Jan/Feb LD International Court Resolution

>I thank Metz for starting this debate. NC then AC. >I negate the resolution: Negated: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity >I have no definitions to offer at this time. I accept those given by my opponent. >Additionally, I would like to offer the following observations: --Observation-- 1. The affirmative burden is to prove that the US ought to submit. The negative burden is to prove that the US ought not to submit. 2. The only currently existent international court designed as the resolution specifies is the International Criminal Court, better known as the ICC. I refer to this court in accordance of the following: i) The ICC fits the given description in the resolution. ii) Reference to the ICC promotes stable advocacy rather than a hypothetical court made up by either side. iii) The resolution presumes that the US exists. We therefore can presume the court it refers to also exists. iv) My opponent himself refers to the ICC. --Value and Value Criterion-- >The negative values justice, or "giving each their due."ï¿½‚ï¿½ï¿½ Due to the wording of the resolution, justice is the inherent value for this round and any argument that does not also uphold justice does not truly affirm or negate this resolution. The primary stipulation of this resolution is essentially justice as it refers specifically to a court system. Justice is best attained by maintaining uniqueness amongst other nations. The negative thus chooses the criterion maintaining judicial autonomy, or "to remain independently inclined to make judgments."ï¿½‚ï¿½ï¿½ Judicial autonomy allows differentiation in the criminal justice system. Differentiation is obviously needed given that not one law is universal. :: Contention 1 - Submission of the US to the ICC Abuses Utilitarianism :: >If the US submits to the ICC, the intrinsicality of its citizens would be limited; as would utilitarian results. Intrinsicality should be promoted by the US, but submission to the ICC poses the chance of citizens being prosecuted for defending their country. To cite an example, former pilot Paul Tibbets would have been prosecuted for bombing Hiroshima in WWII. WWII expert Richard Frank projects this saved an estimated 2.44 million lives in contrast to the 150 thousand that were killed. Citizens of ICC nations are at risk for the simple tasks of doing their jobs. While Japan and other ICC countries would clearly accuse the Tibbets of committing a crime against humanity, he actually saved millions of lives. A. Use of Human Shields >Dr. Austin, ambassador to the Human Rights Council explains "Policymakers fear a frequent and more devastating asymmetric tactic: creating fraudulent claims of U.S. violations out of whole cloth. Adversaries of the United States could perpetrate this fraud on the ICC in two ways: (1) placing innocent civilians at high-priority targets to create heavy civilian casualties from U.S. attacks, and (2) committing war crimes while disguised as using troops in order to frame the United States, or both... For instance, Libya threatened to surround the reported site of an underground chemical plant with millions of Muslims in order to ward off attacks. Since modern terrorists have no regard for innocent human life, they would not hesitate to use this same tactic if an asymmetric gain could be achieved." Submission to the ICC's jurisdiction would give other nations the ability to create human-shields and blame the US for crimes against humanity (whether or not the US is to blame). :: Contention 2 - US Submission to the ICC Hinders Due Process of Law :: >The principle supporting a government's respect of the rights guaranteed to its citizens is known as due process of law. In 1920, US Supreme Court case Missouri v. Holland held that the federal government may only enter a treaty that "does not contravene any prohibitory words to be found in the Constitution." This is adverse to the United States submission to the ICC. Nicholas Rostow, General Counsel, U.S. Mission to the United Nations explains that "the Rome Statute does not satisfactorily answer due process concerns. These include issues of multiple jeopardy, definitions of crimes, and problems of evidence and testimony."ï¿½‚ï¿½ï¿½ Amendment 5 of the US Constitution states "[not] any person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy," a direct contradiction of the Rome Statute. This directly violates justice in the due process of law, leading to an unsteady global society. >I will now move on to my opponent's case. --Value and Value Criterion-- >My opponent's values peace. While this is sentimental, this is not necessarily the goal of every nation. The goal, in fact, of most nations is to prosper. If my opponent truly wants to uphold the value of peace, he must first look to the legal aspects of this resolution. This resolution refers to a court, not to any assumed harmony achieved after the point of submitting to a court. Justice is the superior value of this round because it encompasses the meaning of the resolution; peace does not. His criterion is harmonic cosmopolitanism. While I respect this principle, I must question how my opponent is attempting to achieve it. Why does submitting to the ICC spread moral obligations? Doesn't it really spread legal obligations instead? Additionally, does submitting to the ICC even have a plausible chance of accomplishing this? Morals are different in every part of the world. Here in Virginia, I might think it is moral to abort a fetus while in Texas that belief is scowled upon. Does it even make sense to universalize said set of morals? No, it doesn't. Culture is never the exactly same in two unique places. :: Contention 1 - ICC Will Deter Future Crimes Against Humanity :: >My opponent's first contention is essentially an account of an instance in which, granted, the ICC could be as a deterrent. I have various responses. Firstly, how do we know that the ICC will always be affective as a deterrent? Many terrorist organizations would not at all be frightened by the existence of the ICC and would still act. Secondly, my opponent makes the assumption that the events of genocide in Rwanda would have been prevented by the ICC. This is untrue; these events would rather have been PROSECUTED by the ICC, but only after first occurring. The ICC ITSELF holds no military power. Additionally, the ICC does not possess the means to prosecute all of the criminals from Rwanda. The ICC can easily deal with a single case, but would be totally overloaded by entire militant wings and huge groups of rebels. Lastly, even if we assume that the ICC could, in fact, deter crimes against humanity, why would this mean that the US should submit to it? My opponent never explains any relation to the US, though it is the target of the resolution. :: Contention 2 - US Joining the ICC Would Further Legitimize It :: >Before I can properly respond to my opponent's second contention (not a drop), I must know what exactly he is talking about. He refers to legitimacy, but he does not express what specific type of legitimacy. Military legitimacy? Legal legitimacy? He never clearly expresses this. :: Contention 3 - :: A. >My opponent finally starts to notice the legal aspects of courts in his third contention. I am not sure what he is trying to show, but I gather some implication being given what is due? If this is what he is going for, we must look back to my second contention. Sure, the ICC offers some makeshift form of justice, but it does not provide justice sufficient enough to be universalized; its due process is poor. B. >This sub-point refers to the use of the ICC as a safety mechanism. Apparently my opponent does not understand that the ICC can prosecute, but not offer physical protection. >For these reasons you can negate.