Toward an international court

Diplomats from dozens of countries begin meeting in Rome today to try to eliminate an almost endless list of problems associated with forming a permanent international criminal court. They have five weeks and 1,700 disputed items in the text of the court agreement. It would not be surprising if, at the end of the meetings, many of the problems remained.

But all law-abiding nations would benefit if the Rome conference led to furthering the cause of the court.

The idea of an international court has been around for more than a century. The current version is an idea that grew out of the Nuremberg tribunals 50 years ago. The court being discussed in Rome today would complement the International Court of Justice in The Hague, which hears disputes between governments. The ICC would hear cases against individuals accused of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Pol Pot would have been a candidate for the docket; Saddam Hussein might top the current list.

Most nations love the idea of an international criminal court — for somebody else. When it comes to the possibility of trying someone from their own country, however, national sovereignty takes precedence. This is true for the United States as well, which pledges that it will not agree to the court unless its military is exempt. The Clinton administration has demanded that all cases be approved by the United Nations Security Council before being allowed to go forward.

That would give any one of the major powers, including this nation, the ability to stop a prosecution, and that hardly makes for a useful court. But the U.S. position is founded on the sensible observation that politics often find their way into judicial proceedings. The administration wants protection as U.S. peacekeepers increasingly are called upon to calm regions in turmoil.

One possibility comes from Singapore, which suggested allowing the Security Council to block investigations. Unlike requiring council authority to initiative an investigation, blocking one would require the assent of all five permanent members. That’s a step in the right direction.

One down; 1,699 problems to go.