In my opinion should the international legal system to follow the development of the culture of the world community today.jadi not make a long foundation so reference.karena it certainly can not accommodate the need for the law that must always follow the development of ways of thinking and the current human behavior is continuous experiencing changes.

ICC has its limits, but you should first think about the UN reforms to remove the immunity of some countries such as Russia and China or the US. All countries must sign ICC. The UN security council must change to include Asian, South Amercian, and African countries. That is not the case now. However, ICC remains an excellent and unique instrument to prosecute dictators and criminals.

The problems of the ICC is a matter of real concern. The main current concerns about ICC is the ability to prosecute individuals from certain countries. And these are two folds: (1) The ability of member nations to enforce the law; ICC like all international conventions CAN BE non-binding. Member countries can choose the relevancy in accordance to domestic interests, as well as, factors that will affect them domestically or regionally. (2) A reliable policing agency to execute the international warranty. ICC thus rely on member nations to enforce the law. The next important question is whether ICC is an effective organ. Definitely, when you look at international treaties, all of them have never been about the adjudication. All countries especially those within the region must be steadfast in their commitment to the rules as stipulated. I think since the language are so adjudicative, many countries realize the objective is more imperialistic rather than conciliatory. Perhaps, if ICC is seen more as a truth seeking organ rather than punitive or adjudicative, it will garner more trusts. African nations complained that the main thrust of ICC is to highlight African nations that's corrupt and authoritative and ICC is not able to address the issues in advanced and powerful countries.