This article focuses on the distinctions that the ad hoc Tribunals have drawn between the comparative law method and the review of evidence for clarifying customary international law and general principles  of law. It outlines the dangers in the readiness of some international judges to accept narrow inquiries, which at best attach special weight and  at worst restrict the scope of inquiry to a single, specific legal system. The readiness of some international judges to simply elevate legal rules and concepts with which they are familiar from their own legal education and practice to the level of universal truths may imply a failure to understand  the other legal traditions on offer. The article concludes by showing that, unless the dangers inherent in the readiness to accept narrow inquiries are clearly emphasized, the achievement of an international criminal justice that is truly tolerant of plurality is a long way off.