Kirsch would probably be playing on the assumption that the prospect of political  embarrassment would prevent some countries from blocking an agreement outright, the sources said. A final package, without any other options to choose from, is to be be introduced as a formal proposal by Wednesday, to be voted upon Thursday evening or Friday.

The Canadian diplomat met with several delegations - the non-aligned and the like-minded among them - looking for consensus on what steps to adopt to forge a compromise between now and Wednesday, when the Whole Committee must finish its work. Sources said that at least the 60-odd like-minded group of nations encouraged Kirsch to take the gamble on a vote.

European sources also mentioned the possibility of partial votings, which would in turn open the door to either a weak Statute, or a Statute without many signatories. Thus, the ghost of a postponement of key issues for another conference, or some othter venue yet to be defined, has reappeared in the corridors.

Tough talk

At the Red Room meanwhile, Monday was time for tough talk by delegations for most of the day. The United States delegate, David Scheffer, did not retreat from the positions his country adopted last Thursday: to all who were listening, it quickly became obvious that the second version of the Bureau paper did not satisfy the US delegation any more than the first one.

Since most like-minded countries and NGOs did not like the paper either, there seems to have emerged a common string of rejections, which might be one of its merits: It does not please anyone and thus leaves little alternative to acceptance or anarchy.

This time, however, the US' Scheffer expressed reservations of a more technical nature, instead of the threatening political tone that shocked almost everyone on Thursday.

As expected since the Bureau paper was released Friday, China, India, Mexico, Russia and a number of representatives of the Non-Aligned Movement took the opportunity to reopen issues they consider fundamental to the Court.

Hence, multiple disagreements seemed to grow, rather than diminish. Iran presented, on behalf of the non-aligned countries, a formal request to include the crime of aggression as a core crime, and to specifically mention the use and the threat of use of nuclear weapons as a war crime. Both these provisions were deleted in the second version of the Bureau paper. Syria and Bahrain introduced a draft generic definition of aggression.

Most non-aligned countries have expressed their intention to accept a compromise that would defer a definition of aggression, provided it is mentioned as a crime and is included in "Article xx" that deals with the elements of crime. But this article, crafted by the US, is meant to further define the three core crimes contemplated in the Statute: genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, and not to deal with new ones, which may also include the so-called Treaty crimes: terrorism, drug-trafficking and mercenarism.

All against all?

India was adamant regarding the issues of including nuclear weapons and the role of limiting the United Nations Security Council, and announced that it would introduce the necessary amendments (see separate story). Mexico proposed a compromise paragraph on the Council, by deferring the issue to the "principal organs of the United Nations."

China, for its part, proposed the deletion of Article 12, which describes the attributes of the Prosecutor, while Russia supported Option 2 of this Article, which would insert additional safeguards for the Court, arguing that the Prosecutor should act only by a State request or by a Security Council resolution.

The Vatican insisted on including drug-trafficking and illegal arms trade in the list of crimes, and the US hammered on gender crimes -"sexual violence"- which were left for "further discussion" in the Bureau paper.

On behalf of the Southern Africa Development Community, South Africa insisted on specifically including in non-international conflicts those between internal armed groups. The United States rejected the language added to Section D (internal armed conflicts), which states that Governments will have freedom to "maintain or re-establish law and order in the State."

But Russia not only supported such language but demanded that it be widened to add mention of "State sovereignty", which pleases all those countries that want internal conflicts to be removed from the Statute, such as China, India or Mexico.

Germany insisted on its thesis of vesting the Court with universal automatic jurisdiction on all three core crimes. For that, it later apparently drew fire from India -which without specifically mentioning any country, lashed out at it for posing as "champion of the ICC" while enjoying nuclear protection under the security umbrella of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).

On the other hand, the United States and Russia agreed on Option 2 of the role of the Security Council, which does not limit the time within which the Council can limit an investigation.

Cuba asked why the scope of Article xx, concerning elements of crimes, was to be reduced only to the three core crimes, and did not include aggression and others, such as economic embargoes. But it agreed with the US and Iran in not giving the Prosecutor a free hand - or propio motu, as the experts say - in triggering investigations.

Venezuela contributed a note of moderation, proposing that a "practical review formula" be established for dealing with controversial issues such as jurisdiction, "instead of reviewing the entire Statute."

The Mexican chief delegate, Sergio Gonzalez, hinted that Mexico "and many other countries" may not sign a Statute that does not satisfy their requirements, and insisted on it having a chapter on reservations as a formula that would allow the postponment of discussion of key disagreements for a later stage.

Several Latin American delegates confirmed such a stand. One diplomat said that his government had already announced that it was not prepared to sign any Statute resulting from these nerve-wracking, late-hour negotiations. At this time, he said the prospects for the signing of any Statute look "very difficult". He added that the signing ceremony set to take place sometime Saturday at the magnificent (and Michelangelo-designed) Piazza del Campidoglio, where Rome's city hall stands, would proclaim a new era on the basis of a what is a secretarial record of the Conference - not a real Statute. Alejandro Kirk