A) Clinton Signs Treaty Just Before Deadline

B) Clinton's statement on war crimes court

C) Reaction To The Signing

D) In The Months To Come

Articles:

1) The Washington Post: US Signs Treaty on War Crimes Tribunal Pentagon, Republicans Object to Clinton Move. By Thomas E. Ricks

2) The Time of India: Praise, criticism greet US signing of court treaty

3) Associated Press: World: Clinton supports war crimes tribunal. By Lawrence L. Knutson

4) BBC ONLINE: US signs up for war crimes court

5) Boston Globe: Clinton 'makes history' as US gives last-minute assent to war crimes court

6) The Financial Times: Clinton leaves Bush a dilemma. By Gerard Baker in Washington

A) Clinton Signs Treaty Just Before Deadline

US President Bill Clinton on Sunday signed the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC), just hours before the 31 December signature deadline. The action is seen as a tactical maneuver to keep the United States involved in negotiations over the court's potential establishment, the Washington Post reports. Sunday was the last day nations could sign the treaty without first having ratified it.

"We do so to reaffirm our strong support for international accountability," Clinton said in a statement. "We do so as well because we wish to remain engaged in making the ICC an instrument of impartial and effective justice."

Clinton added, however, that his administration still has "concerns about significant flaws in the treaty," in particular that the Hague-based court could claim jurisdiction over citizens from countries that do not ratify the treaty, which may include the United States. These were the same concerns that had been expressed by US conservatives and the Pentagon in their objections to the US signing the treaty.

Clinton said one reason for signing, however, is to allow the United States to influence the continued development of the international court, which is designed to try people accused of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

David Scheffer, the US ambassador at large for war crimes, said the president signed the treaty "in honor of the victims of these crimes and also in honor of the US services who uphold these laws of war."

The Post reports that it is unclear what will happen now that the United States has signed the treaty, considering that the Clinton administration leaves office in less than three weeks. Ratification by the Senate is considered unlikely. Clinton said in his statement that because of his concerns, he would not submit the treaty for ratification and would not recommend that President-elect George W. Bush do so either.

"Chances are, it will never be ratified," said international law expert and former Justice Department official Lee Casey.

B) Clinton's statement on war crimes court

The United States is today signing the 1998 Rome Treaty on the International Criminal Court. In taking this action, we join more than 130 other countries that have signed by the 31 December 2000 deadline established in the Treaty.

We do so to reaffirm our strong support for international accountability and for bringing to justice perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. We do so as well because we wish to remain engaged in making the ICC an instrument of impartial and effective justice in the years to come.

The United States has a long history of commitment to the principle of accountability, from our involvement in the Nuremberg tribunals that brought Nazi war criminals to justice to our leadership in the effort to establish the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Our action today sustains that tradition of moral leadership.

Under the Rome Treaty, the International Criminal Court will come into being with the ratification of 60 governments, and will have jurisdiction over the most heinous abuses that result from international conflict, such as war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

The treaty requires that the ICC not supersede or interfere with functioning national judicial systems; that is, the ICC prosecutor is authorised to take action against a suspect only if the country of nationality is unwilling or unable to investigate allegations of egregious crimes by their national.

The US delegation to the Rome Conference worked hard to achieve these limitations, which we believer are essential to the international credibility and success of the ICC.

In signing, however, we are not abandoning our concerns about significant flaws in the treaty.

In particular, we are concerned that when the court comes into existence, it will not only exercise authority over personnel of states that have ratified the treaty, but also claim jurisdiction over personnel of states that have not.

With signature, however, we will be in a position to influence the evolution of the court. Without signature, we will not.

Signature will enhance our ability to further protect US officials from unfounded charges and to achieve the human rights and accountability objectives of the ICC.

In fact, in negotiations following the Rome Conference, we have worked effectively to develop procedures that limit the likelihood of politicised prosecutions. For example, US civilian and military negotiators helped to ensure greater precision in the definitions of crimes within the court's jurisdiction.

But more must be done. Court jurisdictions over US personnel should come only with US ratification of the treaty.

The United States should have the chance to observe and assess the functioning of the court, over time, before choosing to become subject to its jurisdiction. Given these concerns, I will not, and do not recommend that my successor, submit the treaty to the Senate for advice and consent until our fundamental concerns are satisfied.

Nonetheless, signature is the right action to take at this point. I believe that a properly constituted and structured International Criminal Court would make a profound contribution in deterring egregious human rights abuses worldwide, and that signature increases the chances for productive discussions with other governments to advance these goals in the months and years ahead.

C) Reaction To The Signing

Human rights organizations lauded Clinton's decision. "The president has made history here," said Richard Dicker, the director of international justice programs at Human Rights Watch. "He has strengthened hope for international justice for millions and millions of people worldwide."

US Senator Jesse Helms, an active opponent of the court and chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, denounced the action. "This decision will not stand," he said. "I will make reversing this decision and protecting America's fighting men and women from the jurisdiction of this international kangaroo court one of my highest priorities in the new Congress" (Thomas Ricks, Washington Post, 1 Jan).

Marc Thiessen, a spokesperson for Helms, said recently that the entire concept of the court is flawed, even if exceptions are made for US soldiers. He also said that Israel would be the first target of frivolous prosecutions (Reuters/Times of India, 2 Jan).

Benjamin Ferencz, who prosecuted Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg and supports the ICC, said fears expressed by the academic and military communities when the Rome Statute was created "were unfounded" and could be allayed "by making certain corrections"

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan issued a statement praising Clinton's action, saying he was "well aware of the difficulties" Clinton faced and congratulating "him on his courage and far-sightedness in overcoming them." Annan added that the court "represents no threat to states with an organized criminal justice system. On the contrary, it is designed only to protect those most vulnerable people whose own government, if they have one, is unable or unwilling to prosecute those who violate their own fundamental human rights" (Lawrence Knutson, Associated Press/Nando.net, 31 Dec)

Meanwhile, several other nations also signed the treaty before the deadline passed, including Israel, bringing the number of signatures to 139 (Ricks, Washington Post). Iran also signed the treaty shortly before the deadline (BBC Online, 1 Jan). Beginning yesterday, other nations wanting to become party to the treaty must first ratify it. The treaty comes into force after 60 nations have ratified. So far, 27 have done so (Ricks, Washington Post).

The idea for a permanent international war crimes tribunal arose during the years immediately following World War II and has been periodically supported by certain groups ever since. Treaty supporters maintain that such a court is "the missing link" in the global legal system and could help address many instances of war crimes and crimes against humanity that have gone unpunished in the last 50 years (Knutson, AP/Nando.net).

D) In The Months To Come

How the new administration will proceed regarding the treaty remains unclear, the Boston Globe reports. "The question is whether the Bush administration assumes an attitude of benign neglect, or whether it will be engaged in it, or oppose it," said Bill Pace, convener of the Coalition for an International Criminal Court (Boston Globe/Sydney Morning Herald, 1 Jan).

The Financial Times reports that Clinton's decision places Bush in a diplomatic dilemma, noting that Bush will face immediate pressure from congressional Republicans to overturn the action (Gerard Baker, 2 Jan). The incoming Bush administration has declined to comment on the decision (Bill Nichols, USA Today, 2 Jan).

Donald Rumsfeld, Bush's nominee for defense secretary, has already made it clear he opposes the tribunal, and in a joint letter with 11 other prominent former policymakers last month warned that "American leadership in the world would be the first casualty" of the court (James Bone, London Times/Montreal Gazette, 2 Jan).

1) The Washington Post

US Signs Treaty on War Crimes Tribunal

Pentagon, Republicans Object to Clinton Move

By Thomas E. Ricks

Monday, January 1, 2001; Page A01

Over the objections of conservatives and the Pentagon, the United States signed a treaty yesterday that would create the first permanent international court designed to try people accused of genocide, war crimes and other crimes against humanity.

"We do so to reaffirm our strong support for international accountability," President Clinton said in a statement from Camp David, Md., where he spent the weekend. "We do so as well because we wish to remain engaged in making the ICC [International Criminal Court] an instrument of impartial and effective justice."

Clinton said his administration still has "concerns about significant flaws in the treaty." It remains especially worried that the Netherlands-based court, which would replace case-specific international courts with a permanent tribunal, may claim jurisdiction over citizens from nations that do not ratify the treaty, as ultimately could be the case with the United States.

One reason that he decided to sign, Clinton said, was to enable the United States to continue to influence the shape of the treaty. Yesterday was the last day that nations could sign the treaty without first having ratified it.

At United Nations headquarters in New York, David Scheffer, the U.S. ambassador at large for war crimes, said he signed the treaty "in honor of the victims of these crimes and also in honor of the U.S. services who uphold these laws of war."

A senior administration official described Clinton's decision to sign as mainly a tactical move to keep the government involved in negotiations on the treaty. Clinton shares the Pentagon's concerns that the international court could seek to prosecute U.S. soldiers for political and ideological reasons, this official said. But, he said, "the president believes that signing . . . will keep us in the game."

Human rights organizations applauded the move. "The president has made history here," said Richard Dicker, director of international justice programs at Human Rights Watch, a human rights monitoring organization. "He has strengthened hope for international justice for millions and millions of people worldwide."

Similarly, Michael Posner of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights said Clinton's decision "reaffirms U.S. support for international criminal justice as a means of protecting human rights."

But others denounced the president's action.

"This decision will not stand," said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (R-N.C.). "I will make reversing this decision, and protecting America's fighting men and women from the jurisdiction of this international kangaroo court, one of my highest priorities in the new Congress."

Lee A. Casey, a former Justice Department official who specializes in international law, called the move "a shame." By signing the treaty, he argued, the U.S. government gave up its best bargaining chip in trying to win additional changes in the treaty.

Casey said he opposes the creation of the permanent International Criminal Court under the auspices of the United Nations because he believes its powers are too extensive, and could subject American citizens to trial without allowing them the rights and protections they are guaranteed by the Constitution.

It is unclear what the practical effect of the United States signing the treaty will be, given that the Clinton administration leaves office in less than three weeks, and that ratification of the treaty by the Senate any time soon is considered unlikely. Most notably, Helms has vigorously opposed the treaty because he said he wants to ensure that "no American is ever tried by this global Star Chamber."

However, one effect is immediate: Experts said it is an accepted principle of international law that by signing a treaty that is not yet ratified, the government immediately is obliged not to violate the spirit of that treaty.

Clinton said in his statement that because of his concerns about the powers of the court, he would not submit the treaty for ratification. Nor, he said, would he recommend that President-elect Bush do so.

"Chances are it will never be ratified," said Casey, the international lawyer.

The president's decision marks the third time in two years that Clinton has overruled Defense Secretary William S. Cohen on a major issue.

In November 1998, Clinton overruled Cohen and other members of his Cabinet who advocated going forward with air raids against Iraq; the air attacks were postponed for a month. Last summer, Cohen advocated taking the first step in building a national missile defense system by building a radar site on a remote Alaskan island, a move that Clinton ultimately rejected. A Defense Department official noted, however, that there were several major issues on which the president supported Cohen, the sole Republican in the Cabinet.

On the International Criminal Court treaty, "the [Defense] Department's position has been clear," a Pentagon official said. "We were against signing it and still are."

The U.S. military's objections have played a significant role in shaping the treaty because it is more involved globally than any other nation's armed forces, with hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops operating in dozens of nations every day.

In the Pentagon's view, the treaty "offers inadequate protection for the average soldier on the ground in any number of scenarios," another defense official said. Some opponents of the treaty fear that U.S. troops could be subjected to prosecution for ideological reasons.

But other experts predicted that the U.S. military could be a major beneficiary of the treaty. "Our military is the most law-abiding in the world, and so the least likely to be hauled before the court," said Anne-Marie Slaughter, a professor of international legal studies at Harvard Law School.

Slaughter said the treaty could give the U.S. military an additional tool by providing a widely accepted legal basis when it is pursuing dictators and other leaders who abuse human rights.

Several other nations signed the treaty in recent days as the deadline for participating without ratifying approached, bringing the number of signing nations to 139. Israel at first said yesterday that it would not sign, then reversed its position after the United States said it would.

Starting today, other nations that want to become a party to the treaty must first ratify it. The treaty takes effect when 60 nations have ratified it; 27 have done so.

2) The Time Of India

Praise, criticism greet US signing of court treaty

UNITED NATIONS: Hailed by human rights experts and denounced by conservatives, the United States endorsed a treaty that would create the world's first permanent criminal court to try people for genocide and war crimes.

US President Bill Clinton made the decision to sign the treaty on Sunday, just weeks before leaving office. It would need ratification by the US Senate, a step the president has acknowledged will be impossible for some time to come.

Nevertheless Clinton's act signalled powerful American backing for the court, based on the principles of Nazi war crimes trials at the end of World War Two. Clinton once supported the court but backed off after the Pentagon warned that it might lead to frivolous prosecutions against US soldiers abroad.

Human rights organisation were quick to applaud the move as a historic act.

"By signing this treaty, President Clinton offers the hope of justice to millions and millions of people worldwide," said Richard Dicker, associate counsel of the New York-based Human Rights Watch.

Williams Pace, head of the Coalition for an International Criminal Court, comprising more than 1,000 groups, said he expected some short-term repercussions.

"But history will show this decision was correct," he said after the signing ceremony at UN headquarters. "Even important members of the Pentagon have understood that this treaty does not represent the kind of risk or threat extremists portray it."

The International Criminal Court would prosecute individuals accused of the world's most heinous crimes: genocide, war crimes and other gross human rights violations. It is to be set up in the Netherlands in about two years.

Israel, which early on Sunday, had decided against signing the treaty, reversed itself after Clinton announced the US decision, only hours before a New Year's eve midnight deadline. Now nations may only go through the laborious process of ratifying it through their legislatures.

Signing the treaty gives countries a greater voice in negotiating the tribunal's procedures. The court, strongly supported by the European Union and Canada, can be set up after 60 countries have ratified it. Some 27 nations have done so.

Clinton announced the surprise decision to sign the treaty after Washington had battled one of the court's statutes that would allow U.S. soldiers abroad to be tried -- but only in the unlikely case that the United States did not take action in its own courts against mass criminal acts.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms vowed to reverse the decision as soon as possible. Calling the action "outrageous," he said: "This decision will not stand."

Helms and leading Republicans have drafted legislation forbidding the United States to have anything to do with the court and seeking to punish those countries that have ratified treaty. Among those endorsing the legislation was Donald Rumsfeld, nominated as President-elect George W. Bush's defence secretary.

Pace and others, however, doubt the measure will be passed. Bush, once in office, could renounce the treaty and even submit it to the Senate, recommending its rejection.

Helms' spokesman, Marc Thiessen, said recently that the entire concept of the court was illegitimate and flawed, even if exceptions were made for U.S. servicemen. And he said Israel would be the first target of frivolous prosecutions.

But Israeli ambassador Yehuda Lancry maintained that despite concerns, Israel had been active in conceiving the court since the 1950s because of "of the Holocaust, the greatest and most heinous crime against mankind."

Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, said the U.S. endorsement was "an important move for the president. It shows we do believe in morality and justice."

Clinton said he was authorising the U.S. signature to "reaffirm our strong support for international accountability and for bringing to justice perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity."

But he said the treaty should not be submitted to the Senate for ratification until the United States received more assurances that U.S. personnel would not be subject to politically motivated prosecutions.

"With signature, however, we will be in a position to influence the evolution of the court. Without signature, we will not," Clinton said.

At the United Nations, David Scheffer, the ambassador at large for war crimes, signed documents before Sylvie Jacques, the deputy chief of the U.N. treaty section. Scheffer has spent several years arguing the Pentagon's case as well as helping to formulate key definitions of crimes in the treaty.

"I do so today in honour of the victims of these crimes and also in honour of the United States armed services, who uphold these laws of war and have been so responsible for the foundations of the principles underlying this treaty," Scheffer said as he affixed his signature.

"I think the treaty has a large number of safeguards, and by signing the treaty today, we remain in the game," he said.

Scheffer, in an earlier interview, said that war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide had never before been defined with such precision. He said the definitions would serve as a guide for prosecutors and defence lawyers in national and military courts "for decades to come."

3) Associated Press

December 31, 2000

World: Clinton supports war crimes tribunal

By LAWRENCE L. KNUTSON,

WASHINGTON - Acting on a last-minute decision by President Clinton, the United States signed a treaty Sunday creating the world's first permanent international war crimes court aimed at bringing justice to people accused of crimes against humanity.

The president said his action, taken with some reservations, builds on U.S. support for justice and individual accountability dating to American involvement in the Nuremberg tribunals that brought Nazi war criminals to justice after World War II. "Our action today sustains that tradition of moral leadership," he said.

The treaty should not be submitted to the Senate for ratification until certain concerns are met, he said.

"I believe that a properly constituted and structured International Criminal Court would make a profound contribution in deterring egregious human rights abuses worldwide...," the president said in a statement issued at the White House.

The treaty must be ratified by the Senate before U.S. participation in the tribunal becomes final. Fierce opposition to its terms is expected from conservatives led by Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C. Helms angrily responded Sunday that "this decision will not stand."

The president said he acted "to reaffirm our strong support for international accountability and for bringing to justice perpetrators of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity."

"In signing, however, we are not abandoning our concerns about significant flaws in the treaty," the president said. "In particular, we are concerned that when the court comes into existence, it will not only exercise authority over personnel of states that have ratified the treaty, but also claim jurisdiction over personnel of states that have not.

"Given these concerns, I will not and do not recommend that my successor submit the treaty to the Senate (for ratification) until our fundamental concerns are satisfied," he said.

David J. Scheffer, the U.S. Ambassador at large for war crimes issues, signed the treaty on behalf of the United States a few hours after Clinton authorized him to do so.

U.S. Secretary-General Kofi Annan issued a statement praising the U.S. decision, saying he was "well aware of the difficulties" Clinton faced and congratulating "him on his courage and far-sightedness in overcoming them."

Annan said the court "represents no threat to states with an organized criminal justice system. On the contrary, it is designed only to protect those most vulnerable people whose own government, if they have one, is unable or unwilling to prosecute those who violate their most fundamental human rights."

In Atlanta, The Carter Center also commended Clinton and noted that the center's founder, former President Carter, had urged him to sign the treaty in a Dec. 20 letter.

"I think that President Clinton, in signing this treaty, has offered the hope of justice to millions and millions of people around the world by signaling United States' support for the most important international court since the Nuremberg tribunal," said Richard Dicker, associate counsel of Human Rights Watch. He called it "a very important symbolic act."

At the U.N., meanwhile, the treaty was signed by a representative of the government of Iran.

Clinton acted at Camp David, the presidential retreat in western Maryland where he and his family are spending the last New Year's weekend of his administration.

Sunday was the deadline for countries to sign on to the international criminal court treaty and transmit it to United Nations headquarters in New York. After Sunday, ratification is the only way a government can express support for the treaty or associate itself with it.

The court would be the first permanent institution created specifically to try charges of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. At present the United Nations has two specifically targeted and temporary war crimes courts in operation. One deals with suspects from the Bosnia-Herzegovina civil war of the early 1990s and the other with people implicated in atrocities during unrest in Rwanda in 1994.

Treaty supporters contend that a permanent international war crimes court is "the missing link" in the global legal system and say that over the past half century there have been many instances of war crimes and crimes against humanity that have gone unpunished.

For example, supporters note that no one has ever been held accountable for the alleged genocide in Cambodia in the 1970s when an estimated 2 million people were killed by the Khmer Rouge or for killings in such other countries as Mozambique, Liberia and El Salvador.

Support for a permanent international war crimes tribunal was first expressed in the years immediately after World War II. Interest in creating such a court has been voiced periodically ever since.

The United Nations contends that setting up temporary courts to deal with alleged war crimes in specific countries has been an inadequate response because unavoidable delays lead to such consequences as deteriorated evidence, escaped or vanished witnesses, and witness intimidation.

Some in the United States have expressed concern, however, that U.S. approval of such an international tribunal might subject American citizens to politically motivated prosecutions.

Helms, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has campaigned vigorously against the court. He has pledged to give top priority during the congressional session starting next week to passage of a bill that would bar U.S. cooperation with any such international tribunal.

"Today's action is a blatant action by a lame-duck president to tie the hands of his successor," said Helms, who said the "kangaroo court" would leave U.S. service personnel subject to prosecution.

"For two years the administration has tried in vain to secure additional protections for American citizens, but was rebuffed at every turn by our so-called allies," Helms said.

Helms also has tried to persuade Israel, which had also delayed its decision until the last minute, to reject the international court. Following Clinton's lead, Israel declared Sunday that it had decided to sign the treaty establishing the international war crimes court under the United Nations. The United States and Israel were among the handful of countries that did not sign the statute creating the treaty when it was issued in Rome in 1998.

Israeli Ambassador Yehuda Lancry signed the treaty at U.N. headquarters in New York late Sunday.

Four countries signed the treaty on Friday -- the Bahamas, Mongolia, Tanzania and Uzbekistan -- which brings the number to 139.

Twenty-seven have ratified it, and 60 are needed before the treaty can enter into force.

Human rights groups pushed Clinton on Friday to sign the treaty. Human Rights Watch said "history will look harshly on President Clinton if he fails to sign," and Amnesty International said Clinton's signature "will demonstrate U.S. support for the rule of law and for equal justice for all."

4) BBC News Online

Monday, 1 January 2001

US signs up for war crimes court

The United States has signed up to the world's first permanent international court to try those accused of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.

The US move came only hours before the deadline after which no more signatures will be accepted. Israel and Iran followed suit.

President Bill Clinton said he had endorsed the international court in order "to reaffirm our strong support for international accountability and for bringing to justice perpetrators of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity".

But observers say other reasons include maintaining US leverage in defining the court's parameters and trying to set the agenda for his successor and the next Congress.

Republican opposition

Conservatives in the US have opposed moves to set up the court for fear that it might encroach upon US national sovereignty.

Senator Jesse Helms, the influential Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, described Mr Clinton's move as "a blatant action by a lame-duck president to tie the hands of his successor."

The Senate must ratify the treaty for Mr Clinton's signature to be valid.

The court will act much like the two temporary war crimes tribunals currently investigating the 1994 Rwandan genocide and the Yugoslav conflicts.

Supporters of the project hope that, because the tribunal will be a permanent body, it will be able to deliver swifter justice than an ad-hoc one, and thereby act as a greater deterrent.

Hold-outs sign

Israel signed the treaty a few hours after the US did.

Israel's UN ambassador, Yehuda Lancry. said Israeli lawyers who had contributed to formulating the court's statutes "had in mind and in heart the memories of the Holocaust - the greatest and most heinous crime against mankind."

The Israelis had been concerned that under the new court's jurisdiction, Jewish settlers in the occupied territories could be charged with war crimes.

Iran also signed the treaty shortly before the deadline.

Reservations

Mr Clinton said he still had reservations about some aspects of the treaty, including the possibility that the court might not be able to exercise authority over countries that had not ratified the treaty.

The president had come under pressure from defence officials not to sign until Washington had guarantees that no US servicemen or other government officials abroad would be subject to the court's jurisdiction.

BBC correspondent Tom Carver says the move is certain to be criticised by conservatives, who fear the court could subject American citizens to politically motivated prosecutions.

Based on Nuremberg

The tribunal - which will be set up in the Netherlands and based on the principles of the Nuremberg Nazi war crime trials at the end of World War II - will come into existence automatically after 60 countries have ratified the treaty.

So far, 139 countries have signed the treaty and 27 have ratified it.

The United Kingdom, which signed the treaty in November 1998, is expected to ratify it within the next few months.

The Boston Globe

Clinton 'makes history' as US gives last-minute assent to war crimes court

In what human rights advocates hailed as a "historic step forward for global justice," President Bill Clinton has unexpectedly authorised the United States to sign a treaty creating the first permanent international criminal court to hold the world's tyrants accountable for genocide and other heinous war crimes.

Mr Clinton, whose change of stance came just hours before the December 31 deadline for signing the treaty expired, said his decision reflected the nation's historical commitment to international justice, one held since the 1945 Nuremberg military tribunal.

"We ... reaffirm our strong support for international accountability and for bringing to justice perpetrators of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity," Mr Clinton said on Sunday.

The US joins more than 130 countries in signing the treaty.

Mr Clinton's announcement, which reversed the opposition his administration has had to signing the treaty since the 1998 vote establishing the court, was nonetheless taken with several reservations. He noted that the Administration was not abandoning concerns about the court, and he recommended that the treaty not be submitted to the Senate for ratification until what he called "significant flaws" are addressed.

Ratification is needed for US participation to become final.

The Pentagon has opposed the court because it fears US soldiers serving overseas could be prosecuted under its provisions.

The Clinton Administration has been campaigning, without success, to exempt US soldiers and governmental officials from the court's jurisdiction.

Advocates remain uncertain about President-elect George W. Bush's position on the permanent tribunal. "The question is whether the Bush administration assumes an attitude of benign neglect, or whether it will be engaged in it, or oppose it," said Mr Bill Pace, convenor of the Coalition for an International Criminal Court.

Mr Clinton's announcement nonetheless gives a powerful boost to the court and brings nearer to reality the dreams of human rights advocates who have pushed for a permanent war crimes tribunal for nearly half a century.

"Clinton has made history," said Mr Richard Dicker, of Human Rights Watch. "This signals US support for the most important court since Nuremberg. It is a real step forward for global justice."

Mr Clinton's approval to some degree obligates the Bush administration to continue to participate and work to address key concerns.

"With signature, we will be in a position to influence the evolution of the court," the President said. "Without signature, we will not."

In another positive sign for the future of the court, Israel indicated on Sunday that it would sign the treaty. The decision, taken after consulting US officials, reversed a Cabinet decision earlier in the day. Israel and the US were among the few countries that had not signed the treaty.

The court will come into being when 60 countries have ratified the treaty. So far, 27 countries have done so, including Germany, Spain and South Africa. With ratification by dozens more expected this year, advocates predict that the court will begin its work in mid 2002.

It would be the first permanent court to try those accused of the world's most heinous crimes. The two current war crimes courts, for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, are temporary courts, expected to finish work within the decade.

The international criminal court would intervene only when a nation itself fails to prosecute war crimes by its citizens. Its jurisdiction includes continuing or future war crimes, rather than past ones.

Dozens of countries last week raced to sign the treaty and transmit it to the United Nations, which will oversee the court.

So far, international committees have hammered out many decisions on how the court will look.

They also adopted the first definition of war crimes, which will help determine more precisely what constitutes genocide.

6) The Financial Times

Clinton leaves Bush a dilemma

By Gerard Baker in Washington

George W. Bush faces an early test of his administration's engagement in international diplomacy as a result of President Clinton's decision to sign a treaty establishing an international war crimes tribunal.

The new president, who takes office on January 20, will face immediate pressure from Republicans in Congress to overturn Mr Clinton's last-minute decision, which was welcomed by international leaders as a move that would give the court much-needed credibility.

Jesse Helms, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, vowed to work with the incoming president to nullify Mr Clinton's action, saying "this decision will not stand".

Mr Bush's senior foreign policy advisers have expressed strong doubts about the 1998 Rome treaty setting up the International Criminal Court.

Most Republicans oppose it, fearing it will pave the way for the tendentious or frivolous prosecution of US servicemen involved in legitimate military activities.

Last month Donald Rumsfeld, Mr Bush's nominee for defence secretary, endorsed a congressional move to protect US servicemen from the risk of prosecution by a war crimes tribunal.

Mr Clinton was careful to take the unusual step of signing the treaty but not recommending that the Senate ratify it until "significant flaws" had been addressed.

The new president cannot formally undo his predecessor's action but he could send the treaty to the Senate with a request that it be rejected. However, such a move, especially coming early in the new administration, might be seen as an indication of unduly hostile intentions towards international obligations.

Mr Clinton signed the treaty on Sunday, hours before the deadline for states to participate, against the advice of the Pentagon and despite earlier refusals.

The US decision prompted a change of heart and an agreement to sign by the Israeli cabinet, which only hours earlier had decided to reject it. With Iran, which also signed by Sunday's deadline, 130 countries have now signed, of which 28 have ratified it. Sixty must ratify it before it comes into force.

Mr Clinton said the decision to sign was driven in part by a desire to keep the US involved in negotiations over the court's powers. "With signature we will be in a position to influence the evolution of the court. Without signature we will not," he said in a statement.

Mr Clinton said the US had extracted several important concessions in negotiating the treaty.

He stressed provisions that ensured US servicemen could be prosecuted only if US courts did not take action when there was evidence of war crimes.