The need for an ICC is apparent. Without a permanent international court, the worst international criminals have enjoyed impunity. Individuals who murder millions (such as Pol Pot) or who indiscriminately use nerve gas against civilians (such as Saddam Hussein) should not be permitted to act without the threat of being called to account in a court of law. Clearly, this is a court whose time has come.

Naysayers opposed to the ICC, however, have portrayed the Court as unconstitutional, uncontrollable and adverse to American policy. These red herring arguments must be rejected.

First, the Constitution expressly grants Congress the power "to define and punish. . . offenses against the laws of war." This authority, the U.S. Supreme Court declared in 1946, authorises the establishment of appropriate tribunals "for the trial and punishment of offenses against the laws of war." Without question, participation in an ICC created by multilateral treaty passes constitutional muster.

Second, the ICC will complement, not replace, the existing criminal jurisdiction of national courts. Indeed, national courts - and not the ICC - will be the preferred forum in every instance unless national courts are unavailable or ineffective. Stringent safeguards also will be in place to minimise the possibility of frivolous or unwarranted prosecutions.

Third, the ICC's jurisdiction will be confined to three so-called "core crimes" -- genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. These crimes are subject to universal jurisdiction, meaning that all governments have a duty to prosecute perpetrators. The elements of these offenses are largely derived from widely accepted international treaties such as the 1948 Genocide Convention and the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

Fourth, U.S. ratification of an ICC treaty with a narrow jurisdiction over the "core crimes" is wholly consistent with the fundamental tenets of American foreign policy. The prosecution of war criminals has been a principal goal since the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials. Indeed, the United States spearheaded the creation of the ad hoc international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and Congress has routinely approved significant funding for these courts.

Finally, the ICC will operate in accord with the highest international standards of fairness and due process. These standards generally comport with the Bill of Rights, and fears that the ICC will trample the rights of defendants and the accused are simply misguided.

As a nation with a deep commitment to a just rule of law, the proposed ICC deserves the support of all Americans. It would be a tragic mistake if overwrought misperceptions derail United States ratification of this historic treaty.

Jerome J. Shestack is the president of the American Bar Association. David Stoelting is co-chair of the ABA Coordinating Committee on the ICC.