Wiley at Big Sky Cairn has a proposal to debate the issue that "Architects of U.S. foreign policy should be subject to international justice." Not much more has happened on this, but I was reading this article where a Jordanian prosecutor wants a Dutch legislator to stand trial in Jordan for committing heresy by making a film that ostensibly mocks Islam and their prophet. Under the UN's declaration of Human Rights, freedom of religion is a basic tenet. Therefore, the prosecutor can move to the International Court of Justice and prosecute the case there.
Which leads to the real problems with International Law. Most of it is so damned ambiguous, that it is subject as much to misuse as not. Because the international community is a grouping of equals, there are no enforcement provisions should a nation refuse to comply with the dictates of International Court. See for example, Nicuauga v. US. It is in essence a fallacy to think that a fair and impartial tribunal could even exist, much less hear a case. Think about it, who is on the UN Human Rights Commission? Libya, Syria, who else with their sterling examples of moral righteousness could sit in judgment of another country.
In fact, suppose you had an all Islamic court that ruled that women all over the world are not to drive, nor vote, nor leave the confines of their house without being escorted by a responsible adult male relative. Why would that be preposterous if we end up surrendering US sovereignty to the ICJ?
Because there are no truly agreed upon international norms, every country and their leaders would be subject to the whims of some prosecutor making a name for himself. Knowing prosecutors as I do, that is a frightening prospect.