President William J. Clinton signed the Rome Statute in 2000 but stated that he would not transmit it to the Senate requesting its advice and consent due to a number of U.S. concerns, primarily the potential for the ICC to assert jurisdiction over U.S. officials and members of the U.S. Armed Forces, even if the United States was not a Party to the Rome Statute. On August 2, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2002 (ASPA). In November 2009, the United States for the first time attended a meeting of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) of the International Criminal Court as an observer. At the November ASP meeting, Ambassador Rapp stated that the United States would also participate in the ICC Review Conference scheduled to take place in 2010. The Review Conference would also consider a proposal to remove Article 124 from the Statute, which allowed a new State Party to exempt itself from ICC jurisdiction for the first seven years after becoming party to the Statute. These so-called "stocktaking" exercises included sessions on 
the obligations of States Parties to cooperate with the ICC and each other to effect international criminal justice; the efforts to improve States Parties' national judicial systems' respective capacity to prosecute individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide under the principle of "complementarity"; the effect of the Rome Statute system on victims of and communities affected by crimes under the ICC's jurisdiction; and the relationship between engaging in peace processes and pursuing international criminal justice. As will be explained in this section, these new provisions address the major concerns about state consent to aggression jurisdiction and Security Council authority over the ICC's exercise of such jurisdiction, and also contain provisions for delayed activation of aggression jurisdiction. Reaction to Aggression Jurisdiction Provisions as Adopted

U.S. officials who participated at the Review Conference have expressed general satisfaction with the aggression jurisdiction provisions adopted by the States Parties. In the Review Conference agenda, the ASP included a proposal to delete Article 124 entirely. Stocktaking of International Criminal Justice

During the Review Conference, the States Parties and other stakeholders convened a number of panel and roundtable discussions to take stock of the state of international criminal justice as undertaken by the ICC, and to discuss and determine strategies concerning the effects of the ICC's work and State Party involvement in that work. The U.S. delegation participated fully as an observer in the stocktaking exercise. ICC officials have stressed the importance of U.S. cooperation with the Court, especially with regard to providing resources necessary to locate, arrest, and transport accused individuals for ICC prosecution. The provisions defining the Court's jurisdiction over the crime seem to exclude U.S. officials and members of the U.S. Armed Forces from prosecution for the crime of aggression, and U.S. delegation efforts to clarify the definition of aggression under the Rome Statute make it likely that only the most serious cases of aggressive military action might be subject to prosecution. U.S. officials at the Review Conference made pledges of in-kind support to the ICC regarding the Court's current cases and the ICC prosecutor's current investigations. Congress may also ask for an explanation of Administration policy and ICC cooperation as it relates to the intended restrictions on the U.S.-ICC relationship in ASPA; the possibility of the United States becoming party to the Rome Statute in the wake of the adoption of the crime of aggression and the restrictions on intrastate use of certain asphyxiating gases and special ammunition; and the implications for U.S. interests, especially the security of members of the U.S. Armed Forces, of the adoption of provisions to activate the Court's jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. Reporting on U.S. support for the ICC could shed light on whether U.S.-ICC cooperation activities fall within existing legislative authorities and restrictions, especially those in ASPA; and developments in the practices, procedure, and precedents of the ICC, as well as the statements of the ICC Prosecutor and other ICC officials, in relation to preparing for prosecuting the crime of aggression, as well as any ICC investigations into the actions of U.S. officials or officials of U.S. allies. Because official U.S. policy toward the Court has shifted to one of engagement and support, Congress might provide direction to U.S. officials concerning the U.S.-ICC relationship going forward through new legislation, including provisions specifically dealing with the Review Conference's adoption of the crime of aggression and other changes to the Rome Statute.
ICC Review Conference and U.S. Engagement
The International Criminal Court (ICC, or Court) was established in 2002 as the first permanent court to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide (together, "ICC crimes"). Pursuant to a provision in the Statute of the International Criminal Court ("Rome Statute" or "Statute"), the States Parties to the Rome Statute agreed to review the Court's activities seven years after its establishment. In compliance with this provision, the States Parties convened a Review Conference in Kampala, Uganda, May 31–June 11, 2010.
After declining to officially participate in the activities of the ICC or in the sessions of the Rome Statute's Assembly of States Parties (ASP) since the Court was established in 2002, the United States shifted its stance and began attending ASP meetings as an observer in November 2009, signaling a new policy of engagement with the ICC. At the Review Conference, the United States participated fully as an observer.
Issues Considered at the 2010 ICC Review Conference
Proposals in the Review Conference's agenda had broad possible ramifications for U.S. interests, and provided an opportunity for the United States to assess its policy toward the Court. Review Conference participants considered adding the crime of aggression to the ICC's jurisdiction, which would allow prosecution of state officials for using armed force against another state. The United States opposed this proposal for a number of reasons, including the possibility that U.S. officials might be prosecuted for their decisions. These concerns parallel the U.S. concerns over the possible prosecution of U.S. officials and servicemembers for the other ICC crimes. The question of ICC aggression jurisdiction was the most contentious for the Review Conference. States Parties argued over two central issues for activation of ICC aggression jurisdiction:
whether both aggressor and victim state consent would be necessary to grant ICC jurisdiction over an instance of alleged criminal aggression; and the extent to which the U.N. Security Council should control the Court's exercise of aggression jurisdiction.
The States Parties adopted new jurisdiction provisions after several compromises, including delayed implementation and restricted application of the Court's aggression jurisdiction, and allowing states to opt out of ICC aggression jurisdiction.
The Review Conference agenda also included a number of discussions assessing the effect of the ICC on international criminal justice, especially with regard to crime victims and affected communities, and States Parties' cooperation with the ICC. During the Conference, the U.S. delegation demonstrated its new policy of engagement, pledging in-kind support for existing ICC cases and investigations, and for the development of States Parties' judicial-system capacity to prosecute ICC crimes. U.S. officials have since expressed support for the ICC, stating that it is now the global focal point for international criminal justice.
Possible Congressional Actions Concerning the New U.S.-ICC Policy
U.S. officials have asserted that this new policy of engagement with the ICC complies with U.S. law concerning the U.S.-ICC relationship, including the American Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2002 (ASPA), which was broadly intended to limit U.S. cooperation with and prohibit U.S. funding for the Court. In light of existing law and new ICC engagement, Congress may opt to take certain actions, including
conducting hearings to better inform Members of Congress about the possibility of the United States becoming party to the Rome Statute in the wake of the changes to the Statute made at Kampala; the implications for U.S. interests, especially U.S.-servicemember security, of the adoption of ICC aggression jurisdiction; the new U.S.-ICC relationship; and executive branch compliance with the ASPA and other legislation; adding executive-branch reporting requirements on U.S. cooperation with the ICC and its basis in U.S. law, as well as developments in ICC practice related to changes in the Rome Statute adopted by the Review Conference; and amending existing legislation to direct the U.S.-ICC relationship, including dealing with ICC aggression jurisdiction and other changes to the Rome Statute.