INTRODUCTION In a 2003 interview, Judge Theodor Meron noted with pride that the inauguration of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) marked "the first time since Nuremberg [that the] international community has established an international court ... with a statute which incorporates all the principal guarantees of human rights." (1) Despite Meron's proclamation, some human rights scholars have leveled criticism at the ICTY for exercising jurisdiction over defendants who were allegedly abducted and brought before the Tribunal. (2) European and Commonwealth courts often decline to exercise jurisdiction in similar circumstances. This Note attempts to explain the difference in outcomes between the ICTY cases and the European/Commonwealth cases. It also suggests that while many different considerations may have animated the ICTY's decisions, the ICTY has appropriate legal grounds to justify sustaining jurisdiction.