A special session related to the International Criminal Court opened with one minute of silence to honor victims of the crime of aggression and a proposal that could have expanded their legal protection. But after days of rigorous negotiations held by the Assembly of States Parties, the oversight and legislative body to the court, its members decided that the victims must wait longer for justice.

At the meeting, convened July 7 to 9 at the United Nations headquarters in New York City, the ICC’s 125 states parties — countries that have ratified or acceded to the Rome Statute governing the court — failed to expand its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. The proposed amendment would have enabled the court to act when at least one member involved in a conflict had ratified the change.

“It would appear that when we talk of the crime of aggression, we are looking at a steeplechase, where we have to run and where the obstacles only increase, and the victims of the crime of aggression are asked to wait in the meantime,” said the representative of the State of Palestine on the assembly’s final day.

Currently, the ICC has limited jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, which is considered the most serious offense one country can commit against another, according to the Rome Statute. The crime involves a leader or top official using his or her power to launch or plan an attack that breaches the UN Charter.

Unlike the three other core atrocity crimes — genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity— the ICC can investigate or prosecute only the crime of aggression when all parties to a conflict have ratified the Kampala amendments. (The amendments, adopted in Uganda in 2010, defined the crime of aggression but gave the court limited jurisdiction.)

The “harmonization amendment” negotiated this week at the UN was proposed by Germany, Costa Rica, Slovenia, Sierra Leone and Vanuatu. If it had been approved, it would have allowed the court jurisdiction to prosecute world leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not just for war crimes but also for the crime of aggression. (Both leaders are facing arrest warrants from the ICC for alleged war crimes, but neither country is a member of the court.)

The assembly instead agreed to hold another special session, in 2029, to further debate the amendment. States parties also set up a subgroup to work on the matter and scheduled an interim meeting for 2027 to review progress before the 2029 session.

“The resolution facing us does not reflect the urgent need for action or the historic responsibility that falls on us. We regret that the resolution could not even acknowledge as a consensual matter among us the jurisdictional gap that exists,” the Palestinian representative said.

Christian Wenaweser, Liechtenstein’s permanent representative to the UN, told PassBlue in an interview before the special session that the amendment was necessary to close the legal gap in the Rome Statute. It would have cemented the jurisdiction of the ICC over the crime of aggression, similar to how genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity can be investigated and prosecuted.

For example, the ICC could investigate whether war crimes are being committed by Russia in Ukraine or by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories, even though Russia and Israel are not parties to the Rome Statute.

“We are not satisfied with the outcome of this session, because this objective we have not achieved,” Wenaweser said at the final day of negotiations, on July 9. “We regret this because we do believe it was the right moment for doing it, and it was a historic opportunity to do so at a time when the rule of law at the international level, and especially the rules governing the use of force, are being undermined in a manner that we have not seen in our lifetimes.”

Countries from the global South and smaller European nations favored the amendment. Palestine, a state party to the Rome Statute, has long accused Israel of aggression and occupation of its territory. If the amendment had passed, Israeli leaders could potentially be investigated and prosecuted for crimes of aggression in addition to facing allegations of other atrocities crimes.

The United States, which is not a member of the ICC, participated in the UN session as an observer. Its presence was felt during the discussions, given that it has sanctioned not only the court’s prosecutor, Karim Khan, but also numerous judges this year, among other legal steps.

In persuading other states parties, the Palestinian representative called the harmonization the “only moral course.” In November 2024, the ICC issued an arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for committing alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity related to the Gaza war.

“We cannot allow perpetrators to exploit jurisdictional inconsistencies and evade accountability,” Malta said, defending the amendment. “The courts cannot remain powerless or constrained by the current limitations of exercising jurisdiction over the crime of aggression.”

Sticking points

While smaller countries strongly called for harmonizing the court’s jurisdiction, other ICC member countries opposed the amendment or wanted more time to consider it. The various positions, however, appear somewhat irreconcilable, Jennifer Trahan, convener of the Global Institute for the Prevention of Aggression, said. (The organization is a network that aims to advance “the goal of criminalizing the illegal use of force,” it says.)

Britain, Canada, France, Japan and New Zealand — all members of the court — called for more deliberation to allow countries to deal with the complexities of the issue and delay the harmonization at least until two-thirds of ICC member states have ratified the Kampala amendments.

“So today, as was the case in 2010 and 2017, it is clear that a range of views exist on ratifying the Kampala amendments and on harmonization of jurisdiction,” Sally Langrish, the director-general, legal, at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office of the United Kingdom. “We are concerned that the amendment proposal creates more legal and practical uncertainty than it would resolve, and it does so without the backing of all states parties.”

Civil society groups oppose the delay, saying it will take decades before the court achieves two-thirds ratification of the Kampala agreements. Indeed, Trahan said that “it’s somewhat outrageous to think we would put off these negotiations.” Yet, the failure to reach consensus on this week’s proposed amendment was not surprising to many analysts and experts in international law.

Kevin Jon Heller, a professor of international law and security at the University of Copenhagen’s Center for Military Studies, said some big countries like the UK, France and Canada agreed to adopt the Kampala amendments because they could only be applied to countries that had ratified it.

The Kampala amendments enable jurisdiction only when both countries involved in a conflict have ratified the changes. Although the amendments were adopted by consensus, the 76 countries that have not ratified it so far are not subject to their jurisdiction. If any of the countries is accused of the crime of aggression, the ICC cannot investigate the allegations. Only 49 of the 125 states parties have ratified the Kampala amendments, with Seychelles being the latest to do so, on July 1.

Heller said that countries that pushed for postponing the harmonization amendment worry about how the court can interpret and apply it. While these countries pledged a commitment to the ICC, they also want to protect themselves from possible inquiries or prosecution if they are ever accused of the crime.

“Scholars had basically worked extremely hard to reinterpret the aggression amendments in a way that just completely sidelines the concerns of powerful states like the UK and France and Canada and New Zealand,” Heller said. “They only supported the [Kampala amendments] because there is a separate document that kind of lays out how states understood what was being agreed . . . the jurisdiction will not apply to a state that chooses not to ratify the amendments.”

These big countries have always based their support for the Kampala amendments on Article 121 (5) of the Rome Statute, which states that any amendment to Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 applies only to the countries that have ratified it. (Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 outline the jurisdiction of the ICC and define its four core atrocity crimes.)

France, speaking on the second day of the special session at the UN, said the harmonization amendment raises potential contradictions with the UN Charter and expressed concern about the consensus-reached definition of aggression. The representative of Nigeria said the structure of the Kampala amendments create an unbalanced system in which ratifying states might “paradoxically be more exposed to legal risks.”

Fear of US sanctions

The US, although not a signatory to the Rome Statute, casts a long shadow over the decisions by ICC members. The current administration of President Donald Trump threatened to slap more sanctions on the court if the harmonization amendment succeeded.

In June, the US imposed sanctions on four ICC judges: Reine Alapini-Gansou (Benin), Beti Hohler (Slovenia), Solomy Balungi Bossa (Uganda) and Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza (Peru), for their roles investigating US troops in Afghanistan in 2020 and legal actions against Israeli leaders.

Earlier this year, the US sanctioned ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan after he petitioned the court in late 2024 to issue an arrest warrant for Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. (The court also issued an arrest warrant for the Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif, although Israel said it had killed him in an airstrike.)

“We expect all ICC actions against the United States and our ally Israel, that is, all investigations and all arrest warrants terminated; if not, all options remain on the table,” a US representative told the Assembly of States Parties’ session on July 8.

Although states parties publicly condemned all external sanctions against the court and its officials during the three-day session at the UN, many of them are keenly aware of the potential repercussions from the US. Wenaweser of Liechtenstein told PassBlue that some states parties were worried that the amendment could lead to more US sanctions that would “massively undermine” the court.

Victims will suffer

With the stalled amendment, the ICC remains hobbled in its ability to prosecute the crime of aggression. Legal protections remain uneven, and powerful countries retain a legal shield if they refuse to ratify the amendment. Still, civil society organizations are renewing calls for a global campaign to increase the number of countries to ratify the Kampala amendments.

“This is not only a regrettable outcome on paper, it will have real consequences for current and future victims around the world,” said a representative of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court, a civil society group. “International law is under pressure, and the ICC is facing even greater pressure, because both are designed to limit and deter the commission of grave international crimes.”

We welcome your comments on this article.  What are your thoughts on the crime of aggression amendment?

Thank you for reading this article. We hope you will consider donating to PassBlue, an independent, nonprofit media site that covers the UN and global affairs. Your donation will help us hold the powerful to account.

Damilola Banjo

Damilola Banjo is an award-winning staff reporter for PassBlue who has covered a wide range of topics, from Africa-centered stories to gender equality to UN peacekeeping and US-UN relations. She also oversees all video production for PassBlue. She was a Dag Hammarskjold fellow in 2023 and a Pulitzer Center postgraduate fellow in 2021. She was part of the BBC Africa team that produced the Emmy-nominated documentary, “Sex for Grades.” In addition, she worked for WFAE, an NPR affiliate in Charlotte, N.C. Banjo has a master’s of science degree from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and an undergraduate degree from the University of Ibadan in Nigeria.