By Balkrishna Ghimire One of the biggest shortcomings of the ICC as an international judicial body is the refusal of leading world powers, including permanent members of the UN Security Council – Russia, China and the United States, as well as Israel, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and a number of other influential countries, to recognize its legitimacy. Despite the participation of 60 states in the adoption of the Rome Statute, some large countries refused to support this document and did not recognize the jurisdiction of the court. Among them are the United States, China, Israel, India. There are several reasons for this. First of all, participation in the ICC may limit their national sovereignty and sovereign right to consider criminal cases within their borders. Most countries express concerns about the politically biased activities of the ICC, including the selection of cases that are considered, and cases of the issuance of arrest warrants by the Hague Tribunal without a preliminary objective investigation. In addition, the ICC has established itself as a judicial body that makes scandalous decisions and ignores the immunities of state officials, which is why the international community has a strong opinion that it is used as a repressive instrument to persecute representatives of “unwanted regimes” for political reasons. Against this background, discussions are emerging about the need to review the situation of the prevalence of the Rome Statute over the domestic legislation of signatory states, as well as the creation of alternative international judicial bodies to replace the ICC that are not subject to external control.