Despite the tough posture adopted at negotiations by US Ambassador David Scheffer and other officials, many analysts here expect a deal could be in the works. "You have to remember, even statements in the Committee of the Whole, like plenary statements, are not a final position but a negotiating position," one legal expert notes. "I think by the end, the US could accept the ICC."

They may even be feeling the pressure to do so following the public isolation of the US position during last year's drafting of the Landmines Treaty, which Washington has refused to sign since it was opened for signature at Ottawa in December. "It's clear they don't want another Landmines Treaty," argues Richard Dicker, associate counsel for Human Rights Watch.

The level of US concern can be seen in the number of times that US State Department negotiators have hinted at a shift in Washington's stance. On Monday, State Department spokesman James Rubin argued that a paper circulated by Washington on defining ICC core crimes was the latest evidence of strong US support for the Court and offered "an important, legally-binding framework for the Court's prosecutors and defenders."

Other analysts attuned to Washington politics have argued that US President Bill Clinton will be ready to issue new instructions to the delegation in Rome, which could allow it to accept stronger prosecutorial independence than they have so far been prepared to acknowledge and even the "Singapore compromise" that limits Security Council powers to remove cases from the ICC docket.

With nearly four weeks of haggling to go, many nations could change their stances on the Court, but the possibility of US acceptance would clearly change other countries' political calculations significantly.

For some diplomats, the prospect of US signing feeds a particular worry: What would other countries that object to the ICC do if the pro-Court momentum includes Washington? "We're worried about that because my government really cannot accept the Court," says one diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "But I'm convinced the US will sign, that the result will be a Court they can accept.

Then that puts pressure on everybody else." "We don't want to sign, but if we don't, we'll look like the bad guys," another envoy argues. As long as Washington holds out, he notes, the pressure to sign on is less - but that equation would change dramatically if the US government becomes more supportive of the Court.

Such concern is likely premature. Although Clinton and the State Department have clearly indicated their preference to support the Court, pressure from the Pentagon and from the Republican-led US Congress has ensured that will be no easy achievement.

Several key Republicans, including Senate Foreign Relations Chair Jesse Helms, have already come out against the ICC as a "threat to national sovereignty", while Defense Secretary William Cohen is also convinced the Court could pose a risk to US military personnel, says one official knowledgeable about the Pentagon.

Ultimately, all the rumours about whether the US will change its stance have not been helpful, says Jelena Pejic, senior programme coordinator for the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. "Despite all the rumours, the US position is exactly the same as it has been for months," she says. "When they are ready to sign it, they'll sign it. Until then, I don't know how useful it is to talk about what they might do." Farhan Haq/IPS