With a litany of deplorable human rights violations, it was of little surprise that the nations of China, Libya, Iraq, Yemen, and Qatar voted against the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998. However, the dissenting minority would also include the United States, the professed champion of freedom and custodian of justice, and Israel, its unpopular invention in the Middle East. Now, more than six and a half years later, nearly half of the United Nations' member states have yet to ratify the treaty, among them some of the world's largest and most powerful nations. Is it that these nations have something to hide or nothing to gain? It seems that the age of terrorism and the emergence of globalization has done much to reinforce, if not strengthen, realist ideologies. Perhaps we must look to the much publicized Abu Gharaib scandal, where we see a prime example of a prominent world power that, for the lack of an international authority, has been held accountable to little more than the court of public opinion. Constructivists especially might point to this as the headlining event in a larger shift towards protectionist and unilateralist policy amongst the world's great powers. Also, in circumventing the United Nations, the United States set a troubling precedent , bringing into question the efficacy and legitimacy of all such global institutions. In all, we have seen emerging patterns in international relations, resulting in the strengthening of realist resolve, and the susceptibility of powerful states to the changing climate of unilateralism and the possible deterioration of pre-existing institutions. As a result, the ICC remains impotent and the international community has (to this point) squandered another valuable opportunity to protect human rights.