This House would Rather be in than Out.

Quick Note: This is a parliamentary style debate, and I am the proposition. My interpretation shall be Resolved: The United States ought to join an international criminal court designed to prevent crimes against humanity. I hereby declare that a value and value criterion should be used in this round for two reasons. First, as the proposition debater, I am allowed to determine the grounds for this debate, and I choose to include values in this framework. Second, since values and criteria force debaters to filter their arguments and clash in the impact calculus, values and criteria are necessary for debate education. Since the resolution specifies a state as the actor, and states are social institutions, according to Professor John Rawls of Harvard University, the inherent value for the round is Justice, defined as giving each his due. The resolution charges us to determine whether joining such a court would be just. To assess this question, we must examine natural rights. Natural rights, specifically life, liberty, and property, are possessed by individuals simply because they were born human, and not because the government chooses to grant these rights to anyone. Because states are composed of individuals, and individuals have the obligation to protect people's rights, the primary obligation of any state is to ensure that all people receive the rights and protections that they are due. So, in order to achieve Justice, we must ensure that natural rights are preserved. Thus, my value criterion for this round is the preservation of natural rights. Observation: The resolution specifies that the United States must join "an international criminal court designed to protect crimes against humanity", but does not select a specific court for the United States to join. This means that any evidence or arguments that pertain to specific courts, such as the ICC, cannot be used in the round because the United States could join a hypothetical, yet currently nonexistent, international court that was created for the same purpose. Prefer this interpretation over my opponent's objections because it is directly in line with the wording of the resolution. Contention 1: Joining an international criminal court would increase national security by decreasing the likelihood of terrorism. The United States has historically refused to bow to the wishes of the international community and has continued to act in a unilateral and highly unpopular manner for the last decade. For example, the U.S. invasion of Iraq was condemned by many in the international arena, but President Bush decided to pursue the invasion anyways. This has, in turn, created an image of imperialism and unaccountability for the United States across the globe, and has allowed terrorist networks such as Al Qaeda to recruit people who turn into militants because they are disgusted with the actions of the global superpower. If the United States were to join an international court, however, terrorist networks would have more difficulty manipulating the populace because the United States would display a commitment to global human rights and would prove that it is willing to submit itself to multilateral efforts for peace. Thus, by minimizing the terrorist's ability to recruit others, the United States promotes the right to life of its own citizens, the right to life of other citizens, and its own self-interests across the globe. This means that joining an international court would preserve natural rights and thus achieve Justice. Contention 2: Joining an international criminal court would promote state accountability. Realist theory indicates that the reason that states should act in their own self-interests at the expense of rights is because the international arena is in a state of anarchy, and no actor exists to hold states accountable. An international court designed to protect crimes against humanity would full such a gap, and an endorsement by the world's most powerful nation would grant it the legitimacy needed to act as an actual check on state abuse. This, in turn, would cause states to act in an proper fashion because a higher actor would exist that could prevent nations from pursuing devious ends. Pursuing state accountability protects human rights by minimizing the abuse of state power/tyranny. Thus, by joining the international criminal court, the United States would promote Justice. Note that the United Nations is NOT an appropriate international body because any one nation in the Security Council can prevent it from acting. An international criminal court would not have any such hindrance, so any disadvantage that exists in the U.N. cannot crossover to the hypothetical court in discussion. Contention 3: Joining an international criminal court would isolate other malefic states and force them to renounce human rights abuses. Many states successfully avoid being indicted for human rights abuses by pointing to the United States as a hypocritical actor. For example, China has long been able to garner support in the international arena despite U.S. condemnations of its failure to protect human rights because it has been able to point out that such accusations are hypocritical and unfair. If the United States were to remain in isolation, this sentiment will continue to spread because each state can justify committing atrocities on the basis that other states are conducting themselves in a similar manner. If the United States were to join an international criminal court, however, it would mitigate the basis for these claims because it would be forced to adhere to the human rights standards that it projects on others. This, in turn, would isolate tyrannical states like China and Iran and would magnify the international pressure on them to reform their regimes. This, in turn, would cause a global cascade for human rights protections. Thus, by joining an international criminal court, the United States would help the people of other nations receive their natural rights, and thus would achieve Justice. Overall, joining the international criminal court would promote Justice because it would promote human rights. Thus, I strongly urge an affirmation of today's resolution. Thank you.