LD TOPIc

I'm a bit confused here, but I'm supposed to just attack your case, right? CASE: Value: 1.Independence bad If we were all independent, we would exist in the theoretical "State of Nature" that Hobbes, Locke and russou said we formed societies to avoid. 2.Independence on the aff The ICC does not hurt independence. I will show this through my argumentation on the second contention. Criterion: 1.Sovereignty isn't a moral framework. The Bill of rights, and the basic idea of sovereignty do not tell us what is moral, they simply tell us what is best for the United States. Although it may be prudent, it would not always be moral. (we could commit some terrible act to protect our sovereignty) 2.Doesn't de-value the constitution Constitution allows treaties (which this is), and the ICC does not violate any constitutional rights. (again, I will show this at the end, under the second contention) 3.Sovereignty protected on aff Crimes against humanity clearly violate the sovereignty of the individuals it is committed against, and in many cases the sovereignty of their home country. (see Hitler) Also, if the United States government began to commit crimes against humanity against its own people, there would be nothing to stop them, they could hold power, and this would be a clear violation of the sovereignty of the citizens of the United States. If we submitted to this court, this could not happen because the court could step in to prevent such actions. Contention 1) 1.The ICC is a court of last resort. The ICC only tries criminals that are not getting a fair trial in their home country. Because we have a court system, the ICC would not try any criminals we did. 2.The constitution does not say that we can't have a higher power The constitution simply lays down how we believe the law should run. Because all of our constitutional rights are upheld by the ICC, the constitution is not violated. (again, I'll put all that stuff under contention 2) 3.Having a higher power does not destroy countries. We are already part of NATO, and G7/8. you can also look to the EU. Neither of these groups destroyed the country-ness of their members, and are seen almost universally as good. These groups force certain laws etc on their members, and yet, do not, as the neg claims destroy them. Contention 2) A. 1.In the instance of CAH, we cannot have a jury of ones peers. Although this is a law in the United States and most developed countries, such a law cannot and should not exist in an international court. If a criminal who commits a crime that the ICC is actually going to punish (CAH for this resolution), it is likely that ALL of their peers will have bias to one side. They will either get an overly harsh or overly lenient sentence. 2. Submission DOES protect citizens Again, if the US government were to begin perpetrating CAH's, there would be nothing to prevent this from happening. Simply, the ICC protects us from our government. Furthermore, if a United States citizen was committing these crimes, we would want them tried, and, if you look to my first point, a jury of ones peers could not be impartial, and therefore, unjust. B. 1. Double Jeopardy is NOT allowed in the ICC lets really read article 20: (copy-pasted from the Rome statute) 1.)No person shall be tried before the Court with respect to conduct which formed the basis of crimes for which the person has been convicted or acquitted by the Court. 2.)No person shall be tried by another court for a crime referred to in article 5 for which that person has already been convicted or acquitted by the Court. 3.) . No person who has been tried by another court for conduct also proscribed under article 6, 7 or 8 shall be tried by the Court with respect to the same conduct unless the proceedings in the other court: (a) Were for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court; or (b) Otherwise were not conducted independently or impartially in accordance with the norms of due process recognized by international law and were conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, was inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice. None of these parts allow double jeopardy. In fact article 20 is the article that BANS double jeopardy in the ICC. A person can only be tried by the ICC after being tried by another court IF that court was simply shielding the criminal or was not impartial. (norms are how all the big countries do it, like us) 2.on evidence According to the Rome statute (art 31) ground for excluding criminal responsibility includes Rules of Procedure and Evidence. And, guess who sets those... the members. Also, they follow basic due process laws. (Article 64) 3.One question There is one question that every neg should be asked; "has this ever happened, in the years the ICC has been in existence?" The answer to this question: no. simply, this has never happened, and is not likely to in the future 4.Judges are fair (article 33) A.part 3: The judges shall be chosen from among persons of high moral character, impartiality and integrity who possess the qualifications required in their respective States for appointment to the highest judicial offices B.Part 6: Judges are elected by secret ballot, the persons elected to the Court shall be the 18 candidates who obtain the highest number of votes and a two-thirds majority of the States Parties present and voting. C. No two judges may be nationals of the same State. A person who, for the purposes of membership of the Court, could be regarded as a national of more than one State shall be deemed to be a national of the State in which that person ordinarily exercises civil and political rights. Finally, to conclude, group both his contentions: Look to article 123 of the Rome statute. The Members can call for a meeting to amend the Rome statute at any time. They then vote on amendments. Because of this, the parts of the Rome statute that the neg has issue with (which I have shown Not to be flawed, but anyway) can be changed. Basically, the Judges are fair, the rights of the accused are upheld, and the ICC does not violate the sovereignty or independence of its member nations.