Re Charles Tannock's earlier post, we should oppose the international criminal court for the same reason that we are Eurosceptics, and for the same reason that we should have opposed (and to some extent did oppose) the extradition of the Nat West Three. It is for Britain to make and enforce the laws that apply in Britain - that is precisely what it means to be sovereign. It is not for the UN or America or the Council of Ministers or the International Criminal Court or anyone else to make or enforce laws that apply to acts committed on our soil. Equally, it is not for Britain to believe that she makes laws that apply in Sudan or Iraq or the US or anywhere else.
I am no believer in "respecting sovereignty" when it comes to reasons not to invade countries and overthrow wicked regimes. If we believe that Sudan is run by a wicked and oppressive tyrant, then we should invade or support someone else doing so, or at least have the intention of invading when more pressing military commitments are complete if the issue is still live. But we should not pretend, if we were to invade and imprison al-Bashir (say) that he had committed any "crime". We would invade because his acts were wicked, not because they were illegal.
