A detailed definition was reached by UN consensus in 1974 and adequate definitions appear in several recent drafts. It undercuts the emerging rule of law and undermines progress toward an aggression-free and peaceful world. Complaints that the agreed laws have been violated should be welcomed from any responsible source. To prevent abuse, the Prosecutor should be required to have the allegations and supporting evidence reviewed by a pre-trial judicial body before being authorized to prepare for public trial. If a state is willing and able to deal with prohibited international crimes in its own courts, and does so in a fair and reasonable way, then there is no need for international adjudication.
National courts have primacy and the international tribunal is subsidiary.
The sad fact is that outrages such as aggression, genocide and crimes against humanity are usually committed with the complicity of a national government. It should be obvious that the international tribunal alone should decide whether it must take exclusive jurisdiction Enforcement remains a problem. Without force, law is farce. Present drafts do not envisage an international criminal court with its own police or enforcement powers. Although the UN Charter called for an international military force to maintain peace, these mandates have not yet been honored.