In speaking of a 'consensus [that] is eroding the old impunities afforded by statehood and state office':
"If this epoch-making jurisdiction is not simply to degenerate into the twenty-first century's version of victor's justice, into a regime in which the war criminals of the lesser nations get their deserts while nationals of the greatest power are shielded from all process except that which their own state elects to deploy against them, the long arm of international law has to be able to reach everyone against whom there is a triable case, and the mailed fist has to be there to punish those who are found guilty by due process. A system which replicates the very insolence of office from which human rights abuses spring cannot properly call itself a system of justice. One law for the powerful and another for the weak is no law at all."
It is unclear...
"whether internationals criminal jurisdiction is instead to slide back into its ambivalent twentieth century role as a secondary and localised manifestation of military and political power."
