US peacekeepers in UN-mandated Bosnia, Serbia and Kosovo have been subject to the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal. The absolute number of US participants in such operations is small, even though it pays 27 per cent of the bills involved. Taking on an added financial burden is worth the extra cost involved to states refusing this US ultimatum, even if all UN peacekeeping mandates are involved.
Genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of aggression are universally condemned yet exceedingly difficult to define and bring to justice. Now that the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been formally launched to do just that, it has encountered an immediate crisis arising from disputed jurisdiction. It has been provoked by the United States, which refuses outright to submit its troops, political leaders or citizens to the new court's remit. That is unacceptable and to be condemned. But those who do so, should bear in mind that Russia, China, India and Israel have also refused to co-operate with the ICC on similar grounds. This means it will have a difficult and prolonged birth, just as it has been many years in gestation.
The Bush administration wants to exempt US citizens working as United Nations peacekeepers from the court's reach. If it achieves that goal, the ICC's most important characteristic - its universality - would be undermined. At stake, is a fundamental principle struggling to emerge in world politics to contradict the assertion of state power and competition.
International law penetrates this system increasingly, along with multilateral political relations. But up to now, they have been constrained by the exercise of state sovereignty through the United Nations, expressed in the vetos held by three of the states refusing to uphold the ICC as permanent members of the Security Council. The new court overrides such constraints. It must be protected as it struggles to survive such a troubled birth.
So far, the European Union states have upheld their commitment to work together on this issue. It is essential they maintain it against an ideological assault from the US in protection of its unilateral assertion of national interest. International law is regarded by many of its conservatives, both in and out of the Bush administration, as an unacceptable and unneccessary constraint on US military and political power. They say they are resisting mischievous or politicised scapegoating of their troops and civilians; but their real objection is to the core principle of universal law involved.