The International Criminal Court - Legitimacy in Counter-Leadership Operations

[AusPTE]

The ICC represents a paradigm shift in the enforcement of international law and human rights. Rather, than being a UN-redux of "resolutions ad nauseum" it has the potential to act as a major enforcer of human rights, being autonomous of the restrictive Security Council and other UN organs.
First of all, it is the fist permanent international court that can hold individuals criminally responsible for mass atrocity crimes.
Second, it provides a newfound legitimacy in human rights enforcement, being an international institution distinctly separate of historical unilateral judicial endeavours like the Nuremberg trials which have been described by some as "victor's justice".

I'm wondering how one might be able to change the anti-ICC perception in the US and encourage people to see that the ICC will, in the future, become a very important institution for prosecuting mass atrocity crimes, whatever some of its current flaws.

RE an interesting point raised by David Kilcullen on the myth of OBL and al-Qaeda:

Let me give you two possible scenarios. Scenario one is, American commandos shoot their way into some valley in Pakistan and kill bin Laden. That doesn't end the war on terror; it makes bin Laden a martyr. But here's scenario two: Imagine that a tribal raiding party captures bin Laden, puts him on television and says, "You are a traitor to Islam and you have killed more Muslims than you have killed infidels, and we're now going to deal with you." They could either then try and execute the guy in accordance with their own laws or hand him over to the International Criminal Court. If that happened, that would be the end of the al-Qaeda myth.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031903038.html