The International Criminal Court ("ICC" or "Court") is the first permanent international court with jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for "the most serious crimes of concern to the international community." It sits at The Hague in the Netherlands but may hold proceedings anywhere in the world. It is funded primarily by States Parties. The Statute of the International Criminal Court (the "Rome Statute" or "Statute"), which created the ICC, established ICC jurisdiction over persons who, following the Statute's entry into force on July 1, 2002, commit certain offenses. One hundred and ten countries, not including the United States, are States Parties to the ICC. Since its inception, the ICC has received referrals for investigations from three States Parties and one referral from the United Nations Security Council. After receiving referrals, the Chief Prosecutor carries out a preliminary analysis to determine whether to initiate an investigation. The Chief Prosecutor opened investigations into all four of these referred cases. Additionally, in November 2009, the Prosecutor of the ICC requested authorization to investigate alleged post-election crimes in Kenya without a referral. This marked the first time that the ICC Prosecutor has sought to open an investigation on his own initiative instead of by referral. To date, the Court has issued 12 arrest warrants, four of which have resulted in actual arrests. The ICC currently has nine cases before it, although some of the defendants in these cases remain at large. The ICC Prosecutor has also announced preliminary, but not formal, investigations into situations in Palestine and Afghanistan, both of which were ongoing at the date of this report's publication. The Court may impose a period of imprisonment on persons convicted under the Rome Statute as well as a fine and forfeiture of proceeds, property, and other assets derived from the crime. This report focuses first on the process by which the Office of the Prosecutor investigates allegations of war crimes and second on U.S policy toward the ICC. In particular, this report seeks to address the concern that the ICC might assert jurisdiction over U.S. nationals by providing insight into (1) how the ICC and Prosecutor determine whether the ICC has jurisdiction over the situations under preliminary investigation; (2) how the Prosecutor and ICC determine whether a situation would be admissible as a case before the ICC; (3) the basis for concerns that the ICC has the authority to request the surrender of a U.S. national; and (4) steps taken by the United States to prevent or deter the ICC from exercising jurisdiction over U.S. nationals. While the U.S. executive branch initially supported the idea of creating an international criminal court and was a major participant at the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court ("Rome Conference"), which produced the Statute, the United States ultimately voted against the Statute. President Clinton signed the treaty at the close of 2000 but declared that it contained "significant flaws" and would not be submitted to the Senate for ratification "until our fundamental concerns are satisfied." The United States stated that its primary objection to the treaty is the potential for the ICC to assert jurisdiction over both U.S. civilian policymakers and U.S. soldiers charged with "war crimes" even if the United States does not ratify the Rome Statute. Following the Rome Statute's entry into force in 2002, both President George W. Bush's Administration and the U.S. Congress took several steps to weaken the ICC's potential effect on U.S. citizens. First, the Bush Administration "unsigned" the Rome Statute by informing the United Nations that the United States did not intend to become a party to the Rome Statute. This action released the United States from its treaty obligation to refrain from undermining the Rome Statute and enabled both Congress and the executive branch to take actions that could be perceived as undercutting the Rome Statute. Additionally, the United States secured a U.N. Security Council resolution deferring any potential ICC prosecution of U.S. personnel involved in international peacekeeping missions; concluded bilateral immunity agreements to prevent the ICC from being able to exercise jurisdiction over U.S. nationals; and enacted the American Servicemembers' Protection Act. A detailed explanation of each action is provided below. Concerned that U.S. participation in international peacekeeping would be imperiled if U.S. soldiers and employees were subject to ICC jurisdiction, the United States reportedly threatened to veto a draft U.N. Security Council resolution to extend the peacekeeping mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina unless U.S. personnel were granted full immunity from the jurisdiction of the ICC. Ultimately, the Security Council and the U.S. delegation compromised, adopting a resolution asking the ICC to defer, for an initial period of one year, any prosecution of persons who are both (1) participants in U.N.-established or authorized operations and (2) nationals of States not party to the Rome Statute. The resulting resolution did not provide permanent immunity for U.S. soldiers and officials from prosecution by the ICC, but, in conjunction with Article 16 of the Rome Statute, it deferred potential prosecutions of U.S. soldiers and officials for one year. Some criticized the resolution as a misapplication of Article 16, arguing that Article 16 was meant to apply only to specific cases , not to permit a blanket waiver for citizens of specific countr ies . Nevertheless, in a resolution adopted in 2003, the U.N. Security Council extended the deferral to July 1, 2004. By 2005, however, sufficient opposition to the resolution had developed to deter the Bush Administration from seeking another extension. Consequently, the resolution expired, and the Security Council has not taken any action since to defer potential ICC prosecutions of American soldiers engaged in U.N. established or authorized operations. In the wake of "unsigning" of the Rome Statute, the United States also began concluding bilateral immunity agreements (BIAs), which contain promises by one or both parties that no surrender of citizens of the other signatory would be made to the ICC absent both parties' consent. These agreements are intended to fall within the provisions of Article 98 of the Rome Statute, which serve to limit the duty to surrender individuals to the ICC under circumstances where such surrender would force a country to violate its obligations under (1) international law concerning diplomatic immunity or (2) certain international agreements with another country. These BIAs provide that a contracting country may not surrender U.S. military personnel, as well as a number of other types of U.S. persons (including in many cases all U.S. nationals), to the ICC. The provisions are intended to create an obligation under an international agreement that would supersede the non-U.S. party's obligations under the Rome Statute to hand over suspects to the ICC, pursuant to Article 98. The United States has occasionally used sanctions to induce countries to enter these BIAs. On August 2, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2002 (ASPA) into law (Title II of P.L. 107-206 ; 22 U.S.C. §§ 7421-7433). This act was designed to provide protections for members of the U.S. armed forces and certain other persons from ICC prosecution and detention or imprisonment arising therefrom. It generally prohibits U.S. government cooperation with the ICC by (1) restricting the use of appropriated funds to assist the ICC; (2) restricting U.S. participation in certain U.N. peacekeeping operations due to possible ICC prosecution; and (3) authorizing the President to free members of the U.S. armed forces and other individuals detained or imprisoned by or on behalf of the ICC. Section 2015 of the act (22 U.S.C. § 7433) created an exception from the prohibition on assisting the ICC for assistance to bring to justice foreign nationals accused of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity. Until it was repealed under P.L. 110-181 , Section 2007 of ASPA prohibited providing U.S. military assistance to ICC States Parties. Provisions enacted in the 2005, 2006, and 2008 Foreign Operations Appropriations bills (so-called "Nethercutt Amendment" provisions) contained similar funding prohibitions for Economic Support Fund (ESF) assistance to ICC States Parties. Despite its early objections to the Rome State, the Bush Administration in its second term took actions that seemed to show acceptance of some ICC activities. The Obama Administration seems to have continued this approach and has started engaging directly with the ICC. Similarly, recent actions by Congress have eliminated sanctions provisions affecting U.S. assistance for countries that are ICC members. The ICC is a treaty-based court, which means countries can decide whether to become a party to the Rome Statute. As a result, the Court does not have universal jurisdiction. Instead, the ICC can only exercise jurisdiction over crimes that were either (1) committed on the territory of a country that has accepted the ICC's jurisdiction; (2) committed by nationals of a country that has accepted jurisdiction; or (3) referred to the ICC by the United Nations Security Council. The only exception to this rule permits ICC jurisdiction over situations when both (1) a non-State Party has accepted the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC with respect to the crime in question; and (2) the alleged crime either took place in the consenting country's territory or was committed by a national of that country. To obtain the Court's ad hoc jurisdiction, the country seeking it must lodge a declaration with the ICC Registrar and cooperate with the Court accordingly.