You have to appreciate the chutzpah of a Hague lawyer acting an utter coward in his demands for anonymity even as he claims essentially unlimited power for his organization.
Here, via The Quint, we find the nameless cog in the machinery of an aspiring transnational behemoth explaining why India, a state that is not party to the Rome Treaty, is nonetheless obligated to arrest the head of another state likewise not party to the Rome Treaty:
A lawyer at the ICC in the Hague, who wished to remain anonymous, explains that the UN can challenge the Indian defense of not being a party to the ICC under a Chapter VII resolution. This can create an obligation for member states like India to cooperate under the UN Charter.
“You cannot just invite a suspect of genocide to your country and then say you are a responsible member of the international community,” the lawyer says.
This, of course, begs the question: What is a treaty for if a nation has to live under the auspices of it whether its representatives sign or not? Is the ICC’s case for itself so poor that it must rely on force and coercion rather than persuasion?
Do Americans need to worry about this? Seems unlikely, but...perhaps.
Addendum: For what it’s worth, South Africa found the international demands to arrest Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir during an African Union summit in June could not be simply met.