LD Jan/Feb Resolution: U.S. Submitting to an International Court

Quick Note Before My Case: Please only accept this challenge if you are an LD debater. Preferably, you debate novice or JV or your really bad at varsity. Thank you :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity For the clarity of the debate, I offer the following definitions: 1)The word ought translates to a moral obligation. Therefore the resolution inquires as to whether or not the U.S. has a responsibility to join an IC and submit to its jurisdiction 2)In designating an international court to use for this debate, it is preferable to take a realistic stand rather than an idealistic stand, indicated by the presence of the United States in the resolution. Therefore, it is preferable to specify an international court rather than base the following arguments of both the Affirmative and the Negative off of a theoretical court. Barring a response from the negative, I propose the International Criminal Court, or the ICC, as the designated court. Not only is it the closest match to the type of court stipulated in the resolution, but it is also the most politically relevant at this point in time. 3)Since we are designating the ICC as our international court, our definition of crimes against humanity should come from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum. However, since this provides a vague and, in this case, ineffective definition for the crimes up for discussion, a more specific definition is preferable in our scenario. For this, we look to Dr. David Nersessian, (in an article titled "Comparative Approaches to Punishing Hate: The Intersection of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity) from the Stanford Journal of International Law in the Summer of 2007, who said that "Crimes against humanity are ordinary criminal acts committed within a wider criminal context. The prohibited act in question (murder, rape, mistreatment, etc.) must form part of the larger attack on the civilian population. Isolated offenses are not crimes against humanity. But as long as it is part and parcel of the wider attack, even a single prohibited act will suffice...At present, the authoritative list [of crimes against humanity] (derived from the ICC Statute and ICTY and ICTR jurisprudence) includes: - Murder - Extermination - Enslavement - Deportation or forcible transfer - Imprisonment or severe deprivation of liberty - Torture - Sexual violence (including rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, and other acts of "comparable gravity") - Persecution - Enforced Disappearance - Apartheid - Other inhumane acts of similar character and gravity." My value for this case is justice. Justice is defined as giving each their due. My value criterion is preserving the peace. A clear link is evident between the value and the value criterion, as the main aim of justice is to preserve the peace, working in two different ways and following a logical order: Criminals commit crimes, the justice system gives due punishments to the criminals, instantly preventing them (for some time at least) from committing crimes and dissuading some from committing crimes in the future. However, a deterrent effect is also created, as the example set by the prosecuted criminals affects the population as a whole, dissuading other potential criminals from committing crimes. Through both instances of dissuasion, the peace is preserved. My first contention is that the basis of the United States judicial system requires that the U.S. submit to the jurisdiction of the ICC in an effort to give each their due even when the American government is trying to prevent it. The primary goal of the ICC is to prosecute criminals who have committed crimes against humanity ONLY WHEN THEIR HOME STATES ARE UNABLE TO PROSECUTE THE CRIMINALS THEMSELVES. According to the ICC's website, "The ICC is a court of last resort. It will not act if a case is investigated or prosecuted by a national judicial system unless the national proceedings are not genuine, for example if formal proceedings were undertaken solely to shield a person from criminal responsibility. In the example given by the ICC, if formal proceedings in any country, such as the United States, are being undertaken in an effort to shield someone from punishment or retribution, the entire purpose of justice is defeated, and impacts carry on to my value criterion as well, which is preserving the peace, as criminals who have committed very grave crimes, detrimental to peace, may be allowed to walk free as a result of the fallacies of the U.S. court system. What use is justice anymore? The entire order of justice mentioned in the beginning of the case is disrupted, as there is absolutely no deterrent effect present in the justice system anymore. However, if such a cover-up were to occur, and the United States was under the jurisdiction of the ICC, the international court would be able to prosecute the offender, keeping the justice system flowing regularly. In order to prevent the collapse of the American judicial system, it is essential that the U.S. submit to the jurisdiction of an international court such as the ICC. My second contention regards the word ought in the resolution as an indication of a moral obligation. Basically, what the United States ought to do is not limited to what is best for American citizens and nationals; of course, this takes first priority, but once that is taken care of, America's ethical responsibility extends to the remainder of the international community. Contention one has showed the necessity of a strong international judiciary body to prosecute criminals for the United States. However, there are other nations with both stronger and weaker justice systems in place. Those with weaker systems have an even greater need for the ICC to uphold justice and preserve the peace. Essentially, we can't limit the effects of the United States submission to domestic impacts; doing so would create a ripple effect and could affect Australia, Ethiopia, China, Germany, Brazil, and potentially every other nation in the world. This will occur in one of two ways. A.Firstly, the act of the U.S. submitting to the IIC's jurisdiction will give the international court legitimacy. Without this backing, the IIC's rulings would not be very effective, as it would lack the power to enforce them. Therefore, justice could not be spread as widely, peace would not be maintained in all places and the court could not save state court systems from collapsing in case of fallacies in the state's justice system (such as by protecting an offender from prosecution as described in the example from the first contention) B.If the U.S. were to submit to the IIC's jurisdiction, as the current hyperpower in the world, it would encourage more states to join, giving the court more power behind it to enforce rulings and expanding the scope of places for the IIC to extend control, promoting more justice, in more places. Thus, I urge you to affirm