This thesis works through the process of contestation embarked by African States in relation to the Al Bashir Case in the International Criminal Court. The enactment by these States of practices of contestation represented an unprecedented moment in the practice of international criminal law. Not only were States engaging with the Court through a vast array of practices, but also this participation generated an enormous level of scrutiny from scholars and practitioners of international law. Throughout the response to the African engagement with the ICC was the familiar mobilization of the frontier between law and politics. A frequent position in the practitioners reactions was that politics should not take place in the environment of the Court, and the practice of international law should be able to transcend it. The analysis of this thesis focuses on these two features: the practices of contestation performed by African States and the responses it engendered from the Court. In this thesis, I question whether the way the Court made sense of these practices through the division of labour between law and politics affected the ability of these contesting States of engendering change in international law. Through this question, I seek to grasp the more significant aspects that are veiled not only in the practices of contestation but in the attribution of meanings in response to them. This endeavour requires an examination of the patterns of meaning underlying these practices and narratives, as they point to the conditions that allow certain actors to question authority. I argue that the creation of a boundary between what belongs to the realm of law and the sphere of politics is itself a political stance that has consequences on the way international law is enacted. The way law and politics are mobilized in the argumentative practices of international law creates a set of barriers so that certain practices of contestation being performed by African States in relation to the Al Bashir Case in the ICC, when framed as politics, do not stand a chance to provoke change in the first place.