Ideas

Hey here are some ideas I have come across:

--Obviously I think our main argument is what Amanda and Magda stated below that ad hoc tribunals cannot be adequate to meet the demands of international justice precisely because they are ad hoc. They are temporary measures set up during the 1990's because the ICC was not established yet to handle these special situations. The idea of an international criminal law organ has been contemplated for more than a century, so the idea of a single, permanent and international body has far pre-dated the idea of ad hoc tribunals, which I think implies its superiority itself, the fact that ad hoc tribunals are just a stop-gap measure. The statute of the ICTY actually borrowed a lot from the draft versions of the ICC statute which was being written in the early 1990's. (Although of course it is true that the ad hoc tribunals have had an equally huge influence on the ICC Statute. If this is used as a counterargument on the other side, I guess our response is just that that's not really relevant to how effective the ICC is now in meeting the requirements of international justice.)

--Another advantage is that the ICC, unlike the tribunals, is completely independent of the Security Council which is a bit... shall we say... erratic in the application of its authority. Unlike the tribunals, the ICC cannot be terminated or politically influenced by the SC and the UN.

Now for arguments on the other side.
I can see how the other side will make this argument:
--That the ICC has only a limited subject-matter jurisdiction, that they only deal with the most grave crimes and only where the state is unwilling or unable to prosecute effectively.
And I think the counterarguments are:
--Yes, it does only deal with the most grave crimes, but that is what it is intended to do, it can't be the world court for minor crimes, it can't handle every case
--But nothing stops the country in question from prosecuting war crimes and crimes against humanity internally (and in cases where they are unable or unwilling to do so, this is within the remit of the ICC)
--When such a state exists, the ICC will take over, as it has done in Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda and the Central Africa Republic
--Also, part of the purpose of the ICC is to give countries some guidance and set some precedents about how to handle war crime and crimes against humanity cases in their own jurisdictions

That's all I've got for now. Will post more later, if I run into anything. Feel free to make a new thread with more info, so you don't have to post in comments.