In previous chapters I have indicated that I prefer to solve some of the procedural infirmities by means of a new court, a world court of equity, or some other international institution. But I have only gestured at the reasons for this. In this penultimate chapter I will explore the idea of a world procedural court and several institutional alternatives to it. I should state at the outset that I have a preference for some kind of court on the model of the ICC. But I do not have a strong view about which of the alternatives should be pursued first. Indeed, my sense is that several alternatives could be explored at once. In what follows I will consider each of the options and then offer some tentative remarks at the end.

Institutional design is only now beginning to get uptake in more theoretical quarters. In political philosophy in particular, there has been very little work on how to approach the assessment of institutional alternatives. I will venture into this area by referring largely to literature in public and international law. But even the methodology of comparative institutional structures in international law is itself contested. And the tentativeness of my conclusions will also be due to the fact that I see many positive features of the three institutional structures I will examine: a world court, an administrative regime, and an enhancement of the existing human rights council. But, as I have already indicated, I think that something more needs to be done than is currently on offer in the system of regional commissions and courts of human rights. The regional system of rights protection, along with protection offered domestically, has given us the situations in Guantanamo Bay, Bagram Air Base, and Christmas Island, as well as refugee centers that resemble Hobbesian states of nature, which is a very regrettable position to be in. International law will remain infirm unless something more robust is developed.