>Heed call for world court

>

>A recent court action underscores why the world needs a permanent

>international court to handle cases of genocide and other crimes against

>humanity.

>

> Last week, a magistrate in Texas freed a suspected accomplice in the

>Rwandan genocide, based on the judge's novel interpretation of international

>law. The ruling embarrassed the United States, because Washington has urged

>other nations to surrender alleged war criminals and now can't do so with

>one inside its own borders.

>

> The episode highlights the difficulties of the current, complex

>system of

>finding and trying war criminals.

>

> Under existing treaties, the international community relies on ad hoc

>tribunals to see that justice is served in the worst criminal cases:

>Genocide. "Ethnic cleansings." Torture. Soldiers slaughtering civilians.

>

> There have been a few occasions when humanity attempted to seek

>justice for

>such unspeakable crimes, including the post-World War II trials in Nuremberg

>and Tokyo, and the current tribunals on Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

>But each time, many nations had to summon the political will to put together

>such a tribunal - and then the court had to decide what rules of law

>applied. The process always has been cumbersome, slow and uncertain, but

>worst of all, it has allowed culprits to escape trial.

>

> Now, scores of nations are backing the creation of a permanent

>international court, whose judges could be called up on short notice and

>whose rules of law would be clear and well-known in advance. Most

>importantly, the existence of such a court would put war criminals on notice

>that their actions won't go unpunished.

>

> The permanent international court wouldn't delve into national

>matters, but

>instead would deal only with transgressions so grave that they offend

>humanity or threaten peace. Most of these misdeeds already are considered

>crimes under international agreements, but there hasn't been any effective

>way to enforce the laws.

>

> A conclave to write a final treaty is scheduled for this summer.

>

> So far, though, U.S. support for a permanent international court

>has been

>lukewarm, because Washington fears political enemies might use the forum for

>spurious charges against the major powers. However, the latest proposals

>include several checks and balances that address Washington's legitimate

>concerns.

>

> The United States thus should support the development of a permanent

>international court to handle genocide, war crimes and other crimes against

>humanity.

>

> Such a court could be the last, great-international institution

>created in

>this century. Given the truly horrific crimes that people have inflicted on

>each other during the past nine decades, the need for such a worldwide body

>of justice is clear, immediate and urgent.

>

>