Following is a ``frequently asked questions'' guide to the court and the main issues at stake in the conference, which runs until July 17 and at which some 180 countries aim to conclude statutes setting up the ICC.

WHAT IS THE ICC?

Unlike U.N. tribunals for the former Yugoslavia or Rwanda, the ICC will be a permanent court, probably based in The Hague. It could be working within five years.

WHY DO WE NEED THE ICC?

The idea of a court was first mooted 50 years ago to try to ensure that the horrors of the Holocaust never happened again.

Advocates of a strong court say that since the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials after World War Two, perpetrators of serious crimes against humanity have escaped justice because there is nowhere to try them. The International Court of Justice only settles disputes between states, not individuals.

Human rights organisations say creation of an ICC would act as a deterrent to the perpetrators of serious humanitarian crimes and would be better than the international community's current main weapons -- sanctions and military force -- which can hurt innocent civilians more than the offenders.

WHAT CRIMES WILL COME BEFORE THE ICC?

The ICC will only have jurisdiction in three, well-defined areas -- genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. That is likely to cover rape when used as a war crime. The conference will still have to define so-called ``crimes against peace.''

Human rights groups and lawyers say this should allay U.S. concerns that the ICC could be a tool for politically-motivated prosecutions, such as of soldiers serving abroad.

The ICC will not be a substitute for national courts. It will only be able to act if national courts cannot or will not do so. The court's powers will not be retroactive.

WHERE ARE THE BATTLE LINES DRAWN?

There are three main blocs:

Some 50 so-called ``like-minded'' states, including Britain, the rest of the European Union but not France, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Eastern European, South Africa, Latin American, Asian and Caribbean states, who have been the main motor for the creation of the ICC.

The United States and France, and less vocally China and Russia, who want the ICC, but with Security Council control.  Some states who apparently want a weak court or no court at all. These include India, Pakistan, Egypt, Cuba, Colombia, Iran, Iraq and Algeria. Some of these states are trying to use the Non-Aligned Movement to obstruct creation of the ICC.

WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS?

The conference faces some major political stumbling blocks: governments do not agree on the scope of jurisdiction and mechanism for bringing cases, the ICC's relationship with the U.N. Security Council and the prosecutor's powers.

The conference also has to sort out technical matters, such as exactly what type of legal code will be used and funding.

JURISDICTION -- Human rights groups and lawyers want a truly independent court that is able to begin cases without consent from the country in which the crime took place or the home country of the accused.  They say the alternative would create the kind of situation in which, for example in Kosovo, Serbian agreement would be needed to indict Serbian military personnel or where Khmer Rouge consent would have been needed to try Cambodia's Pol Pot.

Some delegations want states to be able to select which crimes the ICC can prosecute or to be able to withhold consent for the ICC to proceed on a case- by-case basis. Human rights groups and lawyers want the ICC to have jurisdiction over crimes committed in internal, not just international, conflicts.

THE ICC AND THE SECURITY COUNCIL -- Permanent Security Council members the United States and France want the ICC to have to seek Council approval before launching cases.

Most other states oppose this idea. Lawyers say allowing such a right of veto would create a two-tier justice system and make the ICC the judicial wing of the Security Council. 

PROSECUTOR -- Human rights organisations and lawyers say the prosecutor must have the right to start investigations independently, as in the Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals. That would mean a case could be opened on the basis of evidence brought by victims or non-governmental organisations.

But some states, including the United States, France, India, Pakistan and Cuba, want proceedings to start only if cases are referred by the Security Council or another state triggers an investigation by lodging a complaint. NGOs object, saying states are reluctant to start proceedings against each other.

WHAT IS THE ``SINGAPORE COMPROMISE?''

This is an idea to loosen Security Council control over the ICC which many nations support but the United States resists. Britain supports it, breaking ranks among the ``Big Five'' permanent Security Council members. 

Under the proposal, a case could only be blocked if the Security Council took action to do so, with unanimous agreement.

Human rights groups and lawyers say that would still allow political intervention in justice and that, if a case were frozen, evidence or witnesses could be eliminated jeopardising the prospects of any future prosecution. 

07:02 06-14-98   

Copyright 1998 Reuters Limited.  All rights reserved.  Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similiar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.  Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.  All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL. Politics weigh on International Court conference

By Jude Webber

ROME, June 14 (Reuters) - As the world wonders what to do about Kosovo, lawyers and officials sit down on Monday for tough negotiations on a new permanent court to put the perpetrators of genocide and war crimes on trial.

A security force crackdown on separatist Albanians in Kosovo, a province of Serbia, has forced thousands of ethnic Albanian civilians to flee towns coming under bombardment.

It is a stark reminder of the kinds of atrocities an International Criminal Court (ICC) would exist to judge.

Pope John Paul fully supported the conference on Sunday, saying it would serve to protect fundamental rights. He hoped the gathering would be a ``historic moment on the path toward mutual understanding among people.''

But human rights lobbyists fear the five-week conference risks being hijacked by political pressures that could stop a court first conceived after World War Two with the lofty ideal of ensuring justice after genocide from having the power to act decisively.

``I think it's going to be an intense and hard-fought conference,'' said Richard Dicker, associate counsel of Human Rights Watch, a U.S.-based monitoring group.  U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan opens the conference on Monday and more than 180 states will have until July 17 to hammer out the ICC's statutes.

``We will send out a warning that impunity can no longer be accepted,'' Annan said earlier this month. ``Those that commit these crimes will be made to account for it...They'll be put in the dock and tried.''

But the gaps on some key issues remain so wide that many see the wrangling going right to the wire if a deal is to be reached.

 In one camp, some 50 so-called ``like-minded'' states, including U.N. Security Council member Britain, South Africa, Canada, Australia, South Korea and Argentina, have been pressing for a strong, independent tribunal in years of preparatory work.

The other permanent members of the Security Council -- the United States and France, plus China and Russia which have played a less active role -- want an ICC, but one which they can control and over which the Council can have a veto. 

Lastly, there is a group of states ``who are looking not simply for a weak court but quite possibly for no court at all,'' Dicker said. He named India, Pakistan, Egypt, Cuba, Colombia, Iran, Iraq and Algeria in that group.

The court, which will probably sit in The Hague, will be able to prosecute cases in three areas -- genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. There is no agreement on its brief being extended to other areas, such as crime against children.

It will differ from the ad-hoc war-crimes tribunals set up to investigate ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and genocide in Rwanda in that it will be a permanent court, designed to punish criminals sheltered by their own national justice systems or benefiting from their collapse.

That triggers one of Washington's objections -- it fears its servicemen stationed abroad could be targeted in politically-motivated trials and wants cast-iron guarantees.

Washington wants the Security Council to be required to give its consent before the ICC can start a case on any subject in which the Council is involved.   It has not been swayed by a compromise position put forward by Singapore that a case could be blocked only if the Council took action to do so. Britain, which proclaims an ``ethical foreign policy,'' supports the proposal.

Instead of the independent prosecutor whom lawyers want to see -- a figure with the power to open investigations once presented with enough evidence from any source -- the United States favours starting proceedings only after referrals by the Security Council or after complaints from individual states.

Furthermore, it wants many prosecutions to be allowed only if the suspect's home state consents -- a scenario that would have required Khmer Rouge approval to try Cambodia's late Pol Pot.

``You don't have to be a law professor to see how unlikely it is for the government of the accused to give consent to prosecute,'' Dicker said.  Lawyers and human rights activists also want the court to have the power to try cases that refer to internal, not just international, conflicts.

Citing the cases of Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic and his military strongman Ratko Mladic, who have been indicted by the Yugoslav tribunal but are still at large, they say that an effective court would act as a deterrent against future atrocities.

07:19 06-14-98