An international tribunal's preliminary inquiry into NATO's air war against Yugoslavia may set a precedent for subjecting US military actions to international judicial review, reports the New York Times.
     In late December, the Hague-based International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) completed an internal analysis of the possibility that NATO allies committed war crimes during their 78-day campaign against Yugoslavia over the future of Kosovo. But ICTY officials "said there was virtually no possibility that charges would be brought against American or NATO personnel," and the tribunal's chief prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, emphasized Thursday that there was "no formal inquiry into the actions of NATO during the conflict in Kosovo."
     The US government has not disputed the tribunal's legal authority to review NATO's actions in Kosovo. But the White House "responded sharply" to reports of the inquiry, the New York Times reports. Spokesperson James Fallin: "NATO undertook extraordinary efforts to restrict collateral damage. ... Any inquiry into the conduct of its pilots would be completely unjustified."

Implications For The Future ICC
     The United States has strongly opposed the creation of a standing International Criminal Court (ICC), "fearing that a strong and independent court" would subject US troops overseas to "frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions." The "idea of subordinating American sovereignty to any international legal body" is "especially" worrisome to conservatives in Congress.
     Since July 1998, when 160 countries met in Rome to negotiate the court's creation, 92 countries have signed the Rome treaty and six have ratified it. The court will come into existence if and when 60 countries ratify the pact.
     The US's "tacit acceptance" of the ICTY's jurisdiction over NATO would make it harder for the United States to dispute the ICC's authority in future conflicts, according to experts. But the US State Department said a "limited precedent" is being set, because the new court would be a different legal entity, created by treaty rather than a US supported Security Council resolution.
     Kenneth Roth, executive director of New York-based Human Rights Watch, said the NATO bombing merited legal scrutiny because of the use of indiscriminate "cluster" bombs, the decision to strike electrical grids and other targets with civilian uses, and the decision to fly bombers at high altitudes, which raised the chances of bombing accidents.
     But William Nash, a retired Army major general at the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs in Washington, said the precedent may not be so dangerous. Nash "said the [ICTY] was showing that it was fair-minded enough not to rule out investigations of NATO but also that it would not rush to prosecute NATO to make a statement" (Steven Lee Myers, New York Times, 3 Jan).