S.833 - Move the ICC Out of NYC Act of 2025 (119th Congress)
Summary
S.833, the "Move the ICC Out of NYC Act of 2025," aims to prevent the International Criminal Court (ICC) from using United Nations facilities located in the United States. The bill directs the U.S. Ambassador to the UN to negotiate a supplemental agreement to the United Nations Headquarters Agreement. This agreement would prohibit the UN from hosting or allowing the ICC to use its facilities within the U.S.
The bill is based on the premise that the ICC has no jurisdiction within the United States or over United States persons. It references the United Nations Headquarters Agreement Act and the American Service-Members' Protection Act.
The bill reflects concerns about the ICC's authority and potential overreach, particularly regarding U.S. citizens.
Expected Effects
If enacted, this bill would likely lead to the ICC being unable to operate an office within the United Nations headquarters in New York City. This could hinder the ICC's ability to conduct investigations or pursue cases involving individuals present in the United States.
The bill may also strain relations between the U.S. and the UN, as it seeks to modify a long-standing agreement. It could also signal a further distancing of the U.S. from international legal institutions.
Potential Benefits
- Reinforces U.S. sovereignty by limiting the jurisdiction of international bodies within the country.
- Protects U.S. citizens from potential prosecution by the ICC, which the U.S. has not ratified.
- Addresses concerns that the ICC may overstep its boundaries and infringe upon U.S. legal processes.
- Could strengthen the U.S.'s negotiating position with the UN on matters of international law and jurisdiction.
- May resonate with segments of the population concerned about international overreach.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Could harm the U.S.'s international standing and reputation as a supporter of international law and cooperation.
- May strain relations with allies who are members of the ICC and view it as an important institution for justice.
- Could impede the ICC's ability to investigate and prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, potentially hindering international justice efforts.
- May be seen as undermining the UN's role as a neutral platform for international dialogue and cooperation.
- Could set a precedent for other countries to restrict the activities of international organizations within their borders.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's alignment with the U.S. Constitution is complex. While the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate foreign commerce and make treaties (Article I, Section 8), it also protects individual rights and due process (Amendments V and XIV). The bill's proponents might argue it protects U.S. citizens from potential overreach by an international court, aligning with the spirit of individual liberty.
However, critics might argue that hindering international justice efforts could conflict with the Constitution's aim to "establish Justice" as stated in the Preamble. The bill does not directly violate any specific constitutional provision, but its impact on international cooperation and justice is a matter of interpretation.
Ultimately, the constitutionality hinges on balancing national sovereignty and individual rights with the broader goals of international justice and cooperation.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).