Global Policy Forum

By Edith M. Lederer

The battle between the United States and supporters of the new International Criminal Court was the most contentious confrontation at the United Nations in many years and has left both sides bruised.

In a compromise deal Friday night, the United States got a yearlong exemption for American peacekeepers from prosecution by the court, less than it initially demanded.

But after the unanimous Security Council vote, the United States threatened "serious consequences" if any American is detained by the court - and some supporters of the world's first permanent war crimes tribunal said the legality of the council resolution is expected to be challenged.

Far-flung peacekeeping operations established or authorized by the United Nations - from Afghanistan and the Mideast to Bosnia and Sierra Leone - got a reprieve. And the new court's underlying principle that no one should be exempt from punishment for war crimes got dented.

The long battle pitted the world's lone superpower against countries around the world, including its closest European allies and neighbors Canada and Mexico.

Justice Minister Herta Daeubler-Gmelin of Germany, one of the United States' closest allies, said Saturday, it was good that peacekeeping won't be blocked for now, especially in Bosnia which faced a July 15 cutoff. "But a sour aftertaste remains."

"Special rules for strong countries - particularly when the issue at stake is the global pursuit of the worst human rights violations - are inappropriate and not compatible with the principle of the rule of law," she said.

After intense opposition, the Bush administration backed down from its original demand for permanent immunity for Americans participating in U.N.-sanctioned peacekeeping activities.

The resolution that was adopted gives former and current personnel from countries that don't support the court - such as the United States - a yearlong delay in any investigation or prosecution "if the case arises." The exemption can be renewed every year by a vote of the Security Council.

But the original U.S. proposal, which would have given Washington veto-power to block a prosecution forever, was also watered down. The approved resolution would allow any seven members of the 15-member council, or any of the five veto-wielding members - the United States, Russia, China, Britain or France - to allow the court to pursue the case.

The United States has not ratified the Rome treaty that established the court and objects to the idea that Americans could be subject to its jurisdiction even if it is not a party to the pact. Washington argues that the court could be used for frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions, especially of American troops.

Supporters argue that the court can step in only when states are unwilling or unable to dispense justice, one of many safeguards to prevent such abuses.

U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte made clear after Friday's vote that the resolution was just a first step that offered "a degree of protection for the coming year" from the court's reaches.

"Should the court eventually seek to detain any American, the United States would regard this as illegitimate - and it would have serious consequences," Negroponte warned.

The court is the culmination of a campaign that began with the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials for World War II's German and Japanese war criminals. It has jurisdiction over war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity committed after July 1 when it came into existence with ratifications from 76 countries - including all 15 EU members - and signatures from 139.

Britain's U.N. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, the current council president who brokered the deal, said members decided that "they had to make a decision that preserved two very important institutions - the newly born International Criminal Court and its integrity and United Nations peacekeeping with the full contribution of all its members." "We understand that there are differences of opinion," he said.

Some of the court's supporters believed the resolution violates the Rome treaty. "We don't think it's in the mandate of the Security Council to interpret treaties that are negotiated somewhere else," said Canada's U.N. Ambassador Paul Heinbecker. Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Program at Human Rights Watch, said the purported modification of the treaty "is expected to face legal challenge."

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C íŸ 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.