LD international Court Resolution

I will go over Neg then AFF Lets start with the assumption that I support submitting to the ICC. Yes I do Look at the ICC in my case by I also look at a U. N war cries tribunal in my First contention and never give support to one court over another. An International court is a court that is composed of two or more countries, the Resolution asked us to make a Decision about AN international court not THE international court. Thus the Neg must defend all international courts. 1st contention: A. )In this contention all my opponent does is attack the ICC, howevr he also seems to defend other international courts, saying they do not suffer these shortcomings. Thus if we were to submit to one of those the resolution would still be fulfilled. Also Just to look at the ICC, The U. S helped to draft the Rome Statute so obviously we approve of it, furthermore the ICC does not just step in and prosecute, the country must first be unable to prosecute the criminal for it to have any Jurisdiction. The Power of the ICC is checked in a couple of ways, first it does not take over Jurisdiction of a non member state, second it only takes over when a country fails to prosecute and third the member states must select the Judges to Sit on the ICC. B) While in some instances unchecked power leads to abuse this is not always the case. Also the ICC is checked significantly by its own pre-set limitations. It cannot expand its jurisdiction without consent from the member states thus it is not unchecked. In fact then you could say it is checked in the same way the government is, By the people. 2nd contention Again this is a focus on the ICC and not necessarily other international courts. The Thing is, even if the ICC did all these things, which I find to be doubtful, it still is substantially better than no prosecution of criminals. So even with its shortcomings it is still better than having no international court. 3rd contention As I see it this Contention is essentially a Concession. Hybrid Courts are STILL international Thus what I see is that my opponent is supporting the U. S submitting to the Jurisdiction of an international court, and thus Affirming the Resolution. AFF Value: Again my opponent is talking about Hybrid courts, I would Just like to remind everyone that a Hybrid court IS INTERNATIONAL, so submitting to a Hybrid court would still be Affirming the resolution. Criterion: My opponent is attacking is a one sentence link. What I was saying is that Cosmopolitanism values humans as humans thus any sense of provincialism out to be tossed away when dealing with human rights violations, that was the link. I did not say they could not be valued as citizens but must first be valued as humans. .. 1st contention Again my opponent Concedes that International courts are beneficial and again only attacks the ICC, however the majority of this contention concerned a U. N war crimes Tribunal. Once Again the ICC is better than having no court. 2nd Contention My Opponent claims the ICC to be illegitimate because of several flaws. However just let me remind you the U. S played a substantial role in drafting the ICC thus it is a legitimate organization. Also it is legitimate because the Rome statute(ICC treaty) has been ratified by 108 countries proving its international legitimacy. Also my opponent brings up Hybrid courts, these ARE INTERNATIONAL thus still within the Affirmative position. Other than this my opponent agrees with my premise. Summary: My Opponent Essentially is saying that Yes we need international courts and the U. S should joing, but the ICC is a bad choice. Lets look at the wording of the resolution again "The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. " Hybrid. courts are international courts thus they are within the Affirmative position and because both of us seem to agree the U. S Ought to join an international court the resolution must be affirmed.