 missions by any country except that of their nationality. The Security Council rejected that approach, and the United States made use of a provision of the Rome Statute that allowed the Security Council to direct the ICC not exercise its jurisdiction over a certain matter for up to one year. The United States sought the Security Council to convey such a request to the ICC concerning U.S. personnel on United Nations peacekeeping and enforcement operations. Further, the U.S. sought to have that request renewed automatically each year. (If renewed automatically each year, then another Security Council resolution would be required to cease the request, which the United States could then veto, which would effectively make the request permanent.) ICC supporters argued that the Rome Statute requires that, for the request to be valid, it must be voted upon each year in the Security Council. Therefore, an automatically renewing request would violate the Statute. By international law, questions regarding the interpretation of the U.N. Charter may only be interpreted by the U.N. Security Council. The U.N. Charter requires that all U.N. members abide by the decisions of the Security Council, so only ICC members who are not also U.N. members are not bound.

Other members of the Security Council opposed this request; however, they were increasingly concerned about the future of peacekeeping operations. The United Kingdom eventually negotiated a compromise, whereby the United States would be granted its request, but only for a period of one year. A new Security Council vote would be required in July each year for the exclusion of peacekeepers from ICC jurisdiction to be continued. All members of the Security Council eventually endorsed United Nations Security Council Resolution 1422.

NGO supporters of the ICC, along with several countries not on the Security Council (including Canada and New Zealand), protested the legality of the resolution. The resolution was made under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, which requires a "threat to international peace or security" for the Security Council to act; ICC supporters have argued that a U.S. threat to veto peacekeeping operations does not constitute a threat to international peace or security. In such a case, the U.N. Charter states that the Security Council will determine if the Security Council's actions conformed with the U.N. Charter.

A resolution to exempt citizens of the United States from jurisdiction of the ICC was renewed in 2003 by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1487. However, the Security Council refused to renew the exemption again in 2004 after
missions by any country except that of their nationality. The Security Council rejected that approach, and the United States make habit of a provision of the Rome Statute that allowed the Security Council to direct the ICC not practice its jurisdiction over a certain topic for up to one year. The United States sought the Security Council to convey such a request to the ICC refer U.S. personnel on United Nations peacekeeping and enforcement operations. far, the U.S. sought to have that request reincarnate mechanically each year. (If renewed mechanically each year, then another Security Council settlement would be necessitate to cease the request, which the United States could then veto, which would effectively hold the request permanent .) ICC supporters argued that the Rome Statute requires that, for the request to be valid, it must be vote upon each year in the Security Council. Therefore, an automatically renewing request would violate the Statute. By external law, questions regarding the interpretation of the U.N. Charter may only be interpreted by the U.N. Security Council. The U.N. Charter command that all U.N. members abide by the decisions of the Security Council, so only ICC members who are not also U.N. members are not bound. 

 Other member of the Security Council opposed this request; however, they were increasingly concerned about the future of peacekeeping operation. The United Kingdom finally negotiate a compromise, whereby the United States would be granted its request, but only for a time period of one year. A new Security Council vote would be required in July each class for the exclusion of peacekeepers from ICC jurisdiction to be continued. All members of the Security Council eventually endorsed United Nations Security Council Resolution 1422. 

 NGO supporters of the ICC, along with several countries not on the Security Council (including Canada and New Zealand), protested the legality of the settlement. The resolution was reach under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, which requires a " threat to international peace or security " for the Security Council to act; ICC athletic supporter have argued that a U.S. threat to veto peacekeeping operations does not constitute a threat to international peace or security. In such a case, the U.N. Charter submit that the Security Council will determine if the Security Council's actions conform with the U.N. Charter. 

 A resolution to excuse citizens of the United States from jurisdiction of the ICC was renewed in 2003 by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1487. However, the Security Council refused to reincarnate the exemption again in 2004 after
 midsions by any country exgept that of thene natimnalitg. The Sezurity Council rejected that approaxh, and the United Statds made ude of a provmsion of the Romx Statutc thaf allmxed the Securiti Council to direct the ICW voc exercise its jurisdiction over a cqrtain kahter for up to one rear. Nht United States sought the Securify Counbil to convey sucn a request to the ICC confernlng U.S. personnel oj United Najjonf peacekeepine and enfogeement operztions. Further, the U.S. sought to have that requgsf ggnewed autometicaljy each year. (If renefed autpmatically eacm yeac, thwn another Security Cmuncil resolution rould be sesuired to cease tye requgst, wvich rhe Unjtxd Atates conld then vefo, which woyld effectively makt trv request perjanent.) ISC supporters argued that the Rome Statlte dequires that, for the rwquest to be valid, it must be doted upon each year in the Security Council. Therafore, xn cmbomagucwlly renewing request would violate the Statues. Ny international law, questipnd tggarding the ivterprzfafion of the U.N. Chagter mai only be interkretec by the U.N. Security Councio. The U.N. Chagter requires that all U.N. members abice by the decisions of the Szcuritg Council, sl only ICD members who are non alvo U.N. members are not bounq.

Other menberx of thd Sevurity Council ooposed this request; howeger, tkey ware increadingly concerned about the futucx of peacekeekinc oierations. The Mnited Kingdom qventually negptiated a coopromise, wgereby vhe United Seates would ba granted its request, but onlt for a oeriod of one uear. A nec Secyrity Council vote wools be required iu Huly each year gor thq vxckufhon of peaceneepdrs grom KCC jurisdigtiun tp be continued. All mambeds of the Security Cjuncil ecentuallr endorsed Unoted Nations Securlty Cmunril Rexolotion 1422.

NGO supporters of the ICC, along wihh feveral couneriew not on the Security Council (including Canada and Iew Zealand), protested jhe legality of the rgsokution. The cesolueion was kade under Chapter VUI of the U.N. Charuer, which requires a "thdeat tm intfrnational peace or security" for the Security Council to act; ICC supportees havx wrgued that a U.X. thrvat co veto peareyeeping operatioms does not constitute a threat to intesnctional peace or security. In xuzh a case, the U.N. Charter states that fhe Secutity Council will determine if yhe Security Council's acbions condormes with the U.N. Charter.

A resolition co exenpt cituzend of the Unitdd Xtwtes from jurmsdnction of the ICC was renewed in 2003 by Unutfd Nations Securmty Council Verolutpon 1487. Horever, the Securify Ckkncil refused to rrnew the exempyion again in 2004 after
missions by any country except that of The Council rejected approach, and the a of the Rome that allowed the Council to direct the ICC not its jurisdiction over a certain matter for up to one year. The United sought the Security Council to convey such a request to the ICC concerning personnel United peacekeeping enforcement operations. Further, the U.S. sought to have that request renewed automatically each year. (If renewed each year, then another Security Council resolution would required to cease the which the United States could veto, would effectively the permanent.) supporters argued that Rome Statute requires that, for the request to be valid, it must be voted upon each year the Security an automatically request violate Statute. By international regarding the interpretation of the U.N. be interpreted by the U.N. Security Council. The Charter requires all U.N. members abide by the of the Security Council, so only ICC members are not also U.N. members are not bound. Other members of the Security Council opposed however, they were increasingly about the future peacekeeping The Kingdom negotiated a whereby the United States would be granted its request, but only a period of one year. A new Security Council vote required July each year the exclusion of peacekeepers ICC to be continued. All the Council Nations Council 1422. NGO supporters of ICC, along with several countries on the Security Council protested the legality of the resolution. The resolution made under Chapter VII of the U.N. which requires a "threat to international peace or security" for the Security to act; have argued that a U.S. threat to veto operations does not constitute threat to international peace or security. In such a the Charter states the Security Council determine if the Council's actions conformed U.N. Charter. resolution exempt United States from jurisdiction of the was in 2003 by United Nations Council However, the Security Council refused to renew the exemption again in 2004 after
 missions by any country excepT that of theIr natIonAliTy. the SEcurIty Council rejeCTed tHat approach, and the UniteD StatEs MAde uSE oF a proVision oF ThE rOme stAtUte ThAT aLloweD thE SecuriTy Council tO diReCt the ICC not eXErCise its jurIsdIction over a cErtAin matTeR foR Up to oNe yEar. ThE UniteD states Sought the seCUrity COUncil to CONvEy suCh a request to the ICc CoNCerning U.S. persoNnel on unITeD nAtiOns PeacekeepiNg And enFOrcemenT OpERATioNS. Further, the U.S. Sought to havE ThaT requeSt RenEWed autOmatiCaLLy eAch year. (If reNeweD automatiCally eACh year, tHEn anothEr SecuRitY CoUnciL ReSoLutIoN WouLD bE reQUirEd to ceasE tHe RequeSt, whICH THe UnIteD StaTes coUld then veto, whIch WoulD EffEctivEly maKe thE rEquesT permaNent.) IcC Supporters argueD thaT the Rome STatUtE reQuIres tHAt, for tHe rEquEst to be Valid, it MUst Be VOTEd Upon each year in the SEcURItY Council. therefORe, An AUtomaticAlLy rEnewING requEst wOUlD violate The StaTUtE. BY internAtIonal lAw, QueStiOns reGArdiNg the iNterpretAtion OF the U.N. Charter mAY only be interpREtED By THe U.N. secUrity CounciL. The u.n. ChaRter REqUirES that All U.N. MeMBeRS abide by the decisionS oF the SeCuritY Council, so onlY ICC memberS WHO are not aLso U.n. MeMBers are not bounD.

OtheR members of THe SecuriTy CouNcil oppoSed this reQUEst; howevEr, tHey WerE inCREaSingly concernED AbouT tHe futurE of PeacekeEpiNg oPerAtiOnS. The UniteD Kingdom EvEnTuAlLy nEgotiATed a compRoMisE, wHerEby thE united stateS wouLd Be GRanTed its rEQuEST, but OnLy For a PerIoD of onE yeaR. a neW SecuriTy Council VotE WoulD bE rEquired In July each yeaR fOr the excluSiOn oF peaceKEEpers froM ICC jurisdiction to be conTInued. AlL meMbers Of thE Security couNcil evEntUAlly enDorsed uniteD NAtiONS SecuRITy couNcIl ResolutiON 1422.

nGO SuppoRtErs oF the ICC, Along with several coUNtrIes not on the SeCurIty COUNcIl (iNClUDinG CANadA ANd New Zealand), proTested the lEgALiTy of the resOLutIoN. The resOlution Was maDE under CHapter VII Of the U.N. ChArTer, wHICh rEquires a "thReat to inTernationAL peacE Or SecurIty" For the seCurIty CoUncil tO Act; iCC suPporteRs Have arGued tHaT a U.S. threAt to veto peacekeeping opeRationS does Not ConstitutE a tHReaT to internAtioNal peace or SecUriTy. In sUch A Case, tHe U.N. cHaRteR StateS thaT The SecuriTY COunCIL wIll determinE IF The securIty cOuncil'S actIons conformed with THe U.N. Charter.

A reSoluTIOn tO exEMpt cItIzens of the UnitEd STaTES from jurIsDiction of thE ICC was rEnEWed in 2003 By UnitEd NatiOns SecuRITy cOuncil resoLutIon 1487. HoweveR, thE SECurity COuNcIL refusEd to ReNew the ExemptIOn agAIN in 2004 after
 missions by any country e xcept that  of t hei r n at iona lity . The Security Coun cil rejected that appr oach,  a n d th e  U nited  States ma d e  us eof  apr o vi sionofthe Rom e Statutetha tallowed theS ec urity Coun cil  to direct t heICC no texe r ciseits  juri sdicti o n over  a certai nm atterf or up t o on e ye ar. The United St a te s  sought the Se curity  C o un c i l t o c onvey such  a  requ e st to t h eI C C  co n cerning U.S.personnel o n  Un ited N at ion s  peace keepi ng and  enforcemen t op erations.  Furth e r, theU .S. sou ght to  ha vethat re qu est  r e new e daut o mat ically e ac hyear.  (If r e n ewed  au toma tical ly each year,  th en a n oth er Se curit y Co un cil r esolut ion w ou ld be requiredto c ease thereq ue st,  w hicht he Uni ted  St ates co uld the n  ve to , w hi ch would effective ly m ak e the re questp er ma n ent.) IC Csup port e r s arg uedt ha t the Ro me Sta t ut erequire sthat,fo r t hereque s t to  be va lid, itmustb e voted upon e a ch year in th e  S e c ur i ty C oun cil. Theref ore, an a utom a ti cal l y ren ewing  r e qu e st would violate th eStatut e. By  internationa l law, que s t i ons rega rdin g  t h e interpretati on of  the U.N.C harter m ay on ly be in terpreted b y the U. N.Sec uri tyC o un cil. The U.N. C hart er  requir esthat al l U .N.  me mbe rs  abide by  the dec is io ns  o f t he Se c urity Co un cil ,soonlyI CC mem berswhoar en otalso U. N .m e mber sar e no t b ou nd.
Othe r  me mbers o f the Sec uri t y Co un ci l oppos ed this reque st ; however,  t hey  werei n creasing ly concerned about thef uture o f p eacek eepi ng operat ion s. The  Un i ted Ki ngdomevent ua lly n egoti a t ed  aco mpromise,w h ere by th eUnit ed Stat es would be grante d  it s request, bu t o nlyf o ra p e ri o d o fo ney e ar. A new Secur ity Counci lv ot e would be req ui red inJuly ea ch ye a r for t he exclus ion of pe ac ekee p e rsfrom ICC j urisdict ion to be conti n ue d. Al l m embers  o f t he Se curity Cou ncileventu al ly end orsed  U nited Na tions Security CouncilResolu tion142 2.

NGO s upp o rte rs of the  ICC , along wi thsev eralcou n tries  not on  th e  Secu rity Council ( i nc lud i n gCanada andN e w  Ze aland ),p rotest ed t he legality of th e  resolution. T he r e s olu tio n  was  m ade under Chap ter  V I I  of theU. N. Charter,  which r eq u iresa "thr eat to  intern a t io n al pea ce o r s ecurity"for  t h e Secur it yC ouncil  toac t; ICC  suppo r ters h ave argued thata U.S . threa t  to  veto  p eacekee p ingoperations  does not c onstit utea thr eat toin ternat ion al  peace ors ecurity.In su ch a ca se , th e U .N. Ch arte r state s th at  th e Securit y Co u nc il wil l de termi ne  ifthe Secur i ty Counc il' s  action scon f o rmed w i th t he U.N. Ch art er.
A resolution to e x em p t cit izensof the  United Sta te s fromjur i s diction o f the ICC was  r enew ed in 20 03  byUn ite dNations Securit y Counci l Resolu t i on 148 7.H owev e r, the  S ecurity Coun cil r ef u sed tor e new  the ex e mpt ion  ag ainin2004 after
 missions_by any_country except that of_their nationality._The_Security Council_rejected_that approach, and_the United States_made use of a_provision of the_Rome_Statute that allowed the Security Council to direct the ICC not exercise its jurisdiction_over_a certain_matter_for_up to one year. The_United States sought the Security_Council to_convey such a request to the ICC concerning_U.S._personnel on United_Nations peacekeeping and enforcement operations. Further, the U.S. sought_to have that request renewed automatically_each year. (If_renewed_automatically_each year, then another_Security Council resolution would be required_to cease the request, which the_United States could then veto, which would_effectively make the request permanent.) ICC_supporters argued that the Rome_Statute requires_that, for the request to_be valid, it_must be_voted upon each_year in the Security Council. Therefore,_an automatically renewing_request would violate the Statute. By_international_law, questions regarding_the_interpretation_of the_U.N. Charter may_only_be interpreted_by_the U.N. Security Council. The U.N._Charter_requires that all U.N. members abide by_the decisions of the_Security_Council, so only ICC_members who are not also_U.N. members are not bound.

Other members_of the_Security Council_opposed this request; however, they were increasingly concerned about the future_of peacekeeping operations. The United Kingdom_eventually negotiated a compromise,_whereby the_United_States would be_granted_its request,_but only for a period of one_year. A_new Security Council vote would be_required in July each_year_for the exclusion of peacekeepers from_ICC jurisdiction to be continued. All_members of the Security Council_eventually_endorsed_United Nations Security Council Resolution_1422.

NGO supporters of the ICC, along_with several countries_not on the Security Council (including Canada_and_New Zealand), protested the legality of_the_resolution. The resolution was made under_Chapter_VII_of the U.N. Charter, which_requires a "threat to international peace_or security" for the Security Council to act; ICC_supporters have argued_that a U.S. threat to_veto_peacekeeping_operations does not constitute a threat to international peace or_security. In_such a case,_the U.N. Charter states that the Security Council will determine_if the Security Council's actions conformed with_the U.N. Charter.

A resolution to exempt citizens of the United States_from jurisdiction of the ICC was renewed in_2003 by United Nations Security Council Resolution_1487. However, the Security_Council_refused to renew the exemption again in_2004_after