LD international Court Resolution

The resolution asks us what decision the U. S. ought to make. When making decisions, the United States ultimately has to consider what is best for its citizens, and then the world. The U. S. was founded to create a free land for those who resided within it. It is the duty of the government to make sure that its people remains safe at all times. I shall accept my opponent's value and value criterion, and will show that I better meet them than he does. My opponent's definitions are alright by me. It seems my opponent is advocating submitting to the ICC. As such, I shall prove that this is an undesirable choice. Contention One: The ICC's Unchecked Power Leads to Abuse A) The ICC Has No Checks and Balances -C. T. Cline writes in "Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems" : The ICC is an institution that lacks checks and balances. The court combines investigation, prosecution, trial, and appeal. It is monolithic and beyond the control of the citizenry or of any counteracting governmental branch. It is not subject to direct U. N. Security Council oversight, as are the other tribunals such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, which the United States supports. Moreover, the court interprets its own charter with no meaningful external review. There is no meaningful outside control to curb or rein in possible excesses. This concept is foreign to Americans because the U. S. system of government is founded on the principle of checks and balances, with each branch of government--legislative, executive, judicial--fulfilling a role. Congress passes the laws, the executive enforces the laws, and the courts interpret the laws. B) Unchecked Power Leads to Abuse -Cline continues: More than 200 years ago, the American founding fathers believed that unchecked power was open to abuse. Writing in the Federalist Papers, James Madison [explains] "It may be a reflection on human nature," he wrote, "that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? " Americans mindful of the shortcomings of human nature may find a "super court" standing supreme and unaccountable at the pinnacle of international judgment worrisome and unacceptable. -Look to examples of dictators, like Saddam Hussein. Their unchecked power leads to rights deprivations, atrocious acts and unnecessary violence. While I am not comparing the ICC to a dictator, we have empirical evidence that unchecked power leads to abuse. For another example, read up on the Stanford Prison Experiment: . http://www.prisonexp.org... Contention Two: The ICC Fails Because it Ignores Local Context A) Etelle Higgonet, from the Human Rights Watch writes: The ICC will face linguistic and cultural obstacles in reaching out to local audiences, and may need to rely on entities better able to connect to local populations. The ICC Statute places an emphasis on outreach, for instance, in its provision for the possibility of the Court sitting regionally. Although the ICC's seat is in The Hague, Article 3 of the Rome Statute allows for the ICC to move to another seat in certain circumstances--presumably to the country or region where the atrocities took place. From the perspective of most people in post-atrocity countries, the ICC will probably remain mysterious: staffed by foreigners, working in a distant land, in languages that few understand, and applying previously unheard-of laws. Notwithstanding provisions in the ICC Statute on stronger victim participation and Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo's stated commitment to communicate with concerned populations, the ICC could appear even more like a deus ex machina than the ad hoc tribunals, yet further removed from local realities. Contention Three: Hybrid Courts are Better than the ICC A) Higgonet continues: The paper's central thesis is that hybrids draw upon both the strengths of international justice and the benefits of local prosecutions. On one hand, hybrids can harness the credibility of international law and the legitimacy of international institutions, which can lend hybrid courts a degree of authority as a fair mechanism for holding perpetrators accountable. On the other hand, hybrids can be structured to tap into domestic expertise, connect with local populations, and rebuild national judicial systems, creating a training ground for rule of law values. They also avoid the staggering costs of purely international courts. By integrating local norms, hybrid courts can bring culturally adapted justice to the people that international courts purport to serve but cannot reach; they can bridge the divide between remote, wealthy international jurists and third world victims of war crimes. My opponent's case: Value: Human Rights -Look to my first contention. The ICC's unchecked power will prevent it from properly upholding rights. There is no way an unchecked international institution can properly uphold rights. Hybrid courts, on the other hand, have the benefits of international courts, and the benefits of local authority. They have checks in their power, and help rebuild a country's judicial system (like judicial training wheels). Value Criterion: Cosmopolitanism -I don't seem to understand my opponent's attack. Valuing humans as citizens makes sure you protect the rights bestowed upon them by the government, as well as their human rights. Valuing them as humans only guarantees human rights (in this context, that means no guarantee to fair trial, protection from double jeopardy etc. ). When you value people as citizens, you uphold more rights. Dictators value people as nothing. If they were valued as citizens, they'd be given rights. Contention One - I have shown that the ICC has unchecked power and fails in local context. How is such an entity beneficial at all? With unchecked power, the ICC would carry out illegitimate decisions. Because it ignores local context, there is no way it can succeed. While international institutions are beneficial, the ICC is not. Hybrid courts, however, are beneficial. Contention Two -By joining the ICC, the U. S. would show the world irresponsibility. If you look at our governmental system with its checks and balances, and the ICC's with unrestrained power, there is no rational reason the U. S. would become part of such an entity. However, hybrid courts, which have an international arm and a local arm would be far better to join. The U. S. should not legitimize an illegitimate organization whose judicial system is on the other end of the spectrum. While joining the ICC would legitimize it, the U. S. should legitimize an illegitimate organization. The U. S. would be better off joining an organization like a hybrid court.