2. Slobodan Milošević and the rest. The Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg Trials. Saddam Hussein. There's also the likes of Pinochet, the many people were supposed to be put on trial but kept away and died in exile.All people on the losing side.
The real trouble with prosecution of such people is that there is no supernational executive power (the UN practically has none). The nations are basically living in a Hobbesian state of anarchy - or rather the Hobbesian state of anarchy as interpreted by Kant
. To ensure that justice is fulfilled even when it is not opportunistic for the powers that be to do so we need a world government. That would also be a solution to a whole lot of other stuff: Free trade or the lack thereof, differences in education and level of social security, the achievement of world peace (Eternal Peace, Kant called that kind of peace; you gotta love Kant
(I am a moral relativist and think that objective morality is disgusting and that the categorical imperative can go suck it).
Kant acknowledged the fact that there is no absolute outer moral; in that sense he (as well as most other modern philosophhers, btw) is at his core a moral relativist.
It's a mistake that most people make, and an easy one to make too: The categorical imperative is not
some sort of objective morality that everyone has to adhere to; it is the definition of what can be considered moral. Think about it: Any moral principle you can truly call moral complies with the categoric imperative. Or done the other way around: If a principle does not comply with the categorical imperative, it cannot be a moral principle
. Whether you adhere to it anyway or not is completely up to you, of course