The article continuously talks about "governments". The ICC is part of an international JUDICIARY court, which is INDEPENDANT from governments. Remember, in democracies, you have the executive power, the legislative power and the judiciary power. The best proof was that initiative taken by a Belgian court to prosecute heads of states accused of genocide was IN NO WAY organized by the Belgian government (as the article very wrongly suggests) but by the judiciary power, much in fact to the embarassment of the Belgian government. And it wasn't the Belgian government that overruled the Belgian court, it was a higher European court that did it, always within the judiciary power.
Well, ok, maybe there is no difference between the judiciary and the executive powers in the US, is there?

I just read in Le Figaro an interesting conclusion about the ICC matter:
It isn't the least paradoxe to see the Americans claim to the UN ,today, in favor of garantees for their soldiers, soldiers who in the weeks before Kosovo bombardment in 1999, were claiming not to have any need for a UN mandate for NATO's first war.
PS:why do so many democraties accept to relinquish the power to prosecute in favor of another higher court? If they do , it's because they trust it somehow.
It's all a matter of trust, I guess.
Same for all te other international issues the US refuses to follow. (Human rights, Children's rights, environment, mines, and I forget others, certainly).
There's a pattern perhaps showing isolationism or at least resentment towards the rest of the world; It could mean a lack of confidence, not towards the others, but a lack of selfconfidence. A very different situation from the 60's, under the cold war.
I'm happy to have been there, in the 60's: Moonwalks in preparation, lots of employment, Hope with a big "H".

Raoul