NYT NOVEMBER 3

The work of dictators, torturers and death squad assassins depends on impunity. They know no one can in their own country can touch them, and while they may be aware of international laws against genocide, war crimes and the atrocities known as crimes against humanity, they also know that these laws are just words.

But that may change. With the end of the cold war, the United Nations reopened debate on an idea kicking around since the Nurenberg tribunals 50 years ago. the idea is to set up a permanent international criminal court, as a counterpart to the World Court, which deals with disputes between nations. The UN's Sixth Committee, which handles legal affairs, is now considering whether to relegate the court to what is essentially the oblivion of permanent debate or set up a diplomatic conference to write a draft that nations can agree on.

American leadership is needed to establish the court. President Clinton finally provided at least a part of it last month, giving the Administration's first endorsement of the court. But his aides, worried that nations might raise politically motivated complaints against American soldiers abroad, have consistently defied other Western democracies and pushed for a version controlled by the Security Council, an approach that would politicize and essentially gut the court.

Washington's fear of political prosecution is overblown. The United States is seeking to weaken a court whose powers have already been circumscribed by drafters aware the court will be able to try their own citizens. In its current conception, it is a weaker-body than the ad hoc tribunal for Yugoslavia, which must fight to keep its indictments from being bargained away in a Bosnia peace settlement. The court would only take jurisdiction once a defendant's own national courts proved unwilling or unable to shield their citizens from prosecution, although the United States can slap sanctions on countries that harbor fugitives.

Despite its limits, the court would still be useful in many situations. When America and Britain sought the extradition of two Libyans suspected of the Pan Am 103 bombing, Libya said it would turn them over only to an international forum, and on one could call Libya's bluff. Governments might surrender indicted citizens whom they have the will but not the power to put on trial, such as the Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot in Cambodia. The threat of sanctions may wear out a fugitive's welcome n a foreign haven, or even at home. No accused criminal will be able to travel without risking arrest.

The realities of power politics insure the court will never offer perfect enforcement of international law. But it is a necessary first step if law is ever to triumph over the impunity of the powerful. it deserves the leadership of the Clinton Administration and every nation's support.