Current Jan/ Feb LD Resolution

It is because I believe in the value of global stability that I affirm the resolution Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. For clarification of the round I would like to offer the following definitions from Merriam Webster Dictionary: Ought: a moral obligation Moral obligation: the demands of conscience to do the right thing Jurisdiction: the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised Submit: to yield to governance or authority Crime against humanity as defined by the Rome Statute: any crimes such as murder or rape when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack I would also like to offer the following observation Observation: Due to the wording of the resolution it should be clarified that the International Criminal Court, sometimes called the ICC, is the best fit for this resolution because this court is designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. Value: My value is global stability. Based on the resolution global stability is the inherent idea and any negative or affirmative case cannot truly affirm or negate the resolution without proving how global stability would be achieved. Value Criterion: My value criterion is the proper allocation of due. If everybody in the world knew that they were not going to get punished for criminal activities the world would be in chaos. On the other hand if people knew they were going to be administered the death penalty for stealing a pack of gum everybody would revolt. Therefore proper allocation of due is the way to achieve global stability. Contention 1: My first contention is that the United States has a moral obligation to join the International Criminal Court because it is the right thing to do. History has been filled with widespread bloodshed against innocent civilians, genocide, and other crimes against humanity and currently the commiters of these crimes are going unpunished by international courts. The International Criminal Court might be one of the most effective deterrents to such unmoral crimes such as these so the US has a moral obligation to join the ICC. With the United States's military and resources the International Criminal Court would have increased efficiency and power to bring commiters of immoral crimes to justice. This would reduce the amount of immoral crimes so the US has a moral obligation to join the ICC. Contention 2: My second contention is the fact that the US rejecting the International criminal court caused many smaller countries to do the same and overall hurts the court. The United States of America is recognized as a superpower across the world because of its massive resources and military. Right now, all of these resources are being used to forge agreements with other countries to stop the International Criminal Court from capturing and prosecuting United States soldiers. OR these resources are being used to threaten smaller countries, such as Iraq to not join the court, as the Coalition for the International Criminal Court claims. These actions actively undermine the International Criminal Courts power and set a precedent for other countries to do the same. Other countries do not join because without the United States they believe the international criminal court does not have the necessary power to capture criminals. Therefore the United States should join the ICC to lend credibility, power, and legitimacy to the ICC. With the United States backing, the International Criminal Court would become a powerful entity to be reckoned with across the world. Contention 3: My third contention is the fact that the United States has lost power by not joining the ICC. The United States have arranged over 100 treaties wit individual countries that protect US soldiers but at least 50 countries have refused even with the United States threatening withdrawal of military aid. As a result of these treaties the United States has lost the support of many Latin America countries. The treaties were "Meant to protect U. S. service personnel from politically motivated prosecution at the ICC,[but] the net result has been that Washington has been cut off from its normal engagement with its Latin American military counterparts" as Russel Crandall says. The United States not joining the ICC results in a separation from former allies(France, Canada, most of Europe are in the Court) and a general loss of respect. The United States could gain these back by joining the ICC and should do so.