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

Alright I wrote a new Neg case, because I was getting sick of sovereignty so I need to try it out... as for my opponents requirements, I am a freshmen debater, so that probably qualifies as JV/Novice although here in CO it is done differently... NEG/AFF I Negate: Resolved the United States ought to submit to an international court designed to prosecute crimes Against Humanity My Value for this Debate is National Security: National Security Refers chiefly to the protection of a state from aggression from other organizations of countries. National Security is an extension of the value of safety; the most basic of all values, but is extended to the safety of all citizens within a national border. National Security is a fundamental value because it preserves all other fundamental American values. In Order to clarify Justice I offer the criterion of Realist Pragmatism. Pragmatism is essentially the idea that we act upon the most practical consequences. Philosopher William James Explains "we need only consider what conceivable effects of a practical kind the object may involve" Realist Pragmatism then is the idea that we must act on the most practical consequences for our own country alone. Henry Hazlitt Explains "If the World were constantly governed by rational, enlightened and pragmatic egoism, the world would be a much better place than it is" This Best Upholds National Security, because in order for the U.S to uphold its security it must make its decisions based upon these Pragmatic Reasons. Observation/Resolution Analysis: The Affirmative must prove an absolute necessity for the U.S to join an international court and that the Benefits outweigh the harms. This is because the United States should not submit to an outside authority unless it is absolutely necessary from a realist perspective. Contention 1: Submitting to the ICC Compromises National Security A. As noted by Senior Policy Analyst Jack Spencer, "one of the key reasons that the United States rightfully declined to become state party to the ICC was because of harassment by international anti-American activists continually making accusations against the US in the court." (2003) Spencer goes on the say that the ICC "represents an unacceptable legal bureaucracy that invites political manipulation." (2004)" The Problem With any court such as the ICC is it is an unlimited outlet for abuse. It has no sufficient checks and is completely self-determinant. In an age where our enemies go to any ends to hurt us who is to say that our enemies will not manipulate this court to their own ends. B. According to the American Policy Center, "Unlike any other treaty in history, the International Criminal Court ignores national laws. The ICC defines as a war crime, any attack by our soldiers with knowledge that collateral deaths or injuries "to civilians or damage to civilian objects or damage to the natural environment" may occur. In other words, you can have a war, but don't break anything, hurt any civilians, or the environment. It is physically impossible for the military to comply with those restrictions and still achieve its mission to protect our National Security." The First Purpose of any government is protecting itself and its citizens. The ICC places us in a situation where we have almost no way to defend ourselves. We are currently engaged in a war not against countries, that may also submit but against organizations that present a much larger threat. 2nd Contention—Deterrence Value A. International courts have no deterrence value making them useless to the United States. Chief US Prosecutor at the Nuremberg trial, Justice Robert Jackson, stated that "[w]ars are started only on the theory and in the confidence that they can be won. To assume that genocidaires carry out their policies based on a cost-benefit analysis is a highly unlikely scenario." Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton Adds "[b]ehind their optimistic rhetoric, ICC proponents have not a shred of evidence supporting their deterrence theories. Why should anyone imagine that bewigged judges in The Hague will succeed where cold steel has failed?" Even Military Power has more of a deterrent value so submitting to the ICC would lower deterrence in fact and even maybe offer an incentive to crimes, knowing the only way they will be punished is by an inefficient and corrupt system. Contention 3: Submitting Actually Destroys World Peace According to Marc Grossman, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, "the United States has a unique role and responsibility to help preserve international peace and security. At any given time, U.S. forces are located in close to 100 nations around the world conducting peacekeeping and humanitarian operations and fighting inhumanity. We must ensure that our soldiers and government officials are not bound to politicized prosecutions" If we Join the ICC we would either but all of these soldiers at risk and cause a mass of politically motivated prosecutions of U.S citizens or we would have to pull out of these countries, causing Global destabilization. AFF I have a Disagreement with one off Aff's observations 1) ought is used as a substitute for should, while morality may be considered we must also take a realist approach to morality in the sense of what is best for the U.S Value: There is no way of defining this notion of justice in an international community, as it differs between communities. Also it is outweighed by Ntl security as Natl Security is paramount for all other rights of American citizens to Exist. Criterion. 1. Peace is a vauge standard for evaluation of justice, as peace cannot be created simply by prosecution, otherwise the U.S would be peaceful. Pragmatism is a better, more real life criterion. Contention 1: 1. The U.S may not want to prosecute, as I showed in my contentions the ICC may decide to prosecute U.S soldiers even when the U.S feels they have committed no crime, this would have the court enforce jurisdiction. 2. This only further proves it is not pragmatic. If it may never prosecute American citizens why should we subject our soldiers to this even though U.S courts are fully capable. Thus this provides no benifit to the U.S, flow Neg Contention 2 1. The U.S Self-intrest is valued over ethical responsibility, As James Fishkins(Yale) states "The Rich have no Moral obligations to contribute to the poor" The U.S has moral obligations to its citizens first, thus my case outwighs. 2. Current system is sufficiant: whenever countries need help with prosecution of genocidaries, an Specialized U.N Tribunal is created or they are tried under the law of Universal Jurisdiction as in the Case of Pinochet. There are plenty of safeguards in place for these countries. 3. There is no warrant to the ripple argument, we are not liked, we have almost No soft power, this creates an outlet for abuse. Also notice those countries named by my opponent are all the most powerful, indeed the most hegemonic countries(U.S, China, Russia) have not ratified showing a trend that these countries do not see any positives and many negatives. 4. An IGO should not be dependant on the membership of one country. or even a couple if it is truly trans-national. 5. The U.S would not convince others to join because, as i mentioned earlier, we have NO soft power, that is influencial and the more likely scenario is countries refusing to join because they would see the ICC like other IGO's as a U.S imperialist Pawn. I Urge a Negation