Institutional Design and (Non)-Complementarity: Regulating Relations between Hybrid Tribunals and other Judicial and Non-Judicial Institutions

Hybrid tribunals sometimes operate alongside other judicial and non-judicial bodies with similar accountability functions. For instance, a hybrid tribunal can share jurisdictional powers with ordinary national courts, an international criminal tribunal, a truth commission, or other investigative and prosecutorial bodies. When the mandates of these different institutions overlap, relations should be regulated so as to minimize duplication of tasks, prevent unnecessary conflict, encourage cooperation to the extent possible, and maximize cross-fertilization. Drawing on examples from several conflict and post-conflict countries, this chapter explores how best to regulate relations between hybrid tribunals and other judicial and non-judicial institutions with overlapping jurisdictional claims. It will argue that, while the phrase ‘complementarity’ is sometimes invoked in institutional design scholarship, the International Criminal Court’s logic of apportioning jurisdiction is not a helpful way of thinking about regulating relations between hybrid tribunals and other judicial and non-judicial institutions.