It also said the ICC must defer to national legal systems which have "the will and the ability" to adjudicate cases which would otherwise fall under the ICC's jurisdiction to try cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Speaking here on the opening day of a five-week conference in Rome to establish the court, State Department spokesman James Rubin warned delegates at the meeting they "must distinguish carefully between the ideal of an international criminal court and the reality of the world today."

"Negotiating the court's establishment should not ignore existing institutions that can support the court's goals or vexing problems that could cause its politicisation," said Rubin, who stressed that "the court must not undermine the authority of the Security Council."

The U.S. position is certain to be one of the major sticking points in the negotiations will separate the United States from most of its European allies, and the many non-governmental organisations (NGOs) who have spoken out in favour of a strong and   independent court, observers opined.

NGOs, such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, favour a court whose chief prosecutor would enjoy broad powers to investigate and prosecute cases before the ICC on his or her own initiative.

''The ICC Prosecutor must be allowed to trigger the jurisdiction of the court of his or her own accord; i.e. without being moved by the Security Council or a state party to the treaty,'' according to a recent Lawyers Committee brief.

''This is necessary in order to strengthen the effectiveness of the court in deterring and punishing serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole," according to the group.

But the administration of President Bill Clinton, while insisting that it, too, supports a strong court, strongly objects to permitting the court and its prosecutor to take up cases on their own initiative.

The administration's stance responded to pressure both from the Pentagon and from right-wing Republicans in Congress who fear that without some way to ensure U.S. control of the tribunal, the ICC represents a threat to America's national sovereignty.

Already, the powerful chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has declared that any treaty that does not give U.S. effective veto power over what cases it the ICC takes up will be ''dead on arrival'' in the Senate, which must ratify international treaties.

And the Pentagon says it is worried that an overzealous prosecutor, for example, could bring cases against soldiers involved in U.N. peace-keeping operations.

Security Council control over the prosecutor and the cases brought before the court would grant the United States and the other four permanent Council members - Britain, China, France and Russia - an effective veto over the Court's discretion. With the exception of Britain, all of the permanent Council members oppose giving the prosecutor broad discretion.

Outlining the U.S. position Monday, Rubin stressed that "the Security Council should have the ability to refer situations to the court for investigation and direct all countries to cooperate with the court when necessary and appropriate. When state parties   to the treaty, if it ever is made, refer a situation to the court, the Security Council should have the authority to review such a referral."

Supporters of an independent ICC argue that this stance would fatally weaken the court and undermine confidence in it. "The Security Council is a political body, made even more so by the veto power of the five permanent members," observed Jerry Fowler, Legislative Counsel for the Lawyers Committee.

"(Its) control over the Court's docket would undermine the Court's credibility by creating the perception, if not the reality, of inappropriate political influence. Worst of all, any permanent member of the Security Council could single-handedly  frustrate international justice with its veto."

There has been some speculation in Washington that the United States may be willing to go along with a compromise on the question of Security Council control, such as that recently put forward by Singapore. That proposal gives the Security Council the power to halt or delay a case from proceeding from the investigative to the prosecutorial stage. Jim Lobe/IPS