UNITED NATIONS – Eager to break a stalemate, America agreed yesterday it would not veto a resolution allowing the prosecution of Sudanese war crimes by the International Criminal Court.

Washington agreed to refrain from vetoing the resolution once it received a guarantee that Americans in Sudan would be shielded from prosecution. Even with the concession, the agreement was considered a shift in policy. The resolution, initiated by Britain, passed with 11 of the 15 members of the U.N. Security Council. America, China, Algeria, and Brazil abstained.

America’s acting ambassador, Anne Patterson, reiterated Washington’s objection to the court, but said, “Justice must be served in Darfur.” Of America’s exemption on the resolution, she added, “This resolution provides complete protection to Americans.”

The dispute over the resolution had become a showdown between internationalists led by France and the Americans, who were fiercely against the court.

The French ambassador, Jean Marc de la Sabliere, called the resolution “historic,” and said, “This resolution marks a turning point, for it is sending the message beyond Darfur to all of those criminals responsible for crimes against humanity and war crimes who all too often believed that they were beyond the pale of justice.”

He also predicted that the clauses providing immunity “will be dropped” in future resolutions.

The Sudanese ambassador, Elfatih Erwa, was critical. He said the struggle over the resolution was not, in fact, about Darfur but about the international criminal court. Mr. Erwa said the jurisdiction of the court covered smaller countries, such as Sudan, while America was exempt.

Nations that contribute troops or observers to operations in Sudan but are not signatories of the Rome Statute that established the Hague based ICC, such as America, “Shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of that contributing state,” the resolution said. It also assured that the United Nations, which gets just less than a quarter of its budget from America, would not fund ICC prosecution, and neither would any American funding.

Calling the Rome Statute “flawed” and reiterating America’s objection to the court, Ms. Patterson said America has signed side agreements with 99 countries to shield its citizens from ICC prosecution.

Nevertheless, supporters of the court, including nine members of the Security Council, were pleased the court finally received the blessing of the council.

A strong supporter of the court, Richard Dicker of Human Rights Watch, said the council finally “validated the role of the ICC.”

The document is the third in a series of resolutions designed to put a stop to a crisis in Darfur, where a conflict between government-backed militias and rebels has cost up to 400,000 lives, according to some estimates.

Two American-sponsored resolutions to send troops and impose sanctions in Sudan were approved without much objection.