Part II of the book applies the ideological model developed in Part I to reconsider the history of American ICC policy in its full ideological context. Each of the post–Cold War presidencies, up to that of President Obama, is analysed in terms of ideology’s impact on the three identified rule of law elements. Chapter 4 considers the Clinton administration (1992–2000), where US policy was characterised as contradictory for traversing from a prominent advocate of the project in the early years, to conspicuously voting against the final treaty establishing the court, then signing it, but warning against Senate ratification. The dominant conception of the international rule of law is shown to be liberal internationalism, combined with competing illiberal internationalist beliefs. Despite similar policy outcomes, this represented a shift from the primarily illiberal internationalist policy of the George H. W. Bush (Bush 41) administration. The design advocated by global advocates remained structured by legalist principles not recognised by US policymakers, such that US policy appeared contradictory for following internally coherent ideological conceptions of IL.