Jan/Feb LD International Court Resolution

AFF/NEG Value: First of all the resolution does not Imply that an International court can serve justice better but asks whether or not the U.S should join. The goal of the U.S International Policy should be to promote peace, Justice does not automatically create peace either. If the outcome of justice is peace than every Just action should create peace. Justice May be one way to achieve peace but not the only way. The Means I have Presented to lead to peace is Cosmopolitanism, this upholds many of the same concepts my opponent says can create peace and is a much better way to do so than justice. Also Peace does not require justice, Justice does not create peace and Peace is a higher value in the round Criterion: My opponent says that submission will hurt the right of self determination, however he provides no examples as to how it does this. Cosmopolitanism is the best way to achieve peace, and for that matter justice. We have a moral obligation to humanity which is best filled by joining an International court. Contention 1 The First trial date for the ICC is set for January 26 2009, in five days. They currently have 3 other criminals in Custody. Five years for an arrest is not as bad as my opponent makes it out to be. He cannot possible say this makes the ICC beneficial when the U.S has spent longer searching for Osama Bin Laden and even national criminals. The fact is my opponent missed the major concept of this contention. These courts can deter CAH, I have proven, and it was not refuted that the ICC intervention in the Cote d'Ivoire most likely stopped another genocide such as Rwanda. The U.S has a legal Obligation to stop human rights violations internationally( Ch. 22, US Code. Sec. 2304.) " the President is directed to formulate and conduct international security assistance programs of the United States in a manner which will promote and advance universal human rights" The Moral obligation to prevent genocide should be enough but now I present a LEGAL obligation to do so. Contention 2 1. First the ICC has only been around for 6 years and only opened investigations in 2004 for Uganda and congo and 2005 for Darfur and 2007 for the Central African Republic. They have already caught the Major perpatrator in the Central African Republic. 2. This is a bit Unclear as I am not sure what is meant by "bill administration" The U.S holds a massive amount of political influence, this is pretty obvious, we are a member of the security council, hold massive diplomatic power and even soft power. 3. There is a counteracting branch to the ICC, The ICC is checked by the member states as well as by the U.N security council, which the U.S is a member. The court is not dangerous, it has not abused its power as of yet and there is no reason to believe it will do so. Has the U.N ever abused its power towards the U.S? Contention 3. A war crimes Tribunal Does constitute an International court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. It is International, and it prosecute crimes against humanity. This plainly fits the definition, also it can be easily and logically assumed that the ICC would have similar benefits due to its similar nature. B. 1. The U.S stance does not prove anything, it merely proves that an old presidential Administration did not support the court for whatever reasons. 2. While we may be careful the fact is we have a moral obligation to join such a court as well as a legal one. 3. The ICC is more specially tailored to dealing with Human rights Abuses 4. Already addressed this 5. This court ensures that no great disaster WILL happen in the form of Human Rights Abuses. 6. No warrant, also one decision does not mean that future decisions will reflect this. NEG Value: First the Definition of Justice as being just is circular, Fairness and Impartiality are better upheld by affirmation due to an elimination of bias in the court. Criterion: Freeing a nation from external control is a flawed idea. What about Rwanda? should the international community have not helped in restoring peace and securing human rights? Nazi Germany? Also Submission to an International court would not violate U.S sovereignty as the ICC is a court of last resort. 2. There is no Link between this and the Value, besides Sovereignty Implies Justice, this is not true as I gave shown with Rwanda and Nazi Germany and there is no warrant to the Negative Claim. Thus this Criterion Falls. Observations 1. The resolution, I agree is primarily a moral question , so whoever can prove a moral obligation better should win. 2. The ICC is one court yes but there are others such as the IACHR 3. The U.S is part of the U.N and thus believes in Promoting Cosmopolitan Values, which included submission to the ICC in order to bring Justice to Criminals all over the world. Contention 1 A. The ICC has only been investigating since 2004, according to the ICC website. It has issued 12 arrest warrants but has not actually failed in those cases. Infact the first trail is set for 5 days, proving the ICC does infact work. The fact that Kony has not been caught means nothing, the U.S has failed to catch millions of criminals including Osama bin Laden who we have been searching for longer than the ICC has looked for Kony. B. 1. The ICC is checked by member states as well as by the U.N. The U.S is a member of the U.N security council and thus would be able to prevent any abuse of the court. Also the Prosecutor and Judges are elected by the Member states. C. The U.S effectiveness can be summed up in one word, Blackwater. While for the most part the U.S prosecutes its criminals Blackwater guards escaped untouched with over 60 felony charges due to a U.S legal loophole. The ICC has systems in place to prevent Abuse as well. D. The ICC would not disallow the U.S to prosecute its own Criminals, According the the Rome Statute of the ICC the ICC is a court of last resort and only steps in when a country fails to prosecute because it is either unwilling or unable. Thus there is no violation of American sovereignty. Contention 2 A. while the ICC may not have a jury trail, many Americans do not receive a jury trail when they commit crimes in other countries and the U.S has no objection. The same Principle applies here. B. The ICC Statue guarantees the same right to a speedy trail of the U.S constitution. The 90 days is A) a false statement and B) is nowhere in the constitution. C. The ICTFY is an Older court and does not fit the resolution. The ICC has very similar Provisions to the U.S on the Admittance of Evidence. D. However the ICC cannot, as is clearly articulated in the ICC statute. The ICC says it does not have jurisdiction when "the person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3;"" E. The ICC has the Most extensive system of trail rights surpassing even the U.S Former U.S. State Department Legal Advisor Monroe Leigh explains:" The list of due process rights guaranteed by the Rome Statute are, if anything, more detailed and comprehensive than those in the American Bill of Rights. . . . I can think of no right guaranteed to military personnel by the U.S. Constitution that is not also guaranteed in the Treaty of Rome" F. This does not make it infallible as I have shown with Blackwater, Also the U.S has a moral Obligation to Join and help prevent HR abuses in other countries. G. The ICC is an Internationally Accepted Judicial System, the U.S Itself drafted most of the Trail rights under the Statute and it passes U.S tests. Again it is a court of Last resort and thus, does not violate sovereignty. Conclusion, My opponent has no link between his criterion and value. Also His criterion is fulfilled under affirmation because the ICC is a court of Last resort. All of my points stand and My opponents points have been refuted. Thus