Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed t

Because joining an international court brings justice to perpetrators of crimes against humanity, I stand in affirmation. Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. I render the following definitions for clarification purposes: Ought- used to express justice, moral rightness Jurisdiction- A government's general power to exercise authority over all persons and things within its territory; A court's power to decide a case or issue a decree. Prosecute- To commence and carry out a legal action; To institute and pursue a criminal action against a person. Crimes against humanity- particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. However, murder, extermination, torture, rape, political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion. (Rome Statute definition). Before I begin my case for this resolution, it is important to observe two important characteristics of this resolution. First, I am only defending the acceptance of international jurisdiction for crimes against humanity-the largest and most heinous of crimes. I am not defending the use of international courts to handle all or even most cases. Second, I am defending the principle that the United States ought to accept the jurisdiction of an international court, not defending the design of any particular international court. I am not defending the specific institutions of the International Criminal Court (ICC) or any specific institution. The resolution leaves the design of the court as an open question and focuses, instead, only on the nature of international jurisdiction. With these observations in mind, my case will demonstrate that our nation joining an international court can achieve justice by protecting human rights. It is important, first, to define why the United States should join an international court. I do that through my value of moral obligation. Moral obligation is defined as an obligation arising out of considerations of right and wrong. That makes the highest value in the round the achievement of the obligations of the United States. We now need a method to compare competing obligations, such as those potentially faced in the resolution. My criterion provides such a method to resolve conflicts between obligations. The United States is obligated to chase whichever obligation is most fundamental when considering two competing obligations. For example, I am legally obligated to obey speed limits and morally obligated to get an injured friend to the hospital. If the injury is dire, I would prioritize my moral obligation over my legal obligation and speed to the hospital. The most fundamental obligation of the United States is to protect human rights. This is the best criterion for the round simply because the Declaration of Independence states that the United States is morally obliged to. The rights that the Declaration of Independence entitles American citizens existed before the United States and before any political authority. What remains for my case it to show that the United States acceptance of international jurisdiction in matters of crimes against humanity will best respect human rights. Contention 1: The United States is morally obligated to eliminate crimes against humanity. Many international issues are notorious, but crimes against humanity are accepted internationally as being universally wrong. Because the nature of these crimes are dreadfully heinous, they must be prevented and prosecuted. Sub Point A: International jurisdiction would be effective in preventing crimes against humanity. The formulation of international jurisdiction has an independent, effective element that allows crimes against humanity to be efficiently prosecuted. Enforcement power, combined with deterrence will make an international court a reliable source of prosecution. This reliable source of prosecution would protect the people of the United States and the rest of the world from crimes against humanity. Sub Point B: Since the support of the United States is necessary to make an International court effective, the U.S. is morally obligated to support it as an extension of its obligation to prosecute crimes against humanity. Without the support of the U.S., the rest of the world will view the court as being unproductive and useless. Sub Point C: The United States not joining international jurisdiction will the violate human rights of the world's inhabitants which includes U.S. citizens as well. If we allow crimes against humanity to continue to happen, it will eventually be our demise. Contention 2: US action is necessary to prevent atrocities. The United States is considered by the global community, a hegemony. Many countries look to the United States as an older sibling. In other words, other countries look at America with a "magnifying glass" looking at everything they do. Joining international jurisdiction makes America look good in the sense that they care about their citizens as well as the Earth's citizens. Their caring ness is displayed by joining the fight and hopefully future deterrence of crimes against humanity. The United States is morally obligated to protect its citizens from these atrocious crimes. David J. Scheiffer, Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes furthers: "The U.S. representative, Ambassador Peter Burleigh, confirmed that, "The United States shares Canada's desire to bring international attention to the new character of armed conflict, in which civilians - including humanitarian workers - are often not simply random, incidental victims of conflict, but its very targets. We must work together," Ambassador Burleigh said, "to find ways to halt this trend. We must strive to strengthen international protection of civilians, recognizing that the Council's task of maintaining peace and security can extend to the protection of individuals as well." Ambassador Burleigh, on behalf of the United States, welcomed the Security Council's reaffirmation in its Presidential statement on February 12th of "the need for the international community to assist and protect civilian populations affected by armed conflict; of the need for all parties concerned to ensure the safety of civilians and to guarantee the unimpeded and safe access of United Nations and other humanitarian personnel to those in need; of the obligation of all states to comply strictly with their obligations under international law; and of the need to bring to justice individuals who target civilians, as such, in armed conflict, or who otherwise commit offenses under international humanitarian and human rights law." So as you can see the America in the end is morally obliged to protect its citizens. The best way to do that according to America's own Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes as well as an U.S. representative is to join in on international efforts to fight crimes against humanity. The best way to join in on international efforts is to submit to international jurisdiction. Because the United States is morally obligated to protect its citizens human right, you affirm.