See the problem is you can't point the finger at one country or it's like trying to solve an argument but you're leaning towards one side. That side immiedetly senses it, and doesn't listen to you anymore.
There needs to be a uniform treaty in which all countries of the world spent 50% (a certain percentage) of their allocated military resources toward a global U.N military force. This will cause A) more countries will spend less in their military for the sake of it not going out of the country B) A military force powerful enough to enforce it's dominance anywhere in the world C) An inability by any country to oppose a collective U.N military effort to extradite a leader, unless they really would threaten nuclear war against the entire world. There is no longer the excuse "If the U.S/Russia/China/Britain/France brings troops here to take this person to the ICJ there will be an imminent break of all relations and it will be considered an act of war by the U.S/Russia/China/Britain/France". This point will be null because it is now a U.N effort, carrying the banner of the world to enforce the world's agreed upon mandates and laws. All countries of ceded some sovereignty allowing the U.N access to their country too... So legally they've already agreed.
VincentNikolai: There is no use of the word crimes against humanity.
They simply broke a law that protects humanity. It doesn't need to be expressed verbatim. It's implied.
VincentNikolai: I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH YOU COMMISSAR BUT YOU WON'T FIND THE DOCUMENT.
In Statement 9, the Court stated that the U.S. encouraged human rights violations by the Contras by the manual entitled Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare. There's your documented proof.