U.S. Gives 11th-Hour Nod to Creation of World Court

In a last-minute concession to human rights activists, President Clinton on Sunday authorized the United States to sign a treaty creating the world’s first permanent court for crimes against humanity.

Sunday was the deadline for signing the accord on the proposed International Criminal Court, which would try people accused of extreme human rights violations--a role that its supporters say is neglected in the global legal system.

But the treaty must still be ratified by a wary Congress, where some Republicans--who fear that it could lead to politically motivated cases against U.S. citizens--vehemently oppose it.

Clinton, on vacation at the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland, said the tribunal would make a “profound contribution” to combating human rights abuses around the world.

“In taking this action, we join more than 130 other countries,” Clinton said in a statement. “We do so to reaffirm our strong support for international accountability and for bringing to justice perpetrators of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

A few hours after Clinton’s announcement, David Scheffer, the U.S. ambassador at large for war crimes issues, signed the treaty on behalf of the United States.

Israel, another holdout, followed suit and signed the treaty late Sunday.

Because of the strong feelings the treaty engenders, the White House announcement handed a potential controversy to President-elect George W. Bush. While it is not clear what position Bush will take once he enters the White House, he has indicated at least some reservations about the agreement.

Human rights groups had been urging Clinton to act before leaving office.

“As a strong proponent of justice for the victims of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, you would leave an important legacy by signing the court’s treaty,” Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, recently wrote in a letter to Clinton.

But others question whether the United States should bind itself to a legal effort with other countries that may have much weaker rules of law. Under the treaty, the International Criminal Court would have some jurisdiction over crimes committed by nationals of countries that ratify it, as well as over crimes committed in the territory of those nations.

Helms Vows to Block American Membership

Concern is centered on U.S. military personnel because of this country’s frequent involvement in overseas crises.

Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has vowed to block America’s membership in the court, which would be based in the Netherlands.

Some critics also said that it wasn’t appropriate for Clinton to sign such a measure in the final days of his tenure.

“I certainly don’t approve of [the court], and I disapprove even more strongly of him signing something like this on his way out of office,” said Richard Perle, an assistant Defense secretary during the Reagan administration.

Perle also said the United States should avoid legal commitments that give equal weight to nations that have less dependable legal systems, arguing, “It’s like creating a compact between police and criminals.”

Critics have seized on the issue of whether Americans would be safe from politically motivated prosecution under the proposed court; the treaty seeks to defuse that issue with provisions that may give member nations priority in adjudicating such charges rather than leaving that job to the international court.

And opposition among conservatives is not unanimous. Kenneth Adelman, head of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency during the Reagan administration, says the court is worth supporting.

“I think it’s a good idea to hold the Idi Amins and Saddam Husseins accountable,” he said.

The proposal gained momentum at a 1998 United Nations-sponsored conference in Rome, where 120 nations endorsed the treaty. The United States was among several that withheld support.

Current Tribunals Are Temporary

Unlike tribunals created, for example, to prosecute Nazi war criminals after World War II, the new court would be the first with permanent status. Currently, the U.N. oversees temporary courts involved with prosecution of war crimes in the Balkans and with atrocities in Rwanda.

Support for a permanent international war crimes tribunal was first expressed in the years immediately after World War II. Interest in creating such a court has been voiced periodically ever since.

Supporters of the idea say that many instances of war crimes and crimes against humanity have gone unpunished owing to the lack of such a tribunal.

For example, supporters note that no one has ever been held accountable for the genocide in Cambodia in the 1970s in which more than 1 million people were killed by the Khmer Rouge, or for killings in other countries such as Mozambique, Liberia and El Salvador.

For the treaty to take effect, 60 of the countries that have signed it must ratify it. As of mid-December, 25 had done so, according to Human Rights Watch.