DDO Olympic Team Debate: ThinkBig/Fire_Wings vs. MrVindication/Midnight1131

Framework Our arguments will focus on the aspect of liberty and autonomy. We believe it is in the best interests of the US to maintain its independence and sovereignty, which would be forfeited if the US submits to the authority of an international court. Liberty guaranteed by the government and upheld by our founding document would be, in a sense, voided by the submission to a worldwide jurisdiction. The sense of freedom and the safety of our rights would be stripped away once the United States submitted to any “higher power”, any institution seeking to establish a sort of international order. Therefore our arguments will be based upon the ideas of liberty: rights of the people, and autonomy: the inherent right of the United States government to govern their own constituency. Contention 1: Liberty and Autonomy The international criminal court is the first court in the world that claims jurisdiction over every human being in the world, and the laws that govern every nation in the world that will ratify the Rome Statute. A big issue with submitting to an international court is the deprivation of America’s autonomy. Submitting to the ICC would mean that the actions of the US would essentially be dictated and judged by outsiders, instead of American citizens. American citizens could be subject to searches and seizure of property by an ICC prosecutor, who will be given free reign to conduct investigations anywhere in the country. Ratifying the Rome Statute would also mean the USFG would be obligated to surrender any accused Americans to the ICC. The voice of the people would take backseat to the judgement of an international court. The USFG has a responsibility to its people first and foremost, and ratifying the Rome Statute would undermine this responsibility. If they submit to the jurisdiction of the ICC, the US would essentially be forfeiting the fundamental right of every American citizen, which is to be tried in an American court with full constitutional rights. The ICC is a foreign court that is not bound by the constitution, convenes in a foreign land, and is made up of largely foreign judges. Contention 2: The Constitution 6th Amendment Submitting to the jurisdiction of the ICC would not be advisable if the US is to uphold its constitution and the values therein. The 6th amendment of the constitution of the United States states... In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed... The incompatibility here is obvious, as the ICC does not hold trial by jury. Furthermore, the constitution also guarantees the accused the right to a speedy trial, a right to reasonable bail, and a right to a public trial. These 4 fundamental rights are not present in Article 67 of the Rome Statute[1], which outlines the rights of the accused. Another big violation of the 6th amendment is the complete absence of any prohibition or limitations on hearsay evidence. Hearsay evidence is a statement made outside the court, that is introduced as evidence. The constitution of the US guarantees Americans the right to confront their accusers. This right is not present in the Rome Statute. 4th Amendment The 4th amendment guarantees American citizens that seizures and searches may only be conducted by American authorities, not an international body. Contention 3: Issues within Rome Statute Article 48: Accountability Article 48 of the Rome Statute addresses the immunity and privileges of ICC judges, prosecutors, and other personnel. It guarantees immunity to these parties equaling that of heads of diplomatic missions. They are exempt from any sort of accountability during their term, and granted lifetime immunity after they leave office for any actions done “in official capacity.” This is completely antithetical to the sort of scrutiny placed on the actions American presidents and officials, who can be held accountable for their actions both during and after their terms. Article 5-8: Broad Crimes These sections of the Rome Statute outlines the crimes the ICC claims jurisdiction over. However, the definitions of these crimes are so broad that it is difficult to discern what constitutes these crimes. Furthermore, in article 5 it claims jurisdiction over “the crime of aggression,” which is not defined. Infact, the UN itself has failed to reach a consensus as to what constitutes a “crime of aggression.” Article 21: Enforcement of Internationally Recognized Human Rights The ICC will not only be enforcing laws that are mentioned in the Rome Statute, it will also enforce “internationally recognized human rights.” These are human rights according to the United Nations. While the charter of the UN states that it may only make policy recommendations and not intervene in matters of domestic judgement, this would enable the ICC to intervene and force these definitions of human rights upon countries. The UN has, in recent years, redefined human needs [food, water, shelter, healthcare, etc] as human rights [2],and demands that government provide them. The ICC will most likely be used as a medium with which to impose upon nations the UN’s view of what should and shouldn’t be provided by the government, and in doing so it would impose its authority over matters which are, and should remain, within the domestic jurisdiction of the countries involved. A good example of how ridiculous it would be to try to enforce the UN’s standard of “rights,” we simply have to look at the Special Rapporteur report [4] from May, 2011. Which declared that everyone had the right to internet, and it was the responsibility of the government to maintain this at all times. It is obvious that the government does not manage the distribution or maintenance of internet service, that is handled in the private sector. If the US was to be forced to abide by the UN standards of rights, the government would have to intervene and ensure that every single citizen has access to the internet, or face the risk of being prosecuted by the ICC. The issue with this is that it shouldn’t be a constant game of jumping through hoops to appease an international court that is trying to put our country under their jurisdiction. Contention 4: Equal Distribution The idea that the United States should submit to an international jurisdiction is logically fallacious, as we cannot assume that each and every nation in the world will submit as well to build up a complete international order. Just recently, China completely ignored a ruling from an international tribunal in The Hague [5] that ruled on their recent signs of aggression in the South China Sea. If a world power such as China acts completely oblivious to the fact that they are the subject of a ruling from an international tribunal, how do we expect the other 192 members of the UN to opt-in to such an international order? It seems to be that this is a huge flaw in the idea behind international courts, and it does not bode well for equal distribution of jurisdiction around the world. Therefore we would argue that the the United States should not submit to the jurisdiction of any international court on the grounds that we cannot ensure worldwide cooperation and an equal distribution of justice. Conclusion To conclude, it is evident that to recognize and submit to an international court would undermine the rights guaranteed to American citizens in our founding documents, erode the power and legitimacy of our own courts over their jurisdictions, and attenuate the autonomy of the USA. Liberty and autonomy takes precedence over a perceived international order that would encroach upon our sovereignty, and therefore we negate this resolution. Sources https://www.icc-cpi.int... http://www.ohchr.org... https://www.wired.com... http://www2.ohchr.org... http://www.nytimes.com...