Chapter 6 turns to the second term of the Bush 43 administration (2004–2008) which was characterised by more pragmatic engagement with and even tacit endorsement of the court, yet continued insistence on legal privileges through the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Here, the United States is shown to express illiberal internationalist conceptions that appeared more complementary with legalism, but remained distinct from it. Significantly, the negation of exceptionalist ideological beliefs by the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal led to acceptance of limited equal rights under the UNSC consistent with legalism. This episode corroborates the claim for ideology’s controlling role in interpreting legal principle but also the power of contesting American IL policy at the level of ideological beliefs.

Chapter 5 considers the first term of the George W. Bush (Bush 43) administration (2000–2004) when the US ‘unsigned’ the founding ICC statute and used a combination of domestic legislation and bilateral agreements to obstruct its further development. This period demonstrates a clear rejection of both legalist and liberal internationalist conceptions of the court. The dominant rule of law conception was instead that of illiberal nationalism combined with elements of illiberal internationalism, leading to widespread global criticism that US policy was contrary to the international rule of law. US policymakers nevertheless continued to defend US compliance with legal obligations and international criminal justice, while opposing a court advancing the principles recognised by legalist advocates.