Reading through another thread, I came across this thoughtful statement from @Skogan:
Interesting point, and one which brings to mind the issue of international courts in general, and specifically how they have been used as yet another tool by the Arabs to discredit Israel.What Israel needs to be careful of is the recent E.U. and world courts. In the U.S., we have started to allow CIVIL LAWSUITS by individuals against countries that repress their right to seek redress there. It the citizen wins, the U.S. freezes the assets of that country and awards it to them. I believe this was done by some Bosnians, and a suit is ongoing with victims of 9/11.
I think that many would agree that the concept of international courts is a good one. Theoretically, those who commit crimes on an international level can be held accountable by a neutral "higher authority" court system.
In practice, there are a few problems with the international court concept:
1. These courts are not really independent. In reality, they are being used selectively as a political tool to settle old accounts. For example, the situation in Bosnia and Kosovo entailed crimes against humanity from both sides, yet only the Serbs are being prosecuted. In this case, the ongoing international prosecution is against Milosevic, because it was he who thumbed his nose at the U.S. and Europe, and this is both retribution for his perceived insolence and to serve as intimidation for those who dare defy the U.S. and EU.
So far, we have not seen any Muslims on trial for the ethnic cleansing they have been attempting against their fellow countrymen for decades, and I believe it unlikely that a significant number of Muslims will appear at the Hague any time soon.
2. The concept of the international courts is similar to the concept of the UN in many ways. The UN has failed miserably since it has been hijacked by third-world and rogue nations, and I would rather see a sweeping reform at the UN before giving a similar body such power over international matters.
3. Again, going back to the concept of selective prosecution, the international court system would literally collapse if all the "bad guys" of the world were to be brought to trial. There are simply too many large scale criminals for the system to handle, and if it won't prosecute them all then it doesn't have the moral authority, IMO, to prosecute anyone.
For example, just prosecuting the brutal regimes of all Arab and Islamic countries would take decades, event though I think there is no denying that these regimes have carried out crimes against humanity, in alarming abundance. If you look at their dictators and at all of their second and third-level chieftains, that is enough to fill the Hague ten times over for the next 50 years.
Instead, I hear talk of the leaders of the Arab and Islamic regimes getting away scott-free, while all they scheme about is how they can maneuver a fake-prosecution of Ariel Sharon to try to pin on him some Arab vs. Arab massacres.
And the Muslim crimes against humanity are just the tip of the iceberg. How about the African and Asian butchers of hundreds of thousands? Sure, a select few criminals are being discussed for prosecution, but there are literally thousands of second and third-level international criminals who are completely off the radar.
In short, I support the concept of international accountability, but justice needs to be meted out equally and not selectively as a political tool, which is the case with the Hague currently.