Reaffirming that the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute and does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

Bill Number

H.Res. 9

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

International Affairs

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-01-03: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Last Updated

2025-01-16T21:26:51Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

This House Resolution (H. Res. 9) aims to formally restate the United States' longstanding position that it is not bound by the Rome Statute—the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC)—and does not accept the ICC's authority over U.S. actions or personnel. It also condemns a specific ICC action targeting Israeli leaders and expresses strong support for Israel.

Key Provisions

• Reaffirmation of U.S. Status: Declares that the U.S. is not a party to the Rome Statute and rejects the ICC's jurisdiction, referencing historical actions like President Clinton's signing without Senate submission and the Bush administration's 2002 announcement against joining.
• Condemnation of ICC Actions: Specifically criticizes the ICC Prosecutor's May 20, 2024, announcement of arrest warrant applications for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, noting that neither the U.S. nor Israel is an ICC member.
• Support for Israel: Reiterates the U.S. House's backing of Israel's right to self-defense and protection of its leaders from what it calls unwarranted international legal proceedings.

The resolution highlights constitutional requirements for treaty ratification (needing two-thirds Senate approval) and notes that the Rome Statute requires formal ratification by signatories to take effect.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

This resolution introduces no changes to U.S. law, as it is a non-binding expression of congressional opinion rather than enforceable legislation. It simply reaffirms prior U.S. policy positions established since 2000, without altering statutes, treaties, or legal frameworks.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: May guide the State Department or executive branch in diplomatic responses to ICC activities, reinforcing U.S. resistance to international courts that could affect American military or officials abroad.
• On Citizens: Limited direct impact, but it upholds protections for U.S. personnel (e.g., service members) from potential ICC prosecution, maintaining the status quo.
• On International Relations: Could strain U.S.-ICC ties, signal solidarity with Israel amid global tensions, and influence alliances by discouraging other nations from supporting ICC actions against non-members. It may also affect U.S. credibility in promoting international justice elsewhere.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• U.S. House of Representatives: As the body adopting the resolution, it shapes congressional foreign policy messaging.
• State of Israel and Its Leaders: Directly benefits from the condemnation of ICC warrants and U.S. support for self-defense.
• International Criminal Court (ICC): Faces explicit U.S. rejection of its legitimacy in this context, potentially limiting its influence over non-party states.
• U.S. Executive Branch (e.g., President, State Department): Indirectly involved, as the resolution aligns with but does not bind executive foreign policy.
• U.S. Military and Citizens Abroad: Protected under the reaffirmed non-recognition of ICC jurisdiction.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal Implications: Reinforces that the U.S. remains unbound by the ICC, as the Rome Statute (an international treaty) never progressed beyond signing to full ratification. This upholds U.S. sovereignty in international law matters.
• Constitutional Implications: References Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which requires Senate supermajority approval for treaties, underscoring limits on executive treaty powers without legislative consent.
• Political Implications: Serves as a partisan or bipartisan signal (introduced by Rep. Biggs) in U.S.-Israel relations, potentially escalating debates on international accountability during conflicts like those involving Israel and Palestine. As a resolution, it carries symbolic weight but no legal force, possibly influencing future appropriations or sanctions related to the ICC.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]

Recent Actions

• 2025-01-03: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
• 2025-01-03: Submitted in House
• 2025-01-03: Submitted in House

Bill Versions

• Reaffirming that the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute and does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. — issued 2025-01-03 — PDF (2 pages)