[ronjobber]

At that point the court would effectively lose it's legitimacy, as it would be unable to enforce/execute those warrants. Not saying that that is a) good or b) isn't where we are heading... it mirrors the trajectory of the UN and it's certainly in line with trends in economic fragmentation.

[mhuffman]

This is the real crux of any "Rule of Law" body. Can you enforce it? With the US attached, nearly any law could be enforced globally (by force if necessary) if it got out of hand. But what do you do if the target is the US? Or now China? or even protected by them?

[_3u10]

Build an economy that outcompetes them, and is technologically more advanced and then build, carrier strike groups conventional forces, and nuclear weapons.

[itsoktocry]

>But what do you do if the target is the US? Or now China? or even protected by them?

You do nothing. Which is why all of hand-wringing around this ICC decision is for pointless. There is no such thing as "international law" in any practical sense.

[eunos]

Cynically from Russian/Chinese point of view that is much preferable. The "Free World" consistently drums out propaganda for universal "Rule-Based Order". Should the ICC fail to move forward with this, Rus/CN can cynically claim that "Rule-Based Order" is no more than fraud. Good luck forcing China to accept South China Sea Arbitration (which they didn't even participate in the 1st place)