So far, the Bush administration has taken an admirably tough stance in its refusal to cotton to the creation of the International Criminal Court. But its assurances yesterday that America would not pull out of peacekeeping operations in Bosnia — the threat of which the administration had used as leverage to demand immunity from ICC prosecutions — were an unwelcome sign that the president might not have the stomach to finish the fight. We’re not eager to see American troops pull out of anywhere, but in this case the move is likely to be interpreted as President Bush softening a position that Europe’s diplomatic class and the editors of the New York Times had derided as “reckless.”

The ICC having come into existence on Monday, both America and Israel have legitimate reason to worry. The court has jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. Neither America nor Israel would seem to be at risk of committing such crimes — that is until you read the fine print. The statute’s crimes are illdefined. For example, the tribunal is authorized to treat as a war crime “incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.” The prosecutor, who makes judgments about what is “clearly excessive,” is unaccountable.

And it is no coincidence that many of the countries that have ridiculed America for its stance on the ICC have gotten protection from the court for themselves. Nineteen countries participating in peacekeeping activities in Afghanistan — including Great Britain, France, and Germany — obtained written guarantees from Afghanistan’s interim government that they would not be turned over to an international tribunal without their consent. How convenient.