TheU.S.oughttosubmittothejurisdictionofaninternationalcourtdesignedtoprosecutecrimesagainsthumanity.

Jan-Feb NFL LD topic; LD style, please. Alexander Solzhenitsyn once said, "the best way to fight man's inhumanity to his fellow man is through exposure." Because I strongly believe this statement to be true, I stand in firm affirmation of RESOLVED: THE UNITED STATES OUGHT TO SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF AN INTERNATIONAL COURT DESIGNED TO PROSECUTE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. Before continuing, I offer the following definitions: From Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, ought is defined as should; From the Rome Statute, Crimes against humanity are defined as murder, extermination, enslavement, and other inhumane acts committed against civilian populations. I remind you that we are debating what ought to be done by the United States. We must, therefore, strive to achieve benefits from the action. The best benefit that can be achieved from any action is our physiological needs. Therefore, the paramount value is the protection of physiological needs. Abraham Maslow defines these needs in A Theory of Human Motivation, which establishes his hierarchy of proponent needs. According to Maslow, the protection of physiological needs - food, water, shelter, etc - is the paramount value for these reasons: 1.The protection of physiological needs must be attained before anything else, including morality, justice, or societal progress. This value has necessity for achieving any other value, for without it, we would lose the ability to exist 2.The protection of physiological needs is implied by the resolution as the resolution explicitly focuses on crimes against humanity. These crimes violate and deprive the physiological needs of the people. The best way to achieve my value is through my standard of limiting Biopower. Biopower is a term described by modern Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben. According to Agamben, biopower is the ability of the state to create a "homo sacer", one who has, in essence, no civil rights and is ultimately deemed worthless. The paradigm of biopower is Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. Every crime committed against humanity is possible only through a state's biopower. Because of this, the only way to truly protect physiological needs and stop crimes against humanity is to limit biopower. For that key reason, it must be the standard for the round. Contention 1:Biopower is Widespread and Needs to be Stopped. Dr. Jonathan Fanton, from the MacArthur Foundation, states "in the past 20 years alone, we have witnessed ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia and genocide in Rwanda and Darfur. Elsewhere we have seen systematic human rights abuses, but there is hope for a better future. A system of international justice is emerging and growing stronger with each new case […] and each new investigation." As Doctor Fanton points out, the world is NOT perfect. Crimes against humanity still exist. If the United States does not do something new, these crimes will continue. As negative, my opponent supports the status quo and MUST prove that joining an international court will INCRESE crimes against humanity to win this round. Contention 2:International Courts ARE Effective Let us recognize all that the current courts have done to fight crimes against humanity. Christine H. Chung explains, "by [their] existence and operations, [international courts] raise the bar of domestic accountability. For example, knowledge that the [international courts were] ready to exercise [their] jurisdiction created the incentive for […] the Democratic Republic of Congo to invite an investigation into crimes committed IN THAT COUNTRY which OTHERWISE would have escaped SCRUTINY." Here we see an instance where the international courts were the ONLY way to SUCCESSFULLY EXPOSE and END crimes. The CASE WESTERN RESERVE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW shows that "In Columbia, the [International Criminal Court or ICC] influenced legislation and proceedings against paramilitary forces. Armies around the world are now adjusting their regulations to avoid the possibility of committing acts falling under ICC jurisdiction." Another example, Fanton reminds us that "from 2001 to late 2004, tensions FLARED in Cote d'Ivoire. In response […] a UN adviser […] reminded them that the ICC has jurisdiction over acts. The message was received in Cote d'Ivoire, and the hate speech and threat of violence IMMEDIATELY subsided." We now see that international courts deter not just violence, but threats of violence. Chung names ANOTHER case by the courts; "[i]n Uganda, […] warrants of arrest naming the top leadership of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) are seen to have motivated that leadership into negotiations to END the twenty-year war that the LRA had been waging." I have just named a few of many crimes against humanity stopped by international courts. These courts ARE effective; they BEST fight crimes against humanity; they are the only way to limit biopower; and they are the only way to successfully protect our physiological needs. Contention 3:If the United States joins, international courts WILL become stronger Megan E. Lantto of the TRANSNATIONAL LAW REVIEW explains, "Even the mere presence and existence of an international court with strong backing from powerful nations serves to deter future human rights abuses. While the [ICC] is making its way WITHOUT the United States, it would be STRONGER if the US were a member." We must understand that any arguments my opponent makes about the ineffectiveness of international courts can be used as an affirmative argument. When the US joins, these courts will become stronger and their faults can be fixed. THE ECONOMIST on January 27, 2009 stated, "As the court's reputation grows, so does the number of countries that sign up." Here we see that more nations will follow the US and join. Contention 4:The United States WILL be PROTECTED as a member of an international court. To further convince that the United States ought to join an international court, I will describe the world if the United States does join the ICC. One may claim that the courts will be politicized or unfair in selecting cases. Not true. Jason Manning from the GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW states, "the Prosecutor's judiciousness in selecting cases has earned praise." Executive Officer for the United States Navy Brian A. Hoyt says, "Many cases have been investigated by international courts and they have demonstrated both EFFECTIVENESS and IMPARTIALITY." He further says that "the court has resisted political pressure to prosecute alleged crimes." Lantto explains how "safeguards currently in place in the text of the Rome Statute (which established the ICC) prove the US objections to the ICC are not only UNFOUNDED but ENTIRELY MISTAKEN." Also, Professor of Law at NYU, Judge Richard Goldstone says, "many lawyers and academics are seriously doubting whether you could obtain judges and prosecutors and investigators coming together from 40, 50, 60 countries, civil systems, common law systems, and all different systems in-between, and conduct fair trials. I have neither read nor heard ANY criticism of the fairness of the trials." So let us CRYSTALLIZE what I have said so far. Crimes against humanity exist, and the negative side advocates doing nothing. He/she does NOT lower biopower. As affirmative, I support joining an international court. I have provided a PLETHORA of examples when international courts stopped crimes against humanity. By joining the court, the affirmative side limits biopower. If the United States joins, the court will become stronger and stop even more human rights abuses. We will increase the court's ability to limit biopower, and under the court, we will not be prosecuted politically or unfairly, and different cultures have and will cooperate to limit biopower. For all these reasons, the United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity, and we ought to affirm. Thank you.