After two months of negotiations, Washington backed down on a threat to use its veto and abstained in a late-night vote on Thursday to refer the mass killings in the western Sudanese province to the court in The Hague.

The 11-0 vote marked a victory for Europe in an ideological clash with the United States over the creation of global institutions.

Washington, fearing that the court could mount politically motivated prosecutions of American soldiers and officials, had vowed not to co-operate with it. Its turnaround suggested that pragmatists in the Bush Administration had won out over hardline “neo-cons” opposed to the court, indicating that the President may take a more conciliatory line in foreign policy in his second term.

It was surprising because President Bush had nominated John Bolton, a leading critic of the court, to be Washington’s next Ambassador at the UN. It was Mr Bolton who formally rescinded President Clinton’s signature on the treaty establishing the court, describing it as “the happiest moment in my government service”.

Anne Patterson, the acting US Ambassador, told the Security Council: “We decided not to oppose the resolution because of the need for the international community to work together to end the climate of impunity in Darfur.”

She added: “We have not dropped, and indeed continue to maintain, our longstanding and firm objections and concerns regarding the ICC.”

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, called the vote “a further step forward in the development of international justice and the fight against impunity for the perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide”.

Human rights groups were jubilant at what they described as an historic American climbdown. “Given the history of US opposition to the ICC, it has been very big of them to compromise and abstain on this,” James Smith, the chief executive of the Aegis Trust, which co-ordinates the newly established “Protect Darfur” campaign, said.

The vote marks the first time that the Security Council has referred a case to the ICC — which otherwise would not have had jurisdiction over Sudan because it is not a party to the 1998 Rome Treaty setting up the court.

Britain and France led the diplomatic campaign to force the United States — the only council member to describe the killings in Darfur as genocide — to refer the crisis to The Hague, but to secure a US abstention supporters of the court had to offer a broad exemption from prosecution for Americans on UN duty in Sudan.

Up to 300,000 people have died since war broke out in Darfur in February last year. A UN inquiry has identified 51 Sudanese officials and army officers, Arab tribal leaders and rebels who could face prosecution for war crimes.

Sudan complained yesterday that the ICC’s involvement would undermine peace efforts. “I believe it is unfair, ill-advised and narrow-minded,” Najeeb al-Kheir Abdul Wahab, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, said. “It undermines the Government’s quest for justice in Darfur through reconciliation.”

Last night Sudan’s ruling party rejected a UN resolution on sending Darfur war crime suspects to court and signalled that it would not co-operate in bringing them to trial abroad.

Rebel groups in Darfur welcomed the resolution. “This is a big day for justice in our country,” said Abdel Wahed Mohamed al-Nur, leader of the Sudan Liberation Army.

Explore World News

• Iraq News

• US & Americas News

• Europe News

• Middle East News

• Asia News

• Africa News

• Ireland News

Times Recommends

• China dissident's cry for democracy 30 years on
• A charity or a front for the Mumbai killers?
• Putin shows he's still the man in charge