证明了联合国在同意支持法院时所承担的核心风险——该案件的选择会受到柬埔寨政府的不当影响。更具体地说，它根据两个标准评估性能：针对此类干扰的防护措施的效果如何？红色高棉暴行的幸存者和其他柬埔寨公民对 ECCC 的正义感到满意吗？