Yale legal expert backs US withdrawal from war crimes court treaty

Date: 08/05/02

By Craig Winneker

THE US decision to abandon the treaty creating a permanent international war crimes court does not preclude Washington's participation in future tribunals, according to an American legal expert.

'President Clinton should not have signed it, when he had no intention of sending it for ratification,' said Ruth Wedgwood, a former federal prosecutor who is now a professor at Yale University, in an interview in Brussels this week. 'We did not need to sign it to remain part of the conversation.'

The Bush administration this week notified the United Nations that it 'does not intend to become a party' to the International Criminal Court but would continue to support ad hoc courts set up by the UN Security Council.

The action provoked a harsh response in Europe. 'This new demonstration of unilateralism is in contradiction with the proclaimed priority given to the fight against terrorism,' said Monica Frassoni, co-leader of the Greens in the European Parliament.

US officials cited concerns that American troops could become the targets of political prosecutions. 'If you have 220,000 troops who are forward-deployed, and you're the only country that really does air power...a multinational bench might not be so understanding,' argued Wedgwood.

On the question of EU-US policy differences over the death penalty, the professor saw room for a deal following last week's agreement by Union ministers to increase judicial cooperation with America. Wedgwood pointed out that the provision in the European Convention on Human Rights calling on signatories to oppose capital punishment is 'optional' and 'makes an exception for wartime'. (However, last week 36 Council of Europe countries, including EU member states, agreed to remove that exception.)

Europe's position on the death penalty was 'a political stand more than anything,' she added.