I suppose i don't understand the distinction you are trying to make between a court established by a treaty organisation and a court of a soverign state. The r

I suppose i don't understand the distinction you are trying to make between a court established by a treaty organisation and a court of a soverign state. The reason i'm focused on this is you claimed national courts are legit. This naturally raises the question of what the difference is. What specificly is the element that you think makes treaty courts illegitament? Are you opposed to them in general or the ICC specificly? I'm just not clear on the nature of your objection specificly. From my perspective, if a state can make a court, then it stands to reason that a state can delegate to any court it feels like. If it wants to delegate some of its justice powers to the ICC, i don't see how that's any different than if it delegated those same powers to a court of its own making.