In my opinion, the ICC should strive to get more financial support to realize its initial goal. At first, ICTY and ICTR tried to charge all the suspects regardless of significance crime and status of indictees according to its superiority of jurisdiction over domestic courts. However, because it would require tremendous budget and time, the ICC made indictment confined to serious crimes and indictees to political and military figures in high positions. By this experience the office of the prosecutor (OTP) now puts its significance the most on "sufficient gravity" of a case and the number of victims. However, such standards seem far from the ICC's initial goals, or realization of justice and termination of non-punishment. The current strategy is dealing only with large-scale war crime, which I think is unjustifiable. OTP was reported on situations in Iraq, for example, but it evaluated the case according to the number of victims compared to cases under consideration of jurisdiction including Uganda and Sudan, and it announced that the Iraq case was thus outside jurisdiction. Can we say then that situations in Iraq were less significant than ones in those other counties? In short, what matters is how to achieve a balance between the ICC's capability of jurisdiction in real and its ideal of unconditionally realizing justice. Then, it goes back to financial problem, that is, how to fulfill requirement of tremendous human resources and administrative costs to achieve it. Thus, i think in order for the ICC to increase its efficiency as an instrument for international justice, a reform should be made in a way that it can raise more financial support from nation states.