There's that "unilateral" again. I'll assume you didn't see my warning, and give you a second chance. ;)

The ICC would have been an appendage of the same collectivist core that pretty much runs the U.N. agenda. If we had signed up for it, in two years there would have been 300 cases up before the court, and 280 of them would be against the United States and Israel. Fix the U.N's basic problem, and then let's talk world courts.

How to fix the United Nations? Good question, and one that a lot of people have given some thought to.

I have a few ideas--admittedly off the top of my head:

- Get the tyrannies out of the business. Good luck on this one. But unless the collectivism/Marxism/totalitarianism that underlies the system is somehow pried loose, everything the U.N. does will be tainted by it.

- Rework the idea of a "security council." Not only is the makeup of the council based on the world as it was sixty years ago, but it makes little more sense than giving the Senator from Massachussetts a veto over every bill in the U.S. Senate.

- Rework the charter into something more resembling a constitution. The function of a constitution is to say that some things are not subject to majority rule. Obviously, you have to do step 1 first, or you're just going to end up with a long list of "positive rights," paid for by the U.S. and Western nations.

Frankly, I think the best route is to start a new club, and be a bit more careful about who gets let in. Divorcing principles and philosophies from politics is never a good idea.