IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 23

Expressing the sense of the Congress that President George W. Bush should

declare to all nations that the United States does not intend to assent

to or ratify the International Criminal Court Treaty, also referred to

as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and the signature of former President Clinton to that treaty should not be construed

otherwise.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 8, 2001

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. GOODE, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, and Mr. DUNCAN) submitted the following concurrent

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that President George

W. Bush should declare to all nations that the United

States does not intend to assent to or ratify the International Criminal Court Treaty, also referred to as the

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and

the signature of former President Clinton to that treaty

should not be construed otherwise.

Whereas the International Criminal Court Treaty would establish the International Criminal Court as an international authority with power to threaten the ability of
2

•HCON 23 IH

the United States to engage in military action to provide

for its national defense;

Whereas former President Clinton’s designee signed the

International Criminal Court Treaty on December 31,

2000;

Whereas the term ‘‘crimes of aggression’’, as used in the

treaty, is not specifically defined and therefore would, by

design and effect, require the United States to receive

prior United Nations Security Council approval and

International Criminal Court confirmation before engaging in military action, thereby putting United States military officers in jeopardy of an International Criminal

Court prosecution;

Whereas the International Criminal Court Treaty creates the

possibility that United States civilians, like United States

military personnel, could be brought before a court that

bypasses the United States Government;

Whereas the people of the United States are self-governing,

and they have a constitutional right to be tried in accordance with the laws that their elected representatives

enact and to be judged by their peers and no others;

Whereas the treaty would subject United States individuals

who appear before the International Criminal Court to

trial and punishment without the rights and protections

that the United States Constitution guarantees, including

trial by a jury of one’s peers, protection from double

jeopardy, the right to know the evidence brought against

one, the right to confront one’s accusers, and the right

to a speedy trial;

Whereas the Supreme Court stated in Missouri v. Holland,

252 U.S. 416, 433 (1920), Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1
3

•HCON 23 IH

(1957), and DeGeofrey v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267

(1890) that the United States Government may not enter

into a treaty that contravenes prohibitory words in the

United States Constitution because the treaty power does

not authorize what the Constitution forbids;

Whereas the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

provides that a party is not bound to a treaty unless it

has consented to be bound;

Whereas the International Criminal Court Treaty breaks substantially with accepted norms of international law because it extends its jurisdiction even to the nationals of

countries that do not sign and ratify the treaty;

Whereas the International Criminal Court would be empowered unilaterally to investigate, try, and punish certain

crimes, contrary to the current international norm of affording countries the primary responsibility for punishing

these crimes;

Whereas approval of the International Criminal Court Treaty

is in fundamental conflict with the constitutional oaths of

the President and Senators, because the United States

Constitution clearly provides that ‘‘[a]ll legislative powers

shall be vested in a Congress of the United States’’, and

vested powers cannot be transferred;

Whereas each of the 4 types of offenses over which the International Criminal Court may obtain jurisdiction is within

the legislative and judicial authority of the United States;

Whereas the International Criminal Court Treaty creates a

supranational court that would exercise the judicial power

constitutionally reserved only to the United States and

thus is in direct violation of the United States Constitution;
4

•HCON 23 IH

Whereas in order to make a treaty, the United States Constitution requires the President to obtain the advice and

consent of the Senate and the concurrence of the Senate

by a 2⁄3 vote; and

Whereas former President Clinton signed the International

Criminal Court Treaty but expressed his intention not to

submit the treaty to the Senate, thereby rendering his act

procedurally inadequate and unconstitutional: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that—

3 (1) the International Criminal Court Treaty,

4 also referred to as the Rome Statute of the Inter5 national Criminal Court, undermines United States

6 sovereignty and security, conflicts with the United

7 States Constitution, contradicts customs of inter8 national law, and violates the inalienable rights of

9 self-government, individual liberty, and popular sov10 ereignty; and

11 (2) President George W. Bush should declare to

12 all nations that the United States does not intend to

13 assent to or ratify the treaty and the signature of

14 former President Clinton to the treaty should not be

15 construed otherwise.

Æ