In 2010, one of my Public International Law professors, while explaining to our LLM class of Public International Law and Human Rights about the current issues, appreciated the fact that the US was actively involved in the Kampala Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. In response, I immediately disagreed. I did not believe that it was a good idea for a non-state party to be that influential; not so long ago it had been busy discrediting the Court and discouraging other countries from cooperating. After writing this book, I think my point of view was an uncompromising one, that of ‘you are either in it or out’. For those who believe in the Bible, the Savour is against the lukewarm. In the book of Revelation, chapter 3 verse 16, it is stated that:’ So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.’ I have come to understand that my professor's point of view was one of optimism, believing that the Court's success will depend on its good relationship with all countries including those that are not parties to the Rome Statute, especially the most powerful. He might have seen the US’ engagement as an assurance of the Court's future and a sign of its recognition as a global actor (legitimacy). And probably he might have (wrongly) thought that the US involvement in shaping the rules of the Court was a positive indication that in the near future it would consider becoming a state party. Therefore, I admit to having been naive and idealistic, for believing in a utopian sovereign equality of states, and he was perhaps more realistic because the Kampala Review Conference was about the amendment of the Rome Statute, an important step in shaping the Court, something a powerful state could not have ignored. As Barkin notes, ‘[t]he first way to influence an [international organisation] is through its creation negotiations, state's capacity to influence the rules to govern (…)’.