The human rights agency argues in its review of the ICC, 'Justice in the Balance', that such crimes are essential parts of the court's brief. Yet a debate on all of those crimes, whose inclusion on the ICC docket is being considered by delegates here, could dramatically alter the chances of garnering supporters for the court.

For example, HRW contends the statute should "include as a crime carrying out of attacks which may cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects, which would be excessive" compared to military goals. However, such acts - normally deemed "collateral damage" by military officials - are currently only being considered as crimes here if they are committed with the specific intention of causing damages.

What HRW wants, however, is the prohibition of wilful or reckless attacks as well. "There is a duty to protect the civilian population ... Exposing civilians to grave danger by launching attacks which may cause incidental loss or injury is a violation of principles of humanity," the report argues.

Yet those attacks are particularly common among some of the world's most influential nations, including the United States and Russia. US air strikes against Iraq - including a 1991 bombing which led, apparently unintentionally, to the destruction of a major shelter for women and children in Baghdad - and the destruction of the Chechen capital of Grozny by Russian troops - could both fit as war crimes under the HRW definition.

The report also seeks the inclusion of enforced disappearances and gender-based violence among crimes against humanity.

In other respects, the HRW report also encourages a considerably tough Court, with a prosecutor empowered to conduct independent investigations and a limited Security Council role. "Advancing the rule of law internationally, which is one of the fundamental underlying goals of the establishment of the ICC, requires a judicial system that is truly independent," the agency argues. "This is clearly not compatible with five individual states enjoying veto power over which cases fall within the Court's docket."