The International Criminal Court (ICC), as the first permanent institution for addressing the most serious international crimes, was established on the basis of judicial independence and impartiality. However, since its inception, it has faced the persistent challenge of remaining immune from the influence and political pressures of both member and non-member states. Member states exert direct and indirect influence through mechanisms such as the Assembly of States Parties, the election of judges and the Prosecutor, and cooperation or non-cooperation in the enforcement of the Court’s decisions. Conversely, non-member states, particularly major powers, have imposed significant constraints through the Security Council’s role in referring or suspending cases, as well as by adopting domestic policies that limit cooperation with the Court. This situation has led to serious legal challenges, including selective justice, the weakening of the Court’s legitimacy, and reduced effectiveness in achieving the objectives of the Rome Statute. This article, with a focus on legal foundations, demonstrates that although the ICC is mandated under international criminal law to distance itself from political interference, the realities of global power structures cast doubt on the full realization of such independence. Finally, it proposes measures such as strengthening financial autonomy, reforming the procedures for electing judges and the Prosecutor, and revisiting the role of the Security Council to enhance the Court’s impartiality and legal legitimacy.