I think Richard Dicker made some great points about the participation of the UN Security Council and how it relates to the legitimacy of the ICC. The Security Council plays an important role because the council can refer cases to the ICC that the court would not have access to otherwise. The problem with having state actors on the council that have not ratified the treaty is that it reeks of hypocrisy. It sends a very clear signal that some of the main influencers in the process have not publicly declared their buy-in for the system nor pledged their full support. As long as state actors like the U.S. and Russia refer other states to the ICC without being held responsible for their own actions, the overall legitimacy of the court will always be undermined. The relationship must change in order for the court to truly advance international justice. One possibility would be for the ICC to be completely unwed from the UN Security Council. Another type of authority organization would have to be used that included states which are fully invested in the mission of the court. Yes - this would be difficult, but it seems completely necessary to me.