The International Herald Tribune

Monday, July 20, 1998

WAR CRIMES COURT LIMPS IN

U.S. Won't Join, Weakening Power of the Tribunal

By Alessandra Stanley

(New York Times Service)

Rome, July 17 - Leaving the United States behind, more than 100 countries achieved a 50-year goal today by agreeing on the fundamentals for an international court to prosecute war crimes and tyrants.

The original intent, one of the most ambitious efforts to extend the rule of international law, was for a kind of global Nuremberg. The final document, cobbled together with compromises, was less than may had hoped for.

But it went much too far for the United States. And without Washington's blessing, the court's authority was considerably weakened at its creation.

"You cannot have a court of universal jurisdiction without the world's major military power on board," said Gam Strijards, a Dutch delegate. "I won't say we gave birth to a monster, but the baby has some defects."

The United States came to the five-week UN conference fearing that a court with broad jurisdiction and an overly independent prosecutor could someday haul U.S. soldiers before international judges on politically motivated charges. Many of the 160 countries agreed on concessions to meet U.S. objections, but at the end, they balked at going all the way.

After the conference decided late Friday against allowing any last-minute amendments, the document was approved by consensus. When the United States asked the final group meeting to take a vote, 120 countries voted yes, 7 no and 21 abstained. The United States voted no, as China and Israel.

While the conference approved the document, few countries were immediately ready to sign it or see their parliaments ratify it. For the court to begin operations, in The Hague, 60 countries must first ratify the treaty, a process that could take years.

Even if the Clinton Administration had embraced the document, the Senate would almost certainly not have ratified it because Senator Jesse Helms, Republican of North Carolina, is opposed.

At the conference, there were bitter disagreements about the scope and jurisdiction for three core crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

A consensus agreed that countries that join the court must accept its jurisdiction over genocide and crimes against humanity.

But the top coordinating committee, chaired by Canada, included an "opt out" provision for a third core category, allowing countries to reject the court's jurisdiction over war crimes for the first seven years of the court's existence. That brought France on board.