[Alberta's Child]

However, a country that has voluntarily accepted the Convention protocol and chosen to abide by it -- though not legally bound by it -- can certainly take a position one way or the other, in the UN or outside of it.

That's exactly what it's all about. It gives the U.S. the ability to sanctimoniously lecture other countries about the importance of a "rules-based international order" when it suits us, while at the same time allowing us to keep a straight face while we ignore those "rules" whenever we see fit.

[ought-six]

No, it means we have the flexibility to address our national interests as we see fit. The US would be the most affected by the treaty, and no doubt we concluded that not being bound by it would be best for our interests. We have taken similar positions on other international accords (such as the ICC).
Other countries have taken similar positions on other issues that they felt best served their interests.

BTW: Are you a big fan of the UN?