In the final period of its existence, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia became a victim of the clash of the economic and political interests of the republics within it. The former constituent parts of the federation, no longer wishing to remain within a single state, sought to achieve independence by all available means. As a result, the Balkan «powder keg» ignited with renewed force: the Serbs defended the right to live together under one roof, the Croats sought to establish new arrangements in their own country, and the Bosnians found themselves divided among three quasi-state entities. The reaction of the international community was severe. On 23 May 1993, the United Nations Security Council adopted a resolution establishing an ad hoc international tribunal tasked with condemning those responsible for violations of international humanitarian law. Grandly proclaimed the «heir to Nuremberg», it was expected to adopt the principles of international criminal justice developed by its predecessor and to mark a new stage in the evolution of international tribunals. In practice, however, it became clear that the Tribunal had been created with numerous shortcomings: legal gaps emerged that the judges were forced to fill on their own; the proceedings lasted a total of 25 years and, in effect, continue to this day; and the legality of the Tribunal’s establishment appeared questionable in the eyes of many scholars. In this article, the author examines the historical and geopolitical circumstances in which the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia was created and attempts to offer independent answers to the controversial issues of international law involved.