The activation of the ICC’s jurisdiction over the crime of aggression was activated, after contentious and enduring debate, on 17th July 2018. By incorporating victim participation within the ICC, the Rome Statute demands a focus on who may legally be considered a victim of the crimes within its jurisdiction, including the crime of aggression. However, due to the recent activation of the crime of aggression, there have been no prosecutions concerning the crime of aggression before the ICC and scholarly discussions of victimhood of the crime of aggression have been sparse. It is, therefore, vital for this concept to be investigated by policy makers, practitioners and scholars alike. Victimhood for the crime of aggression at the ICC is not easily determined. In contrast to the other crimes under the Court’s jurisdiction (war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity), individuals have never been recognised as victims of the crime of aggression nor of the underlying act of aggression. Equally, victim provisions at the ICC exclude the notion of a state as a victim. This creates a contradiction between the state-centric nature of the crime of aggression and the individually focused victimhood framework at the ICC. This thesis endeavours to explore how the crime of aggression can be expected to work within the current Rules of Procedure and Evidence at the ICC, focusing specifically on Rule 85, which outlines victim status. This thesis considers what awaits future victims of the crime of aggression at the ICC, seeking to move beyond the state-centric nature of the crime of aggression. It argues for an expansion of Rule 85 to incorporate states, whilst additionally recognising individuals as victims of the crime of aggression.