Jan/Feb LD International Court Resolution

NC/AC -Observations- 1. Carry 2. Just because I mention the ICC does not mean it is the only court, While the ICC may be a good groundwork there are other courts as well, the IACHR for one. Value: 1. If Justice is giving each his due then doesn't that acknowledge the existence of universal norms? But my opponent contradicts this, saying "justice... is not the same everywhere" so then what are people due? They are due their Humanity first and foremost, the idea Promoted by cosmopolitanism, not Judicial Autonomy. This Cosmopolitanism better fits my opponents value and should be the Primary Criterion for this round. 2. My opponents Value does not focus on a realist perspective but rather a global justice. This Also fits better with my criterion, of cosmopolitanism than Judicial Autonomy. Criterion: 1. Look Autonomy is essentially freedom of action, the ICC does not take jurisdiction Unless we fail to prosecute, thus it maintains our judicial autonomy. Also the Congress would need to ratify the treaty which means congress would be FREELY submitting to the Jurisdiction. Thus maintaining Autonomy. 2. My opponent is incorrect in assuming the U.S would not have reverse checks on the ICC. The U.S being a member state would be able to vote on the Prosecutor and judges AND being a Member of the security council would have an additional check on the ICC's Behavior as the ICC recognizes the Security Councils Authority. Contention 1. The fact is that the use of Atomic weapons should be a CAH in itself. Also what my opponent failed to address is the continuing deaths due to radiation and the lack of land suitable for growing crops, due to the bombings which outweighs any good done by the bombing. Even if it was prosecuted my opponent does not address why the destruction of civilian military targets is a good thing, even if it saves lives. My opponents Hedonistic View of the world led to a lot of disasters including the atomic bombs and would justify many actions based upon an assumed "greater good" A. The simple counter is that the U.S presents its evidence to the court and the charges are dropped. Also the Damages must be systematic to be prosecuted which would not be included under the Human shields Argument. Contention 2. Basic rights of the Accused: http://untreaty.un.org... Freedom from double Jepordy: " 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;" http://untreaty.un.org... All the other due process rights my opponent dropped. AFF Value: 1. Peace is Harmonious Relationships, not prosperity, countries can not be harmonious and at war 2. I do not concede to his value, saying the is a legal aspect to the resolution does not concede justice,giving each his due never implies a legal framework. Thus discount my opponents attacks on this. 3. My opponent never actually attacks peace, merely saying I conceded Justice, because I proved this statement false my value still stands un-attacked. 4. Justice Falls to peace. The goal of giving each his due is to promote peace, this is acheived through the value criterion of Cosmopolitanism I have given. Also This Notion of each his due is not the only way to acheive or promote peace, this makes peace, as Milton Rockeach puts it as a "terminal Value" and Justice as an "instrumental Value" that can be used to achieve other values. Criterion: 1. My Opponent conceded absolute morals in his value, if we are to give each his due as my opponent says we must first have something to give, because my opponents value is contextualized in a multinational sense it too involves universal morals. 2. The U.S recognizes the existence of Universal Rights. The U.S is one of the chief proponents of a system of universal rights, we have a legal Obligation under U.S code chapter 22 to "promote universally recognized human rights" 3. Cosmopolitanism stands as the paramount criterion in this round as A) my opponents attacks fall due to the beliefs of the U.S itself as well as the ICC, the U.N and the E.U and B) as it better works to create both Justice and peace than my opponents criterion of Judicial Autonomy. Contention 1 I have provided an example of when the ICC deterred a Crime and I will present another. According to a Human Rights watch reporter local Militia in Khartoum were speaking fearfully of 'la Hauge' the Hauge or the seat of the ICC. While it may not have stopped the genocide it has certainly slowed down since the ICC began investigations. Even If the U.S deter, the ICC is just another factor of deterrence to add to the deterrence of the U.S. It also allows for a peaceful, multilateral approach to the resolution of conflicts. My opponents claim that I must prove future deterrence is faulty, I have proven past deterrence which is a good enough indicator of future deterrence. Even the deterrence of One genocide is worth it, this means saving hundreds of thousands of lives, and think with the U.S at its back the ICC could stop 10 genocides instead of just a few. Contention 2 My opponent concedes this contention so I will now Impact this out... The ICC at its current state deters Crimes against Humanity and serves out each his due. With the U.S strengthening the ICC it would be able to do both of these more effectively and protect even more rights and Ensure that Genocidaries are given their due, my opponents value as well would need to accept this as just and under Cosmopolitanism and peace it would further Global Protection of Human Rights and promote the creation of World Peace. Also it would encourage others to follow suit which would again further what I have just mentioned. Contention 3. A. This contention is not contingent upon due process although I have defeated my opponents Due process points so whatever this contention relied on due process, which I never said it did and there was no warrant by my opponent, have been won. My opponent essentially says the ICC is not the most extensive system saying the Rome statute is a loophole and yet provides no warrant to back up this claim. I have shown the ICC's System of Rights and Evidence admissibility processes so I have empirically proven the AFF side while the NEG provides no warrants. The ICC may not function better than U.S courts but will fill holes in the U.S legal system such as the inability to prosecute Blackwater for their War Crimes, which under my opponents value even is Unjust. The ICC also ensures this on a Global Scale. B. My opponent assumes only force can ensure peace, but the ICC provides us with deterrence, prosecution Etc which is a better route to peace than force. My Opponent drops the main idea of this contention which was that we should preemptively protect ourselves should we ever need it, and we will not know when we do until it is to late. This Flows AFF. VOTERS: (remember Value and Criterion are not voters, merely framework pieces and weighing mechanisms) 1. Each his Due: Aff Better uphold by ensuring that International War Criminals and such get their Due and that Companies such as Blackwater do as Well, this flows Aff on both the AFF and NEG Values. 2. Deterrence: The Peaceful Deterrence of Crimes is a Benefit to any court and reflects our National and Cosmopolitan Obligations. I have proven This empirically and thus this Flows AFF. 3. Bulwark: It is Wise for Any state, including the U.S to protect itself from any future violence or Issues it may have, thus as I proved in C3, subpoint A they will be beneficial if such a situation arises. Dropped by NEG and thus conceded, flow through. 4. Legitimacy: Addressed in My contention 2, this strengthens my first , second and Third voting issues as well as allows the ICC to work at its full potential, this was conceded by NEG and Flows AFF. Voters all Covered i