Jan/Feb LD International Court Resolution

The Actual resolution is too long to fit into the comment box so here it is: Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity All I ask of my opponent is that he/she is familiar with the Lincoln Douglas style of debate and will debate accordingly. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "America now stands as the world's foremost power. We should be proud: Not since the age of the Romans has one people achieved such preeminence. But we are not Romans; we do not seek an empire. We are Americans, trustees of a vision and a heritage that commits us to the values of democracy and the universal cause of human rights. " Because I agree with Senator John Kerry I Must Affirm the Resolution, Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. My Value for this debate is peace. Peace is not only the greatest goal of every nation but is the goal of the International community as a whole. It is also the best Value to fit the resolution, as peace should be the goal of every foreign policy decision. Peace is not simply the absence of War but is better defined as harmonious relations between people and countries. While this does include absence of war this alone does not create peace. Because peace is so paramount we must weigh the round on who better achieves peace. My Criterion is Harmonic Cosmopolitanism, Harmonic Cosmopolitanism is the view that one's primary moral obligations are directed to all human beings and political arrangements should faithfully reflect this universal moral obligation. However Harmonic Cosmopolitanism does not mean the elimination of sovereignty. In the same manner as world government is not harmonious neither is absolute sovereignty harmonious. A world Government does not respect the social contract and pure sovereignty has no respect for humanity. It is here when we must find a middle ground, a harmony so the two may work side by side. It is here we find this proposed concept of Harmonic Cosmopolitanism. "Crimes against humanity," by definition, are so heinous as to threaten the moral order of all humankind, not just individuals within any given nation. Thus, their existence requires a cosmopolitan outlook. Without this Universal Moral Duty the International community would condone such events as the holocaust, if it did not directly affect their national borders. We would not intervene is Humanitarian Crisis such as the Rwanda Genocide, and Humanity would lose much of its worth. As Immanuel Kant Notes "a violation of right on one place of the earth is felt in all places. Violations of cosmopolitan right would make more difficult the trust and cooperation necessary for perpetual peace among states. " It is a supplement to the unwritten code of the civil and international law, indispensable for the maintenance of the public human rights and hence also of perpetual peace. One cannot flatter oneself into believing one can approach this peace except under the condition outlined here. " Thus Cosmopolitanism is the surest way to international peace and is the best criteria to achieve peace in the round. Definitions: Ought: Used to Express advisability (Merriam Webster) Submit: to defer to or consent to abide by the opinion or authority of another (Merriam Webster) Jurisdiction: the territory or sphere over which the legal authority of a court or other institution extends. Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, "are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. 1st contention International court will deter future crimes against humanity. In late 2004, tensions flared in The African Nation of Cote d'Ivoire, fueled by radio broadcasts of hate speech and violent groups in the streets these acts were strikingly reminiscent of the hate speech that preceded the Rwanda genocide. In response, Juan Mendez, a UN advisor on genocide, wrote the Security Council a widely-publicized note that reminded them that the ICC has jurisdiction over acts, such as hate speech, that lead to crimes against humanity. The message was received in Cote d'Ivoire: the hate speech and the immediate threat of violence subsided. Without an International Court the hate speech would have continued, and the World could be faced with another Rwanda. The Circumstances of both were the same, however there was no International Court at the time of Rwanda. Had their been, it is safe to say based upon the events in the Cote d'Ivoire, the Genocide would have been prevented. 2nd contention The U. S joining the ICC would further legitimize it. The U. S stands as the world's foremost power, we hold massive Political "soft Power" If we were to join an international court not only would others follow suit but we would add further legitimacy to it. Scott Turner, Professor at University of Montevallo Writes "To be sure, it may be difficult to proceed without the United States, whose support was crucial to the administration of international justice in the 1990s. The effectiveness of international institutions is highly dependent upon cooperation and assistance from the world's most powerful country. The ICC's legitimacy would be undermined severely by an institutionalized double standard that effectively excluded the United States and its client states from the court's jurisdiction. " The Fact that the U. S holds such a large amount of influence makes us almost the deciding factor in the Influence of an international court. A court without the U. S will be weaker and will perform less effectively than one that has U. S membership. The influence of the U. S would increase that of the court allowing the court to work towards its ultimate end, Peace. 3rd Contention A. We can see examples of this in Cases such as the Rwanda Genocide. On Thursday, December 18, 2008, A former Rwandan army colonel, Theoneste Bagosora, accused of genocide and crimes against humanity for masterminding the killings of more than half a million people, was convicted by A U. N war Crimes Tribunal. Without an International court Bagosora would have remained unpunished, clearly international courts are Beneficial to member states. An Article done for the International Studies Association further found that "states with a recent history of violence, in the 1990-2005 period ratify the ICC Statute more often that not if they emerge from civil conflicts. This result validates ad hoc observation that in a number of states, transitional regimes charged with ending a cycle of recent internal conflict have found it prudent to join the ICC, precisely because it offers an International bulwark against a return to routine political violence. " B. There is a simple fact that nobody expects violence in the nature, in the Immortal Words of Monty Pythons, John Cleese "nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! " Who could have predicted the holocaust? or Rwanda? The simple fact is these cannot be predicted. Saying that we should not join due to present circumstances is ignorant. The fact is we must look not only towards the present but towards the Future. It is wise for the United States to have this "international Bulwark. " Furthermore if we accept them to be helpful why should we exclude ourselves? This would be Hypocritical and would actively work to destroy both Cosmopolitanism and any notion of peace.