The ICC jurisprudence has been abundantly commented and compared to the others ad'hoc tribunals' works. However, its interaction with the international system (states, international organizations) was not as closely examinated. As an integral part of this system, the court can not be considered as a lone element. It is impossible to understand the prosecutor strategy if the wants and preoccupations of the international society are ignored. As such, the jurisdiction promotes values and ideologies coming from some states or some continents. They are largely accepted by the community of nations but this can validate some states' resistencies to the Rome Statute.The African Union claims that the ICC is partial, made solely for the weaker African nations, and is just another form of neocolonialism. It is true that international NGOs such as Human Right Watch consider most of its leaders as perpetatrors of Human Rights violation. Does it mean however that their concern must be dismissed? When experts analyse the Court or the Security council involvements they failed to point for example the illegitimacy of the five permanent members when it comes to Human Rights. The U.S intervention in Irak is seen by many as a crime of aggression and their inability to move the Security Council in their favour prompted their reaction to invade Syria. The lack of concern of the international community for this new development's illegality is another sign of the inequality of treatment between nations. Mass medias' role will not be forgotten in this research.The Court reacts to this unfair environment and its cases are chosen accordingly. When the Rome Statute was elaborated, the redactors tried to preserve state sovereignty. But in fact they insured that the most powerful states will escape the jurisdiction of the Court.In this paper, we will examine the claims of partiality and dependence of the Court and propose some changes to make it a more equitable and fair jurisdiction.