22 U.S.C. § 7401 — Restriction relating to United States ac-

Page 1943 TITLE 22—FOREIGN RELATIONS AND INTERCOURSE § 7401 DTS–PO with a majority vote of the Govern- ance Board. (f) National security interests The Governance Board shall ensure that those enhancements of, and the provision of service for, telecommunication capabilities that involve the national security interests of the United States receive the highest prioritization. (Pub. L. 106–567, title III, § 322, as added Pub. L. 111–259, title V, § 501(a)(1), Oct. 7, 2010, 124 Stat. 2736.) Editorial Notes PRIOR PROVISIONS A prior section 7302, Pub. L. 106–567, title III, § 322, Dec. 27, 2000, 114 Stat. 2843; Pub. L. 107–306, title VIII, § 811(b)(5)(E), Nov. 27, 2002, 116 Stat. 2425, which related to personnel, was repealed by Pub. L. 111–259, title V, § 501(a)(1), Oct. 7, 2010, 124 Stat. 2735. § 7303. Funding of the Diplomatic Telecommuni- cations Service (a) Authorization of appropriations There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for the operations, maintenance, development, enhancement, mod- ernization, and investment costs of the DTS Network and the DTS–PO. Funds appropriated for allocation to the DTS–PO shall remain avail- able to the DTS–PO for a period of two fiscal years. (b) Fees The DTS–PO shall charge a department or agency that uses the DTS Network for only those bandwidth costs attributable to such de- partment or agency and for specific projects car- ried out at the request of such department or agency, pursuant to the pricing methodology for such bandwidth costs and such projects approved under section 7302(e)(1) of this title, for which amounts have not been appropriated for alloca- tion to the DTS–PO. The DTS–PO is authorized to directly receive payments from departments or agencies that use the DTS Network and to in- voice such departments or agencies for the fees under this section either in advance of, or upon or after, providing the bandwidth or performing such projects. Such funds received from such de- partments or agencies shall remain available to the DTS–PO for a period of two fiscal years. (Pub. L. 106–567, title III, § 323, as added Pub. L. 111–259, title V, § 501(a)(1), Oct. 7, 2010, 124 Stat. 2738.) Editorial Notes PRIOR PROVISIONS A prior section 7303, Pub. L. 106–567, title III, § 323, Dec. 27, 2000, 114 Stat. 2845, which related to Diplomatic Telecommunications Service Oversight Board, was re- pealed by Pub. L. 111–259, title V, § 501(a)(1), Oct. 7, 2010, 124 Stat. 2735. See section 7302 of this title. § 7304. Definitions In this chapter: (1) DTS Network The term ‘‘DTS Network’’ means the world- wide telecommunications network supporting all United States Government agencies and de- partments operating from diplomatic and con- sular facilities outside of the United States. (2) DTS–PO The term ‘‘DTS–PO’’ means the Diplomatic Telecommunications Service Program Office. (3) Governance Board The term ‘‘Governance Board’’ means the Diplomatic Telecommunications Service Gov- ernance Board established under section 7302(a)(1) of this title. (Pub. L. 106–567, title III, § 324, as added Pub. L. 111–259, title V, § 501(a)(1), Oct. 7, 2010, 124 Stat. 2738.) Editorial Notes PRIOR PROVISIONS A prior section 7304, Pub. L. 106–567, title III, § 324, Dec. 27, 2000, 114 Stat. 2846, which related to general provisions, was repealed by Pub. L. 111–259, title V, § 501(a)(1), Oct. 7, 2010, 124 Stat. 2735. CHAPTER 81—INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 7401. Restriction relating to United States acces- sion to the International Criminal Court. 7402. Prohibition on extradition or transfer of United States citizens to the International Criminal Court. SUBCHAPTER II—AMERICAN SERVICEMEMBERS’ PROTECTION 7421. Findings. 7422. Waiver and termination of prohibitions of this subchapter. 7423. Prohibition on cooperation with the Inter- national Criminal Court. 7424. Restriction on United States participation in certain United Nations peacekeeping oper- ations. 7425. Prohibition on direct or indirect transfer of classified national security information and law enforcement information to the Inter- national Criminal Court. 7426. Repealed. 7427. Authority to free members of the Armed Forces of the United States and certain other persons detained or imprisoned by or on behalf of the International Criminal Court. 7428. Alliance command arrangements. 7429. Withholdings. 7430. Application of sections 7423 and 7425 to exer- cise of constitutional authorities. 7431. Nondelegation. 7432. Definitions. 7433. Assistance to international efforts. SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL PROVISIONS § 7401. Restriction relating to United States ac- cession to the International Criminal Court (a) Prohibition The United States shall not become a party to the International Criminal Court except pursu- ant to a treaty made under Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States on or after November 29, 1999. (b) Prohibition on use of funds None of the funds authorized to be appro- priated by this or any other Act may be obli- Page 1944 TITLE 22—FOREIGN RELATIONS AND INTERCOURSE § 7402 gated for use by, or for support of, the Inter- national Criminal Court unless the United States has become a party to the Court pursuant to a treaty made under Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States on or after November 29, 1999. (c) International Criminal Court defined In this section, the term ‘‘International Crimi- nal Court’’ means the court established by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the United Nations Diplo- matic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Es- tablishment of an International Criminal Court on July 17, 1998. (Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, § 1000(a)(7) [div. A, title VII, § 705], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–460.) Editorial Notes CODIFICATION Section was formerly set out as a note under section 262–1 of this title. Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries SHORT TITLE Pub. L. 107–206, title II, § 2001, Aug. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 899, provided that: ‘‘This title [enacting subchapter II of this chapter] may be cited as the ‘American Servicemembers’ Protection Act of 2002’.’’ § 7402. Prohibition on extradition or transfer of United States citizens to the International Criminal Court (a) Prohibition on extradition None of the funds authorized to be appro- priated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act may be used to extradite a United States citizen to a foreign country that is under an obligation to surrender persons to the Inter- national Criminal Court unless that foreign country confirms to the United States that ap- plicable prohibitions on reextradition apply to such surrender or gives other satisfactory assur- ances to the United States that the country will not extradite or otherwise transfer that citizen to the International Criminal Court. (b) Prohibition on consent to extradition by third countries None of the funds authorized to be appro- priated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act may be used to provide consent to the extradition or transfer of a United States citizen by a foreign country to a third country that is under an obligation to surrender persons to the International Criminal Court, unless the third country confirms to the United States that applicable prohibitions on reextradition apply to such surrender or gives other satisfac- tory assurances to the United States that the third country will not extradite or otherwise transfer that citizen to the International Crimi- nal Court. (c) Definition In this section, the term ‘‘International Crimi- nal Court’’ has the meaning given the term in section 7401(c) of this title. (Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, § 1000(a)(7) [div. A, title VII, § 706], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–461.) Editorial Notes CODIFICATION Section was formerly set out as a note under section 262–1 of this title. SUBCHAPTER II—AMERICAN SERVICEMEMBERS’ PROTECTION § 7421. Findings Congress makes the following findings: (1) On July 17, 1998, the United Nations Dip- lomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, meeting in Rome, Italy, adopted the ‘‘Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’’. The vote on whether to proceed with the statute was 120 in favor to 7 against, with 21 countries abstaining. The United States voted against final adoption of the Rome Stat- ute. (2) As of April 30, 2001, 139 countries had signed the Rome Statute and 30 had ratified it. Pursuant to Article 126 of the Rome Statute, the statute will enter into force on the first day of the month after the 60th day following the date on which the 60th country deposits an instrument ratifying the statute. (3) Since adoption of the Rome Statute, a Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court has met regularly to draft doc- uments to implement the Rome Statute, in- cluding Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Ele- ments of Crimes, and a definition of the Crime of Aggression. (4) During testimony before the Congress fol- lowing the adoption of the Rome Statute, the lead United States negotiator, Ambassador David Scheffer stated that the United States could not sign the Rome Statute because cer- tain critical negotiating objectives of the United States had not been achieved. As a re- sult, he stated: ‘‘We are left with consequences that do not serve the cause of international justice.’’. (5) Ambassador Scheffer went on to tell the Congress that: ‘‘Multinational peacekeeping forces operating in a country that has joined the treaty can be exposed to the Court’s juris- diction even if the country of the individual peacekeeper has not joined the treaty. Thus, the treaty purports to establish an arrange- ment whereby United States armed forces op- erating overseas could be conceivably pros- ecuted by the international court even if the United States has not agreed to be bound by the treaty. Not only is this contrary to the most fundamental principles of treaty law, it could inhibit the ability of the United States to use its military to meet alliance obliga- tions and participate in multinational oper- ations, including humanitarian interventions to save civilian lives. Other contributors to peacekeeping operations will be similarly ex- posed.’’. (6) Notwithstanding these concerns, Presi- dent Clinton directed that the United States sign the Rome Statute on December 31, 2000. In a statement issued that day, he stated that in view of the unremedied deficiencies of the Rome Statute, ‘‘I will not, and do not rec-