>>So I don't see it at all as 'enforcement of laws while not being bound by such laws themselves' but rather as simply protecting its sovereignty to deal with misdeeds within the confines of its OWN laws.
>
>Taking that to it's logical conclusion, surely that means that the ICC has no reason to exist. All countries will deal with their own miscreants under their own laws, if they make the decision not to prosecute, then that is their right.

Well that might be one point of view. But I see it as elective and legitimate under such circumstances.
It will be interesting to see how a participating country reacts if a ruling/remedy imposed on it proves to be distasteful to itself.

In Canada we currently have a serious problem with U.S. imposition of duties on softwood lumber, where they use both the "Free Trade Agreement" and GATT in an attempt to impose their will on Canada.
The issue is HOW we parcel out and collect "royalties" for trees cut on CROWN LANDS. We have practises that developed over the decades that we find very satisfactory to us. They insist that our way is a government giveaway amounting to subsidization and so they want us to do it the way THEY DO IT!!! I say it works for us, we're happy, and it's NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS anyway. But in the end the U.S. will win.

Also of note in the matter is that it never was a concern while it was the giant U.S. corporations that were participating. But these have sold their interests there and now get uppity about the matter.

Back to the word court... IF Saddam decides to take advantage of exile with immunity from prosecution, whose authority do you expect this is to be done under?...And will it stick over the longer term?...And if so, why?