The United States Should Submit to the ICC to prosecute crimes against humanity

It seems my opponent has forfeited the last round, so I will just summarize my arguments. Pro Case (Neg has not argued against any of my points) 1) International justice provides security by giving humans rights which they can exercise. 2) International courts can prevent genocide and other crimes against humanity by making national leaders accountable for their actions. 3) International courts strengthen global bonds and encourage nations to work together for the good of mankind. Neg Case (My Rebuttals) 1) First, Neg never says why National Sovereignty is desirable. Why is it bad to lose some sovereignty over yourself? Based on Neg's definition of 'ought', National Sovereignty is not moral. If it is viewed either through Utilitarianism or Kant's Categorical Imperative, it is undesirable. We should look to Maximization of Global Security. Even then, submitting to an international court does not remove a country's sovereignty - an international court would only step in if a country failed to try a leader. Sovereignty is only reduced if a leader performs a crime against humanity. Such a court wouldn't dictate how countries act or become a dictating body. Finally, National Sovereignty asks us to dissolve international treaties and organizations, as their rules reduce the power of nations. 2) Concerning abuse of the ICC - Neg claims that the ICC could send people away for life for crimes which did not result in such a punishment before. First, this just means our context of justice is changing. Justice is a value that changes with time, so this is not a problem. Second, Neg fails to show that such a change is undesirable, i.e. a petty crime resulting in a life sentence. Remember, we are looking at crimes against humanity, which probably should result in life sentences. Also, just because the ICC selects those involved in a trial does not mean an impartial trial cannot exist. There is an appeals process, as I show in my source. 3) Concerning Constitutionality - Neg claims the ICC doesn't provide Constitutional protections. I show, in my source, that the protections it provides meet those given to U.S. citizens in the Constitution. 4) Concerning the ICC violation American principles - Neg cites the Declaration of Independence, stating that the ICC would violate U.S. citizens' rights just like the British government in the 1700s. The laws upheld by the ICC are generally desirable, and reflect the basic human concept of justice. The jurisdiction of the ICC is global, as it is an international court. This does not make the ICC foreign - rather, it makes it 'local' everywhere. It is a court for humankind. Neg then claims it removes the right to a trial by jury, and transports people overseas on false charges. The ICC, however, does provide a jury, and any false charges that somehow slip through the system can be appealed. Overseas travel these days is not a qualm. A flight from Chicago to Frankfurt can take all of 8 hours, not a trip of many weeks like in the 1700s. 5) Neg then makes some arguments about how laws are different throughout the world. I will grant her this: laws do vary throughout the world. Sure, fines and jail time will differ when it comes to small crimes, but this debate is about crimes against humanity. These are large crimes committed against large populations. Not embezzlement, not shoplifting, not disturbing the peace. 6) Neg closes out by saying that as long as individual countries pick punishments, those punishments are just because they adhere to local norms. I contend that crimes against humanity should be tried by humanity. It is alright to have different laws in different places, but that is not to say that we cannot have overarching standards of justice. Just as a refresher, here's the card I used in the last speech concerning ICC rights. You can skip reading a second time if you wish. "Consider, for example, the right to counsel, the presumption of innocence, and the privilege against self-incrimination. All ICC defendants "shall be entitled to have legal assistance assigned by the court where the interests of justice so require, and without payment if the accused lacks sufficient means to pay for it." The Rome Statute provides that every person "shall be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty before the Court." The presumption of innocence is given substance by requiring that the Pre-Trial Chamber approve a prosecutor-initiated investigation, at which time the accused may object, challenge the evidence, or present her own evidence. Moreover, persons suspected of committing a crime under ICC jurisdiction have the right to remain silent "without such silence being a consideration in the determination of guilt or innocence." Indeed the Rome Statute provides more of a privilege than the Miranda rule, which requires warnings only when a suspect is in police custody. In contrast, the Rome Statute requires a warning whenever the prosecution has grounds to believe that the person being questioned has committed a crime." - Assistant Professor Cuellar, Stanford.