New York Times

June 12, 2000

U.S. Pushes to Weaken World Court on Atrocities

By BARBARA CROSSETTE

UNITED NATIONS, June 9 -- The United States, isolated among the nations of

the world, is going into a crucial conference Monday on the soon-to-be-established International Criminal Court still asking for changes in its charter.

The United States says it is trying to protect American soldiers and

officials from falling under the court's jurisdiction. But all members of

the European Union and other members of NATO support the court and have

told the United States that there should be no attempt to reopen debate on

how it will work.

Unless some compromise can be found, legal experts say, a major step in

international law will be taken without United States participation, even

though Americans have been at the forefront of demanding trials for leaders

like Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein.

The Clinton administration has been unable to win support for the court

from the Pentagon and Senator Jesse Helms, the North Carolina Republican

who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He has declared

that the court treaty would be dead on arrival if submitted to his panel.

So American officials acknowledge that they are now fighting a rear guard

action to try to exempt countries that do not join from having to face

prosecution.

The court, created by a treaty signed in Rome in 1998 as a permanent body

to try war criminals, may come into existence by 2002, legal experts say.

Its jurisdiction will include genocide, war crimes and crimes against

humanity.

In Rome, 120 nations voted for the court. The United States was one of

seven countries that did not, among them China and Iraq.

In the last two years, more than 95 nations have signed the statute

establishing the court and 12 have ratified it, with 60 ratifications

needed for the court to begin functioning.

On Friday, France became the first permanent member of the Security Council

to ratify the statute. Experts expect the French example will be followed

by a stream of European and other nations.

William Pace, convenor of the Coalition for an International Criminal

Court, an umbrella group for more than 1,000 human rights groups and

independent legal organizations, called the French action "a clear signal

to the United States that major nations and allies are continuing to

progress toward completing the ratification, and they are not willing to

reopen the treaty."

Mr. Pace called the renewed American effort to change the rules an

"ill-timed and misguided effort."

Richard Dicker, counsel for Human Rights Watch, said that legal experts who

support the court are puzzled at the strength of the opposition to the

court, since it gives countries whose citizens are charged with

international crimes the right to try them in their own courts, as the

United States has frequently done through courts martial when American

soldiers are involved in criminal activity.

"Why they seem to be driving this thing over the edge to get something they

don't need is an intriguing question," Mr. Dicker said in an interview.

"The treaty has more than enough assurances to meet their concerns."

Until Dec. 31, countries can sign the International Criminal Court treaty

and ratify later. After that date, a nation will have to ratify before

being able to join. In a recent interview here, Secretary of State

Madeleine K. Albright indicated that there was no chance that the United

States would sign this year unless the court statute is changed.

European and other diplomats here say that most nations would like to find

a way to include the United States because the court would be considerably

weakened and undervalued without American involvement. But the conference

ends on June 30 and diplomats are doubtful that there is enough time, or

any flexibility in Washington.

Critics of the court object to what they say is the legal authority it

would have without an acceptable constitutional base. John Bolton, a former

assistant secretary of state for international organizations in the Bush

administration, calls the establishment of the court "a stealth approach to

eroding our constitutionalism" for all branches of American government.

"This court is going to happen," John L. Washburn, co-chairman of the

independent Washington Working Group on the International Criminal Court,

wrote last month in an Internet column for the Carnegie Council on Ethics

and International Affairs in New York. "After almost 50 years of lip

service and neglect, the temporary tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda

began to enforce this personal responsibility in real trials that sent real

criminals to real prisons. The I.C.C. will make permanent this enforcement

and the moral commitment it represents."