One of the most effective strategies powerful states use to avoid prosecution in the ICC is by refusing to become parties to the Rome Statute (Roth, 2025). The Rome Statute would establish a permanent international criminal court (ICC) which is separate from the United Nations (Leigh, 2001, p. 124). It would have the jurisdiction to try individuals rather than states for the most serious crimes of concern (Leigh, 2001, p. 124). On July 17, 1998, the United States of America called for a dramatic midnight vote which resulted in a 120 to 7 majority in favour of the statute with 21 abstentions (Ambos, 1999, p. 1). Within those refusals was the U.S along with Iran, Iraq, China, Israel, Sudan, and Libya who had voted against the Rome Statute, as they were worried that one day the ICC might put their officials on trial (Leigh, 2001, p.124). This collective refusal by powerful states potentially reflects their decision to shield their citizens, particularly, military and government officials from international accountability. By not joining, they possibly avoid creating legal obligations that might expose their internal foreign policies. 

For instance, due to their refusal to become party to the Rome Statute, the ICC can’t prosecute individuals for crimes that take place in the United States. However, under article 12 of the Rome Statute, United State’s military and troops serving in foreign countries would be subjected to the jurisdiction of the court if the foreign country is a party to the Roman statute (Kim, 1999, p. 47).  Therefore, the U.S attempted to negotiate an exemption from ICC jurisdiction over U.S citizens. U.S negotiators tried to insert a clause that the ICC wouldn’t attempt to exercise jurisdiction over nationals of a non-state party unless the court obtains the consent of the non-state party, on a case by case basis (Leigh, 2001, p. 126). Although this was rejected, it was an attempt at a deliberate strategy to likely evade prosecution as they wanted to avoid scrutiny of its military and foreign policy decisions. This rejection depicts how powerful states seek to preserve control over how and when its officials can be held accountable. They seem to reject any system where their sovereign decisions can be questioned by an external, international system. 

The United State’s second and most important objection to the treaty is that the ICC will be in a position to judge whether U.S national security decisions are legal under international law, for instance, it will have jurisdiction over a member of the armed forces or a civilian official, like the secretary of defence, who orders an air strike on a foreign country (Leigh, 2001, p.128). Therefore, presumably to avoid losing control over who judges the actions of U.S officials, the U.S, along with other powerful nations have refused to join the ICC. This unwillingness possibly reflects the powerful states’ desire to remain strategic impunity by staying outside of legal frameworks that could criminalize their global interventions. This legal loophole undermines the universality of international justice, as the most powerful countries who are capable of serious crimes such as war crimes are also the best equipped to avoid investigation. Moreover, since the ICC can only prosecute individuals for crimes committed on the territory of state parties, its jurisdiction is limited as it creates a loophole for non-state members (Blanchet, 2016, p. 650). 

By avoiding becoming a party to the Roman Statute, powerful states essentially have areas of immunity where crimes committed beyond the reach of the court go unpunished. For instance, there were U.S drone attacks on Pakistan in 2010 and these strikes followed two consecutive years of dramatically increased drone activity in Pakistan (Blank & Farley, 2011, p. 151) .However, the ICC can’t hold the U.S accountable as both countries aren’t a party to the Rome Statute. Another instance to put the picture in perspective is Russia’s attack in Syria. Russia attacked Syria to reposition Russia as a world power (Yadlin, 2016, p. 11). However, as the ICC’s jurisdiction is limited geographically, they weren’t able to intervene. Ultimately, despite ICC’s promising goals of universal accountability, powerful states are allegedly able to escape consequences by simply refusing to join the ICC or by making the decision to leave the ICC.