that US jurisprudence does. And also you go beyond just a refutation but insist on labeling as "lies" the arguments contra. That is what I reacted to. Charles Ellis- you write that "The
ICC is flawed for other reasons (in my opinion), reasons applicable to the ad hoc tribunals, and IMT, so the inanity of a US news organ’s editorial board does not exactly bear on the soundness of the
ICC," and that you do not "favor of the
ICC project/concept...." Evaluation of your negative conclusions regarding the
ICC is...