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

Resolution: The United States should submit to the jurisdiction of an International Court. I stand strongly against what has been resolved, and I feel it must be negated. Why? National Sovereignty. National Sovereignty is the recognition that a country exists, and that it cannot be violated politically, militarily, or otherwise. Sovereignty is broken when nations invade eachother, and Sovereignty is important for a country to remain a country. If the United States submits to the jurisdiction of an International Court, then the United States would lose much of its sovereignty as a country. To prove this, I would like to employ Justice as a weighing factor. Justice is important, because the Affirmative of this case will attempt to make my position look as if it is violating Justice. This leads me to the burden of the Affirmative and the Negative. Because of what has been set up, the Affirmative's Burden is to prove that his case better supports Justice than mine, and I am trying to show that my case is better supporting justice. Now on to my arguments. Point 1.) The Failure of the Nuremberg Trials The Nuremberg Trials were the Trials against the Nazis for war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Sub-point a.) The Nuremberg Trials were a failure. Many of the true Nazi supporters did not receive their just punishment. If we had a new national court administer the punishments, it would have been much more effective. Sub-point b.) Many of Hitler's top officials escaped true justice, because this international court failed to prosecute them for their war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Is this true justice? Is it true justice to let people who commited crimes be let go? No! If we had a national court take care of the Nazi criminals, we wouldn't have let 50,000 Nazis escape. They would have been punished justly for their crimes. Point 2.) An International Court could be easily corrupted. A series of alliances could be made, and they could use their power in the court to destroy their enemies. If you're skeptical, I'll draw a scenario. Let's assume Fiat, or in layman terms, assume that the Affirmative's plan of setting up an International Court is put into effect. This court would have a representative from every country around the world have a say in this court. However, the United States, the Countries of Europe, and their Allies, could band together and claim that Russia or China was unethical, and that they needed to lose their sovereignty. Countries would be thrown into chaos. Using Justice to destroy your enemies is not something just to do. This is what is believed to happen by many court experts. "A court in which every country around the world, regardless of alliances towards others, it would be a disaster. Allianes would be formed, broken, and chaos would ensure over this great power of an international court. In the end, there are only two possibilities, the court falls apart as nations withdraw, or the Third, and Last World War begins. My third and last point: National Sovereignty is more important than a lawless justice. A country is defined as a group of people who work together towards a common goal. The country is also defined as a government who has control over a certain portion of land, and their sovereignty is complete control over that area. If the United States wants to maintain sovereignty, and to remain what we defined as a country, we cannot allow an international court to have complete jurisdiction over anything, even crimes against humanity. We can punish that by ourselves in this country, and we don't need the help of an international court to do so. And as I stated earlier, it would harm us more than help. And now, I look forward to hearing your debate!