When the United States ceased to be a part of the British empire, and assumed the character of an independent nation, they became subject to that system of rules which reason, morality, and custom had established among civilized nations of Europe, as their public law. . . . The faithful observance of this law is essential to national character.
-- James Kent, early constitutional scholar
Such "laws of nation," or international law, were partly written down as part of agreements and domestic law (per an express congressional power), partly a matter of regular practice, and partly developed by the courts in such areas as admiralty law and treatment of citizens in foreign lands. So, there was some degree of comity, non-binding agreement that respected fellow sovereigns, while also securing one's own sovereignty. Current policy respecting the International Criminal Court is not quite so balanced:
Three years ago the Bush administration began prodding countries to shield Americans from the fledgling International Criminal Court in The Hague, which was intended to be the first permanent tribunal for prosecuting crimes like genocide. ...
Most of the penalties, outlined in a law that went into effect in 2003, have been in the form of cuts in military training and other security aid. But a budget bill passed in December also permits new cuts in social and health-care programs, like AIDS education and peacekeeping, refugee assistance and judicial reforms.
The linked article focuses on various Latin American countries who refuse to be bribed to give special treatment to the United States. As noted by an expert in the article, there is but a "glimmer" that the ICC treaty will kick in -- our country would have to be shown to have been shielding someone guilty of a crime against humanity. Perhaps, the fear is that we have? A nameless state department official supplied the administration view -- the brave forthright Bush Administration too chickenshit to go on record. Anonymous sources being a favored method of speaking to the media.
But, the fact remains that the usual alleged potential victims are often already secured:
Many officials argue that existing treaties already protect American soldiers. The new agreements go too far, they say, by adding protections for ordinary Americans, like tourists, and non-American contractors who work for American companies. ...
[I]n Colombia, where the American military has rotated 8,000 soldiers in the past five years as part of its largest mission in the region, a new immunity agreement two years ago has upset some officials. Colombia already had a 1974 treaty protecting American soldiers from criminal charges.
"These treaties say that everyone in Colombia must respect the law, Indians, Chinese, the Colombians," said a Colombian senator, Jimmy Chamorro, who considers them illegal. "Everyone except the Americans."
Furthermore, even some official sorts are starting to admit the heavy-handed policy threatens our self-interest. Drug control, potential oil sources, the importance of the Latin America overall, and so forth all counsel that we have good relations with our neighbors to the South. Recent CAFTA legislation has not many more friends there. Refusing aid dollars out of fear that someone will be charged with crimes against humanity (not that anything we did even approaches that ... say in Cuba ...) is pretty ill advised, especially since there is a middle way.
But, hey, we're America. We are special.