The united states ought to submit to the jurisdiction of the ICC

(LD style) I Affirm the resolution By omitting from signing the ICC into affect the US does nothing to prevent jurisdiction over its nationals because the Rome Statute extends jurisdiction into non party states if the crime was committed by an individual of a signatory nation, against a signatory nation, or against a party temporarily invoking article 12. Moreover if the crime was committed on another nations soil then that nation, even if the perpetrator and the victims were all US nationals, can make a claim on the ICC. Dr Bahman Naraghi furthers No only does it fail to do what it purportedly intend to do, that is to protect American service personnel from being prosecuted at the ICC, it also inhibits and impedes national security interests and foreign policy. "The American Sevicemembers Protection act can do nothing to cure some of the fundamental defects in the Rome Treaty. However what the ASPA does do is interfere with the US's ability to assist in the identification, apprehension, detention and trial of persons accused of committing violations of international and human rights laws. Furthermore not joining the ICC disallows the United States the ability to use the ICC as a tool in its favor. As a signatory nation, the US could make claims to the ICC and allow the ICC to prosecute when it cant. This means the negative has the burden to show why we should not use the ICC as a tool in our arsenal to prevent future abuses. Remember we don't have to use the ICC though. My Value for the round is governmental legitimacy. This is the most suitable value for a few reasons 1. The resolution has the US as an actor. The US itself is a government and thus to evaluate the actions of the US we must look to it on the level of what a government should do. 2. A government only has a moral obligation to itself because a state only has a limited capability and resources to act. We can not give aid to every problem in the world. Moreover such an obligation would be harmful to the state itself as a military overstretch and economic depression would result from action on all of the worlds problems and thus would harm the state itself. 3. A government is only obligated to its citizens as only its citizens are bound by an agreement to that government. All a government is, is a set of rules determining obligations of the government and thus only constituents under those rules can legitimately claim an obligation of the state. This means that a Russian would not fall under United States laws or jurisdiction and the US is thus not obligated to act under its own defining rules. A states obligations are thus only to itself and its consistency. The criterion for legitimacy is maintaining a states power. This serves as the best criterion for a few reasons. 1. Maintaining or raising the power of the state allows the state to enact policies it would not otherwise be able to enact. For example, with support and proper funding the United States could increase the effectiveness of its overseas military intervention or other actions that could potentially increase the security of the nation. 2. Increasing the states power allows the state to internally regulate better as the state has a greater ability to use its resources to secure internal goals. 3. Raising a states power leads to increased leverage in the international community to get negotiations favorable to the citizens of ones state meaning a greater ability to uphold any obligations. My thesis is that joining the ICC increases the United States power. Contention one: Joining the ICC allows the United States power in the negotiation process. The United States as a major power has the ability to influence the structure of the ICC and how the ICC should function. With the US involvement in the PrepCom sessions to amend the rules and procedures, the ICC gave a major function in defining the institution to the United States. Opposition to the court would remove the United States ability to negotiate elements in the ICC. Bruce Broomhall furthers PrepCom negotiations offer the United States an opportunity to introduce clarity, safeguards, and some restrictions to the courts power. Opposition or withdrawal would eliminate the United States' ability to take advantage of this, not just with respect to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and the Elements of crime but also with respect to other instruments yet to be negotiated, including the crime of aggression. The impact of this is that the United States maintains some degree of control over the organization of the courts and can thus gain a favorable outcome in accordance with the actual structure of the court whereas complete withdrawal from the procedures gives the United States no control over the organization and functionality of the court. The US should thus be more inclined to join the ICC to secure a favorable outcome for the United States. Moreover by abstaining from the negotiation process the US scuttles its chances for gaining favorable amendments to the Rome Statute and by extension the ICC. Broomhall 2 continues Withdrawal would reduce the U.S. leverage in the eventual Assembly of State Parties to prevent adverse amendment of text introduced in its favor. Opposition would multiply this effect, making adverse revision by the Assembly more likely. It would also contribute to a general perception that the United States was in some way opposed to the rule of law or the accountability for the worst violations of human rights. Further, the value of opposing the court must be weighed against it having the desired effect (of preventing entry into force). In fact the process is to far advanced for the United States to retard it seriously, and the costs of withdrawal are far too great for the United States to bear without serious reason to believe it could accomplish something thereby. The best conclusion is the United States has gained far too much both during and after Rome to step out of the process. The implications are that the United States loses the ability to retain favorable advantages it already maintains in the ICC such as the Security Council check that is currently in place. Moreover it would lose any ability to contest decisions made by such a court if it were to remove itself as a non signatory nation. Contention 2 Future crimes against humanity will only be able to be punished through the ICC The United States has a world image as the world police, whether that image be bad or good, the US would be a hypocrite to allow a major crime against humanity to go by unpunished as the US arbitrarily chooses which conflicts to resolve. Moreover, the United States is viewed as a more moral actor when it successfully arbitrates conflicts between potentially genocidal, murderous or otherwise evil regimes. By removing itself from this position it will suffer from the political criticism of such double standards. Thus any attempt to undermine the courts legitimacy represents a major obstacle to US power which means to increase power the US should no longer hold a double standard. Moreover crimes against humanity in and of themselves represent a security threat to the United States. Most of those who sanction crimes against humanity are also the ones who pose a threat to the United States. For example Korea's Kim Jung Ill or Milosovich or Saddam Hussain, all pose or posed major threats to United States Broomhall 3 concludes The most compelling reason for rejecting an all or nothing approach to a U.S. fix is the near inevitability of US support for the ICC. For some State Department planners, eventual US support or at least eventual US ability to avail itself of the court must have a certain appeal. When the next Kosovo, East Timor, Rwanda, or Sierra Leone erupts on the international stage, will the US refuse to support accountability merely because the ICC is the only viable means of attaining it?