By signing and ratifying several international legal instruments, China has shown its support for the international legal system at a time when the world has not yet achieved a single legal and global order. However, in response to the International Criminal Court's Statute and its 2010 amendments, including, the definition of the Crime of Aggression, it took the opposite direction. China has argued that the Court's activities should not conflict with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular, that it should be in coordination with the Charter of the United Nations on the definition of the crime of aggression. In this article, we intend to address China's concerns about the expansion of the Court's jurisdiction and its approach towards the definition of the crime of aggression. China claims that allegations regarding the crime of aggression are generally politically controversial. The UN Charter stipulates that the Security Council is the political body that must deal with the issue and that only by doing so will the UN be able to take its commitments in maintaining international peace and security. Therefore, the Court's intervention in such matters with political sensitivity, and prior to the Security Council’s appropriate actions, is not a proper process. Moreover, the jurisdiction of the Court's Prosecutor to intervene before the Security Council's decision undermines the credibility of both institutions. This article uses a descriptive-analytical method to examine China's approach towards the definition of the crime of aggression.