LD international Court Resolution

The Resolution box will not allow for the whole resolution so here it is: Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. This is the Jan/Feb LD topic so I would appreciate it if my opponent was familiar with LD and debated accordingly -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "America now stands as the world's foremost power. We should be proud: Not since the age of the Romans has one people achieved such preeminence. But we are not Romans; we do not seek an empire. We are Americans, trustees of a vision and a heritage that commits us to the values of democracy and the universal cause of human rights." Because I agree with Senator John Kerry I Must Affirm the Resolution, Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. My Value for this debate is Human Rights. Human Rights are the Paramount Human Value and thus are intrinsically valuable. Without Human Rights any society ceases to be legitimate and humanity itself will degrade into a Hobbesian state of nature. Human rights are seen to be those rights that are intrinsic in humanity itself, they do not leave when you cross borders but are rather the essence of humanity These include Life, Liberty, Happiness and other rights that philosophers such as Locke held to be "natural rights". Human Rights are mainly those taken by Crimes against Humanity thus prosecuting crimes against humanity better secures universal human rights. My Value Criterion Is Cosmopolitanism. Cosmopolitanism is the view that one's primary moral obligations are directed to all human beings and political arrangements should faithfully reflect this universal moral obligation. "Crimes against humanity," by definition, are so heinous as to threaten the moral order of all humankind, not just individuals within any given nation. Thus, their existence requires a cosmopolitan outlook. It would thus seem that prosecution of "crimes against humanity" requires a view of international law that, to say the least, places sovereignty concerns beneath those of human rights. In other words, it is essentially cosmopolitan, valuing humans as humans rather than as citizens. It is valuing humans this way that leads to a protection of human rights. Valuing them first as citizens puts their own rights, such as life beneath the government, a practice that is exercised in brutal dictatorships, and is in itself a crime against humanity. Because Rights claims are universal, we cannot let provincialism dictate policy, and thus a cosmopolitan outlook is a moral imperative. As we examine the resolution we will find that if the U.S submits to an International court it will create a more cosmopolitan society and uphold human rights on a large scale. Definitions: Ought: Used to Express advisability (Merriam Webster) Submit: to defer to or consent to abide by the opinion or authority of another (Merriam Webster) Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, "are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. However, murder, extermination, torture, rape, political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion." 1st Contention International courts are Beneficial entities Simon Caney writes in Cosmopolitan Justice and Institutional Design. "International institutions may simply be able to prevent/punish egregiously unjust actions in cases in which those whose rights have been violated are too weak to defend themselves and in which their government is either unwilling or unable to stand up for their rights." We can see examples of this in Cases such as the Rwanda Genocide. On Thursday, December 18, 2008, A former Rwandan army colonel, Theoneste Bagosora, was convicted of genocide and crimes against humanity for masterminding the killings of more than half a million people, including a Rwandan Prime Minister and 10 Belgian peacekeepers, in a 100-day slaughter in 1994 by A U.N war Crimes Tribunal in Tanzania. Without an International court Bagosora would have remained unpunished, clearly international courts are helpful institutions. An Article done for the International Studies Association Found that "states with a recent history of violence, in the 1990-2005 period ratify the ICC Statute more often that not if they emerge from civil conflicts. This result validates ad hoc observation that in a number of states, transitional regimes charged with ending a cycle of recent internal conflict have found it prudent to join the ICC, precisely because it offers an international bulwark against a return to routine political violence." Also there are situations in which America would have need of an international criminal court. A federal indictment Charged five former employees of Blackwater Worldwide, hired by the State Department to provide protection services in Baghdad, with 14 counts of voluntary manslaughter, 20 counts of attempted manslaughter, and one count of discharging a firearm while committing a violent crime after firing on Civilian targets and causing the death of 17 Iraqi citizens and seriously injuring 20 more. According to investigations done by the FBI, the Iraqi government and the Pentagon the attacks were unwarranted. However it turned out that these guards could not be prosecuted due to a legal loophole. Joining an International Criminal court would have ensured punishment for the intentional killing of innocent civilians. As can be seen international courts can be extremely beneficial to members and to those hurt by these "crimes against Humanity" and Joining one would further global interests to protect human rights. 2nd Contention --The U.S joining the ICC would further legitimize it. A. The U.S stands as one of the world's foremost powers, if we were to join an international court we would help to further legitimize it. Under president Bush the United Nations faltered some dues were not paid and participation was not where it used to be. This weakened the entire organization. From this we can see that the United States participation can have a massive impact on International institutions. U.S support of an International court would strengthen it would help to further legitimize it. Scott Turner, Professor at University of Montevallo Writes "To be sure, it may be difficult to proceed without the United States, whose support was crucial to the administration of international justice in the 1990s. The effectiveness of international institutions is highly dependent upon cooperation and assistance from the world's most powerful country. The ICC's legitimacy would be undermined severely by an institutionalized double standard that effectively excluded the United States and its client states from the court's jurisdiction." As is obvious An International court made up of two countries would not carry the weight of one made up of many countries. But one made up of many countries would carry enough weight to globally protect human rights. Thus U.S Joining an International Court would further legitimize it, Strengthen the global figh