Impartial and fair justice has to be seen to be done (not just told), which is not the case with the Hauge - if it were, then the nationalist of all those communities would have a much lower level of support. The fact that the Hauge does nothing to counter this and mirrors the colonial administration approach that is taken by persons such as Wolfgang Petritsch which means that it will never be accepted as impartial (and that's without even mentioning who payed/s, supplies, researches the whole Hauge thing). If the major powers refuse to accept a World Court, then why should any of the parties believe the treatises that the Hauge is impartial? Looks like a question of who yields the biggest stick, no?
Had there been real justice, and intent to bring all sort of war criminals before a court, those of the last decade and those dating back to WW2, and post WW2, then you should have had both people like Arafat, Gadafi, Sharon, high UN officials that were in Bosnia, certain NATO people, some American politicians, some Slovenian (Mitja Ribicic, for post WW2 outerjudicial executions) and a bunch of people from all over the world with blood on their hands. All that is very true. And I am afraid that justice will never get all of them, even though they would deserve it.