The Columbus Dispatch

Saturday, January 6, 2001

A GOOD SIGN

Though his action drew condemnation from those who would just as soon see the United States severed from all world organizations and those concerned about loss of U.S. sovereignty, President Clinton did well to sign the treaty that would establish an International Criminal Court.

By affixing his signature, he not only makes sure the country has the greatest possible clout for addressing remaining gaps in international criminal law but also emphasizes that the United States will continue to be a leader in promoting universally accepted rules of conduct and law. Many concerns expressed by court critics are legitimate. Some already have been addressed at negotiating conferences.

U.S. officials are most worried that the court's procedures would mean a nation hostile to the United States could bring American diplomats, officials or members of the military before the court on spurious charges. That is why the treaty has been amended, at this nation's urging, to create numerous safeguards against such abuse.

For example, the United States already has been successful in:

* Making the court a last resort for countries unwilling or unable to prosecute the most heinous crimes in their national legal systems. A national investigation would force the international court's prosecutor to stop all inquiries for at least six months and, potentially, permanently.

* Precisely defining what falls under the court's jurisdiction as offenses

" committed as part of a plan or policy or part of a large- scale commission of such crimes.'' Under that description, which is stricter than what is laid out in the Geneva Convention, even the 1968 My Lai massacre during the Vietnam conflict would not qualify.

* Giving the United Nations Security Council a role in many of the court's procedures, including the ability to postpone an investigation or case. Because the United States is a permanent member of the council, it has veto power over decisions coming from that body. The United States could press for a greater Security Council role.

* Limiting the terms of judges, prosecutors and deputy prosecutors with no chance for re-election. Judges are chosen by those countries that have ratified the treaty. That would make it extremely difficult for any single nation, including those with a grudge against the United States, to put one of its operatives in a position of authority.

These checks and balances were sufficiently reassuring to prompt the United Kingdom, France and Russia to drop their opposition.

Procedures and rules of the international court still are being negotiated.

By signing the treaty, Clinton has made sure that the United States has a strong and credible voice in further refining definitions and establishing rules. Ratification would mean the United States has a say in who becomes the prosecutors and judges.

Addressing the remaining flaws is vital. The most effective court should be as immune as possible from abuse by participants. The United States should lead the additional fine-tuning necessary to enhance the court's legitimacy.

That legitimacy would be impossible to achieve, however, if the United States' ultimate demand, to have all of its citizens permanently exempted from the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction, was accepted. What sort of credible court makes exception based on a single characteristic, in this case one nationality?

Starting from the earliest debates on establishing the League of Nations, there always has been tension between countries concerning international organizations, treaties and preservation of national sovereignty. That tension, rather than being used to doom international cooperation, should be a stimulus to make institutions as strong and as respectful of nations as possible.

In the end, countries that respect the most basic laws and standards of human decency will be strengthened, not strangled, by the International Criminal Court. Clinton's signature on the treaty acknowledges that worthy goal.