"The conviction of Charles Taylor, the former president of Liberia, is said to have sent an unequivocal message to current leaders: that great office confers no immunity. In fact it sent two messages: if you run a small, weak nation, you may be subject to the full force of international law; if you run a powerful nation, you have nothing to fear.
While anyone with an interest in human rights should welcome the verdict, it reminds us that no one has faced legal consequences for launching the illegal war against Iraq. This fits the Nuremberg tribunal's definition of a "crime of aggression", which it called "the supreme international crime". The charges on which, in an impartial system, George Bush, Tony Blair and their associates should have been investigated are far graver than those for which Taylor was found guilty.
The foreign secretary, William Hague, claims that Taylor's conviction "demonstrates that those who have committed the most serious of crimes can and will be held to account for their actions". But the international criminal court, though it was established 10 years ago, and though the crime of aggression has been recognized in international law since 1945, still has no jurisdiction over "the most serious of crimes". This is because the powerful nations, for obvious reasons, are procrastinating. Nor have the United Kingdom, the United States and other western nations incorporated the crime of aggression into their own legislation. International law remains an imperial project, in which only the crimes committed by vassal states are punished."
Update: A recent posting by Gordon Duff titled:"Obama Rejoins ICC, US No Longer “Rogue” State" is misleading and inaccurate as explained in the below exposé by Abdul-Haq Al-Ani:
"The article by Gordon Duff is oversimplification and slightly misleading. The matter of ratification of a treaty in the USA is rather lengthy and significant. Just to remind you it took the USA over forty years to ratify the Genocide Convention despite having been one of the active and early member states which negotiated the Convention post WWII.
The USA is reluctant to ratify a treaty which subjects its international activity to the rule of law. The significance of ratification of a treaty is the immediate effect of ratification under domestic jurisdiction which means that national courts have jurisdiction to take legal action under the ratified treaty."
The U.S. and the ICC, Abdul-Haq Al-Ani, May 7, 2012
P.S. If anyone is interested, Abdul-Haq (firstname.lastname@example.org) can provide you with details of his legal action under the Statute of Rome which he attempted in London way back in 2003-2004