LD international Court Resolution

Now lets just adress this single point that my opponent relies so heavily on. This is the Etelle Higgonet quote my opponent relies so heavily on, "Hybrids blend the international and the domestic with legal and organizational innovations that constitute important divergences from international ad hoc tribunals. In some cases they coexist with the local judiciary, operating in parallel, while in others, they have been grafted onto the local judicial system. But in all cases their nature is mixed. Usually, they are composed of international and local staff with foreign judges sitting alongside their domestic counterparts to try cases prosecuted and defended by teams of both local and foreign lawyers. Domestic law--reformed to include international standards--is typically applied alongside international law. Ultimately, hybrid criminal bodies form a family of their own, apart from other judicial entities." Look as a previously defined international court it is any court composed of more than one country. Lets look at this one section of the quote "But in all cases their nature is mixed. Usually, they are composed of international and local staff with foreign judges sitting alongside their domestic counterparts to try cases prosecuted and defended by teams of both local and foreign lawyers" thus these courts are composed of more than one country and are, thus, international. Opening statement While I defend the ICC itself the Premise is valid in other courts. While attacking the examples may seem natural I remind you this is not Policy I do not have a plan so the Neg ,must cover the concept of a multinational courts. Now Just to further point out that Hybrid courts are composed of more than one country and are thus international. My opponent defends Hybrid courts and so is conceding the resolution by doing so. HYBRID COURTS ARE COMPOSED OF MORE THAN ONE COUNTRY AND ARE THUS INTERNATIONAL. NEG 1st contention While there may be obstacles with courts a long prosecution is better than letting these people go free. Under the Neg side we would allow these people, such as those who committed the genocide is Rwanda to get away with it. While there may always be issues it is better than no punishment which is what we would have with a negative view. IF you read through the rome statue the court has very specific Functions and guidelines as to when it can take over, and it can't just arbitrarily amend the treaty. The last especially is a practice that is done in dictatorships. So What the ICC says it can do, that is what it can do, it cannot extend its jurisdiction without ratification. Also the Judges have to be confirmed just like the U.S supreme court, A country does not arbitrarily appoint judges. The ICC is checked by the Rome Statue and its member states, so does not have unlimited power. 2nd Contention HYBRID COURTS CONTAIN MORE THAN ONE NATION AND ARE THUS INTERNATIONAL. Everything created by humans has shortcomings, nothing is perfect, the thing is submitting to the jurisdiction of an international court is better than allowing the worst of criminals to get away with their actions. 3rd contention As I covered many times, any court that is not composed of a single nation, is international. as I explained in my response to my opponents opening statement a hybrid court is multinational and is thus international. AFF Value: we have already covered this just cross apply arguments Criterion: "There is a serious problem with international courts that prevents them from being cosmopolitan. Cosmopolitanism suggests that the primary moral obligation is towards all humans. Political arrangements should reflect this. International courts do not incorporate laws, rules, traditions or anything from the state where the trial is held" This is an interesting statement, the thing is that cosmopolitanism is looking at Supra-Statist politics not politics between states. International courts are looking at Humans as Humans and not as citizens of their country because they are defending human rights, which are universal. What My opponent tries to do is instigate a counterplan. LD does not call for counterplans so thus my opponent cannot achieve my criterion by saying we must submit to hybrid courts. the Negative essentially say "the united states ought not to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity" and leave it at that. That Is How LD is run. Saying that we should submit to a hybrid court is outside the resolution for a neg argument. 1st contention My opponent says they are not beneficial due to language barriers, however language barriers can be overcome with more countries ratifying because their is more representation of languages in the court. it is very simple. Also the fact that they punish the most heinous of crimes makes them intrinsically valuable. Also because without them genocidaires would get away freely. 2nd contention The simple fact is, the more countries to join the ICC the more Legitimate is will become. The U.S cannot complain about the nature of the court as they played a major part in drafting the treaty. Also 55% is a reasonably good statistic, also it has been shown that democracies, countries that experienced recent cultural violence and those active in international politics are most likely to join. We have Presidents elected on less that 55% an almost all of our laws are passed at about that same rate. Summery Hybrid courts are constructed of more than one nation and are thus international, this is fairly simple. Also my opponent is offering a counterplan which is inadmissible in LD style debate. So I urge an Affirmative ballot