The doubts are understand-able, but the cause is worthy. As The Economist went to press this week, supporters of the long-planned international criminal court were preparing to celebrate the 6oth ratification of the treaty drawn up to establish it. With that threshold crossed, the court's creation will at last be assured, years sooner than anyone thought possible. Fulfilling a promise made after the Nuremberg trials more than 50 years ago, the court will provide a permanent forum for trying the world's most despicable criminals-mass murderers, war criminals and plotters of genocide or ethnic cleansing―who have often committed their deeds knowing they would never have to answer for them. But this great blow against impunity comes at a price. The court's creation has opened a rift between the United States and its allies just as the Bush administration seeks co-operation in its war against terrorism and tries to rally support for action against Iraq. America has opposed the court ever since the idea was first approved by 120 other countries in 1998 at a United Nations treaty conference in Rome. America's opposition has hardened under George Bush. Even Bill Clinton, who signed the treaty just before he left office, made it clear he had no intention of ratifying it. He merely wanted, or so he said, to leave Mr Bush the option of keeping America engaged in planning how the court would function. Instead, the Bush administration is apparently choosing to make no attempt to shape the court and its work.
展开▼
