Tim Worstall

At a special “review conference” in Kampala, Uganda, the nations which have signed up to the court, including Britain, will consider a proposal to let the court try the “crime of aggression” – the offence allegedly committed by Tony Blair.

If the proposal, backed by more than 70 countries, passes, national leaders alleged to have launched “illegal” wars could be seized, transported to the Hague, tried and imprisoned.

Not because I’m all that in favour of wars of aggression. But because I’m against what I think would come next: an expansion of what is the definition of aggression….even of war in fact.

There are already those who call the US embargo against trade with Cuba “war” and “aggression” and while I too think it’s very stupid and entirely counter-productive, I don’t quite think that it is a war of aggression.

And the problem really comes in with, well, who is it that, over time, gets to decide what is indeed the definition of “war” and “aggression”? That would be the nation states of the world. And have you looked at the governance systems of them? I’ve not got the exact numbers to hand but less than 50% of them are even what could be loosely termed democracies, let alone roughly liberal capitalist ones like all of us here in Europe.

Essentially, I’m really not sure that I want to be subject to a system of law drawn up by the majority of those who currently run nation states. Yes, I realise that rather puts the entirety of international law into something of a grey area but really: do you want Ghaddaffi (no, I don’t know how to spell it but apparently just about any collection of g,d and f works), Kim Jong Il, Teddy Obiang and Nazarbayev to each have a vote on what laws a British Prime Minister will be subject to? For that is indeed what the current set up of creating new international law means.

I just don’t see it myself.