@msolga,
Oh, I agree with that. I will also agree that the event does lend some stature to the ICC - but very little. I believe it all has much more to do with the observable fact that Ghadaffi is a friendless despot at the end of his rope, and not that nations such as China, Russia, or even the United States are willing to accept the jurisdiction of something like the ICC over anything important to them. Ghadaffi is no longer useful to anyone, and can be disposed of with as little effort or risk as possible.
I am reminded of Kissinger's old quip about why disputes involving academic rivalries in Universities such as Harvard are fought with such persistent tenacity... "Because the stakes are so low", he opined.
Now if the ICC were to make an inquiry about political rights in China that would be an indication that the world has elevated itself to a new plane, as I believe you may be suggesting. However, I doubt that will happen under any circumstances.
Please don't conclude that I believe your hopes for a better universal government are wrong in themselves. I'll readily agree they represent something potentially far better than what we have. However, the real "international community" that appointed Ghadaffi's government to head the UN Human Rights Commission is worlds away from from the altruistic community I believe you have in mind. Moreover, I don't see anything in human history that suggests that will change - ever.
One is reminded of Edward Fitzgerald's wonderful translation of the Persian poet's quatrains...
Ah, Love! could thou and I with Fate conspire
To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire,
Would not we shatter it to bits--and then
Re-mould it nearer to the Heart's Desire!
It was already a very old dilemma when it was written seven centuries ago.