The New York Times

Friday, November 24, 2000

Time Is Short for U.S. to Join the International Criminal Court

By BARBARA CROSSETTE

More than 100 nations will be watching the Clinton administration over the next two weeks for an indication whether the United States will sign the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court.

The court would be the first such permanent body set up to try individuals accused of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.

On Monday a two-week preparatory meeting is to begin at the United Nations.

The United States is expected to announce its final position during this session.

Until Dec. 31, a nation can indicate its support for the court by signing the treaty, even if ratification is not immediately likely.

So far, 115 nations -- including all of Europe and the NATO governments, except the United States -- have signed and 22 countries have ratified the treaty. After Dec. 31, a country will have to ratify before it can join.

Administration officials have said they support an international court.

Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright was instrumental in establishing temporary tribunals for the Balkans and Rwanda, which are seen as precursors of a permanent body.

But objections from the Pentagon have forced the administration to demand a guarantee that no American officer or civilian official on duty abroad will fall under its jurisdiction.

Senator Jesse Helms, the North Carolina Republican who is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has vowed that the court would be "dead on arrival" if the administration sends the treaty for ratification. Diplomats at the United Nations assume this view would be strengthened by a Republican administration in Washington, and look to the departing Clinton administration as a last chance.

Richard Dicker, a counsel at Human Rights Watch, said that in mid-October, Washington in effect hardened its position against prosecution and offered the same opportunity to other non-signers if they pledged to try their own citizens charged with infractions, as the United States now does in courts-martial and civilian courts. This proposal violates the 1998 treaty establishing the court, he said, and moreover is unnecessary.

"The court's statute, the rules of procedure and evidence and the elements of crimes more than adequately address the risk of an unjustified prosecution of a United States national," he said. "An outright exemption would codify a two-tier system of justice: one for the United States and another for the rest of the world."

President Arthur Robinson of Trinidad and Tobago, who in 1989 first introduced the motion in the General Assembly that ultimately established the court, said in an interview in New York this week that it was "a most significant achievement in the history of mankind."

"This court recognizes that persons can be held individually responsible for violations of international law," he said. "And the statute does not differentiate between persons in authority and anyone else," which he called a "dramatic step" in international law.

Mr. Robinson recalled that it was the United States that had established the principle of trials for the worst crimes against humanity and crimes of war by insisting on the Nazi trial at Nuremberg, when Stalin and Churchill were satisfied to have offenders shot without a hearing.

"The U.S. wanted trials so that the world could see the gravity of the offenses," he said. "Nuremberg established individual guilt. Now there is a tremendous acceptance internationally for this kind of court."