Although the UN-Security Council established the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, UN-international criminal tribunals were not replicated. The UN instead directly participated in creating hcts such as the Special Court for Sierra Leone, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. Thus, this article seeks to determine whether UN-backed hcts constitute viable options in international criminal justice. These tribunals may be viable options if they are adequately implemented. Particularly when compared to UN-international criminal tribunals, reasons for their viability include their closer proximity to or larger impact on national societies, less costly work, shorter proceedings, and flexible mandates adapted to each context. Nevertheless, their viability depends on whether they can handle challenges concerning coordination between their international and national components, funding limitations, security issues, relationship with international criminal tribunals (especially the International Criminal Court), and relationship with national institutions.

中文翻译：

---

联合国支持的混合刑事法庭 (hcts)：国际刑事司法中的可行选择？

虽然联合国安理会设立了前南斯拉夫和卢旺达国际刑事法庭，但联合国国际刑事法庭并没有被复制。联合国反而直接参与创建血细胞比容例如塞拉利昂问题特别法庭、柬埔寨法院特别法庭和黎巴嫩问题特别法庭。因此，本文试图确定联合国是否支持血细胞比容s 构成国际刑事司法中的可行选择。如果充分实施，这些法庭可能是可行的选择。特别是与联合国国际刑事法庭相比，它们具有可行性的原因包括它们更接近国家社会或对国家社会产生更大的影响、工作成本更低、诉讼程序更短以及适应各种情况的灵活任务。然而，它们的生存能力取决于它们是否能够应对国际和国内部门之间的协调、资金限制、安全问题、与国际刑事法庭（尤其是国际刑事法院）的关系以及与国家机构的关系等方面的挑战。