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

[jmm99]

(American Non-Governmental Coalition for the International Criminal Court), "A Program of the United Nations Association of the United States of America", which in its page, Public Opinion Polls, says:

National polls since the late 1990s consistently demonstrate that over half of respondents, and more frequently in a large majority, want the United States to participate in the International Criminal Court and ratify its statute — when they know about the Court.

So, I guess "the anti-ICC perception in the US" either (1) does not exist, or (2) is due to the ignorance of the great unwashed American masses. So, here is your opportunity to cure that ignorance, including my own - since my vote is a "NO vote".

Since the ICC is brought to us by many of the same folks who brought us Additional Protocol I to the GCs, as well as a number of the various forms of Lawfare that we are currently experiencing, some resistence might be expected.

Some have been enthralled by international show trial tribunals since Nuremberg and Tokyo. Many of us who have studied those trials are less than overawed by their fairness - and are aware of the highly politicized atmosphere of those eminent tribunals. My use of the word "eminent" is not a snark. Those tribunals were planned, administered and staffed by some of the finest legal minds among the Allied Powers of WWII.

I find it interesting that brother Kilcullen would say: "They could either then try and execute the guy in accordance with their own laws or hand him over to the International Criminal Court." The "try and execute" language was the same used by President Obama, until he had to backtrack on the "execute" part. In Dr Kilcullen's case, I'm not sure if his reference to the ICC was meant to suggest it as an exception to execution, or whether the ICC would "try and execute" UBL as well.

Let me make it very clear that my own morals and ethics would allow me to try a mass murderer by accessing all of the available material evidence; to find him guilty if that evidence proved him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; and to execute him. On the last point, I'd probably make a bloody mess of the event.

Now, there are many ways that such people can be tried (other than having JMM act as judge, jury and executioner). I fail to see why we need an ICC to do that, since there are other avenues available to do so.

I also find this remark by Dr Kilcullen naive - ""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." Now, it may be that Dr Kilcullen's plan would be to gag UBL so that he could not respond to those charges.

But, that approach would violate fundamental due process, since the defendant must be allowed to refute the charges made.

Of course, the actual charges against UBL have nothing to do with Dr Kilcullen's highly-politicized charges. The actual charges against UBL (and the material evidence that should be heard) are that he acted as an irregular combatant (without combatant immunity) and engineered some war crimes to boot. The charges "traitor to Islam" and "killed more Muslims than you have killed infidels" are not in themselves crimes (except perhaps under Sharia Law).

I can assure you that UBL would be more than happy to prove that he is not a traitor to Islam; that the Muslims killed were killed because of Sharia Law; that far more Muslims (millions) have been killed by the Crusaders; and that he would be happy to be "dealt with", thus verifying his martyrdom for his faith. Zawahari would do an even better job.

Finally, your initial proposition:

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.

is the best reason why the ICC is unacceptable. In effect, the ICC would be a court accountable to no one but itself.

Even in a system where a high court has great independence (e.g., our SCOTUS), its mandates are still subject to checks and balances - e.g., the President can refuse to enforce the mandate, and Congress can refuse to fund it. There are also many other indirect checks and balances on the power of courts.

In any event, welcome AusPTE. The input from our ANZAC contingent is always interesting.

Regards

Mike

[Schmedlap]

Ditto everything JMM said, for mostly the same reasons.

I would also add that the trials of Milosevic, Krstic, Karadzic, etc have accomplished nothing. They are not a deterrent, they do not bring hostilities to a close, they do not bring reparations to the bereaved, and they do not help to lay a foundation for future peace. It's a lot of show and bluster.

The ICC has jurisdiction over individuals, not states, so I don't even think there is a whole lot of useful law/precedent that gets clarified.

[AusPTE]

JMM you raise a lot of good points regarding accountability and "due process issues" with the court.

I would agree with you that as it currently stands, the ICC is certainly an imperfect institution, as are most high-level organisations of its calibre, at the outset. These are certainly issues which need to be resolved before the ICC can be trusted to adequately carry out its mandate - that is - the prosecution of mass atrocity crimes.

The point I am trying to make regarding the ICC is that is has great potential for future high-level criminal prosecutions because it acts outside traditional national judicial structures which means it will bear a greater level of legitimacy than national courts ever will (particularly when it comes to prosecuting foreign nationals).

It would be fair to say that the Bush Administration's exploits with US law (Guantanamo and the Military tribunals, "enemy combatants") have not been met with glee from the international community and the US certainly has a legitimacy problem now, which, until addressed will continue to have a negative impact on GWOT and future Western-led operations.

To use the example of the upcoming KSM trial, however fair that trial might be, it will still be viewed by some as a "show trial" simply because it was an "American court" (id est: the AQ oral history will record "the Americans tried and executed the martyr, KSM")

This is where the ICC could be particularly useful. An international court, with international legitimacy which could also dissuade potential martyrdom of some of these highly-influential mass murderers

I agree, it is uncomfortable to think that Western forces could be tried in an international court for crimes against humanity, but if we are acting like professional soldiers in the first place and our national judiciaries are acting responsibly (remember the ICC only acts if national courts are failing to act) this should not be an issue.

It is a real opportunity for a legitimate "global law-enforcer" beyond the heavily-criticised "Team America and the Allies".

If the events of the last ten years have shown us anything it is that multilateral action certainly achieves much more than unilateral action.

[jmm99]

As to this:

It would be fair to say that the Bush Administration's exploits with US law (Guantanamo and the Military tribunals, "enemy combatants") have not been met with glee from the international community and the US certainly has a legitimacy problem now, which, until addressed will continue to have a negative impact on GWOT and future Western-led operations.

To use the example of the upcoming KSM trial, however fair that trial might be, it will still be viewed by some as a "show trial" simply because it was an "American court" (id est: the AQ oral history will record "the Americans tried and executed the martyr, KSM")

The US will be a dartboard regardless of what it does - and Lawfare vs it will continue no matter what administration is in office. I'd expect that the US would still be a dartboard even if it retracted in its Worldview to an Americas-centric, Two ocean littorals military force projecton.

Other nations elect to co-operate with the US because of their own enlightened self-interests. The US-UK co-operation against transnational violent non-state actors has occured despite a basic difference in how TVNSAs should be handled - the UK solely via the Rule of Law criminal process; the US under both the Rule of Law and Laws of War.

The question of "whether or not coalitions" is a good question for the future. With the advent of the Bush I New World Order, coalitions became the default. In truth, coalitions are not going to be effective unless all parties are on the same page. An example where they are not is Astan.

The Sierra Leone Special Court has managed to convict 3 RUF commanders, three former members of the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) and two members of the Civil Defence Forces (CDF), Sierra Leone Rebels Guilty of Crimes against Humanity; and is working on Chuckie Taylor Sr, who is starting to testify.

One wonders whether the millions[*] spent on these few trials could have been better spent on a long-term improvement in the local justice system in SL, which if functioning would be capable of dealing with domestic war criminals. But, of course, international justice organizations get the bucks; while the natives have to get by with whatever happens to drop off the cart (or perhaps off the horse would be a better metaphor).

Chuckie Taylor Jr bit the dust more than a year ago in our Federal District Court, as posted here, Charles "Chuckie" Taylor Jr convicted in Miami. He was sentenced under the US Anti-Torture Act to 97 years in prison (in effect a life sentence without parole).

Finally, this may be true:

If the events of the last ten years have shown us anything it is that multilateral action certainly achieves much more than unilateral action.

but I can't really think of any major multilateral actions that stand out.

------------------------------
[*] The Special Court costs $25 million per year - more than you might want to know about the Special Court for Sierra Leone. What would $150 million (approx funding for 2004-2009) have done for the local justice systems in SL and Liberia ?

Much more on its Big Brother, The International Criminal Court.

See also, US Opposition to the International Criminal Court for archived articles.

All of the foregoing footnote materials are from the Global Policy Forum, which favors the ICC.

Why the US People will not accept the ICJ, ICC and for that matter I Law, in the same way as some other nations do, is laid out by Paul Kahn (pro-ICC) in his article, Why the United States Is So Opposed (December 2003), linked from the GPF US Opposition page. Kahn gets this part right:

The American National Myth

The behavior of the popular sovereign is what Americans mean by the rule of law: the rule of law is rule by the popular sovereign. This union of the rule of law and popular sovereignty is the great American political achievement. Of course, all of this is true not as a matter of fact, but as a matter of political faith. It is the American civic religion or our national myth. Belief in the popular sovereign as a single, transhistorical subject is at the core of the American democratic project. That project is not about assessing the will of a contemporary majority, but about maintaining the faith in a single, self-governing, plural subject: the People.

Since I Law lays no claim to being derived from the People of the World (it exists as a creation of nation-states, with its individual humanitarian rights being granted by those states), the basis of I Law is contrary to US political (i.e., constitutional) theory - The American Civic Religion.

Thus, Kahn pegs it - what Americans mean by Rule of Law, with these passages:

What is the Rule of Law?

The character of the controversy over the Court is particularly difficult to understand because the central term of the debate -- the rule of law -- is itself deeply contested. American political culture does not accept the cosmopolitan view of an opposition between law and politics, with law cast as the expression of reason and politics as self-interest. In the American constitutional frame, popular sovereignty and the rule of law are a single phenomenon constitutive of the national political identity. The rule of law, which begins and ends in American life with the Constitution, is the self-expression of the popular sovereign. The Constitution is the source of all law-making power, and every assertion of a legal rule can be tested against the Constitution. No question more quickly or easily comes forward in our political culture than "Is it constitutional?"

Americans believe they created themselves as a "nation under law." That law is not a set of moral constraints imposed on the political process from outside, whether from natural law, jus cogens, or customary international law. Rather, the law expresses the substantive decisions of a self-governing community. The American Constitution expresses the will of "we the People." The rule of law is binding on the American political community not because it is reasonable or morally correct. It is binding because it arises out of the constitutive act of self-creation by that community. Thus, the rule of law is not a moral norm; rather, it is an existential condition signifying the continuing existence of the popular sovereign.

No one should underestimate the claim that the American Constitution makes upon the American citizen: it defines him as a political being; it is the object of his patriotism and the subject of a profound reverence. Despite the charges of rampant consumerism in modern America, the political culture maintains a cult of sacrifice - amply demonstrated in the post 9/11 events. The Constitution is at the very heart of this cult: in its name, Americans, for 200 years, have willingly taken up the burden of killing and being killed.

Of course, this does not mean that Americans are indifferent to the moral content of their law. They want their law to be reasonable and morally correct, but that means only that they want the community to bind itself by laws that satisfy these standards. They want their law to be morally satisfying in the same way that a parent wants his or her child to be morally good: we want them to be good because we love them; we do not love them because they are good. It is the same with the community that is the United States: citizens have a deep bond to the popular sovereign; because of that, they care deeply about how it behaves. They will not easily abandon this bond, even when they judge that behavior harshly.

I might add that the US, because it does insist that all government and law must derive from the People, is 180 degrees in separation from the UBL-Zawahiri view that all government and law derives from God as expressed in the Koran. While I personally do not believe in "clash of civilizations" arguments, the US Historical Myth (as Kahn calls it) is totally adverse to the AQ Historical Myth (as I will call it).

Regards

Mike

[Hacksaw]

and in the immortal words of Walter Croncite... and that's the way it was, the way it is, and the way it will always be, Brother...

Roger... Out

[AusPTE]

Quote:
but I can't really think of any major multilateral actions that stand out.


INTERFET and the resultant UN peacekeeping missions in East Timor are probably about the best case studies that show an intervention force turning a broken society into a functioning, relative stable one. Feel free to dissent.

Comparative to the ethnic cleansing that was going on in East Timor at the time of INTERFET's intervention, Saddam's Iraq at the time of the invasion was relatively stable (aside from the totalitarian oppression - I'm referring to general liveability). This begs the question why did East Timor go up in terms of liveability while Iraq went down after the applicable interventions?

Of course, I'm aware that this question cannot be answered with black-and-white, Manichean answers because the reasons are diverse and complex. But I think its fair to say that widespread global approval will help any occupation and the way that the nation at the head of an intervention approaches international opinion can be very important.

The way that Howard dealt with the world pre-East Timor and the way the coalition dealt with the world pre-Iraq are substantially different.

The reality is that any military force in a foreign country must find a way to legitimate its presence there. If the occupier appears to be employing a policy of exceptionalism (regardless of whether the motives for this policy are benevolent) it can't hope to garner support from the locals. Without legitimacy, you can run the risk of turning a finite enemy that can be measured empirically (eg: Iraqi Republican Guard) into an infinite enemy that acts within and draws support from perceptions of an illegitimate occupation (eg: various former Ba'athist insurgent groups).

One of the ways I think the US might be able to improve this legitimacy problem is by increasing engagement with the ICC as it says to the world and enemies of the US: "Here's proof of our awesomeness. We are the good guys and we are accountable to somebody other than ourselves."

The point I'm trying to make, and I think the point Kilcullen is trying to make with the above quote is that it is only useful to target an enemy's strategic apex if there is certainty that the individual at the top will not be replaced (eg: OBL being martyred) as quickly as he is eliminated. The difference between the US bringing OBL down in a US court, and the world bringing him down in front of the ICC, could be key in eliminating the "AQ myth" as Kilcullen calls it.

The reference you make to the clash between the American democratic project and international law is interesting and I think these points are important for understanding the hows and the whys. Despite this, however, I still fail to see why it is that the US' arguably "equally-democratic" Western allies have been able to find room for both "submission" to international law and political and judicial autonomy.

[JJackson]

I might add that the US, because it does insist that all government and law must derive from the People, is 180 degrees in separation from the UBL-Zawahiri view that all government and law derives from God as expressed in the Koran.

From Mike's post #5

This is interesting because as I read the text box above it I was thinking how like Sharia law the American system is, how the Constitution was being viewed by Americans as the basis of law in the same way as Muslims derived their laws from the Koran. The Koran laid down an immutable law based – presumably – on a set of principles that represented best practice of the day (I am an atheist so view all religious laws as man made). I believe the same for Moses’ tablets or the laws of the Talmud. As time has moved on some of the stricture of each system have become a problem for modern societies. Stoning women to death for adultery – and not men – the acceptance of slavery etc. The US constitution is much younger but has already needed to accommodate changing attitudes to race. It would be interesting to see how anachronistic it will look in 1400 years time - if there are humans around at that time.

[jmm99]

My crystal ball is clouded enough to foresee 14 years "only through a glass darkly". 1400 years hence is beyond my ken.

AQ's view is that all man-made law is atheistic. Therefore, you (atheist) and I (center-right RC) are in the same boat of infidels.

The meat of your 1400 year question is how adaptive the legal system is. The AQ legal system is very adaptive in some areas (e.g., use of modern technology); but obviously very rigid in other areas. Since revelation ended with the Koran, substantive amendment is not possible, and interpretation is limited.

As you correctly point out, the US Constitution has had to accommodate change. It has done so in two ways, one obvious, one not. First is the formal amendment process; e.g., the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments dealing with slavery and race. The second is via the concept that the Constitution freezes certain provisions in stone (e.g., age requirements for office); but uses more general language in other provisions (e.g., commerce between the States), allowing interpretations consistent with changed conditions.

The same results can be reached via a legal system without a formal constitution (e.g., the UK). The US system is less trustful of government; so, all the checks and balances. Of course, the "INs" are more trustful of a particular administration than the "OUTs". Given a distrust of US government, a greater distrust for international government should not surprise.

This transitions into the last question that AusPTE posed:

....I still fail to see why it is that the US' arguably "equally-democratic" Western allies have been able to find room for both "submission" to international law and political and judicial autonomy.

I also fail to see the "why" clearly; but suggest that the question has a contradiction. Submission to any higher law (here, international law) must of necessity require some loss of political and judicial autonomy. We see this in our (US) history where the States gave up some political and judicial autonomy (as defined in the Articles of Confederation) in favor of the Constitution. The Constitution seemed then and for the future a better deal - some still contend it wasn't (return to the Articles of Confederation), but they meet every so often in large phone booths.

I can see why many nations would prefer to see the US submit to any number of international restrictions. That would be one way to harness US hegemony. Thus, putting limits on the US is simply in their enlightened self-interest, even if they are otherwise generally friendly to the US.

To me, the appropriate solution to many grating issues is not for the US to submit to external constraints, but to adopt internalized restraints to eliminate as much friction as possible. In short, I'm not an American hegemonist and have never believed that Pax Americana made sense.

At this point, we are straying into the American political debate as what the US Worldview should be. So, I'll stop.

Regards

Mike

[M-A Lagrange]

Hello all of you.

I join lately on this but I found comments on Sharia interresting. Not being Muslim nor religious, I am on the same boat. But having to watch on a daily base implementation of Sharia and other "traditional laws" (I just hate that qualification despite it is relevant) I would like to come with some comments.
First, as the anthropologist Elikia M'Bokolo demonstrated, what froze or fix the understanding of a law referal which is closed as Sharia or traditional African legal system is not the text itself but what the people do with it.
In most of the cases, it is not even the people in charge of interpreting and enforcing the law but the governing people who freeze those legal references.
The best exemple that come to my mind is Mobutu and his adoration for "autentique" (in french). By imposing to the people in Zaire (an "autentique" african name) to act as autentique African people, he just took them the liberty to just live and act in 20th century.
The interpretation of Sharia is closed? Well no! Sharia is a base to build legal system. Stoning women seems to be an atrocity (and it is) now days. But when it was set up, women found Sharia as a progress as they had a legal status and in exchange of some behaviours (as no adultary) they could access some rights. We have to remember here that women are considered as equal of men in most western countries since a very short time. In France, women can vote only since 1949. And I am not talking about having a personal bank account without their husband authorisation. Can't remember when but less than 50 years.
In some Islamic republic or Muslim countries, the law is not syaing that women have to be stoned in case of adultary. Just that on a legal base, it is a divorse in favour of the man. It was quite the same in our western countries just 50 years ago. So it is not the referal that has to change, it is its interpretation. And this is possible Even with Sharia.

Secondly, the ICC is a perfect example of West being particularly "traditionalist" or concervative. ICC is a progress as all law of war and geneva conventions recognise the individual responsability of war criminals. ICC is then just trying to be a court (the system is not perfect, far from it) that judge individual and not nations or armies. Nothing much new.
But, international powers as the US do not want ICC to overpass their privileges. International relations, especially war or the use of force, should not be judge by someone else than the country the criminal belongs to.
Basically, countries, at least governing people, are fine with what is and just do not want it to change.

Like JMM my cristal ball is cloudy for 1400 years far ahead predictions. But I gess that within 14 years nothing would have change much. Specially if rule of law enforcement and promotion does not change and pass through occupation and fake elections.

M-A

[AusPTE]

JMM posted

I can see why many nations would prefer to see the US submit to any number of international restrictions. That would be one way to harness US hegemony. Thus, putting limits on the US is simply in their enlightened self-interest, even if they are otherwise generally friendly to the US.

I guess this would be a logical deduction if we are looking at the issue through the lens of political realism... that is, intra-state power politics driven by amorality and "the security dilemma" with the objective of every actor being "relative power gains".

But I'm not totally convinced that power politics realism will be as relevant as it once was in the Cold War era. With globalisation and economic interdependence amongst the nation-states, an individual nation-state can no longer afford to act in its own self-interest (which a central tenet to the whole "realist" school of thought). This is one of the proposed arguments for why warfare is moving away from state v. state towards state v. non-state, because states literally can't afford to fight each other because their economies and interests are longer individual but mutual.
(I'm sure you already know this however, because SWJ has oodles of discussions about new paradigms in warfare.)

Because of this I would argue that the US is actually hindering its ability to make "relative power gains" (to put it how a realist would put it) because in the globalised world we live in, exceptionalist policies are met with backlash which damages a nation's credibility and distances its allies.

I don't believe it is in Australia's or the UK's interest to see US power contained (although to be fair you did use the word "enlightened") - au contraire, because we exist in such a close partnership it is in our interest to see US power increased throughout the world - it's good for our mutual economy, good for our mutual security.

But joining the ICC has nothing to do with "losing one's power" as it were. It's actually the opposite. Australia and the UK signed up because we knew it would actually increase our power ("our ability to exert influence"). Because we realised that if we have legitimacy and if we are seen as being accountable to something other than ourselves than it will increase our "diplomatic bargaining power" on the world stage.

Here's an analogy. A police officer, who has sworn an oath to uphold and protect the law holds influence - why? - because he is seen as a legitimate actor under law. Your average Joe Citizen hasn't taken this oath. This doesn't mean that Joe is going to break the law and the police officer won't. Police officers can still commit crimes and Joe might spend every waking moment thinking about rescuing kittens up trees. But because the police officer has promised to be accountable to the law, as well as protect it, he is seen as more synchraneous with the "rule of the law".

Cheers mate,
AusPTE

[jmm99]

are so different that I am not the right person to debate. What follows is my personal opinion.

Let me make it clear that I do not favor the US in the roles you seem to suggest in prior posts:

It is a real opportunity for a legitimate "global law-enforcer" beyond the heavily-criticised "Team America and the Allies".

or as "police officer" (your last analogy); or as the primary sheepdog protector (to borrow an analogy from Dave Grossman) of other herds. I would adopt a much more limited geographic scope for US application of the "M" in DIME - unless attacked, where we still have to retain a solid global reach capability (the "compressed spring" concept).

The historical global strength of the US has been economic, and to some extent informational. We have not done a very good job in those areas recently; and have pursued a rather insane economic policy for decades.

In my list of what the US should be doing to correct its Worldview, the ICC would be in the bottom tier (if at all). End personal opinion.

------------------------------
For those interested in the ICC, several Wikis provide some links and coverage of the starting points: International Criminal Court, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, United States and the International Criminal Court.

Here is a graphic (as of 10 Oct 2009) of ICC ratified members (green), signed but non-ratified nations (orange) and non-signed nations (gray):

ICC members 10-09.jpg

As of Oct 2009:

... the court has opened investigations into four situations: Northern Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic and Darfur.[14] The court has indicted fourteen people; seven of whom remain fugitives, two have died (or are believed to have died), four are in custody, and one is appearing voluntarily before the court.

14. International Criminal Court, 2007. Situations and Cases. Accessed 26 January 2009.

What the ICC might do with some "Small Wars" issues is a valid concern for those who fight them.

For example, let's take a difficult area as in this SWC thread recently updated, HVTs/Political Assassination. Some of the legal problems in this area are addressed by Kenneth Anderson, ‘Targeted Killing in U.S. Counterterrorism Law and Strategy’, A Working Paper on Counterterrorism and American Statutory Law, a Joint Project of the Brookings Institution, the Georgetown University Law Center, and the Hoover Institution, 11 May 2009. In that article, Anderson cites the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) 22 times. Arguably, any violation of that somewhat murky convention would constitute a "war crime" - and notably, our (US) drone strikes and other direct actions have been claimed to violate that convention.

------------------------
I got to thinking about our US courts and prosecutors; briefly:

1. Michigan judges and prosecutors are elected - hence, the People have direct control over who those folks are (other checks and balances also exist).

2. Federal judges and prosecutors are appointed - by folks elected by the People (other checks and balances also exist there).

The ICC's judges and prosecutors are elected by the nation-state members. There, Cambodia and the US would have equal voting rights (one nation, one vote); not quite the US constitutional concept of one person, one vote.

Regards

Mike