{
  "id": "R41682",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R41682",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 382517,
      "date": "2011-03-10",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-06T22:08:16.076284",
      "title": "International Criminal Court and the Rome Statute: 2010 Review Conference",
      "summary": "ICC Review Conference and U.S. Engagement\nThe International Criminal Court (ICC, or Court) was established in 2002 as the first permanent court to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide (together, \u201cICC crimes\u201d). Pursuant to a provision in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (\u201cRome Statute\u201d or \u201cStatute\u201d), the States Parties to the Rome Statute agreed to review the Court\u2019s activities seven years after its establishment. In compliance with this provision, the States Parties convened a Review Conference in Kampala, Uganda, May 31\u2013June 11, 2010.\nAfter declining to officially participate in the activities of the ICC or in the sessions of the Rome Statute\u2019s Assembly of States Parties (ASP) since the Court was established in 2002, the United States shifted its stance and began attending ASP meetings as an observer in November 2009, signaling a new policy of engagement with the ICC. At the Review Conference, the United States participated fully as an observer.\nIssues Considered at the 2010 ICC Review Conference\nProposals in the Review Conference\u2019s agenda had broad possible ramifications for U.S. interests, and provided an opportunity for the United States to assess its policy toward the Court. Review Conference participants considered adding the crime of aggression to the ICC\u2019s jurisdiction, which would allow prosecution of state officials for using armed force against another state. The United States opposed this proposal for a number of reasons, including the possibility that U.S. officials might be prosecuted for their decisions. These concerns parallel the U.S. concerns over the possible prosecution of U.S. officials and servicemembers for the other ICC crimes. The question of ICC aggression jurisdiction was the most contentious for the Review Conference. States Parties argued over two central issues for activation of ICC aggression jurisdiction:\nwhether both aggressor and victim state consent would be necessary to grant ICC jurisdiction over an instance of alleged criminal aggression; and\nthe extent to which the U.N. Security Council should control the Court\u2019s exercise of aggression jurisdiction.\nThe States Parties adopted new jurisdiction provisions after several compromises, including delayed implementation and restricted application of the Court\u2019s aggression jurisdiction, and allowing states to opt out of ICC aggression jurisdiction.\nThe Review Conference agenda also included a number of discussions assessing the effect of the ICC on international criminal justice, especially with regard to crime victims and affected communities, and States Parties\u2019 cooperation with the ICC. During the Conference, the U.S. delegation demonstrated its new policy of engagement, pledging in-kind support for existing ICC cases and investigations, and for the development of States Parties\u2019 judicial-system capacity to prosecute ICC crimes. U.S. officials have since expressed support for the ICC, stating that it is now the global focal point for international criminal justice.\nPossible Congressional Actions Concerning the New U.S.-ICC Policy\nU.S. officials have asserted that this new policy of engagement with the ICC complies with U.S. law concerning the U.S.-ICC relationship, including the American Servicemembers\u2019 Protection Act of 2002 (ASPA), which was broadly intended to limit U.S. cooperation with and prohibit U.S. funding for the Court. In light of existing law and new ICC engagement, Congress may opt to take certain actions, including\nconducting hearings to better inform Members of Congress about \nthe possibility of the United States becoming party to the Rome Statute in the wake of the changes to the Statute made at Kampala;\nthe implications for U.S. interests, especially U.S.-servicemember security, of the adoption of ICC aggression jurisdiction;\nthe new U.S.-ICC relationship; and\nexecutive branch compliance with the ASPA and other legislation;\nadding executive-branch reporting requirements on U.S. cooperation with the ICC and its basis in U.S. law, as well as developments in ICC practice related to changes in the Rome Statute adopted by the Review Conference; and\namending existing legislation to direct the U.S.-ICC relationship, including dealing with ICC aggression jurisdiction and other changes to the Rome Statute.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R41682",
          "sha1": "893ed6d7ba0dfcb6a311968561673e054151421e",
          "filename": "files/20110310_R41682_893ed6d7ba0dfcb6a311968561673e054151421e.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R41682",
          "sha1": "dd16fd4b1add14679d25edf8f90eae477d3506db",
          "filename": "files/20110310_R41682_dd16fd4b1add14679d25edf8f90eae477d3506db.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 3605,
          "name": "United Nations"
        },
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 3919,
          "name": "International Law and U.S. Sovereignty"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": []
}