UN-INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

Crucial Conference on Establishing World Criminal Court Begins

By Robert H. REID

Associated Press Writers

UNITED NATIONS (AP) Experts working to create the first permanent court to try crimes against humanity began tackling issues Monday that place the United States alongside some countries with poor human rights records. The International Criminal Court would follow in the footsteps of the Nuremberg war crimes court, which prosecuted crimes against humanity committed in World War II. A preparatory committee began a three-week series of meetings Monday to draw up a draft convention for the 185-members U.N. General Assembly to consider in November. Supporters hope the committee will recommend convening a conference in 1997 or 1998 to establish the tribunal. Italy has already offered to most it. Under the proposal, the new court would not supersede national tribunals but would try cases when national courts fail to prosecute their own citizens. Even so, fundamental questions of national sovereignty are involved, and if the committee cannot overcome differences, it may ask the General Assembly for more time - a mo

ve supporters fear could kill the plan. "We expect some fireworks during the session" said Richard Dicker of New York - based Human Rights Watch. "We expect to hear the real view of a number of States." The U.S. position is considered crucial. For years, Washington was lukewarm to such a court, despite the key U.S. role in establishing the 1945 Nuremberg tribunal. But the concept was revived after widely publicized mass killings and systematic rapes in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and President Clinton announced U.S. support for a permanent court in his speech to the General Assembly last year. But at the committee's first meeting in April, the United States supported a more limited role for the Tribunal than some other Western countries, arguing that only cases referred by the 15-members Security Council should be investigated. That position places Washington alongside countries with questionable Human Rights records, such as China, India, Nigeria and Kenya, which also support a limited role for the co

urt. Those lobbying for a stronger court an independent prosecutor include Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the Scandinavian countries. The United States also wants to limit jurisdiction to genocide, war crimes and other violations of international law, steering it away from international terrorism cases. This, Washington argues, is because the tribunal lacks the investigative and intelligence-gathering resources to prosecute them. Human Rights groups oppose such limitations because the United States and the four other permanent members of the Security Council Britain, France, Russia and China could veto cases they consider embarrassing or politically sensitive. Chinese and Russian vetoes, for example, could prevent the Court from considering cases arising from alleged abuses in Tibet or Chechnya. "The council is an eminently political body which is likely to be burned by political consideration," said Jelena Peljc of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. "An independent prosecutor must be provided for".

The International Criminal Court would differ from the International Court of Justice in the Hague, also Known as the World Court, which decides cases between countries, but does not prosecute individuals.