Just as I was turning my eye of appreciation towards the Times' editorials, their depiction of the ICC's viewpoint (or better said, lack thereof) left me rather disappointed.
Monday's title, "Choosing Justice over Peace in Darfur" not only seemed to oversimplify but equally to choose a very odd perspective, along the lines of:

Khartoum does not recognize the ICC and says that any case against al-Bashir — who seized power in a military coup in 1989 and has ruled Africa's biggest country ever since — or any other Sudanese citizen will jeopardize ongoing peace talks over Darfur.

And to obviously reinforce that, Tuesday's "Sudan: Retaliation Against the Hague?" went further on to argue that:

Even more lethal, a presidential adviser said Sudan's government might encourage Arab and African states to withdraw from the ICC entirely. Just two-thirds of the world's governments are signatories to the Rome Statute that recognizes the ICC's jurisdiction, and neither Russia, China nor the U.S. is among them.

.... I am astounded. How can such politicised standpoints pass for unbiased editorials?! How about the opposing viewpoint?
Not only have some bothered to actually provide for evidence as to why the ICC's actions are thoroughly supported by facts, but even from a philosophical outlook this begs the question: Does anyone find the idea of a politically-backed or driven Court desirable? ... Cause that doesn't sound all that appealing to me, in particular when it comes to crimes against humanity and such!...