LD Jan/Feb Topic, International Courts

Resolved: The United States ought NOT submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. The international court mentioned in the resolution does not specify a specific court. It is advantageous not to designate a specific court in order to avoid a debate centered on the effectiveness of one court in relation to another. In addition, the word designed in the resolution indicates that the court's purpose should solely be to prosecute crimes against humanity. Since no tangible court exists with only this limited function, all references should be made to a theoretical international court. I submit my design of the international court as follows: 1)The court is one in which the majority of the international community is a part of 2)The court's ability to effectively execute the rulings it puts into effect is not to be questioned and is assumed to be both stable and ideal from an enforcement point of view 3)The court's sole purpose should be to prosecute crimes against humanity. It should not tackle separate issues that are not included under the term "crimes against humanity" A specific definition for "crimes against humanity" is preferable in our scenario. For this, we look to Dr. David Nersessian, (in an article titled "Comparative Approaches to Punishing Hate: The Intersection of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity) from the Stanford Journal of International Law in the Summer of 2007, who wrote that "Crimes against humanity are ordinary criminal acts committed within a wider criminal context. The prohibited act in question (murder, rape, mistreatment, etc.) must form part of the larger attack on the civilian population. Isolated offenses are not crimes against humanity. But as long as it is part and parcel of the wider attack, even a single prohibited act will suffice. At present, the authoritative list [of crimes against humanity] (derived from the ICC Statute and ICTY and ICTR jurisprudence) includes: - Murder - Extermination - Enslavement - Deportation or forcible transfer - Imprisonment or severe deprivation of liberty - Torture - Sexual violence (including rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, and other acts of "comparable gravity") - Persecution - Enforced Disappearance - Apartheid - Other inhumane acts of similar character and gravity." Since the second point made regarding the international court stated that the court's effectiveness in execution is ideal, it can be concluded that the phrase "submit to the jurisdiction" indicates that if the United States, or any nation, were to join, it would be forced to accept and act in accordance with the decisions of the court. My value for this case is domestic justice. In this case, since the resolution specifically inquires into what the United States should do, domestic impacts are valued over global impacts, and therefore the preservation of domestic justice is the most crucial in this given scenario. My value criterion for the round is constitutionality. In the United States, the constitution is the method of determining how just something (such as a law or ruling) really is. Anything that creates conflict with the constitution is domestically unjust and therefore unacceptable in the American society. My first contention is that any submission of power by the government is inherently unjust because it is a blatant violation of the supremacy clause of the Constitution. This clause, located in article six of the constitution, states the following: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. A submission to an international court, in this case one where the court's execution of rulings is flawless, is a potentially inherent contradiction to this part of the Constitution in the following ways: a)In a dispute, the international court has the power and means to enforce its ruling, taking away from the supremacy of the constitution of the U.S. if any of the rulings conflict with the Constitution b)Potentially, the court could support a specific state in a matter that would create a conflict with the final portion of the clause, allowing state judges to be free of the obligation to adhere to the guidelines of the Constitution Obviously, both of these situations make the submission to an IC's jurisdiction unconstitutional, and therefore domestically unjust. It also means that as long as I, the negative position, can find one single way in which this act of submission could be unconstitutional (or, if one of my following contentions is extended), it is a violation of not only that aspect of the constitution, but also an example of a violation of the supremacy clause. My second contention is that submitting to an IC also involves forfeiting jurisdiction on crimes committed by U.S. nationals on foreign soil. Without this, the U.S. has no ability to enforce due process as under the Constitution. Without due process guaranteed, the relinquishment of power is unconstitutional, violating the fifth, sixth, and eighth amendments. My third contention is that the implementation of any type of IC would clash with Article 3, Section 1 of the constitution, which states that "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time establish." My fourth contention regards Article 2 of the Constitution, as submitting to an international court's jurisdiction would restrict some powers of the president, such as the power to make treaties and the pardon power. Since the Constitution does not give the President the power to surrender any executive power or authority, signing any treaty binding the U.S. to an IC is unconstitutional and therefore unjust. In order to prevent an unconstitutional system of justice, the United States must refrain from submitting to the jurisdiction of an international court. To avoid any of the possible negative impacts mentioned in this case, and to keep America constitutional and just, I urge you to negate. Now, moving on to the AC: In terms of definitions, the affirmative does not offer enough on the meaning of an international court, neither giving a specific court nor offering a theoretical court to work with. Therefore, my court is favorable and all links should be made to my court. Also, the affirmative offers some insight but no analysis into the meaning of crimes against humanity, so my examples of specific crimes are more valuable than the definition according to one international court. Contention 1 The arguments the affirmative offers are interesting, but sadly lack enough research. Guantanamo Bay has been closed down by the Obama administration, so just because human rights violations happened in the past does not mean they will happen again, especially with a president trying to prevent them. A.The acts of torture mentioned here are not widespread and therefore not crimes against humanity. Contention 2 What the affirmative mentions here, specifically the statement passed by Congress is interpretation, not manipulation of the Constitution and is therefore constitutional. Also, the current administration is altering current perceptions of American policies, shown in a drastic change from the "secretive" administration before it (a word coined by Obama). He and his advisers are working to make the U.S. as open as possible. This would make it impossible for the government to condone immoral actions or act immorally as the U.S. nationals will bind Obama to his promises and keep the government "in line."