You're thinking of the American Service-Members' Protection Act of 2002: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...

The Hague invasion aspect, and Hague Invasion Act nickname, are perhaps largely symbolic; the less symbolic effects are that it prohibits any part of government in the US from assisting the ICC except in limited circumstances, and bans ICC agents from doing any investigative work in the US.

Which is really why this international criminal court has no real meaning - only the winner in a conflict gets to also win in the court.

For example, do you really think that by charging putin, that he'd really get arrested in participating countries? Or would the warrant be ignored?

And if putin does lose his war, and goes into exile, the ICC warrants would then be possible to enforce (now that no nukes is on the line). But putin knows this, so if the war goes badly, would it not make better sense to fight it out to the bitter end, rather than lose out to being arrested if he goes on exile?

The court that has no enforcement mechanism is mostly just political show boating.

I don't think one NATO country can credibly threaten to invade another, so not really, no... But clearly the US did not sign up to the international criminal court / war crimes courts etc because they were worried about random US DoD personnel who killed civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan being hauled in front of the court. Somebody like Robert Bales for instance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kandahar_massacre

As he has been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole the US takes the position that they want to prosecute such things within their own system.

Bullshit. The Netherlands are a NATO member.

It's more than that or people wouldn't be charging 90+ year olds who were concentration camp prison guards in their teens and early 20s.