A few contributors talked about what the court “would” be like. Actually, the court is a reality today and its law is in force in 102 countries across the world including nearly all of Europe and Latin America (See here) . One person – a Congolese warlord – has already been arrested and charged with the war crime of conscripting child soldiers and several more investigations have been started. Perhaps a more informed debate would follow if people looked at the actual record of the court.

Secondly, being a member of the court commits a country to allowing an outside court to prosecute your own leading politicians if they commit serious crimes. Very few dictatorships or theocracies have signed up – as you would expect. The court is led by countries with strong democratic credentials.

The proposed court is a court of only last resort. Under the principle of complementarity, the court will not be allowed to act when national judicial systems are available and willing to prosecute suspects.

Wow, what a stunning concession. We can prevent anti-semites and conspiracy-crazed leftist lunatics from indicting our officials, simply by indicting them ourselves.

It seems to me that the only way to find out whether the ICC, as built with major American input, is workable is to try it. Worst case: we find that all the horrors envisioned by opponents come to pass, and we withdraw from the treaty. Formally, and with an explanation.

I’m fascinated by the mechanism/procedure here, Ereratz. Who exactly would serve process? I suppose they’d have subpoena power? Would the FBI work for the ICC or would it be my local sherriff’s department? Would it be the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in play or the Turkish Rules of Evidence or a combination? Where does one appeal a sentence from the ICC? Who executes the sentence? Is there a probably cause element to bring a charge of genocide — or is it just a bunch of dead people. What about indictments of conspiracy? Would the use be liable for supply arms to one found to have committed genocide.

Your bullet points of reassurance just aren’t. Not all of us are pining for the world’s friendship like a nerd in gym class. I find your reassurance based off your personal meeting with the judges, slightly amusing, but mostly nauseating. And your rectification of Jimmy’s “attitude” pathetic. Who are you to determine the correct “attitude”? And maybe your just a horrible judge of character and thus the Anti-Christ Judge came off as a real Joe-six pack US intellectual.

Your “we are people of the world and not just one state” thing is all fine, BUT YOU MISS THE POINT, not Jimmy. I may be a CITIZEN of the WORLD, but when I’m in the U.S., the U.S. has soveign jurisdiction over me – not some omnipresent global tribunal. Erat, take my word (I’ve met me and I’m an alright trustworthy guy) it will be a cold day in hell before U.S. citizens sign up to give away their freedom and sovereignty to a bunch of self-righteous Euro-trash Belgians.

The only person that would willingly do that to us is Justice Kennedy and I suggest that he stop taking trips to Europe.

The International Criminal Court, as currently envisioned, has some good points, but there is no guarantee that it won’t grow into something else over time.

I’ve met these Judges. Spoken to them at length. They are incredible people. In fact, most, if not all, are educated in the West. They are committed to the post-Enlightenment project of International Law. Even the Muslim ones.

Plus your ‘statist’ analysis misses the exact point of this court; namely, that we are people of the world, not necessarily only people of one state. A judge may be born in a tyrannical regime, but that does not mean he is a tyrant.

Read the whole article, it addresses precisely that point.

An international criminal court is fine if every country involved is part of a federation based on the same values. We simply cannot have any non-democratic, socialist, or islamic countries that value sharia, to be allowed to appoint judges, or participate in drafting legislation. But if this becomes the case, then those countries would refuse to be under its juristiction anyway.

Look how the UN drafts a thousand resolutions condemning israel, but not one that defines Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. If Syria, Cuba, Iran ect… can get a seat at the UN human rights council, what do you think will eventually happen to the ICC?

do we want to be seen as part of the world, or as better than the world?

We simply are better than the world, because life liberty and the persuit of happiness for all individuals regardless of race, gender or creed is self-evidently superior to all the other crap promoted by tyrannical nations of “the world.”