The New York Times

December, Monday 15, 1997

An Effective International Court

Delegates from around the world met last week for the latest round of sparring over the design of a permanent international criminal court. First discussed after the Nuremberg tribunals, the idea fell victim to the cold war. Now that the court looks likely to become a reality in June, the question is how to make sure it is effective.

There is no international judicial system for punishing the Pol Pots of the world. Though an international court to solve civil disputes between nations has existed in The Hague for 50 years, the only international criminal courts have been the temporary tribunals for Rwanda and Bosnia. The United Nations is not eager to keep setting up new tribunals to deal with new genocides, and a permanent court is needed to act as a deterrent

Most nations agree that the new court will go after perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes if their own nations' courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute. The most important threat to an effective court, however, is an effort, led by Washington, to give the U.N. Security Council control over the court's docket.

The Clinton Administration worries that politically motivated charges will be brought against American soldiers and military actions abroad. The threat is remote, as the court's mission will be to go after the gravest international crimes

and it will be staffed with respected jurists.

But Washington has been the leading proponent of several measures that grant the Security Council essential control over what prosecutors can investigate. The Clinton Administration argues that the states will not turn over evidence and suspects unless the court pursues cases backed by the Security Council. But few nations will cooperate if the court is seen as a tool of the big powers, which can veto actions against themselves or friends.

Justice Louise Arbour, a Canadian who is chief prosecutor at the tribunals for Rwanda and Bosnia, recently warned against tying the prosecutor's hands. She proposed allowing the prosecutor to work independently, but with checks such as an impeachment process or a mechanism where a country can ask for a delay but must do so publicly.

Then the British Government broke with Washington to support an increasingly popular compromise put forth by Singapore. It would allow the Security Council to block investigations, a step requiring the assent of all five permanent members. That is preferable to letting the Security Council initiate investigations, a decision that just one permanent member could veto. The United States, often called on to clean up after international criminals, should agree. An effective and independent court serves American values and interests.