This essay attempts to explain why the critique of the Nuremberg Tribunal as ‘victor’s justice’ still applies to modern-day international courts and tribunals and why victor’s justice, to a certain extent at least, is inevitable and structurally embedded within the system. The paper argues that Victor’s Justice persists in the modern international criminal law, not due to moral failure or historical sedimentation alone, but because of the selectivity that has become structurally entrenched in the enforcement, political creation, and expressive function of the punishment. It then identifies the structural conditions that render this form of justice inevitable, while also critically engaging with the limits of such inevitability by distinguishing between doctrinal neutrality and political interference. The essay concludes by underscoring that the critique of victor’s justice is both inevitable and structurally inherent, necessitating sustained discussion and critique as a prerequisite for meaningful change.