While it will not control the murderer, it can and will influence it (violence going 10% down is better than 0%)
This is also what protection payments look like on paper; surely we can reduce violence much more.
I say: let every country have nukes, or let no country have them. This halfway bullshit is worse than either.
Idealists create worse outcomes than realists and pragmatists.
Violence going down 10% can be worse than it going down 0%, if the difference comes from reducing counter-violence done by the oppressed - and reducing based on the agenda and whims of the big time abusers responsible for a big chunk of the other 90%.
To be nitpicky here, the goal of the ICC isn't to prevent aggressive acts or war in general. They are only punishing war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide - which is a small subset of potential violent acts a state may commit. The ICC does not have juridsiction over crimes of aggression.
[Yes technically there is an optional thing that countries can sign to give the ICC juridsiction over crimes of aggression, but so few countries have signed it that it may as well not exist]
Lots of people realize the importance of this, but if the country who plays world police doesn't want to collaborate on making it reality and they literally still perform violent actions against other sovereign states without repercussions, what is the purpose?