This resolution states that the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute and does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. It condemns the ICC’s arrest warrant applications for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and it reiterates unwavering U.S. support for Israel and its right to defend itself.
As a non-binding expression of congressional policy, the measure frames U.S. sovereignty over international criminal accountability and signals how the United States would engage with ICC-related actions. The text cites historical and legal context around treaty ratification and underscores that the Rome Statute has not been, and would not be, adopted by the United States.
The resolution is aimed at clarifying stance rather than creating enforceable obligations.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill declares the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute and disclaims ICC jurisdiction; it condemns ICC arrest warrant applications against Israeli leaders and affirms U.S. support for Israel.
Who It Affects
ICC and its staff, the Israeli government and its leaders, U.S. lawmakers and foreign policy apparatus, and international partners aligned with U.S. sovereignty and Israel’s security posture.
Why It Matters
It codifies a congressional position on international criminal accountability and informs diplomacy with ICC member states and allies, potentially shaping future cooperation and messaging on cases involving U.S. and allied nationals.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The resolution asserts that the United States is not a participant in the Rome Statute and does not recognize the ICC’s authority over U.S. persons. It specifically condemns the ICC’s attempts to issue arrest warrants for Israeli leaders Netanyahu and Gallant.
The measure also reiterates the United States’ unwavering support for Israel and its right to defend itself against what it calls unwarranted international legal actions. While the resolution does not change U.S. law or create new obligations, it signals a strong political stance intended to guide future diplomacy and international engagement on questions of international criminal accountability.
The language relies on constitutional and historical context to emphasize that treaty ratification requires Senate involvement, reinforcing the separation of powers in foreign affairs.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution states the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute and does not recognize ICC jurisdiction.
It condemns the ICC’s arrest warrant applications against Israeli leaders Netanyahu and Gallant.
It reiterates unwavering U.S. support for Israel and its right to defend itself.
It references Article 125 of the Rome Statute to illustrate ratification mechanics and U.S. non-membership.
It is a non-binding House resolution submitted by Rep. Andy Biggs and referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Non-recognition of Rome Statute and ICC jurisdiction
The section states that the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute and does not recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction over U.S. nationals or matters arising from U.S. actions. It frames this stance within the constitutional requirement for treaty ratification, underscoring that international agreements require Senate approval. This section signals a formal policy position rather than a binding legal change.
Condemnation of ICC arrest warrants for Israeli leaders
This provision condemns the ICC’s arrest warrant applications for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Gallant. It frames those actions as inappropriate or unwarranted international legal actions against national leaders and reinforces the U.S. stance on protecting allied leadership from ICC proceedings.
Commitment to Israel’s defense and alignment with its security posture
The final provision reiterates unwavering U.S. support for Israel and its right to defend itself and its leaders from international legal actions. It reflects a policy posture that prioritizes bilateral alliance commitments and signals how the United States may respond to ICC-related actions in the future.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Foreign Affairs across all five countries.
Explore Foreign Affairs in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State of Israel and its leadership, including Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Gallant, who gain political backing and international legitimacy against ICC actions.
- U.S. lawmakers who prioritize sovereignty and opposition to ICC jurisdiction gain a clear policy instrument to advocate for their stance.
- The U.S. foreign policy establishment and security community that advocates for strong Israel alignment and limited ICC influence may view this as supportive of their policy framework.
Who Bears the Cost
- The International Criminal Court may view the resolution as a political signal against its jurisdiction and processes, potentially complicating cooperation with the United States.
- ICC member states that support international criminal accountability may see this as undermining consensus on since-passed norms and enforcement mechanisms.
- U.S. diplomatic relationships with allies who support ICC processes could be affected if they view the resolution as isolating the United States from multilateral approaches.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether a formal, congressional declaration of non-recognition of ICC jurisdiction strengthens U.S. sovereignty without undermining long-standing international law norms or damaging allied diplomacy.
This resolution is a non-binding statement of congressional policy. It does not create new legal duties or modify treaty commitments, and it does not alter existing U.S. law.
The text may influence foreign policy dialogue and signaling with international partners, but it does not compel action by the executive branch. The measure relies on political and diplomatic messaging rather than enforceable rules, which means its practical impact will depend on subsequent diplomatic decisions and intergovernmental negotiations.
Core to the bill is the tension between asserting U.S. sovereignty in foreign affairs and maintaining constructive engagement with international institutions and allies that participate in or support international criminal accountability. The resolution’s stance could limit close cooperation with ICC processes or influence negotiations with states that are ICC members, potentially complicating multilateral diplomacy on matters where U.S. positions diverge from ICC findings.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.