As Asia’s first post-war international tribunal, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) stands as a significant experiment. Established in 2003 after lengthy negotiations between the Cambodian government and the United Nations, it served as a hybrid court that prosecuted senior leaders of the Khmer Rouge regime.
Despite criticisms over its cost, delay and limited number of convictions, the tribunal made important contributions, including recognising forced marriage as a crime against humanity and convicting the world’s first former head of state for genocide.
But the residual mandate for the ECCC – functions that begun in 2023, include administrating archives, monitoring reparations and leading large-scale outreach across Cambodia’s provinces – was originally scheduled to conclude this year. That deadline has now been extended to 2027, with Cambodia proposing a new national institution to succeed the ECCC.
Cambodia’s government recently convened a high-level meeting with donor countries and development partners seeking support. It marks a quiet but important shift: from international justice as a foreign project to international justice as a nationally grounded legacy. This would be the first time an international criminal tribunal’s residual functions have been extended by agreement to enable full domestic succession.
One of the ECCC’s key accomplishments is engaging laypeople outside the courtroom. Unlike other international courts, its residual functions remain housed within the same institution that conducted the trials and are in the country where the crimes were committed. This proximity allows for deeper and ongoing engagement with affected communities, rather than operating from a faraway location such as The Hague. Since the start of the residual functions, the ECCC has intensified outreach, benefiting from its location and access to local stakeholders.
The extension of the residual functions ahead of a new domestic institution reflects a change in the ECCC’s posture. While the trials were formal, mostly focused on criminal litigation, the residual functions look at the happenings outside the courtroom. Through initiatives such as the Mobile Resource Centre and its TikTok account with nearly half a million followers, which is unmatched among international courts, the ECCC engages the public in accessible and entrepreneurial ways.
Research has shown a broader conception of victimhood in Cambodia, and with it the importance of engaging with society at large, including youth who were not direct victims and born after the Khmer Rouge era. The ECCC residual functions are aimed at these groups, signalling a change in understanding of its audience and purpose.
While there is still debate about concepts such as domestic ownership of the proceedings and the point at which reconciliation is considered achieved, the ECCC’s residual functions offer a tangible example of how these ideas may be expressed in practice.
The residual functions and the prospect of a successor institution offer an opportunity to see how international courts can work together with domestic governments beyond transferring cases. By viewing residual functions as a substantive site of justice rather than an administrative closure, this moment supports the localisation of justice. As the UN Resident Coordinator in Cambodia Jo Scheuer observed at the donor meeting, “The ECCC is a Cambodian institution, and its achievements are Cambodian achievements.”
The ECCC’s only remaining substantive legal responsibilities are supervising the sentence of Khieu Samphan, the sole surviving person convicted by the tribunal, and overseeing the declassification of judicial documents. Outside these limited roles, the ECCC’s central activities now focus on memory work. These developments present an opportunity to reflect on what kind of memory work the ECCC can continue to carry out, not only in its current form but also as a “court” that lives on in public consciousness.
This year, Cambodia’s efforts to institutionalise remembrance were further seen when the Killing Fields execution site and two former torture centres, including the infamous S-21, were added to UNESCO’s World Heritage List. Together, these developments show cultural heritage, memorialisation and legal responses can converge to support long-term legacy-building.
The specific terms of the ECCC’s handover have not been made public. A legal instrument will likely be needed to govern the change from a hybrid UN–Cambodian body to a fully domestic institution. Technical expertise should be maintained, and expectations managed with survivors, civil society and development partners. As this process unfolds, it will be important to clearly articulate what aspects of the ECCC’s work will remain and what will change. This clarity will build public trust and ensure that the successor institution is both functional and meaningful.
As Cambodia moves closer to a domestic institution, this moment presents an opportunity to reflect on how international criminal justice is understood not only through trials, but also through how it is remembered, taught and nationally owned. More broadly, these developments represent how international courts can take on new roles beyond criminal adjudication. They can support civic engagement, education and public memory, and in this way remain meaningful for generations to come.
Perhaps the greater task now is accepting that the ECCC’s future lies entirely in domestic hands, and that Cambodia will ultimately determine how this remarkable legacy continues.
