> I'm simply stating the facts of history, which your primary criticism of seems to be that they're too realistic.
No, my criticism is that you are making the category mistake of confusing history with philosophy of law.
Nobody disputes the historical fact that international law has never seen any more than selective enforcement.
The dispute is about what relevance that historical fact has for the ontological status of international law qua law. That's a philosophy of law question, not a history question.
You are also ignoring the historical fact that the vast majority of states prefer to claim compliance with international law (however dubiously) rather than openly defy it. If other states accuse them of violating international law, the standard diplomatic response is to dispute the contents of the law or its application to the facts at hand, not to reject the whole concept of international law. Your nihilism about international law ignores the real historical fact that states at least pretend to believe in it – and a lot of the people who make those decisions on behalf of states (diplomats, bureaucrats, politicians, etc) aren't just pretending to believe in it, they really actually do. This is a real historical and contemporary phenomenon your theory can't explain.
> I could issue an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, and hold a trial for him myself.
There is an obvious difference – nobody with any real world power would accept what you did as legitimate. Whereas, if the ICC issues an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, many people around the world with real power (government officials, judges, diplomats, international bureaucrats, etc) will officially consider that a legitimate act. Now, of course, despite the fact these people do have some real world power, it is unlikely to be enough in practice to actually bring about Netanyahu's arrest. But still, that's a very different situation from your hypothetical of an act which nobody with any significant real world power would accept as legitimate.
And, an ICC arrest warrant is likely to have some real world consequences for Netanyahu – it will likely reduce somewhat his ability to travel internationally; it is also likely to harm Israel diplomatically and politically (e.g. it could well make an easier job for people lobbying for various governments to recognise the State of Palestine); conversely, it is likely also going to help Netanyahu in Israel's domestic politics; whereas, your warrant/trial would have zero real world consequences for him or for his government or country.
No, my criticism is that you are making the category mistake of confusing history with philosophy of law.
Nobody disputes the historical fact that international law has never seen any more than selective enforcement.
The dispute is about what relevance that historical fact has for the ontological status of international law qua law. That's a philosophy of law question, not a history question.
You are also ignoring the historical fact that the vast majority of states prefer to claim compliance with international law (however dubiously) rather than openly defy it. If other states accuse them of violating international law, the standard diplomatic response is to dispute the contents of the law or its application to the facts at hand, not to reject the whole concept of international law. Your nihilism about international law ignores the real historical fact that states at least pretend to believe in it – and a lot of the people who make those decisions on behalf of states (diplomats, bureaucrats, politicians, etc) aren't just pretending to believe in it, they really actually do. This is a real historical and contemporary phenomenon your theory can't explain.
> I could issue an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, and hold a trial for him myself.
There is an obvious difference – nobody with any real world power would accept what you did as legitimate. Whereas, if the ICC issues an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, many people around the world with real power (government officials, judges, diplomats, international bureaucrats, etc) will officially consider that a legitimate act. Now, of course, despite the fact these people do have some real world power, it is unlikely to be enough in practice to actually bring about Netanyahu's arrest. But still, that's a very different situation from your hypothetical of an act which nobody with any significant real world power would accept as legitimate.
And, an ICC arrest warrant is likely to have some real world consequences for Netanyahu – it will likely reduce somewhat his ability to travel internationally; it is also likely to harm Israel diplomatically and politically (e.g. it could well make an easier job for people lobbying for various governments to recognise the State of Palestine); conversely, it is likely also going to help Netanyahu in Israel's domestic politics; whereas, your warrant/trial would have zero real world consequences for him or for his government or country.