The International Criminal Court, as the most important permanent institution of international criminal justice, was established to combat impunity and prosecute perpetrators of the gravest international crimes. Nevertheless, practical experience demonstrates that the realization of justice is constantly affected by political pressures from states. The cases of Uhuru Kenyatta and Rodrigo Duterte are among the most significant contemporary examples of this challenge, since in one case non-cooperation by a State Party was central, while in the other withdrawal from the Rome Statute became a mechanism of resistance. The main question of this study is how the tension between justice and politics emerged in these two cases and how it affected the effectiveness of the Court. Using a descriptive-analytical method and relying on library sources, official documents, and judicial practice, this article finds that the principal manifestations of political interference include non-cooperation, diplomatic pressure, obstruction of evidence gathering, legal attempts to restrict jurisdiction, and a gap between legal authority and practical enforcement. The study concludes that the Court’s principal crisis is less a crisis of legal legitimacy than one of enforcement and structural dependence on the political will of states. The practical recommendation is to strengthen enforcement guarantees for state cooperation, expand witness protection mechanisms, and improve the Court’s executive capacities.