I agree completely with that analysis. I think you negotiate from a greater position of strength when there are sanctions hanging over the head of a government like Iran.
I think trying to bring a case in front of the International Court of Justice, under the treaty, would be interesting. Of course, the International Court of Justice, unlike the International Criminal Court, is a United Nations body. The judges are appointed very differently and are somewhat less independent. Their jurisprudence is of mixed quality, I think, in terms of independence.
But there have been some very good decisions. The decision on the use of nuclear weapons, I know, is something that Professor Cotler was interested in, and he brought cases in front of the Canadian courts.
Unfortunately, in the end, the International Court of Justice didn't render a decision--it basically was in equipoise on some of these issues--but at least it provides a precedent for being able to bring a case.
I don't think any international court would be able to sit silently after it was presented with the evidence of this incitement of genocide. At the very least, it would have to condemn it, as secretaries general of the United Nations have condemned it. But if it came from a court of law, even a court of law without enforcement power against other nations, I think it would have a big impact and move it from the political science classroom, as you correctly point out, to at least the courtroom. That would have a salutary effect.