That's an excellent question.
For purposes of crimes against humanity, there has to be a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population. I submit that Iran's sponsorship of the funding and training of these terrorist organizations, and its directing of them, in many respects, constitute that kind of attack.
It is a good point. If you bring this charge, I think that's one of the issues that are certainly going to be litigated, and I talked about that quite openly in my article.
There is, however, precedent for the proposition that a sponsor country can have a relationship with a client organization or country that could be direct enough, even though it's indirect, for there to be liability for the sponsor. In my article I talk about the U.S.-Nicaragua case, for example. There is the case of the former Yugoslavia, or Serbia, and the Bosnian Serbs. There has been shown to be enough of a nexus between the sponsorship of the bigger country and the smaller organization for there to be liability for the bigger country.
Now, the ICJ decision in the genocide case that was brought by Bosnia against Serbia is not helpful in that regard. I think that's an area of the law that has probably taken a wrong turn based on that recent decision, but I still think there's enough out there. I don't think it's definitive. I still think that if you use the old test, the U.S.-Nicaragua test, a fair degree of control has to be exerted, which obviously makes it more difficult, but that's the test that the ICJ referred to recently.
The ICTY test in the Tadic case was a lot looser. The ICJ didn't use that test.
Where will the ICC go? I don't know. That's still open, and we'll see. Certainly they could take the lead of the ICJ, but I could equally see them going with the ICTY, and this is the kind of thing that would have to be litigated.