President Clinton's signature on Sunday of the treaty to establish a permanent international war crimes tribunal has been welcomed by human rights campaigners.
But the largely symbolic move, as Mr Clinton made clear, does not yet signal a US willingness to submit to the jurisdiction of such a court when it is finally established.
In the face of bitter hostility from his own and the incoming defence secretaries, as well as the Republican Party, who claim it will allow the politically-inspired prosecution of US servicemen serving on peacekeeping missions abroad, Mr Clinton said the treaty should not be submitted to the Senate for ratification until the US received more assurances.
To date some 130 countries have signed the treaty and 27 have ratified it - it comes into force only when 60 ratify it. The treaty provides for the permanent establishment in The Hague of a tribunal to prosecute individuals accused of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. It will have jurisdiction over citizens of, or offences committed in, ratifying countries.
Mr Clinton said he was authorising the signature "to reaffirm our strong support for international accountability and for bringing to justice perpetrators of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
"With signature, however, we will be in a position to influence the evolution of the court. Without signature, we will not."
Taking a similar line, Israel also signed the treaty on Sunday, just hours before a deadline that would otherwise have excluded it from such discussions.
But the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Senator Jesse Helms, has vowed to reverse the decision as soon as possible, describing it as "outrageous". "This decision will not stand", he said.
In the course of negotiations on the treaty, US fears that its troops might face politically-inspired prosecution were addressed by making the court's jurisdiction "complementary" to that of the ratifying states.
This means that the court can only take action where it can be shown that the appropriate national authorities have made no good-faith attempt to investigate or prosecute alleged offences.
Human rights organisations say US assurances that its own judicial and military discipline procedures are more than adequate safeguards mean that prosecutions of US soldiers by the court are extremely unlikely. Mr William Pace, head of the Coalition for an International Criminal Court, said he expected some short-term repercussions.
"But history will show this decision was correct," he said after the signing ceremony at the UN headquarters.
The Israeli ambassador to the UN, Mr Yehuda Lancry, maintained that, despite concerns, Israel had been active in setting up the court since the 1950s because of the Holocaust, "the greatest and most heinous crime against mankind".
