This study delves into the complex dynamics of international law and the United States' stance on the International Criminal Court (ICC) through the lenses of liberal and realist theories in international relations. While international law embodies liberal ideals of cooperation and justice, the motivations behind state participation are often driven by realist considerations. Using the U.S. as a case study, the paper explores how its historical opposition to the ICC aligns with classical realist concepts of national interests, sovereignty, and security. The U.S. reluctance to fully engage with the ICC is rooted in concerns about whose interests the court serves, the potential erosion of state power, and the impact on national sovereignty. These apprehensions, grounded in a realist perspective, have shaped the U.S. approach to international justice and legal frameworks. By examining the historical background and core issues related to American opposition, this study sheds light on the compatibility between the ICC's liberal mandate and U.S. national interests.