Since the March Letter, the International Criminal Court (the ICC) at The Hague in the Netherlands has come into sharp focus because of various allegations of war crimes committed by the United States and Afghanistan during the Afghanistan conflict. This has brought the leadership of the ICC into direct conflict with the Trump Administration, the latter resoundly challenging the ICC’s jurisdictional legitimacy over any legal matter relating to both the United States government and any US citizen. All this is happening at a time when there have been atrocious crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in Syria against thousands of innocent women and children, butchered in airstrikes and other military actions led by the Assad regime and its Russian ally, Vladimir Putin. This brings us back to the central issues posed in the March Letter. Most of all, the leading question, “Should the United States be a member of the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, and also the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea?” This is something for every Eccentric reader to consider and deliberate. Perhaps one observation needs making. Short term gratification from taking down individuals who have clearly been identified as threats to the United States and our allies has to be set against perhaps the longer-term benefits of bringing to justice in The Hague war criminals and those guilty of crimes against humanity, and other heinous offenses against the accepted international criminal codes of the western common law democracies. There are several public and accurate sources, for example, that describe the various killings and assassinations over the decades by, for just one example, the Israeli Mossad of enemies of that state. The sad fact is that despite all these killings, the activities of Hamas and Hezbollah persist without any serious change in modus operandi. One is left to consider; therefore, that would mean bringing to justice before the ICC such criminals on all sides, not just ones friendly to the United States. Still, all who commit war crime outrages and crimes against humanity, be more effective, and let the world know that there is no escape from justice? We looked at Nuremberg and the dramatic effects that the trials had on the post World War Two world. New standards were set. Those who committed war crimes and those involved in the Holocaust were summarily dealt with fairly and squarely in an international court. The killing of Osama Bin Laden is a likely exception, in my opinion. Bin Laden was a “combatant terrorist,” a new precedent in the international common law. Since he was not a “state actor,” he was automatically deprived of any protections under the Geneva Conventions. I wrote the counter case to several British Queens Counsel who argued at the time of his demise that he should have been arrested and brought to trial in US Federal Court in New York City. He and his cohorts gave up all legal protection, in my opinion, and were open to any form of retaliation. Turning to November 22, 1967, UN Resolution 242 that was drafted by the British Ambassador to the UN at the time, Lord Caradon, and was accepted unanimously by the UN Security Council, under Chapter 6 of the UN Charter, stated that Israel must withdraw from all occupied territories following the June War of 1967. Other than the return of the Sinai to Egypt, this has clearly not happened. Could a solution to the Palestinian situation be found by reverting to Resolution 242 while also acknowledging that Lord Caradon stated too that Israel needed to be able to protect its borders? Only positive and judicious action by the ICJ under a UN remit will end the long-standing strife over Palestinian nationhood and the West Bank of the Jordan River. Turning now to UNCLOS, Eccentric readers should know that in the March edition of the Proceedings of the US Naval Institute, the Editor stated unequivocally that the United States Senate should ratify UNCLOS. As I write, Turkey is violating Greece’s and Cyprus’ exclusive economic zones by exploiting drilling, and of course, in the South China Sea, there has taken place the worst violations of all by China. On July 16, 2016, there was a unanimous Ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in a landmark decision under UNCLOS, rebuking China for its expansive actions and claims to maritime territory in the South China Sea, and for weaponizing various atolls and islands against international law. Without a clear legal mandate from the US Senate to ratify the UNCLOS, how can the US Seventh Fleet enforce a rule-based international order not just on the high seas but in the violation of sovereign territory most capriciously and arbitrarily by China? In the not too distant future, the international community will also have to address cyber warfare in the context of the Geneva Conventions. In an era when state and non-state players can close down hospitals and utilities in a war, or quasi-war setting, new international laws will need to be established to protect civilian populations and create effective enforcement and trial mechanisms. Let me end this three Letter series on international law by mentioning Parosha Chandran, who is a British Barrister and a much-acclaimed international lawyer who has shaped the law against modern slavery and human trafficking. Read about her in any of your internet access sources. Her story shows what can be done by just one strong and gifted woman to uphold human rights and maintain a based rule system through the international legal system. As a nation that led the way with the British at Nuremberg, should we the United States revert to its tried and trusted heritage of upholding international justice? For me, the answer is clear, as Benjamin Ferencz so eloquently stated in my March Letter. As the last surviving US prosecutor at Nuremberg, he has to remain not just in minds, but also in our hearts.