The five-week United Nations conference on the creation of an International Criminal Court last night adopted by consensus a statute setting up the court. A procedural motion to take no action on a US amendment was passed by 113 votes to 17 with 25 abstentions in a stinging rebuff for Washington greeted by prolonged rhythmic applause.
In an attempt to meet the objections of countries such as the US, France and a number of Arab nations, the conference had produced a compromise draft statute allowing states a seven-year opt-out period as far as war crimes were concerned, and giving the UN Security Council the opportunity to block prosecutions. The American amendment would have exempted nationals of non-signatory states from any war crimes prosecution for actions committed on official duty unless their home country consented.
The massive vote against appeared to reflect the depth of resentment at US tactics at the conference.
Human rights groups attending the conference yesterday expressed dismay at the watering down of the court's powers. Under the terms of the draft statute, the international court, which would be based in the Hague, would have jurisdiction over the crimes of genocide, aggression, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The final text includes rape and forced pregnancy among the definitions of crimes against humanity. This issue saw an unusual alliance of the Vatican and conservative Islamic states ranged against the inclusion of the crime of forced pregnancy, motivated by a fear that the court's activities might have the effect of encouraging abortion.
Mr Bill Pace, the convenor of a coalition of some 250 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) attending the meeting, said his delegates were disappointed at the weakening of the court's jurisdiction and the war crimes opt-out. But they were satisfied that the court could work to punish sexual violence and to discourage the recruitment of child soldiers.
Mr Pace said it was also important that the court had a role in relation to internal conflicts, where many of the worst human rights abuses occurred. Mr Pierre Sane, the secretary-general of Amnesty International, also expressed reservations about the statute. "The international community has failed to impose its collective will on a few powerful states," he said. "The single most important consideration should have been how many lives can we save. Instead, it was how we can save criminal soldiers from prosecution."