Here is the United Kingdom’s official position on the ICC, taken as a direct quote from the government’s official website www.ukun.fco.gov.uk

The UK is one of the strongest supporters of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC represents a major advance in international justice and the fight against impunity for perpetrators of the most serious international crimes. The Court began operating in summer 2003 when it appointed its first Chief Prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo (Argentina). In July 2008 States Parties celebrated the 10th anniversary of the adoption of the Rome Statute of the ICC.

It is a UK and EU objective to increase the number of States parties to the ICC Statute so that the Court can operate within the widest possible jurisdiction, including in particular more representation from Arab and Asian states.

At the same time, we recognise that not all states support the ICC. Some are concerned that their citizens could be subjected to politically-motivated ‘nuisance’ cases. We understand these concerns but we do not share them. We are satisfied that the safeguards in the ICC Statute will prevent the Court from pursuing such cases.

Once the ICC has established a responsible track record and it is clear that the safeguards against politically-motivated nuisance cases are working, we hope that those states currently opposed to the ICC will reconsider becoming a party to the ICC Statute. We realise, however, that this is a long-term goal. In the meantime, with our EU partners we continue to lobby for ratification of the ICC Statute.

So, can the UK arrest Tony Blair for War Crimes and Send him to the Hague or anywhere, and have him prosecuted under international law?

Yes.
Tony Blair is a British National, the former PM of the UK, and widely recognised for having told lies to the British people, committing crimes against humanity, and war crimes for launching an illegal war in 2003.
The UK Government is one of the most active and vocal members of the ICC as explained above.
The ICC has been ratified by 108 countries , and the UK, but not by the US.
So the most guilty member, George W . Bush, cannot be captured by the ICC ,yet.

Why has action not been taken by the UK in this matter?

Because the current Prime Minister (Gordon Brown) has blood on his hands also. He was Tony Blair’s partner in crime for years, throughout their entire political lives. If he were to sanction the arrest of Blair, he would open up himself to arrest and prosecution, and all the other cabinet ministers who were ‘in charge’ back in 2002 & 2003.

Although the illegal Iraq war is still in progress, can crimes be retrospectively punished?

Yes and no.
The court has no retrospective jurisdiction , it can deal only with crimes committed after 1 July 2002 when the 1998 Rome Statute came into force.
The Iraq Invasion was initially from March 20 to May 1, 2003, and many lies were told by Blair in the year before also. Like the intelligence lies and the cover ups, and the now infamous lies about WMDS (Weapons of Mass Destruction), which misled some gullible members of the government and members of the public.
So Blair can be prosecuted and cannot escape on dates.
The sickening irony and injustice was that there were no WMDS found in Iraq, even 7 years later. However the U.S & the U.K, used weapons of mass destruction themselves in Iraq. Depleted Uranium Shells amongst other horrifying weapons.
Depleted Uranium will and does continue to affect soldiers on both sides, their children and of course civilians. Men, women, children and unborn children.

Additionally, the court has automatic jurisdiction only for crimes committed on the territory of a state which has ratified the treaty, or by a citizen of such a state, or when the United Nations Security Council refers a case to it. So as Blair is a UK National, there is juristiction there.

Can the ICC arrest Blair itself?

The ICC has no police force of its own to track down and arrest suspects.
Instead it must rely on the Police in the UK, or other ICC member countries Police forces to make an arrest and transfer him to The Hague.

So, how would it work. How can Blair or anyone else guilty of International Crimes be brought to justice?

The prosecutor begins an investigation if a case is referred either by the UN Security Council or by a ratifying state. So the UK could refer it. Of course Labour (the current ‘ruling party’ will not as they are guilty themselves). In the same way a criminal gang would not hand over a criminal to the Police.
He or she can also take independent action, but prosecutions have to be approved by a panel of judges.
Both the prosecutor and the judges are elected by the states taking part in the court.

Who Is Paying For The International Crminal Court?

The states which take part. Currently the 108 member states. It will be on a sliding scale according to their Nation’s wealth.
The Unites States not being a member limits its effectiveness, not just because they have so many guilty individuals themselves, many from the current and previous Government. But also as they could dedicate much resources and funds.
Germany, France and Britain will be the largest contributors, for the time being. For the UK to be such vocal members of the ICC , yet do nothing about getting our own house in order, clearing our name, getting our reputation in the world back in good stead, and allowing warmongers like Blair to breeze around the world making millions for his own personal wealth is sickening.
It’s more than sickening. I have no doubt in my mind that the reasons he hasn’t been arrested is because of high powered deals in the UK, between the government, the security services, ‘intelligence’ and the Police.
I am calling corruption. Laws are being broken at the highest levels of Parliament and the Police in non-action. Blair and his cronies are being protected and it is to this countrys’ eternal shame that this is happening.
It is only when a new political breed enters government and power, and can root out this rot that the truth will come to light.

Some Information About Depleted Uranium from CND: CND UK

Depleted Uranium (DU) is a chemically toxic and radioactive, heavy metal which is produced as a by-product of the enrichment of uranium for civil nuclear power programmes. It is used in armour-piercing munitions because of its very high density; DU is 1.7 times denser than lead, giving DU weapons increased range and penetrative power.

Why is it a problem?

The use of DU in weapons disperses toxic and radioactive dust which can then be inhaled. It is thought that using DU has caused a sharp increase in the incidence rates of some cancers, such as breast cancer and lymphoma, in areas of Iraq following 1991 and 2003.
It has also been implicated in a rise in birth defects from areas adjacent to the main Gulf War battlefields. While we have a reasonable idea how much DU was used in the Balkans (12,700kg) and the 1991 Gulf War (290,300kg) there is little data on the extent of its use following the 2003 invasion in Iraq. One estimate put the total at 140,000kg by early 2004. What is clear is that far more has been used in urban areas; this is because of a move towards asymmetric warfare and an increasingly cavalier approach to the use of DU.

Where has depleted uranium been used and who uses it?

DU was used on a large scale by the US and the UK in the Gulf War in 1991, then in Bosnia, Serbia and Kosovo, and again in the war in Iraq by the US and the UK in 2003. At least 17 countries are thought to have weapon systems containing DU. Many of them were sold DU ammunition by the US while others, including UK, France, Russia, Pakistan and India are thought to have developed it independently.

The legal status of depleted uranium weapons:

Although no sole treaty explicitly banning the use of DU is yet in force, it is clear that using DU runs counter to the basic rules and principles enshrined in written and customary International Humanitarian Law.
In 2006, the European Parliament strengthened its previous calls for a moratorium by calling for the introduction of a total ban, classifying the use of DU, along with white phosphorous, as inhumane.
In 2007, Belgium became the first country in the world to ban all conventional weapons containing uranium. Other states are set to follow their example.
In February 2008 the Italian government elected to offer compensation to Italian veterans made ill in Iraq and the Balkans and agreed to invest millions of Euros into DU research.