Abstract
This paper offers a feminist critique of certain actions of powerful states which are not only hypocritical but serve to reinforce the elites of international law. By comparing their position on the crime of aggression and their military intervention into other states it is evident that valuable lessons from feminist perspectives on peace and security issues have been missed. Certain powerful states were hesitant to let the International Criminal Court have jurisdiction of the crime of aggression and maintained dominant roles in the negotiations for the amendments to ensure there was an ‘opt out’ for states who do not wish to be liable for the crime. This position was a reaffirmation of the influence and dominance of certain states in the international community but also a restriction of the ICC itself. This restrictive ICC position on aggression is juxtaposed with the use of the ICC by powerful states for intervention and referral purposes as in the case of Libya. The comparison of these examples highlights the rejection of certain feminist issues or ‘missed lessons’ while promoting the strategies of powerful states in order to maintain their power, elite status and promote the masculine ‘state-centred’ view of international law.