There is always something disturbing about a leader that pronounces himself above the law. That only partially explains the unease surrounding the United States' decision to oppose creation of the International Criminal Court. Just as important have been the implications of that resistance -- which were on full display last week in the United Nations, where the U.S. had threatened to end the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia.
A temporary solution was reached, but U.S. demands that it be given blanket immunity from the court's jurisdiction fly in the face of established notions of justice. Worse, there is no reason for this impasse: The ICC was designed in such a way as to foreclose the political prosecutions the U.S. fears.
The controversy was triggered by a Security Council resolution that sought a six-month extension of the 1,500-strong U.N. police training mission in Bosnia. It also extended authorization for the 18,000-person North Atlantic Treaty Organization-led peacekeeping force in Bosnia for one year. The U.S. originally threatened to veto the resolution unless U.S. participants in the peacekeeping mission -- 46 police trainers and 3,100 soldiers in the NATO force -- were given immunity from the jurisdiction of the ICC.