Follow us on social

The Senate blocks 'poorly crafted' ICC sanctions bill

The Senate blocks 'poorly crafted' ICC sanctions bill

Experts warn that the legislation may inhibit cases that the US has supported elsewhere

Reporting | QiOSK

The Senate voted Tuesday against advancing H.R. 23, which would impose sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC), to the Senate floor. This follows the successful passage of the same bill in the House — by a 243 to 140 vote — earlier this month.

The legislation is primarily a rebuke of the court for warrants issued in November for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for their alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed against Palestinians in Gaza.

But it turns out the Republican sponsors could not rally the 60 votes to advance the bill to the Senate floor. Only one Democrat, Pennsylvania's John Fetterman, voted with them, resulting in a final tally of 54-45.

Some Democrats have expressed support for legislation sanctioning the ICC but believe the current bill is too broad or, as Minority Leader Chuck Schumer indicated, “poorly crafted and deeply problematic."

New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen, top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, spearheaded negotiations with Republicans over some of the bill’s broad language and provisions. She and other Democrats were worried that the legislation, as written, could harm American tech contractors and companies that do business with the ICC and that the Senate should amend the legislation to protect these actors.

Humanitarian agencies have also expressed concern over the bill's potentially broad implications. Over 130 organizations sent a letter to Congress and the incoming administration urging “other governments, Members of Congress, and advocates for victims everywhere to raise their voices to oppose attacks on the independence and autonomy of international judicial institutions like the ICC.”

The letter points out that dismissing the ICC authority would undermine attempts to curb crimes against humanity in other countries where the United States has sided with the court, such as in cases against Putin in Russia and Sudan.

“(ICC) Sanctions send a signal that could embolden authoritarian regimes and others with reason to fear accountability who seek to evade justice,” claim the letter’s signatories."

Experts have also warned that sanctions could inhibit current investigations into other governments allied with the United States. In the Philippines, for example, the ICC is investigating extrajudicial killings that took place under former President Rodrigo Duterte and are allegedly occurring to this day as a consequence of Duterte’s harsh war on drugs.

“In the Philippines, reported extrajudicial drug war killings still number about one per day, and threats to the lives of people working to bring the perpetrators to justice are very real,” says David Borden, Executive Director at Stop the War on Drugs. “Sanctions have the potential to make the ICC unable to operate any of its programs, including those which provide protection to witnesses, and at a minimum would make things much more difficult.”

It is unclear if Republicans and Democrats in the Senate will work to amend the language of the ICC sanctions bill or if Republicans will opt to drop the issue for now.


Top Photo: In this image from United States Senate television, this is the scene in the US Senate Chamber during debate concerning an amendment to US Senate Resolution 483, during the impeachment trial of US President Donald J. Trump in the US Senate in the US Capitol in Washington, DC on Tuesday, January 21, 2020. Mandatory Credit: US Senate Television via CNP
Reporting | QiOSK
Rashida Tlaib
top photo credit: Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) (Photo: Phil Pasquini / Shutterstock.com)

Tlaib: 'Our elected officials should not be able to profit off death'

QiOSK

In an op-ed today for the Detroit Free Press, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) blasted her colleagues who voted to increase Pentagon spending while owning stock in weapons manufacturing companies.

“Our elected officials should not be able to profit off death,” she wrote. “They should not be able to use their positions of power to get rich from defense contractors while voting to pass more funding to bomb people.”

keep readingShow less
Alexander Lukashenko
Top image credit: Belarusian President and presidential candidate Alexander Lukashenko casts his ballot at a polling station during the presidential election in Minsk, Belarus January 26, 2025. REUTERS/Evgenia Novozhenina

Teflon Lukashenko is elected again in Belarus. What now?

Europe

It’s that time again — a new Belarusian presidential election, accompanied by an all too familiar cavalcade of denunciations by Western officials and politicians.

Belarus’ strongman President Aleksandr Lukashenko secured his seventh term with an expected 87.6% of the vote, extending his three decades-long rule by another five years. European leaders are all but certain to repair to their time-honored tradition of demanding Lukashenko’s ouster while imposing fresh sanctions on Belarus. Minsk will predictably respond by doubling down on its ties to Russia and China, perpetuating a cycle of hostility between Belarus and its neighbors that continues to destabilize Eastern Europe.

keep readingShow less
Trump Mohammed bin Salman
Top image credit: U.S. President Donald Trump holds a chart of military hardware sales as he welcomes Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, U.S., March 20, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

Let's make a deal: expect foreign arms sales to really explode now

Military Industrial Complex

The Biden administration has left President Trump a surprisingly low bar when it comes to improving U.S. arms trade restraint. Unfortunately and dangerously, the Trump administration is likely to lower the bar even further.

On paper, many Biden-era arms trade policies sounded good to advocates for human rights and protection of civilians. His administration’s Conventional Arms Transfer (CAT) policy more fully elevated human rights concerns in part by calling for a halt to authorizations for transfers when certain harms were “more likely than not” — an improvement over previous approaches. Also positive were support for an international Political Declaration on the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, as well as Department of Defense and State policies on civilian protection such as CHMR-AP and CHIRG. Even NSM-20 was a notionally good policy in that it appeared to create a path to holding countries accountable for using weapons improperly. Plus, Biden reversed the first Trump administration’s stance on landmines and once again made it U.S. policy to eventually accede to the Mine Ban Treaty.

keep readingShow less

Trump transition

Latest

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.