The US ought to submit to jurisdiction of a world court designed to prosecute CAH.

this debate needs to be executed in a traditional LD style in this order: Round 1: AFF gives case, NEG gives case and attacks aff case Round 2: AFF attacks neg case and rebuild own case, NEG rebuilds case and gives final observations Round 3: AFF gives final observations and key voting issues, NEG gives key voting issues "The interests of any truly and perfectly just and humane nation should not be the exaltation of themselves but in reality it is to be the furtherance of the fight against inhumanity and injustice." Because I agree with the following statement from John Fitzgerald Kennedy I stand affirmative on the following resolution. Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. I will offer the following definitions from the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary to clarify in today's debate. Ought: to be bound in duty or by moral obligation. To submit: to yield oneself to the authority or will of another. Crimes against humanity: murder, extermination, enslavement, and other inhumane acts committed against civilian populations, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated. The affirmative's value in today's debate is international justice. International justice is the cooperation between countries to hold individuals responsible accused of dangerous human rights abuses, such as genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. International justice acts as a safety net to ensure that perpetrators cannot escape justice by crossing borders i.e. Sadam Hussein. Thus my criterion will be protecting human rights. Human rights are freedoms, immunities, and benefits that all human beings should be able to claim as a matter of right. International justice is best upheld by providing basic rights to every human being. Without dignity and respect for humanity there can be no justice. The affirmative will offer the following two contentions in today's debate: Contention 1: Crimes against humanity are a significant threat to justice. Contention 2: Not submitting to an international court would undermine U.S. values. Now back to my first contention. Crimes against humanity are a significant threat to justice. According to philosopher John Stuart Mill, "Men are born and always continue free and equal in respect to their rights." Thus only when each individual is given the same respect and treatment under the law can justice be obtained. Because the United States is a high-powered democracy of the people, my burden is to prove that it is in American citizen's best interest to join an international court, such as the ICC, whereas the negative's burden is to prove the opposite. Sub Point A: According to the Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, "From 1950 to 1990 there were seventeen genocides, with two that resulted in the death of over a million people. In 1994, 80,000 Tutsis died during a three-month genocide in Rwanda. Genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity are not only something that occurred in the distant past; sadly they remain a vivid reality. If there is ever hope to end such crimes, they must be addressed by the law on an international scale." Thus because there are so many acts of crimes against humanity internationally, which are a threat to international justice, the only way to stop it is to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court system, such as the ICC. Sub Point B: Justice is an essential instrument for deterring crimes against humanity. Jenny Lin explains how justice will deter these heinous crimes: Justice is essential to human rights. It provides a measure of respect for the victims of serious abuse and punishes those who commit atrocities. Justice helps societies come to grips with the past and move forward. It promises to save lives by deterring at least some of tomorrow's torturers. Justice for yesterday's crimes supplies the legal foundation needed to deter atrocities tomorrow. Sub Point C: The US public has indicated to more strongly support the ICC than the government does. A March 2000 poll run by the Program for International Policy Attitudes shows that 71% of Americans "strongly approve" of the idea that "top leaders, such as heads of state could be arrested …for certain serious crimes and then tried by an International Criminal Court, and if judged guilty would be punished." The serious crimes mentioned include, violating human rights and making war on ethnic and other groups in that leader's country. Thus I achieve my burden because I've proven that it is in American citizen's best interest to join an international court. Now on to my final contention. Not submitting to an international court would undermine U.S. values. An international court must be placed in a larger context of a world shaped by law. U.S. foreign policy has consistently highlighted the value of international law, in constructing a world more similar to U.S. interests. Sarah Sewall and Carly Kaysen articulate, "Throughout the past decades, the United States has played a leading role in strengthening international law in order to protect U.S. interests. Every new international legal instrument or institution has entailed obligations and required concessions of some form. The price of the accommodation has been outweighed by the benefits of both the specific institution and the expansion of a legal framework is the idea of equality under law. Seeking an exemption from that principle strikes a heavy blow against the international rule of law. Sewall and Kaysen further by explaining how an International Criminal Court would actually be consistent with U.S. values: Of course, the Court will prosecute and ultimately imprison some perpetrators of massive crimes who might otherwise enjoy impunity, and the ICC also may prompt national prosecutions where they might otherwise have been forgone. In helping establish the historical record and holding criminals accountable where states could not, the ICC may help end cycles of violence in particular conflicts. By reinforcing norms against the most egregious crimes, the ICC will have some deterrent value. And by helping to bridge the gap between promise and practice, the ICC strengthens norms of state and individual behavior that the United States has long supported, and it lends credence to the proposition that international laws matter, including laws that protect Americans overseas. Thus not remaining consistent with strengthening international law is a danger to the U.S. because it undermines important United States international values. This is why the affirmative choice is the correct solution to this issue