Washington - As the United Nations prepares for another round of discussions on ways to enhance the effectiveness and acceptance of an International Criminal Court (ICC), debate continues on whether the United States should participate in such a venture.

There are strong positions on both sides of the issue.

Global interest was spurred by the events in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, for which the United Nations established ad hoc tribunals. It was generally believed that a permanent court would be able to serve as a stronger deterrent and act more quickly than ad hoc bodies.

The Clinton administration began actively supporting establishment of a permanent ICC in 1995 and became involved in early planning. However, when 120 nations, meeting in Rome in July 1998 approved such a treaty, the United States voted against it.

The Rome statute affirmed that "the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and that their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at the national level and by enhancing international cooperation."

It would have jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and so-called "crimes of aggression."

The United States determined that, as created under the statute, the ICC could pose an unacceptable risk to U.S. military personnel and to the president's ability to deploy forces to protect U.S. and global interests.

Article 12 of the statute established ICC jurisdiction when either the state on whose territory a crime was committed is a party to the treaty, or when an accused person's state of nationality is a party. Under this construction, the United States believes, a state could stay a non-party and remain outside the reach of the ICC, while a non-party that participates in a peacekeeping force in a state party's territory could be subject to ICC jurisdiction.

The United States also objects to a clause in the statute that establishes a prosecutor with independent power to initiate investigations without referral from either a state party or the U.N. Security Council. And it opposes inclusion of the undefined "crime of aggression" terminology, preferring that the Security Council make such determinations.

Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in July 1998, David Scheffer, the head of the U.S. delegation to the Rome conference, said that when these and other objectives were not achieved, the United States was left with "consequences that do not serve the cause of international justice."

He said he hoped that the "flawed provisions in the treaty" will be corrected, and that meanwhile, the United States will continue to help bring to justice those who commit heinous crimes.

"The hard reality is that the international court will have no jurisdiction over crimes committed prior to its actual operation," Scheffer said. "So more ad hoc judicial mechanisms will need to be considered. We trust our friends and allies will show as much resolve to pursue the challenges of today as they have to create the future international court."

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms is opposed to ratification of the treaty because the ICC does not provide American soldiers with total protection from prosecution in military situations.

The Rome treaty passed by a vote of 120-7 with 21 abstentions. It requires 60 ratifications before it comes into force. At present, 83 countries have signed the statute as a statement of intent to seek ratification, but there have been just three actual ratifications - by Senegal, Trinidad and Tobago, and San Marino.

The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, a nongovernment organization working toward creation of an independent, effective and fair court, estimates it will take several years before the ratification process is completed and the ICC can begin to try cases.

The ICC, which will have its seat in The Hague, will differ from the existing World Court, also located in The Hague, which only hears lawsuits between governments and cannot prosecute individuals.

On July 26, the United Nations will open the second of three prepcom (preparatory commission) meetings on the ICC, this one specifically to discuss ways to promote the court's acceptance and U.S. concerns.

The nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations, to encourage debate on the issue, launched a Council Policy Initiative (CPI) July 15 to present three differing views - endorse the ICC, reject and oppose it, or improve it.

Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, defended endorsement at the CPI briefing. By signing the treaty, he said, the United States would "manifest its profound commitment to subjecting the world's most heinous despots to the rule of law."

The ICC can help save the lives of U.S. soldiers, Roth argued, by reducing the necessity for troop deployments. He said debate about whether U.S. military conduct might be deemed criminal is irrelevant because the United States does not commit atrocities, and if a rogue U.S. soldier were to commit a crime, he would be subject to vigorous prosecution anyway.

No treaty can compel the United States to violate its Constitution, Roth added, noting that the ICC is fully compatible with that document. No new venture is ever risk-free, he said, but the ICC treaty does contain ample safeguards against misuse.

Taking the opposite view, John Bolton, vice president of the American Enterprise Institute, said the ICC's flaws are both substantive and structural.

He said that substantively, the ICC's authority is vague and ambiguous in its language regarding types of cases to be heard. If the United States accepted the ICC, Bolton said, it and the Constitution would have to change fundamentally in favor of international law, and this he opposes.

Structurally, he added, ICC statutes call for establishing a prosecutor outside the complete control of a national government. A politically unaccountable prosecutor, he said, could make real, potential targets of America's top civilian and military leaders. Bolton also said the statute minimizes the role of the Security Council in ICC affairs, and that is another significant failing.

Ruth Wedgwood, professor of law at Yale University, taking the middle ground of calling for improving the court, said the Rome conference delegates can be proud of many of its accomplishments in the treaty but there were also points of concern.

She said the United States needs the assurance that in its military targeting decisions, it is not required to share sensitive information. In order to protect its policy judgments on the use of force, the United States wants a binding interpretation that there is a protected sphere for good faith military decisions, she added.

If the United States ultimately would sign the treaty but it would then fail Senate ratification, Wedgwood said, there could still be a close working relationship with the court, helping to enforce the rule of law.

Earlier this year, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, noting that establishment of the court will put the world on notice that crimes against humanity will not go unpunished, said it will be "a fitting way to inaugurate the new millennium."