Bridging the Jurisdictional Gap: The ASP's long-awaited review of the Crime of Aggression
The Assembly of States Parties (ASP or the Assembly) to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC or the Court) held a special session on the review of the amendments on the crime of aggression from 7 to 9 July 2025, at the United Nations Headquarters (UN) in New York, USA.
While the crime of aggression was one of the four crimes listed in the Rome Statute when the treaty was adopted in 1998, the completion of the definition and provisions of jurisdiction were postponed for further negotiation. States Parties agreed to the definition during a 2010 review conference, held in Kampala, Uganda, where they agreed to review the amendments seven years after its activation. However, due to the compromise reached at Kampala, the Court’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, which was activated in July 2018, differs from the other three core crimes. As a result, the Court is unable to prosecute acts of aggression that have been committed by or on the territory of countries that are parties to the Rome Statute, with the exception of a referral by the UN Security Council.
At its 23rd session, the Assembly decided to convene a special session on the review of the Kampala amendments on the Crime of Aggression, now seven years after the exercise of its jurisdiction, giving states parties the opportunity to revisit the Kampala compromise and address the gap by harmonizing the Court’s jurisdiction over all four crimes in the Statute.
Prior to the session, the Assembly’s Working Group on Amendments (WGA) was tasked with preparations for the special session and met at least monthly from January 2025 until the session began in early July 2025. The meetings were held in a hybrid format, allowing for in-person participation from representatives of States Parties, observer states and civil society to attend in person in New York, or connect virtually.
Over the course of these six months, two main positions emerged.
An amendment proposal was submitted to the UN Secretary General in April 2025 by a cross-regional group of states, Costa Rica, Germany, Sierra Leone, Slovenia and Vanuatu. Liechtenstein later submitted a proposed draft resolution text which would have effectively harmonized the Court’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. More specifically, the Liechtenstein text proposed changes to article 15bis, paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Rome Statute, where the amended paragraphs concerned jurisdiction over the crime in terms of ratification or acceptance of the amendments and the nationality as well as territory of the entity committing the crime. This draft resolution text was known as ‘L3’.
During WGA discussions, a vocal group of states emerged in opposition, lead primarily by France, Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand. These states submitted an alternative draft resolution text that emphasized the necessity of further dialogue and that more time was needed to consider potential amendments to the Rome Statute. This text also underwent several changes, with the final version reiterating that another Special Session would take place when either two-thirds of States Parties ratified the Kampala Amendments or after a period of seven years – whichever happened first. They further stated that an ad hoc committee would be created to consider how the Court’s jurisdiction can be reinforced over the crime of aggression in the meantime. This draft resolution text was known as ‘L4’.
As the WGA was unable to reach consensus on a single draft resolution text, both were submitted to the Assembly for its consideration during the special session.
Additionally, as the Assembly held its preparatory discussions on the special session, threats and attacks against the ICC were ongoing. The United States government implemented sanctions against the ICC’s prosecutor in February 2025, and against four judges in June 2025 in a clear attempt at pressure and intimidation. Against this backdrop, concerns were raised about the timing of holding such a special session in the United States, and whether it would lead to any further sanctions or other punitive measures against stakeholders taking part in the session, leading to a sense of uncertainty for the future of this important discussion. After exploring alternative dates and locations for the session, the Bureau of the ASP ultimately decided to move forward with the session as originally scheduled in New York.
Daily summaries
Day I:
The Special Session opened with the President of the ASP, Ms. Päivi Kaukoranta, recommending members of the credentials committee and appointing a rapporteur.
Following WGA Chair Ambassador Juan José Quintana’s presentation of the Report of the WGA, States Parties commenced the General Debate by taking the floor to express their views on session’s objective to review the amendments on the crime of aggression.
Many states, including Lichtenstein, Germany, Switzerland, Finland, and others, expressed their strong support for the harmonization of the Court’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression alongside genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. States such as the DRC and Ukraine shared their ongoing experiences as victims of the crime of aggression.
Canada, Japan, the UK, New Zealand, and Australia were among those who opposed the L3 proposal, stating that further dialogue was needed as presented in their L4 proposal. Their concerns stemmed from a lack of consensus and the inability to reach a decision within such a short period of time. Another hesitation related to the legal terms set out in the draft resolution and the subsequent impact it would have on domestic legislation, where states would have to change or implement laws within their own legal codes.
A number of states, while reaffirming their commitment to the Court and the Rome Statute, expressed their openness during the ongoing discussions and indicated willingness to hear more about what the proposals were setting forth.
Some states also expressed concerns about the recent sanctioning of four ICC judges. Mexico and the UK were among those who condemned the threats against the court and echoed the sentiment of many other states – the Court needs the support of States Parties now more than ever.
Civil society organizations closed the debate, urging states to consider the importance of the Rome Statute system and the urgency in harmonizing the crime of aggression. The CICC, the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), the Global Institute for the Prevention of Aggression (GIPA), Ligue pour la Paix, les Droits de l’Homme et la Justice (LIPADHOJ), and Parliamentarians for Global Action (PGA), delivered statements that underlined the existing gaps in international criminal law. They called for states to eliminate the double standards that exist within the implementation of the Court’s jurisdiction, while placing special emphasis on the current and potential victims of this crime.
Day II:
The second day of the session continued with a plenary session on Lessons Learnt on the Kampala amendments. During this plenary session, several states took the floor to highlight their own domestic efforts at reinforcing the Rome Statute system. Norway stated that they had a parliamentary bill in the works which would pave the way for ratification of the Kampala amendments, pending parliamentary approval. Denmark shared their country’s current efforts which include a revision of the Danish criminal code, which includes some modifications and expansions on the Rome Statute and its crimes.
The informal negotiations included a wide range of views from States Parties with a majority expressing their support for the L3 proposal and a minority standing with the L4 proposal. Furthermore, others pointed to the vagueness of the text and the proposed period of time in which they would reconvene to consider the review of the amendments on the crime of aggression. France, Japan, UK, and New Zealand reiterated their calls for further dialogue and stated that the special session was not the place to reach consensus on such a serious topic. Canada took the floor to emphasize that discussions throughout the WGA and during the session were not productive, which is why they would not take action on the proposed L3 draft resolution.
Additionally, the United States made a statement in its capacity as an observer state. While they recalled their objection to the Court’s jurisdiction and the Rome Statute, they further threatened the Court with diplomatic, political, and legal actions if the Court did not drop the active investigations and arrest warrants against the US and its ally, Israel. They voiced their expectation that their other allies should consider taking the same actions as well.
Day III:
The final day of the session saw further negotiations as States sought to reach a final compromise on the way forward. Ultimately, the conditions were not in place for the Assembly to move forward with harmonization.
The resolution adopted by the Assembly in the final plenary meeting postponed much of the decision making for several years. In the resolution, which was adopted by consensus, the Assembly notably ‘commits itself to the aim of strengthening the jurisdiction of the Court over the crime of aggression’, and acknowledges ‘that many States Parties take the view that there is a gap in jurisdiction over the crime of aggression and advocate for harmonization of the Court’s jurisdiction with the other three core crimes’.
Further, the Assembly decided to convene another Special Session in 2029 in New York, for a maximum of five days, in order to consider the amendment proposal (see annex I) and other possible routes to enhance the Court’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. Additionally, the Assembly will convene an intersessional meeting of no more than two days in New York in 2027, in order to take stock of discussions.
This work will be facilitated by the establishment of a dedicated sub-working group of the WGA to take this process forward in the lead up to 2029, which will include annual reporting to the ASP on its progress.
The Coalition for the ICC had the opportunity to address the Assembly for a final time during the closing plenary, expressing disappointment in the Assembly’s failure ‘to reinforce the object and purpose of the Rome Statute to end impunity for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community’, and calling on states to use the coming years as an opportunity ‘to achieve the goal of harmonization, as you work tirelessly in defending the Rome Statute system and international justice from those who seek to limit avenues for accountability and ending impunity’.
NGO voices
Civil society took the opportunity during the Special Session to highlight the importance of including the crime of aggression within the Court’s current jurisdiction. ECCHR, GIPA, PGA and TRIAL International, co-hosted by Switzerland, hosted an event that promoted the voices of victims who had suffered and are still suffering from the crime of aggression. Representing Ukraine, Eastern DRC, Guyana, and Armenia, including experiences from the Holocaust, several human rights defenders recounted testimonies from victims and survivors on the ground who endured the many consequences of the crime of aggression remaining unchecked.
Africa Legal Aid (AFLA) hosted another side event that focused on the review of the amendments on the crime of aggression with experts, such as Samuel Mbemba Kabuya, Interim Minister of Justice and Keeper of the Seals of the DRC, Dr. Dominic Akuritinga-Ayine, Attorney General and Minister of Justice of Ghana, Edrick Noah, Assistant Minister, Administration and Public Safety, Ministry of Justice of Liberia, and Jennifer Trahan, Convenor of the GIPA, all making statements on the importance of the crime of aggression and why the Court’s ability to prosecute this crime is essential to the international legal order.
GIPA also led a technical seminar in the margins of the session, in order to give states an opportunity to discuss the limitations and available opportunities in harmonizing the crime of aggression under the ICC’s jurisdiction.
For more information on the crime of aggression, access this link.
For more information on the CICC’s team on ICC amendments, please contact advocacy@coalitionfortheicc.org.
Cover image: © ICC-CPI. The Assembly of States Parties (ASP) to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) held a special session on the review of the amendments on the crime of aggression from 7 to 9 July 2025, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York, United States. 9 July 2025.
