Thanks for the comment, Colin. Those are fair questions. There are a number of debatable reasons why the US is reticent to become a full signatory to the ICC and as I alluded to, there are a several very legitimate criticisms of the ICC itself. That’s why I think that the ad hoc ICTY model is more workable. And I believe that if the tribunal was framed narrowly enough (i.e. focused on ISIS), most of the parties that would otherwise object to a broad mandate might be able to get on board. As I said, the only party in the conflict that truly has no constituency within international institutions is ISIS. The ad hoc tribunal is far from a perfect solution, but such is the nature of diplomacy that sometimes half-measures are the only solutions possible.