Inter-state practice is relatively scarce in the area of human rights and international criminal law. This article ventures to inquire how this has affected the process of identification of customary international law by international criminal tribunals and courts. The main conclusion is that the two components of customary international law – opinio juris and state practice – have become blurred. In search of customary international law, international tribunals have resorted to national legislation and case law of domestic courts. These legal artefacts can be qualified as both evidence of state practice and opinio juris. The author attempts to explain the reasons for this development and holds that, if properly applied, the methodology, while seemingly messy, comports with the nature of international criminal law.

中文翻译：

---

作为习惯国际法要素的国家实践：国际刑法中的白骑士？

在人权和国际刑法领域，国家间实践相对较少。本文试图探究这如何影响国际刑事法庭和法院识别习惯国际法的过程。主要结论是习惯国际法的两个组成部分——法律确信和国家实践——已经变得模糊。为了寻求习惯国际法，国际法庭诉诸国内立法和国内法院判例法。这些法律制品既可以作为国家实践的证据，也可以作为法律确信的证据。作者试图解释这种发展的原因，并认为，如果应用得当，这种方法虽然看似凌乱，但符合国际刑法的性质。