I do, however, think the general argument about universal jurisdiction is valid. Britain and the US (and many other Western nations besides) would not want to see universal jurisdiction too widely applied because it would come back to haunt them for their centuries of barbaric conduct all around world. Its one thing to put tin-pot African warlords in the ICC; its quite another to support an ostensibly Western allies’ leaders arrival in The Hague. Surely, this is on the minds of British leaders in the same way it is in US officials’.

I agree that the government’s response was cowardly in the extreme. After all, should Israeli politicians want to come to the UK without fear of arrest, all they have to do is come under a diplomatic aegis. Or alternatively, they could refrain from acts that make them likely to be arrested. Not so difficult.

Is the government trying to protect Tony Blair from facing war crimes charges? I think it’s unlikely. First, Blair has not been charged with war crimes in any legal jurisdiction that I’m aware of. This includes the ICC, which would have full authority to do so, should it so choose. I don’t think it’s a realistic threat. The war in Iraq may have been right or wrong, but I don’t think the ultimate decision will be made in court. The Chilcott Inquiry is certainly not going to do anything like this.

Second, since Gordon Brown loathes Blair, I’d tend to think that he wouldn’t stick his neck out to save him.

I think that the reasons for the government’s actions stem more from it’s edgy relationship with Israel. Its fear to be branded anti-semitic, terrorist-supporting, or similar, leads it to over-pander to pro-Israeli nuts.