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 signa-
ture 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. BART-
LETT of Maryland, and Mr. DUNCAN) submitted the following concurrent
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Rela-
tions
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 Inter-
national 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 es-
tablish the International Criminal Court as an inter-
national authority with power to threaten the ability of
•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 engag-
ing in military action, thereby putting United States mili-
tary 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 accord-
ance 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
•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 sub-
stantially with accepted norms of international law be-
cause 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 empow-
ered unilaterally to investigate, try, and punish certain
crimes, contrary to the current international norm of af-
fording 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 Inter-
national 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 Constitu-
tion;
•HCON 23 IH
Whereas in order to make a treaty, the United States Con-
stitution 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
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that—
(1) the International Criminal Court Treaty,
also referred to as the Rome Statute of the Inter-
national Criminal Court, undermines United States
sovereignty and security, conflicts with the United
States Constitution, contradicts customs of inter-
national law, and violates the inalienable rights of
self-government, individual liberty, and popular sov-
ereignty; and
(2) President George W. Bush should declare to
all nations that the United States does not intend to
assent to or ratify the treaty and the signature of
former President Clinton to the treaty should not be
construed otherwise.
Æ