Congress Sanctions Hague Officials for Abusing Israel

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore

Congressman Chip Roy (R-Tx), author of the bill sanctioning ICC officials.

The House on Thursday approved H.R. 23, The Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act, a bill imposing sanctions on International Criminal Court officials in response to the court’s issuance of an arrest warrant last year against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

The bipartisan vote, 243-140, demonstrated continued majority support in Congress for Israel’s military response to the October 7, 2023, Hamas atrocities, even as most House Democrats opposed the measure. Forty-five Democrats supported the legislation. Last summer, 42 Democrats supported a similar bill.

The bill directs the president to freeze property assets and deny visas to any foreign nationals who materially or financially support the ICC’s efforts to “investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute a protected person.” Protected persons include current and former military and government officials of the United States and its allies, most notably Israel, who have not consented to the court’s jurisdiction.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Tx), who authored the bill, issued a statement saying, “This bill is about protecting America and our allies’ sovereignty from a rogue, globalist court. The ICC investigating and issuing arrest warrants for the sitting Prime Minister of Israel is a blatant assault on a critical ally’s sovereignty amid an existential fight against Hamas. Make no mistake, if the ICC is allowed to target Israel unchecked, they will go after American service members and veterans again in the future.”

The ICC “should have no authority over our people, no authority over the prime minister of Israel,” Roy added.

Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fl), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said during the debate on the bill: “America is passing this law because a kangaroo court is seeking to arrest the prime minister of our great ally. … This bill sends an incredibly important message across the globe, do not get in the way of America or our allies trying to bring our people home. You will be given no quarter, and again, you will certainly not be welcome on American soil.”

Rep Jim McGovern (D-Mas) objected to the bill, saying, “Republicans want to sanction the ICC simply because they don’t want the rules to apply to everyone. There is no international right to vengeance, and what we are seeing in Gaza is vengeance.”

THE ROME STATUTE & THE ICC

States parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court are sovereign nations that have ratified or otherwise joined the treaty. The Rome Statute established the ICC, granting it jurisdiction over specific international crimes, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The ICC’s jurisdiction applies to crimes committed by nationals of states parties or within their territories.

Under Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute, a state that is not a party to the Statute may, by submitting a declaration to the ICC Registrar, accept the Court’s jurisdiction over a specific crime. Although such a state is not a State Party to the Statute, the relevant provisions of the Statute become applicable to the accepting state, but only on an ad hoc basis for the case in question.

Israel initially voted against the adoption of the Rome Statute but later signed it for a brief period. In 2002, Israel informed the UN Secretary-General that it no longer intended to become a party to the Statute, and as a result, it does not have legal obligations arising from its signature.

While Israel expresses “deep sympathy” with the Court’s goals, it raises concerns that political pressures could lead the Court to reinterpret international law or “invent new crimes.” For instance, Israel objects to the classification of “the transfer of parts of the civilian population of an occupying power into occupied territory” as a war crime, while also criticizing the Court for excluding terrorism and drug trafficking from its scope. Israel views the prosecutor’s powers as excessive and argues that the geographical appointment of judges puts it at a disadvantage, as Israel was excluded from joining any of the UN Regional Groups.