Why not an international court?

By Robin Oakley, CNN.com European Political Editor

LONDON, England (CNN) -- One key question follows the Lockerbie bombing trial: Isn't there a simpler way of doing things?

To bring Abdel Baset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah to trial required years of diplomacy involving the U.S., the UK and international intermediaries including Nelson Mandela.

The battle over whose jurisdiction the case should fall under also involved turning a small piece of the Netherlands into a Scottish Court.

What is required, say many legal experts, is a permanent international criminal court which can try all allegations of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

Its role could also be extended to deal with cases of international terrorism.

The only war crimes tribunals currently sitting are the one in The Hague covering alleged atrocities in the former Yugoslavia and one in Tanzania covering genocide in Rwanda.

But both are specially-constituted subsidiaries of the U.N. Security Council and there are worries about such ad hoc tribunals proving less than consistent.

In fact there are plans to set up such an international criminal court.

But they are moving at a slow pace and despite Washington's role in the Lockerbie case they may be frustrated by opposition from the United States Congress.

In 1998, following a U.N. initiative, there was an agreement signed in Rome to set up an International Criminal Court.

CNN.com Europe More news from our Europe edition

Altogether 139 countries have signed up in favour of the ICC but only 27 national parliaments have so far ratified the ICC and 60 must do so before it can be set up.

Organisations like Amnesty International are backing the setting up of an ICC, but there is considerable opposition in Washington.

Shortly before he left office, President Bill Clinton signed up the U.S. to back the ICC treaty but there have been warnings from Republicans that Congress will not back ratification.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos last week Republican Senator Orrin G. Hatch from Minnesota said that the U.S. would not accept encroachments on its sovereignty.

He added that if it did become subject to an International Criminal Court covering issues like war crimes then the U.S. would have to reconsider its international commitments.

"The world would become a more dangerous place," Hatch declared.

"We do not like war crimes but nor do we like subjecting Americans to decisions of judges appointed by 139 nations many of whom may not like America."

Veteran Republican Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina is planning a bill to exempt U.S. Forces personnel from being subject to the ICC and to provide for sanctions against the countries which back it.

And without U.S. support any ICC would be much weakened.

Bosnia's Plavsic goes on trial
January 11, 2001
Del Ponte condemns Yugoslav stand
January 26, 2001
U.N. delegates wrangle over reach of new war-crimes court
July 16, 1998
U.N. tribunal upholds life sentence for ex-Rwandan PM on genocide charges
October 19, 2000
U.S. to sign war crimes treaty
December 31, 2000

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

Note: Pages will open in a new browser window

External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive.