Natasha Hausdorff claims that the ICC's lack of jurisdiction and disregard for its own rules encourage terrorism and threaten democratic states' right to self-defense, while criticizing the public nature of the warrants as indicative of political bias. While she raises some valid points, her argument relies on emotional appeals and weak representation of opposing views, diminishing its overall validity.

1. appeal to fear • Hausdorff appeals to the reader's fear by suggesting that the ICC's decision will encourage terrorism, without providing any evidence to support this claim. ​

The message that is sent by this disgraceful development is one of encouragement to terror organisations the world over.

2. weak man and appeal to motive • Hausdorff targets a potentially weaker aspect of the ICC's actions by focusing on their public nature as evidence of political motives, rather than addressing stronger arguments for the ICC's actions.

The unprecedently public nature of Khan's application and the subsequent granting of these warrants is a further give-away of the political game that is being played.

By focusing on the public nature of Khan's application as evidence of a political agenda, Hausdorff implies that the ICC's actions are driven by ulterior motives rather than legal principles. This ignores that the legal arguments of the ICC could potentially have merit regardless of their supposed motives.