The month-long conference on creating an international criminal court ends in Rome today and, to almost no one’s surprise, many of the problems present at the beginning of the conference remain in place. Rather than be discouraged, however, supporters of the court should remain confident that the momentum of history is on their side.

The idea for an international court for individuals who commit genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity has been around for more than a century, but it is only since the end of the Cold War that such a court has become politically possible. Currently, an international court is seen as a complement to The Hague, which hears cases against governments. An international criminal court is where individuals, the likes of Saddam Hussein or Radovan Karadzic, would be brought to justice.

The United States, whose support is crucial, has been a reluctant participant in the Rome conference. It has stated from the beginning that it fears its soldiers — who are often sent as peacekeepers to hot spots — could be vulnerable to politically motivated charges. It is understandable that the Clinton administration does not want soldiers who unwittingly kill civilians to face charges of crimes against humanity in a court of Iraqi judges.

But the influence of politics in courts of justice have been dealt with before and can be addressed in this case. First, from the American side, there needs to be a recognition that the court could serve an important function in adding stability to world affairs. By creating a process for fairly and consistently bringing perpetrators of these horrible crimes to justice, the court would lessen potential retaliation, allow ethnic groups to end hostilities, break historic cycles of conflict and deter leaders from inciting future violence. The direct benefit to the United States is a lowered need for world policing.

Second, from the supporters of the international court, there is little choice but to accept incremental change. The court they envision is not likely to arrive until after the United States and other countries are certain that their soverignty is assured and none of their citizens are railroaded. That will require experience under something less than a fully independent international court.

As long as the human race keeps producing the murderous and blood-thirsty, however, the need for an international-court will remain apparent. The issue is not going to go away.