Which is all fine and good until you go committing war crimes on foreign soil in regions that may not have proper legal frameworks. Committing war crimes in Iraq for instance. Which is kind of where the whole ICC thing comes into play - it's not really for like, speeding tickets. The US had the opportunity during development of the framework to engage and ensure all the other terms could be fairly met. Note that the text you quoted was also an amendment to what was meant to be a living document, albeit long since ossified.

The US did tried to do that, it was overruled which is why the Clinton administration voted no.

The US government is not allowed to participate or facilitate a criminal prosecution that would deny a US citizen their constitutional rights there has been a Supreme Court case about this already ironically in 1998 which was also one of the triggers for voting no.

On a side note the ICC is terrible, any party can bring up a case, there is no separation of duties, no defined scope and no right of appeal.

The ICC is nothing more than virtue signaling, and should never been established in its current form the world was just too high on its own supply of late 90’s hopium at that point to care.

What was the court case?

UNITED STATES v. BALSYS https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...

Any argument that contains the phrase "virtue signaling" can be safely discarded.