The International Criminal Court will strengthen Australia's global standing

But rather than just make simple comparisons, let’s analyse Bishop’s argument. Does the treaty threaten or undermine our National Sovereignty, and more importantly, if it does, should it?

The answer to the first question is ‘yes to a degree’. If a permanent international court is established, and it has the power to try our soldiers if we do not try them, then our sovereignty is lessened. Bishop is partly right.

But, wait a second, let’s look at that a bit more closely.

The ICC will only try Australians that in the future may be accused of Genocide or horrendous crimes if, and only if, Australia refuses to try them in Australia. If an accused Australian soldier, and one co-author of this article is an Australian Army Officer, is prosecuted in our system, then no sovereignty is lost.

No one can take our soldiers away if we have a go at them first.

This leads on to the second question. If an Australian soldier commits or is suspected of committing a horrendous offence and a future government refuses to prosecute them, should an international court step in?

We said that it should with the Germans. We said that it should with the Japanese. We said that it should with the Rwandans. We said that it should with the Serbs, Croats and Bosnians.

So to Bronwyn Bishop we say "Yes" you are right. A little sovereignty would be lost with the creation of the International Criminal Court, but only if future governments fail to act against atrocities that future Australian soldiers will hopefully never commit.

But sovereignty in that case not only "should" be lost but "must" be lost. If we don’t have the guts to prosecute our own people if they commit crime on an horrendous scale, then someone else must.