Last summer more than 150 UN member states met in Rome to negotiate a treaty to establish a permanent international criminal court. Following years of preparatory meetings in New York and five weeks of negotiation in Rome, they voted 120 to seven, with twenty-one abstentions, for a treaty to establish an International Criminal Court (ICC) to hear future cases of genocide, serious war crimes and crimes against humanity. Most of the world's democracies-western and central Europe together with countries like Argentina, Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, South Africa and South Korea-supported the ICC. Only two democracies-the U.S. and Israel-voted against, thereby joining the likes of China, Iraq and Libya.

Before going into effect, the treaty must be ratified by sixty states. Especially in view of U.S. opposition, that will take years, at minimum. As of this writing, eighty-one states have signed the treaty, but only two, Senegal and Trinidad and Tobago, have ratified it.

A product of extensive compromise, the ICC is far from perfect. Most significantly, it may lack jurisdiction in some cases over atrocities committed by tyrants against their own peoples. It may also allow too much room for national governments to delay, obstruct and avoid credible international prosecutions. But contrary to Washington's objections, the ICC presents little risk of frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions of U.S. officials or troops deployed abroad in peacekeeping or humanitarian missions. Despite its flaws, the ICC should be supported as an essential first step.