npub1hpcdfjpxrawnmu6ryh36ce7xu4qd54pu6xca394yhvmyzlery0tqvghjn3 (npub1hpc…hjn3) npub1g0tuf634rz4suczwj7kgnecr6cyt0eu9xmp3sp0fku68mqehq4msp3tvm4 (npub1g0t…tvm4)
I feel that this is less about making perfect the enemy of the good, and more about making it a gamble that doesn't end up costing more than it gains.
I'll go out on a limb here: the international criminal court has been harmful to the cause of liberal internationalism. This could have been the keystone of an international order, a sign that nobody is beyond the law. Instead it ended up being the opposite, a public performance of the fact that well-connected people are very much beyond the law.
The people who have been tried there are clearly guilty. That's a problem. A show trial delegitimises the concept of a trial. A show trial where it's understood that only those who've already lost power will ever face justice, delegitimises it further. There are people who loathe the liberal idea of justice, and will misrepresent it to attack it, and so far the ICC has been living up to that misrepresentation more than the idea itself.
I don't want to overstate the role of the ICC in the decline of the liberal internationalist world order, but I think it did play a part. There was a cost to setting it up, a cost paid in legitimacy, and that cost appears to have been sunk.
Let's learn from our mistakes.