 Yet a serious problem remains with another component of the rule of law, which is the congruence between official conduct and legal norms, ensuring that like cases are treated alike and therefore that all prospective defendants are equal before the law. This is the scandal that the defendants who stand trial for international crimes overwhelmingly come from the Global South rather than from the powerful North Atlantic democracies. This is deeply troubling, given the great importance that the rule of law is typically thought to possess in the criminal law context, and has led even one expert to speak of the “demise of international criminal law” (Osiel 2014  [Other Internet Resources]).  One can imagine various responses to this concern. One is that the absence of a centralized global state whose arbitrary exercise of massive power urgently needs to be reined in by law greatly diminishes this rule of law blemish in the international case (Luban 2010: 583–587). Another is a more pragmatic response, according to which the edifice of international criminal justice must be patiently built up, brick by brick, and that geographically skewed prosecutions have their value, despite the cost incurred in transgressing the rule of law, as they are part of an ongoing effort to make international criminal law more generally effective over time.