"I don't understand why you, and many others who agree with you, believe that an International Tribunal would be fairer than each individual country trying those who commit crimes against them."

That's called private justice, or vengeance in normal life, and it's what the Mafia does.

The idea of an International Tribune is that is countries are unable or unwilling in particular cases to put on trial their own people who are accused of war crimes, it's there to see that justice is done.

I wouldn't think that our view on the principles involved are so far apart Doug. I think the differences would come in more about the actual facts.

The principles would be that there are some actions which deserve to be treated as criminal, whoever does them, and that where there are serious grounds for thinking that someone has committed such acts, it is right that they should be given a fair trial by a fair court.

I'd also think that we would both agree that, where crimes are committed by people acting as our representatives, we have a particular duty to ensure that they are fully investigated and punished.

Where we might disagree is about the extent to which this is already done. My view is that people in many countries, including the ones we live in, and especially important people, have been allowed to get away with murder; that sometimes there is more hope of a fair trial where the tribunal is not domestic; and that the existence of the International Tribunal is a small step towards making it more likely that these crimes will be deterred in more cases. A very small step.