Here, if you get robbed and shoot the thief, you're going to be punished.
I think it's the same in every democracy.
It's funny that a country that's so much in favor of globalization, world economy, wouldn't want a world court. You can't have the butter, the money from the butter and the dairy-woman, all at the same time.
Imagine there is no World Court.
A country A invades a country B and a country C attacks A and frees B.
Then C stays for years in B, preventing A to do it again.
Unfortunately, lots of people in B don't like C staying there and then become terrorists.
With a World Court, it's going to be possible to make C understand why their presence is not wished anymore. C can also, perhaps convincingly, show why it's important they stayed.
A world court will at least force a communication between parties, before they stop understanding each other and resort to surprise attacks.
I had thought the World Court was a US idea (once), but maybe the US would rather resort to triggering (when it's too late) rather than to listening (when there still is time).

Raoul