The united states ought to submit to the jurisdiction of the ICC

Im so glad i get to debate this topic against First, we will look at my case and then my opponents. AFF My opponent made a huge mistake last round by not addressing the very top of the affirmative because it explicitly states that the ICC will have jurisdiction whether we submit or not. Donald Rumsfeld for example has an indict in the court right now. the warrant for this argument is that the Rome Statute allows an extension of jurisdiction if the crime was committed by an individual of a signatory nation, against a signatory nation, or against a party temporarily invoking article 12. This means that the entire negative case is nonunique (the impact happens in both worlds - not submitting does not change the fact that US citizens will lose rights to an international court. Thus if submitting provides a benefit over non submission then i win this round). His only argument attacking my value is a question. Since it is not an attack as to why it should not be the value, my value is the value for the round. The attacks are (with answers below) 1. The US is not upholding the constitution a. The US constitution is violated even if we dont submit b. The constitution has been violated in the past for good things (Lincoln for example suspended Habeas Corpus to keep the Union in tact) and thus we must look to who has a better outcome. c. By affirming we have some power over the court to include constitutional rights and thus they would not be violated (Broomhall 1) d. We can amend the constitution to allow ICC jurisdiction. 2. It does not protect its own boarders a. The ICC still has jurisdiction over the negative case so any argument talking about how the ICC is bad inherently applys to the negative too. b. Again I maintain some power over the ICC so the affirmative can change some policies to make it more beneficial to the US. My criterion is not attacked as a weighing mechanism so extend it. The reason you prefer it is because it is the way a state upholds its obligations. Look specifically at the justifications i gave in my first speech. Thus my criterion is the way to achieve his. Contention 1 Ok this argument is mishandled really really badly. The argument that Broomhall 1 espouses is that the US has a major part in determining the functions of the ICC through PrepCom Negotiations so there is the ability to change certain structures. This means in a world where both the AFF and the NEG have an ICC with the jurisdiction over the US, the AFF provides a mechanism in which the US can make the policies beneficial to American's while the NEG can do nothing to change ICC policy. In fact the NEG would make it more likely for amendments to the Rome Statute that are NOT beneficial to Americans (like the security council check on the ICC which currently allows the security council to suspend a trial for 12 months and they can re-suspend it after the 12 months is over). There are two impacts 1. The affirmative provides recourse in the ICC and has a net increase in power over the negative world 2. The affirmative has the ability to change parts of the Rome Statute to make it more benificial for Americans and solve for some of the problems listed in the negative case. This means that on this level the negative does not matter because i solve for the problems even if jurisdiction did not extend into the US (which it does). Contention two had two separate arguments in it. My opponent only addressed the second. The first was in the Sewel card which said that double standards are created through the ICC and that these double standards prevent the United States from taking important actions in the international community. thus there is an overall decrease in maintaining states power which is the criterion for the round. Moreover this means that even if the first contention of the affirmative is flawed and the analysis at the top about the extension of jurisdiction is flawed, I still have an impact i can weigh against the NC (NEG CASE). This impact is bigger than the one in the negative because this means that the US can not achieve its important goals in the world like it will not have help in Afghanistan (or at least will fave heavier opposition). This means that there is actually a decrease in states power if it does not join the ICC. This is another place i win the round EVEN IF I DONT ATTACK MY OPPONENTS CASE BECAUSE IT IS A BIGGER IMPACT THAN ANY IMPACTS MY OPPONENT CAN GARNER. The second part of contention 2 says the only multilateral way to prosecute CaH is through the ICC because (as stated in Broomhall 3) the international community will only do it through the ICC because it currently has the structure to prosecute and is the established international mechanism. Thus in order to have an internationally recognized trial of a war criminal then there must be submission to the ICC. Even if my opponent wins this point, it does not matter because of the other two parts of my case. now on to the NC remember I phrased the topic to the ICC so i narrowed the ground to the ICC specifically. Even so i would argue that his case is based on the ICC too so there is no point arguing that the resolution is talking about the idea of an international court. For the value i would argue that since the resolution is questioning the obligation of an actor we must evaluate that actor in terms of its purpose so governmental legitimacy. Moreover there are differing interpretations of justice so there is no way to no what his advocacy is (there is no set definition of what each is due) Criterion - again i provide the mechanism for how to reach it - his criterion is as vague as his value because we have no way to know what to do to reach it. Moreover i would argue that he never gives a reason why upholding the obligations gives each their due. I may have a contractual obligation to kill someone but that does not mean that killing someone is just. Moreover there is no necessary connection for example i may have an obligation to do my homework but doing my homework does not necessarily mean that i am giving someone their due. Contention one - citizens lose rights in the ICC 1. The United States has the power of the security council check meaning the US can delay prosecution for a year at a time. Since this is true, our citizens our protected. 2. Broomhall 1 shows that we can change the ICC so that it is more beneficial to our interests meaning we can add elements of a check on the ICC 3. All of this argument is based on the constitution so my arguments under my value about the constitutions apply 4. The ICC extends jurisdiction into the US no matter what, even if we dont submit these things happen so my opponent is not giving a reason why we should not submit. 5. Even if he wins this argument the amount of American's prosecuted will remain low (very few people are tried at the ICC, I think there have only been 12) so my second contention outweighs because it has to do with all our interests globally not just 12 citizens. Contention 2 - Compromises security - First some arguments that apply to both 1. The ICC functions for the most heinous offenses, look at the people who have been tried. This shows that there is no real threat to Americans 2. The US is still under its jurisdiction no matter what 3. The resolution is specific to CAH - there is a separate category for war crimes so there is a difference. Since his contention talks about war crimes it is not applicable to the resolution. Sub point A 1. This is not happening to any nations in the status quo - no political prosecutions have been made 2. There are checks such as the pretrial chamber that make sure there is sufficient evidence for a case Sub Point B 1. There are nations in the ICC that are helping in Iraq and Afghanistan and those nations are not being prosecuted which means that his claim is empirically untrue.