The United States should submit to the jurisdiction of an International Court

Alright, I have defined National Sovereignty as when countries are violated politically, militarily, or etc. Losing the power of a judicial court would apply in this case, seeing as it would be a violation of their rights in a justice system, would mean they have lost a part of their sovereignty. Because sovereignty is so important, we cannot allow a judicial system to fall into the hands of an international court. By the way, I am talking about the International Criminal Court, in case you were wondering. I would like to roadmap, first by going over my opponent's case, then by going back over mine. My opponent has stated in what he labeled 'Point 3.)' that this may be related back to the States-Rights issues, before and during the American Civil War, and how the federal government was curtailing the power of the states. I do not mean to be rude, but I do not understand how this applies, so could you please explain? But your second point you make is that the United States is not holy, and its authority is not unquestionable. That is very true. However, the United States has its own laws, and it should abide by its own laws, not by the laws of an international court, in which the laws could prove more impediment to our cause than supplement. Now to go over my case. My first point, is taglined that the Nuremberg Trials were a failure. My opponent has stated "While the Nuremberg trials were far from perfect, they were NOT a failure in terms of not not convicting all of the right people - in fact, even though certain criminals did not receive the death penalty, the trials are more often criticized for being unlawful, specifically because the allies were abusing their rights and had no jurisdiction in Germany, therefore violating Germany's sovereignty!" Germany was then, not really a country. First of all, its government, the Nazis, had been overthrown, and in the meantime, they were going to convict all of the Nazis who were responsible before they set up a new government. Therefore, the sovereignty of Germany was not violated in any way with the Nuremberg Trials, nullifying your refute. Also, about 50,000 Nazis escaped true justice, because of this International Court. If we had set up a NEW government, had a NEW court, we could have easily had them take care of the Nazis, rather than messing it up with our International Court. Protection of Point 2.) He has said that if a group of countries ally, there can't possibly be two thirds of the majority of countries agreeing with them, and if they do, maybe they have a point and the convicted country should lose their soverignty. Well, what if the countries of the world team up against the United States. For example, Russia, China, Mongolia, North Korea, Vietnam, the countries of the Middle East, many African Countries, and some Eastern Bloc states which haven't joined NATO, tried the United States. They would have a clear majority against the United States, NATO and its allies. The whole thing would turn into a political battle, and perhaps military battle, than a judicial battle. It would not make sense, and perhaps lead us to the Third and Last World War. Also, my opponent has not brought up either a value or a weighing factor, so please do so in your next argument. And I urge a strong vote in favor of the Negation, and I look forward to final argument of this debate. Thank you.