I don't recall arguing that such courts aren't biased. All courts are biased, because all courts are made up of people, and all people are biased.
That being said, more Serbs being indicted and convicted by the ICTY doesn't mean the court is biased. It could be a result of more Serbian war crimes.
We started from "War crimes are an add insult to injury course of action. They are a way for victors to humiliate the vanquished." Your counterargument was ICTY. I claim that it's a disputable argument.
And that moreover, it's U.S. that's effectively victorious and untouchable since very long ago.
At most you can claim that the US was one of the of several participants on the winning side of several of those conflicts (and, in each conflict, a fairly late joiner.)
And in each of the consituent conflicts, members of the same side the US was one were prosecuted by the court, and several of those were convicted.
The "way for the victors to humiliate the vanquished" argument really doesn't hold up in the case of the ICTY.
I don't recall arguing that such courts aren't biased. All courts are biased, because all courts are made up of people, and all people are biased.
That being said, more Serbs being indicted and convicted by the ICTY doesn't mean the court is biased. It could be a result of more Serbian war crimes.