As mentioned to John above, the idea of InterPol was cooperation and to avoid cross-border beaurocracy. like all international bodies, they have become used and abused by many nations for point scoring, which is a shame. Rather than scrap or circumvent it, the ideal way is to better fix the rules.

As for dropping the UN, I think it needs reform or to collapse and be rebuilt. The reasons for it are half gone. It needs to be much more equal in some areas, more powerful in others and less interfering in others. Veto powers and permanent membership scrapped for certain – no one nation is better than others or it is a sham (it is right now).

Your two bodies solution, based on the type or existing governance, I think, will fail immediately. Simply because it does not represent the peoples of the planet, only a select group of governments which appears to be elitest and that thinks it is superior. Most nations in this world will not fit your profile and you will force them to back other similar when tradtionally they would have backed you.

The concept of InterPol was to allow for the various national police agencies to work together to stop the abuse of cross-border confusion, it was never to be either a law unto itself or a pawn for some nations to abuse others and especially it was was designed under equality of nations, no one nation better or more immune than others.

What we need is a new international body composed of nations ruled as republics by Constitutions which are amendable by the people and which are tasked to secure the life, liberty and private property of all its citizens. Call it the “League of Constitutional Republics.” Get America out of the corrupt UN; let the UN stew in Marxist and Sharia law. Let’s move the UN out of this country – it doesn't belong here.

It is a difficult thing for the US to chose about being a full player or not in such things, as well as the likes of international tribunals. For my part you are either a part of the process or you are not and you cannot have half a foot in it, if you do you look hypocritial. If a country is unhappy or they think their is bais, then get out and break all ties with it.

For example the US wishes Interpol to help identify and when it has the right agreements with particular nations, arrest people and bring them to trial or to a country that has extradition with the US. But, they did not have full-relations and a working capacity to do so with the US so the leadership of InterPol said no, cannot help. Now they can.

As for War-crimes tribunals, the US has to play careful, because former Sec State Rice made the very big mistake of saying in a meeting how she was happy that certain people were apprahended and facing criminal charges, and a journalist took off her head and pointed out that the US has no part of that legal process and thus Americans were 'imune” from accountability. Again, you either be a part of it and accept all the rules, regulations and accountability or you stay completley away, and thus also keep your mouth shut over it. But what you cannot do, or at least you look like a smug a-hole in political terms – you do not say that it is good that other countries are in it or not abidding by it when your not.

What I find as wrong though, is that the US does not recognise its capacity to rule against US citizens but it has two American judges sitting on it in The Hague, they for my part should be kicked out.