U.S. SEEKS CHANGES TO ACCEPT INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT; WANTS TO SAFEGUARD TROOPS FROM FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS ABROAD

Betsy Pisik

NEW YORK - American negotiators say they still hope to sign onto a proposed international criminal court but only if foreign diplomats agree to several key provisions to make the court more palatable to Washington.

The U.S. delegation pressed its case in closed-door meetings during a two-week international conference that concludes today.

Washington wants to see safeguards that would protect American troops serving overseas from political or frivolous prosecutions.

"We're doing our best to see if these fundamental concerns can be addressed," said David Scheffer, the State Department lawyer who has negotiated criminal court issues for more than three years.

"If they can, then we're in a much better position to consider supporting the treaty."

The court will hear allegations of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.

The treaty to create the court has been endorsed in principle by 75 nations and will enter into force with 60 ratifications.

Although the Hague-based tribunal will only hear the most grievous accusations, its jurisdiction will be universal, extending even to governments that have not chosen to join it.

For this reason, American officials have made it clear to allies around the world that key aspects of the treaty must be changed or the United States will actively work against it.

Specifically, the United States objects to the court's universal jurisdiction, which exceeds the scope of nearly every other international agreement and which Washington claims is in violation of accepted international laws.

Mr. Scheffer has been shopping alternative language that would limit prosecutions to nationals whose governments had signed the treaty or expressly consented to a trial.

The United States is also advocating a stronger role for the U.N. Security Council, where it is one of five countries that can veto anything before the council.

Washington seeks checks and balances that might prevent a prosecutor from pursuing politically motivated cases.

But human rights groups are infuriated by what one called "the arrogance of a superpower" and accuse the United States of trying to water down the court's power.

Jelena Pejic, of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, said Washington is attempting to redefine the crime of genocide until it is "virtually impossible to prosecute."

In Rome last summer, 160 nations agreed to a U.S. demand that until highly detailed rules of evidence and procedure are agreed to, the treaty cannot progress.

Washington expects to take up this issue at the next international conference on the court, to be held at the United Nations this summer.

Many of the 120 nations taking part in this week's meetings say the court will be significantly weakened without U.S. money and muscle, and they would consider some compromises to win Washington's participation.

But Richard Dicker, a legal advocate with Human Rights Watch, warns against allowing the United States to reopen the treaty.

"Protocol aimed at fixing what the United States objects to in this treaty could unravel this complex document," he told reporters earlier this week.