Many in the field of international relations have long viewed international law and regimes of international justice as epiphenomenal. But what explains the dramatic rise of international courts not only in terms of their numbers but also in terms of their relevance and the widening of their jurisdiction and competency? In other words, why would states, whether democratic or not, favor establishing or joining international regimes whose main purpose is to constrain their domestic sovereignty? Chapter 2 argues that a utilitarian frame explains states’ behavior in shaping, reshaping, and sometimes subverting norms of international justice, which they use strategically in pursuit of their interests. States – including those presumed to be weaker in the international system – use the ICC to advance their security and political interests. This argument provides a critique of the so-called justice cascade literature.