The International Criminal Court has been a political third rail in the United States. Long opposed by senior military leadership, it was signed onto only with grave reservations by the Clinton administration, and ceremoniously unsigned by the Bush administration. But recent developments in Washington, New York, and the Hague suggest that a policy of formal U.S. government opposition to the Court may yield to a policy of de facto acceptance and active U.S. cooperation with the Court in its important mission. The time is at hand for a major reassessment of the relationship between the United States, the International Criminal Court, and the broader issue of U.S. policy toward international justice. Lee Feinstein and Tod Lindberg provide that assessment in "Means to an End". "Means to an End" reframes the discussion on the ICC by broadening the focus to address not simply the Court but the broader issue of United States policy toward international justice. Feinstein and Lindberg argue that the U.S. should actively support the ICC-not as an act of international charity, nor as a project of global governance, and not even principally to send a strong message of international cooperation, but rather, because it serves U. S. interests and is consistent with the values to which America has aspired. "Means to an End" also focuses on the foreign policy, national security, and moral case for shifting U.S. policy toward the Court. A sovereign power that fails to protect the essential right to live is failing its most basic obligation.