For the first time since it was approved a year ago, the International Criminal Court (ICC) is enjoying a measure of rhetorical support from the United States but Washington has yet to match its words with its actions.

As governments prepare to wrap up three weeks of preparatory work here Friday, on defining procedures and elements of crimes for a future Court, US diplomats asserted that they do not want to undermine the Court.

That admission alone represents a shift, human rights activists believe.

The change of stance has been exemplified by US Ambassador David Scheffer, head of the delegation present at the UN talks, who emphasised this week that his government does not intend to dilute the 1998 statute which established the ICC.

“Scheffer is making clear that he doesn’t want to amend the treaty or weaken the Court,” says Richard Dicker, associate counsel for Human Rights Watch. That, he maintains, is a shift from US statements during the past year which threatened outright opposition to the Court.

On the other hand, most of the US proposals to “fix” the Court would render it ineffective, and are opposed by the governments who support the ICC, activists say.

In particular, rights groups are worried that Washington still wants to craft definitions of crimes that would exempt US military officials from ever being tried.

One possible exemption being considered is the concept that military officers acting in their “official capacity” would be excluded from the ICC’s jurisdiction, says Jelena Pejic, senior programme officer for the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights.

Another US proposal would place individual nations – rather than the ICC – in charge of determining whether the national courts should have jurisdiction to try genocide and other major crimes.

“The outline of the (US) package on the table is unacceptable,” Pejic argues. “It would gut the Court.”

Still, for some experts, the US stance in recent weeks shows that President Bill Clinton’s administration may still want to be able to sign on to the Court, despite signs that the Pentagon and Republican-led Congress oppose it.

“The United States has repeatedly said that if it can get its fixes, it is offering signature within this administration,” notes Bill Pace, convenor of the Coalition for an International Criminal Court, an umbrella group of non-governmental organisations.

Dicker says that US officials believe there is a “six-month window of opportunity,” in which, if US diplomats can win certain adjustments to the workings of the Court, Clinton would sign the ICC Statute.

Beyond that six-month span, however, all bets are off with the start of the US presidential election campaign. The Clinton administration does not want the ICC to become an election-year issue, Dicker says.

Currently, 84 governments have signed the statute, while four countries – Senegal, Trinidad and Tobago, San Marino and Italy – have ratified it. Sixty countries must sign the ICC Statute before the Court can enter into force, a number which several supporters believe will be reached by around 2001.

The United States, one of only seven countries which voted against the Court’s creation last July at a special conference in Rome, has been conspicuous so far in its opposition to the ICC. Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has called the ICC treaty “dead on arrival.”

Yet at talks here, US diplomats have stressed that Washington’s opposition has been part of a standard negotiating process. One US official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said recently that, despite the rhetoric, there was nothing to indicate that Washington wouldn’t be able to accept the Court eventually.

Dicker says that the fact Washington is softening its posture shows “how isolated they have felt on this issue.” As with the passage of the Ottawa Convention on Landmines in 1997, also without US support, the Court seems set to become a reality even despite Washington’s opposition, he contends.

US isolation, Dicker says, can be seen in the fact that 17 of 19 North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) countries – all except the United States and Turkey – have already signed the statute.

Yet Clinton is unlikely to be able to win the ratification of the Court, particularly given that, in the 17 months left in his administration, both houses of Congress are led by Republicans who are openly wary of international organisations. Still, if Washington signs on to the Court, many activists believe that could give a major boost to the ICC’s effectiveness.

Nevertheless, the price may be too high, Pejic warns.

“It’s clear that the very vague package on the table is not the US bottom line,” she says of the proposals for adjustments that have been made here over the past three weeks. “We’ll have to see what it is.”

For the first time since it was approved a year ago, the International Criminal Court (ICC) is enjoying a measure of rhetorical support from the United States but Washington has yet to match its words with its actions.

As governments prepare to wrap up three weeks of preparatory work here Friday, on defining procedures and elements of crimes for a future Court, US diplomats asserted that they do not want to undermine the Court.

That admission alone represents a shift, human rights activists believe.

The change of stance has been exemplified by US Ambassador David Scheffer, head of the delegation present at the UN talks, who emphasised this week that his government does not intend to dilute the 1998 statute which established the ICC.

“Scheffer is making clear that he doesn’t want to amend the treaty or weaken the Court,” says Richard Dicker, associate counsel for Human Rights Watch. That, he maintains, is a shift from US statements during the past year which threatened outright opposition to the Court.

On the other hand, most of the US proposals to “fix” the Court would render it ineffective, and are opposed by the governments who support the ICC, activists say.

In particular, rights groups are worried that Washington still wants to craft definitions of crimes that would exempt US military officials from ever being tried.

One possible exemption being considered is the concept that military officers acting in their “official capacity” would be excluded from the ICC’s jurisdiction, says Jelena Pejic, senior programme officer for the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights.

Another US proposal would place individual nations – rather than the ICC – in charge of determining whether the national courts should have jurisdiction to try genocide and other major crimes.

“The outline of the (US) package on the table is unacceptable,” Pejic argues. “It would gut the Court.”

Still, for some experts, the US stance in recent weeks shows that President Bill Clinton’s administration may still want to be able to sign on to the Court, despite signs that the Pentagon and Republican-led Congress oppose it.

“The United States has repeatedly said that if it can get its fixes, it is offering signature within this administration,” notes Bill Pace, convenor of the Coalition for an International Criminal Court, an umbrella group of non-governmental organisations.

Dicker says that US officials believe there is a “six-month window of opportunity,” in which, if US diplomats can win certain adjustments to the workings of the Court, Clinton would sign the ICC Statute.

Beyond that six-month span, however, all bets are off with the start of the US presidential election campaign. The Clinton administration does not want the ICC to become an election-year issue, Dicker says.

Currently, 84 governments have signed the statute, while four countries – Senegal, Trinidad and Tobago, San Marino and Italy – have ratified it. Sixty countries must sign the ICC Statute before the Court can enter into force, a number which several supporters believe will be reached by around 2001.

The United States, one of only seven countries which voted against the Court’s creation last July at a special conference in Rome, has been conspicuous so far in its opposition to the ICC. Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has called the ICC treaty “dead on arrival.”

Yet at talks here, US diplomats have stressed that Washington’s opposition has been part of a standard negotiating process. One US official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said recently that, despite the rhetoric, there was nothing to indicate that Washington wouldn’t be able to accept the Court eventually.

Dicker says that the fact Washington is softening its posture shows “how isolated they have felt on this issue.” As with the passage of the Ottawa Convention on Landmines in 1997, also without US support, the Court seems set to become a reality even despite Washington’s opposition, he contends.

US isolation, Dicker says, can be seen in the fact that 17 of 19 North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) countries – all except the United States and Turkey – have already signed the statute.

Yet Clinton is unlikely to be able to win the ratification of the Court, particularly given that, in the 17 months left in his administration, both houses of Congress are led by Republicans who are openly wary of international organisations. Still, if Washington signs on to the Court, many activists believe that could give a major boost to the ICC’s effectiveness.

Nevertheless, the price may be too high, Pejic warns.

“It’s clear that the very vague package on the table is not the US bottom line,” she says of the proposals for adjustments that have been made here over the past three weeks. “We’ll have to see what it is.”

For the first time since it was approved a year ago, the International Criminal Court (ICC) is enjoying a measure of rhetorical support from the United States but Washington has yet to match its words with its actions.

As governments prepare to wrap up three weeks of preparatory work here Friday, on defining procedures and elements of crimes for a future Court, US diplomats asserted that they do not want to undermine the Court.

That admission alone represents a shift, human rights activists believe.

The change of stance has been exemplified by US Ambassador David Scheffer, head of the delegation present at the UN talks, who emphasised this week that his government does not intend to dilute the 1998 statute which established the ICC.

“Scheffer is making clear that he doesn’t want to amend the treaty or weaken the Court,” says Richard Dicker, associate counsel for Human Rights Watch. That, he maintains, is a shift from US statements during the past year which threatened outright opposition to the Court.

On the other hand, most of the US proposals to “fix” the Court would render it ineffective, and are opposed by the governments who support the ICC, activists say.

In particular, rights groups are worried that Washington still wants to craft definitions of crimes that would exempt US military officials from ever being tried.

One possible exemption being considered is the concept that military officers acting in their “official capacity” would be excluded from the ICC’s jurisdiction, says Jelena Pejic, senior programme officer for the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights.

Another US proposal would place individual nations – rather than the ICC – in charge of determining whether the national courts should have jurisdiction to try genocide and other major crimes.

“The outline of the (US) package on the table is unacceptable,” Pejic argues. “It would gut the Court.”

Still, for some experts, the US stance in recent weeks shows that President Bill Clinton’s administration may still want to be able to sign on to the Court, despite signs that the Pentagon and Republican-led Congress oppose it.

“The United States has repeatedly said that if it can get its fixes, it is offering signature within this administration,” notes Bill Pace, convenor of the Coalition for an International Criminal Court, an umbrella group of non-governmental organisations.

Dicker says that US officials believe there is a “six-month window of opportunity,” in which, if US diplomats can win certain adjustments to the workings of the Court, Clinton would sign the ICC Statute.

Beyond that six-month span, however, all bets are off with the start of the US presidential election campaign. The Clinton administration does not want the ICC to become an election-year issue, Dicker says.

Currently, 84 governments have signed the statute, while four countries – Senegal, Trinidad and Tobago, San Marino and Italy – have ratified it. Sixty countries must sign the ICC Statute before the Court can enter into force, a number which several supporters believe will be reached by around 2001.

The United States, one of only seven countries which voted against the Court’s creation last July at a special conference in Rome, has been conspicuous so far in its opposition to the ICC. Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has called the ICC treaty “dead on arrival.”

Yet at talks here, US diplomats have stressed that Washington’s opposition has been part of a standard negotiating process. One US official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said recently that, despite the rhetoric, there was nothing to indicate that Washington wouldn’t be able to accept the Court eventually.

Dicker says that the fact Washington is softening its posture shows “how isolated they have felt on this issue.” As with the passage of the Ottawa Convention on Landmines in 1997, also without US support, the Court seems set to become a reality even despite Washington’s opposition, he contends.

US isolation, Dicker says, can be seen in the fact that 17 of 19 North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) countries – all except the United States and Turkey – have already signed the statute.

Yet Clinton is unlikely to be able to win the ratification of the Court, particularly given that, in the 17 months left in his administration, both houses of Congress are led by Republicans who are openly wary of international organisations. Still, if Washington signs on to the Court, many activists believe that could give a major boost to the ICC’s effectiveness.

Nevertheless, the price may be too high, Pejic warns.

“It’s clear that the very vague package on the table is not the US bottom line,” she says of the proposals for adjustments that have been made here over the past three weeks. “We’ll have to see what it is.”