Patrick Wintour in New York

A bipartisan House majority passed a resolution on Wednesday condemning President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and 13 other current and former members of the administration over their roles in the chaotic and deadly U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, after 10 Democrats joined all Republicans in delivering the rare and sweeping rebuke.

The 219-to-194 vote was the House’s final roll call before members departed Washington to focus on the election, in which control of the chamber is up for grabs. Though the resolution was uniquely broad and direct in condemning the president, members of his cabinet and top advisers in a personal capacity, instead of as an administration, the vote was symbolic because the measure carries no force of law.

Still, the participation of 10 Democrats — almost all of them facing tight re-election contests — buoyed the Republicans behind the effort to formally hold senior administration officials primarily responsible for the failures of the withdrawal in the summer of 2021, which left 13 U.S. service members dead. Democratic leaders have dismissed the resolution as a politically biased crusade.

“Ten Democrats just joined me in condemning Biden-Harris admin officials who played key roles in the deadly Afghanistan withdrawal,” Representative Michael McCaul, the Texas Republican who is the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement on social media after the vote. “I am glad these colleagues put politics aside and voted to do what was right — deliver accountability to the American people.”

“After their laughingstock flop of an impeachment investigation, they’re flailing about now to attack the president or the vice president however they can,” Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland, who opposed the Afghanistan measure, said after Wednesday’s vote. “The country sees it as cheap election-year antics and games.”

Republicans began the congressional session signaling that their investigations, which ran the gamut from Afghanistan to the business dealings of Mr. Biden’s son Hunter, could deliver serious, tangible consequences for the president, including even impeachment. Earlier this year, the G.O.P.-led House impeached Alejandro N. Mayorkas, the homeland security secretary, over the administration’s border policies, voted to recommend contempt charges for Attorney General Merrick B. Garland for failing to comply with a subpoena, and rebuked Ms. Harris for her handling of immigration and security at the southern border.

But efforts to take similar aim at the president ran aground, particularly after Mr. Biden exited the presidential race. In the last several weeks, the G.O.P. has been scrambling to refocus its scrutiny on Ms. Harris, now the Democratic nominee, who had not previously been the main target of any investigations.

Republicans defended the pivot, and the fact that their final, pre-election punch against the administration’s top members was effectively a messaging resolution, as a satisfactory outcome.

Representative Chip Roy, Republican of Texas, added in an interview: “Democrats effectively impeached Biden when they abandoned him in July and went with Kamala Harris. Democrats executed their own president, politically.”

Democrats said the resolution was a politically craven effort to sully Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris by cherry-picking evidence from the Afghanistan investigation that would put them in a bad light. Mr. Biden’s approval ratings fell sharply after the chaotic withdrawal and never recovered.

“Could it have something to do with the elections that are coming up in less than 45 days?” Representative Gregory W. Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the Foreign Affairs panel, said on the floor, dismissing Wednesday’s move as intended “solely to attack the Biden administration in an election year.”

Mr. McCaul had recommended that both Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris be rebuked in a 353-page report that the panel’s Republicans released this month, blaming the “Biden-Harris administration” for the failures of the withdrawal. Former President Donald J. Trump has asserted that Ms. Harris was responsible for the deaths of the 13 service members during the evacuation because she professed to be the last person in the room when Mr. Biden made the decision to withdraw.

Ms. Harris has in turn accused Mr. Trump of trying to exploit the members’ deaths for political gain, including by taking campaign photos and videos at Arlington National Cemetery. The G.O.P.’s report largely excused Mr. Trump from culpability, despite his administration’s having struck the deal with the Taliban that pledged the United States to a timeline to depart Afghanistan.

Condemnation resolutions are often used to express lawmakers’ animus against policies, adversaries, terrorist groups and actions that lawmakers deem reprehensible enough to demand congressional castigation. But they do not carry formal consequences, beyond shaming the targets of the resolutions in a more formal manner than the heated debates that are a daily occurrence on Capitol Hill.

Among the people the resolution condemned alongside Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris are Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser; Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken; Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III; and certain current and former press secretaries for the White House, State Department and Pentagon. The resolution did not fault any uniformed military officials for the withdrawal.

The Democrats who joined Republicans in voting for the measure were Representatives Yadira Caraveo of Colorado, Henry Cuellar of Texas, Don Davis of North Carolina, Jared Golden of Maine, Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, Jeff Jackson of North Carolina, Greg Landsman of Ohio, Susie Lee of Nevada, Mary Peltola of Alaska and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington. Their offices did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Republicans on the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday recommended holding Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken in contempt of Congress for failing to testify in their investigation of the chaotic U.S. exit from Afghanistan, in what Democrats charged was a political stunt ahead of the election.

The committee’s party-line vote came just days before the House was set to disband for the campaign trail and as Mr. Blinken was in New York, participating in high-level diplomatic meetings during the United Nations General Assembly.

It is one of two expected Afghanistan-related moves in the House this week. The full chamber is also expected to vote on a resolution condemning 15 senior members of the Biden administration — including President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and Mr. Blinken — for their roles in the withdrawal.

Representative Michael McCaul, Republican of Texas and the committee’s chairman, said he was forced to pursue contempt charges after Mr. Blinken declined for months to commit to a September date to give testimony.

But Democrats said Mr. McCaul’s insistence on a September appearance was politically motivated and accused Republicans of trying to damage the Biden administration at the height of a critical campaign season.

“Why is there suddenly a rush to hold this contempt vote, when the secretary has made it very clear, time and time again, that he is willing to testify?” asked Representative Gregory W. Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the panel. “One reason: politics.”

House Republicans have stepped up their attacks on the Biden administration over the U.S. departure from Afghanistan as it becomes an issue on the campaign trail. Former President Donald J. Trump has blamed Ms. Harris for the deaths of 13 U.S. service members during the evacuation. Ms. Harris has accused Mr. Trump of trying to exploit the casualties for political gain, criticizing him for taking campaign photos and video at Arlington National Cemetery.

This month, Republicans on the panel released a 353-page report accusing the “Biden-Harris administration” of bumbling the withdrawal. It largely absolved Mr. Trump of any responsibility, though his administration reached the agreement with the Taliban committing the United States to a timeline for its departure.

Days before the report was released, Mr. McCaul issued a subpoena for Mr. Blinken’s testimony, ordering him to appear before the panel on Sept. 19. Mr. Blinken ended up being in Egypt that day. So on Sept. 18, Mr. McCaul issued a superseding subpoena, ordering Mr. Blinken to appear on Tuesday — the same day Mr. Biden was set to deliver a speech to the U.N. General Assembly.

“I believe you would agree U.S. representation at the highest levels in these engagements is essential,” Mr. Blinken wrote to Mr. McCaul in a letter dated Sunday and obtained by The New York Times. He added that he was “profoundly disappointed you have once again chosen to send me a subpoena and threaten contempt, rather than engage with me through the constitutionally mandated accommodation process.”

In a follow-up letter dated Monday and also obtained by The Times, Naz Durakoglu, the assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, said the Justice Department had concluded that Mr. Blinken could not be compelled to abandon his diplomatic duties at the United Nations to comply with the panel’s subpoena.

“As a matter of law,” she wrote, “the secretary may not be punished by civil or criminal means for failing to appear at the scheduled hearing.”

But the Republicans on the panel were not swayed by such appeals.

“Secretary Blinken is hiding at the United Nations General Assembly in New York,” said Representative Jim Baird, Republican of Indiana.

Other G.O.P. lawmakers recommended that House members take matters into their own hands.

“I recommend the use of inherent contempt,” said Representative Keith Self, Republican of Texas, referring to the House’s power to fine or imprison people who flout congressional subpoenas, without relying on the Justice Department to bring charges. While the House has not invoked inherent contempt in almost a century, House Republicans tried and failed to impose a $10,000-per-day fine on Attorney General Merrick B. Garland this summer.

It is unclear when the House might vote on a contempt resolution for Mr. Blinken. Earlier this year, the chamber voted to recommend that Mr. Garland be held in contempt of Congress and to impeach Alejandro N. Mayorkas, the homeland security secretary.

The committee issued two previous subpoenas to Mr. Blinken for documents in the course of its Afghanistan investigation.

Edward Wong contributed reporting.

Four countries on Wednesday accused the Taliban of “gross and systematic” violations of the U.N. treaty on women’s rights in Afghanistan, saying they would take the group to the world’s highest court because of its harsh, widely criticized restrictions on women.

The plan was described by foreign ministers from Germany, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands at the United Nations in New York, where the General Assembly was meeting on Wednesday. The ministers said they intended to take the Taliban to the International Court of Justice, the top U.N. court.

The treaty, regarded as an international bill of rights for women, was signed in 1979 and includes most of the world’s nations, including Afghanistan, which joined in 2003. (The United States is one of the few countries that has not ratified it.)

Since returning to power in 2021, the Taliban has systematically rolled back many of the rights that women won during the 20-year U.S. occupation. Last month, the Taliban released a 114-page manifesto codifying its restrictions on women, which include barring them from secondary schools or universities, working for aid organizations and traveling any significant distance without a male relative. Human rights monitors say Afghanistan is the most restrictive country in the world for women, and the only country in the world where girls are barred from education beyond the sixth grade.

At the United Nations on Wednday, the four foreign ministers condemned what they called “the gross and systematic human rights violations and abuses in Afghanistan, particularly the gender-based discrimination of women and girls.”

They said “we have repeatedly urged Afghanistan and the Taliban” to comply with international law and to lift all restrictions on the rights of women and girls, including on their right to education. “However, the situation has not improved; to the contrary, it continues to worsen.”

If the case is heard, it would be the first time the U.N.’s top court considered the alleged violation of the treaty, which forbids all forms of discrimination against women.

“This is momentous; it will give Afghan women a new important platform before world opinion and make them protagonists in their struggle,” said Rangita de Silva de Alwis, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and an adviser to Afghan women activists.

The court, based in The Hague, was established by the founding charter of the United Nations in 1945 to settle disputes between member states. The court typically has a panel of 15 judges, elected by the U.N. General Assembly and Security Council.

Its decisions are legally binding with no possibility of appeal, but the body has few means of enforcing them, and the Taliban could ignore the process.

The formal complaint against the Taliban cannot be filed immediately. The court’s rules require a formal notification that there is a dispute, followed by a six-month period in which the parties are to try to settle their dispute.

But Afghan women in Europe and North America said they were thrilled the process had been set in motion. Many have joined a Coalition for Justice, which includes more than 100 expat Afghan women who have become activists for those in Afghanistan.

“Today’s action was a great move and we are very grateful to the countries who listened to the women,” said Ghizal Haress, a lawyer who was the official ombudsperson dealing with government corruption before she fled Kabul in 2021. Ms Haress was among the women whose activism led the four governments to bring a case against the Taliban.

The activists described lobbying European lawmakers, organizing conferences and holding demonstrations.

“We knew what was coming as soon as the Taliban arrived,” said Ms. Haress, now a scholar at York University in Toronto. “But we are now making sure that the many women are not forgotten who live under a system of violence and gender apartheid.”