||The United States has long been called the policeman of the world, intervening in international conflicts in order to promote peace and security on a global scale. With such a history, why then, has the United States not joined the International Criminal Court? A key actor in the establishment of the war crimes tribunals at Nuremberg, for Rwanda, and for the former Yugoslavia, the United States is not a stranger to international criminal judiciary proceedings, but, the U.S. has yet to ratify the Rome Statute to the International Criminal Court and become a party to this permanent, international criminal court. The following analysis examines what the International Criminal Court is and why the United States has not yet become a member. In an attempt to answer this question, this thesis delves into the role both the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government play in U.S. policy to the International Criminal Court. This research examines Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama's stances on the International Criminal Court, and what effects their viewpoints had on U.S. relations with the Court. Next, this paper analyzes public law and proposed legislation dealing with the International Criminal Court to find a pattern consistent with the current administration's stance. This analysis will find that U.S. public policy and action toward the ICC directly correlate to opinion of the presidential administration at that time-an opinion derived from predetermined national interests. As international cooperation and engagement become more favorable, the U.S. needs to continue making positive policy changes in order to remain a relevant player in the international field of criminal justice and security, even if the U.S. does not join the International Criminal Court.