This project takes its cue from the arguments, exemplified by Bill Richardson’s statement, against legally defining the crime of aggression. These arguments by default (either designed or accidental) favour instead political action such as in the United Nations Security Council against the International Criminal Court in framing matters of aggression and the use of force. The focus on the United States is in recognition of both its indispensable role and pivotal influence in developing international criminal law and its preponderant military force. This correlation of law-making power with preponderant force is no coincidence at all.