Many people in Europe, horrified by the bloody results of nationalistic rivalry and racist ideology in our century, are trying to forge new international arrangements in our continent, under which its residents are people first and members of a particular nationality second, and under which each individual has the hope of protection by or redress against, his fellow humans if he is the victim of wrongdoing. The arguments for the ICC and other internationalising arrangements generalise this worthy impulse to the world at large. The aim is to provide everyone on the planet with peaceful, civilised means for preventing, or at least lessening, conflict and tyranny. We just have to ensure that it is a good one, and keep it under lively scrutiny. I agree that there must be democratic controls on the institutions which administer that law.
China has a fifth of the world's population.
Indeed, as I have said, such institutions already exist and function effectively in large numbers, and this is the trend of the future. As someone said, we are cleverer now than when we fought with spears, but not wiser. The ICC and similar institutions are coming into existence because the world can no longer afford the old ways. What divides us are two related issues. Even asking the first question will seem unduly pessimistic, perhaps even immoral, to you.