In this essay, we survey the literature on international criminal tribunals & transitional justice. We argue that the literature has been dominated by two general orientations, a legalism that is premised on logic of appropriateness & a pragmatism premised on a logic of consequences. We also consider a third orientation, guided by a logic of emotions, that recognizes the significance of transitional justice but emphasizes strategies that diverge from the model of legalism. Our primary concern is with scholarship in political science, although we also consider work from the disciplines of law, history, & sociology & from practitioners & advocates. The normative positions of scholars have heavily influenced the development of literature in this field, in which scholarship, practice, & advocacy are deeply intertwined. Advocates & individuals who have played key roles in the development of international criminal justice institutions, domestic tribunals, & truth commissions have been prominent in setting the agenda for scholars. Nonetheless, there is also a growing body of rigorous social science research that attempts to assess empirically -- & sometimes critically -- the claims of advocates & practitioners & to explain changing strategies of justice. 60 References. Adapted from the source document.