It may be "crippled at birth", as Amnesty International's secretary general Pierre Sane fears. But it is a historic step forward for international justice and provides a basis for an improvement in the protection of human rights.

This applies not only in respect of the crime of genocide and crimes against humanity, but also in war crimes and armed conflicts not of an international nature, that take place in a territory of a State when there is protracted armed conflict between government forces and organised arms groups, or between such groups.

A total of 120 out of 160 nations participating in the Rome conference voted in favour of the Statute creating the Court. Countries like India, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq, which continue to have serious reservations on the tribunal, either abstained or voted in favour of the Statute.

And so did the African group and the countries of Latin America, partly ploughed by the 15-nation European Union, which is gaining more strength as it prepares to launch the single European currency Euro, and partly in full awareness of the need for a permanent court able to punish those guilty of serious crimes.

The Statute of the Court is flawed, as its critics rightly point out. For example, deliberate, forced starvation of civilians such as in Southern Sudan, will not be a war crime under the jurisdiction of the Court, says Sane.

But as the Court gets established and its 18 judges start working, there would certainly be hope that with juridical alacrity these judges would find ways to deter and penalise some of humankind's worst atrocities under the Statute's provisions related to crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Why cry foul before the game has even started? Some do so because they want to force the pace of international justice and human rights protection.

Others fear repercussions for their ways of life, perception of societal structures and disregard for fundamental human rights.

There has been talk of Europe imposing its will on the countries from diverse cultures and climes.  Old habits die hard. But recent developments in Indonesia, changes under way in Nigeria -- not to mention the transition underway in the central and eastern European states -- should be regarded as exemplary.

There are no Asian, African and Latin American values which inherently bar the citizens in the countries there to live in dignity which is the right of any human being. It is some of the power hungry and cynical elite which stand in their way.

The argument brought up at times during the Rome Conference - that if other nations were to adopt 'European standards' in different walks of life, they would go bankrupt - often ignores the fact that such arguments were rampant in Europe only 50 years ago.

This argument does not hold ground in a rapidly globalising world. Of course, human rights situations cannot be improved overnight. But the adoption of an ICC Statute should come as an encouragement to all those who are committed to protection of human rights.

The foundation of the United Nations triggered a movement toward global governance more than half a century ago. The last decade of the 20th century established several instruments of global governance, starting with the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992.

Because of its Constitution and parliamentary structure, the United States Administration and Congress have had problems with the instruments of global governance. The fact that they see a threat in yet another upcoming instrument of global governance should not come as a surprise.

However, the US is aware that it does not live in a vacuum and has shown enormous capacity to rejuvenate from their fatigue with global governance. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole, Philippe Kirsch, obviously has this at the back of his mind when he says the US and other countries staying out for the time being would eventually find their way to the ICC. Ramesh Jaura/IPS