By John M. Goshko

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, December 12, 1997; Page A51

UNITED NATIONS, Dec. 11-Britain has signaled that it favors giving

considerable independent prosecution powers to a proposed international

criminal court, a position that puts the British government at odds with the

United States and the other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council.

The British position, outlined during a meeting here of legal experts trying to define the court's powers, involves the contentious question of whether the court should have independence to assert jurisdiction over war crimes cases or whether it should be subject to the authority of the 15-nation Security Council.

Many human rights activists complain that subordinating the court to the

Security Council would put severe limits on the tribunal's independence and

effectiveness. Critics charge that the United States, although a leading

advocate for creating such a court, also wants to limit its powers by making it answer to a body in which the United States has a veto.

If the views of the United States and France, Russia and China -- all permanent council members with veto powers -- prevail, the court could initiate investigations only if authorized by an individual government or by the council. Citing the council's responsibility under the U.N. charter for maintaining international peace and security, these countries contend that the court, as a rule, should not pursue crimes arising from conflicts that the council is trying to resolve.

The United States also wants to limit the court's jurisdiction to violations of international humanitarian law and keep investigations of narcotics trafficking, terrorism and other international criminal conspiracies under the control of national governments.

The American position is driven to a considerable extent by acknowledgment

that the U.S. Senate would never accept the jurisdiction of a court whose

powers appear to infringe on U.S. law and sovereignty. The U.S. demand for

safeguards against what the Clinton administration regards as politically

motivated prosecutions also is fueled by memories of the Vietnam War period,

when opponents of U.S. policy demanded that senior American officials be tried for alleged war crimes.

However, at a news conference here, William Pace, representing a nongovernmental coalition of lawyers and human rights advocates, said that

Britain, which previously had sided with the other permanent members, had told the experts' meeting that it no longer can support giving the Security Council blanket veto power over the court. British delegation officials subsequently confirmed that is the case.

The 185 U.N. members have been moving slowly toward agreement that the

international community needs a tribunal able to prosecute criminal acts arising from the alarming number of regional conflicts that have broken out in the post-Cold War period.

The Security Council created a special court to deal with the atrocities spawned by "ethnic cleansing" campaigns in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. But the aim now is to create a permanent judicial body to investigate and prosecute such crimes worldwide, following the example of the Nuremberg war crimes tribunals that tried Nazi war criminals after World War II.

Following the current drafting session and another in the spring, the timetable calls for a diplomatic conference in Rome next summer to create an international court. But sizable obstacles remain before the drafting groups can devise a coherent and widely acceptable recommendation.

In breaking ranks with the other permanent members of the Security Council,

British officials said their government would support a compromise proposal by Singapore that would allow the court to investigate any case unless the council specifically tells it not to. Such a mechanism would circumvent the ability of the permanent members to use their veto and instead would require all five to agree to tell the court to back away.

Several diplomatic sources here predicted that the British move would put

pressure on the United States to adopt a more flexible attitude. However, a U.S. official involved in the drafting process said, "We are willing to consider any proposals for solving the problem. But the bottom line is that we have to have something that would make us feel comfortable about the court being insulated from frivolous or malicious prosecutions."