My defence of the ICC isnt about defending US double standards, there's a risk of conflating the two. The ICC wasnt created by the US, in fact they were always opposed to its creation. The Obama Admin probably had the lightest stance towards the court, but even then they didnt sign the statue.
The weaknesses of the ICC are by design, and by function of the most powerful states self-interest to weaken it ( hence why the US, Russia, China never signed the Rome Statue) Its the same reason why other international institutions are dysfunctional, especially when the biggest powers are at odds. Crimes can be investigated by the ICC only by referral of state parties (hence how the Israel investigation started) or by referral from the Security Council.
Many proponents of the court would prefer far more expansive powers, but its impossible to get a consensus among states to vest it with these powers. It can only work through global cooperation and a commitment from states to recognize its authority. The Africans who were investigated by the court were almost all referred to the court by their own Governments. Despite its clear structrual weaknesses, I think there is value for the court, and that its general concept remains necessary.
