The U.S. ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court to prosecute CAH's

Hey everyone, this is my first debate on this site, and I can't wait to get started. I do LD for my school's team, and I'd love to debate this new resolved before its first tournament. I've noticed that there have been a few (excellent) debates on this topic already, but I thought some people would be in the same position I'm in and want to debate it nonetheless. I'll take Aff. --------------------------------- I affirm. Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. In order to clarify, I offer the following definitions, per Merriam Webster's Dictionary unless otherwise stated: Ought: Used to express duty or moral obligation Submit: To yield to governance or authority of Jurisdiction: The power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law International: Of, relating to, or affecting two or more nations Crime Against Humanity: The Rome Statute defines crimes against humanity as "Particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity." I value justice, or "giving each their due." This is the appropriate value for the round because we are determining whether or not we have an obligation to try those accused of committing crimes against humanity in front of an international court. To determine obligation, we must ask if it is one's due to have the action in question done upon them. Therefore, justice is the only appropriate value for the round. My criterion for this round is proportionality, or the idea that the consequences to an action ought to vary in harshness based on the severity of the action. The purpose of proportionality is to give reward to actions which merit it and punishment to Contention I: The example set by the United States would influence more corrupted countries to come to justice. A.While the United States itself already has a mostly efficient court system, if it were to join an international court to try crimes against humanity, countries that do not have an efficient court system would be more inclined to join. For example, the United Nations is based in, and largely influenced by, the United States, and currently is affiliated with 192 countries, many of which have little to no court system. The primary reason that current international courts such as the International Court of Justice are not succeeding is because they have not had a large, influential nation such as the United States submit to them. Should this happen, nations with poor judicial systems would be more eager to join the international court, and would in turn have a way to treat their potential criminals in a more humane (or harsh, if that be the case) manner. Crimes against humanity are so grave that they transcend any borders, and therefore, it is only proportional that, because they cause the same amount of chaos and despair regardless of what country they take place in, they all be tried in the same manner. B.Just as the United States' joining of an international court helps other countries, it helps the United States itself as well. America's reputation around the world is slowly diminishing because many of our enemies and even our allies feel as though we place ourselves above all others, and we see it as our duty to spread our political and cultural systems abroad. Whether or not that truly is the case, submitting to an international court would adjust that viewpoint significantly. Joining this court shows that the United States is not above the law, and ought to be held to the same standard as any other nation, which is the most proportional concept imaginable. Contention II: Everyone, regardless of nationality, has an entitlement to justice. In negating the resolution, you must believe one of two outrageously false things: one, that every country in the world already has a significant enough amount of justice, or two, that it is acceptable for one to be denied justice on the grounds of their nationality. Thomas Pogge writes: "Nationality is just one further deep contingency (like genetic endowment, race, gender, and social class), one more potential basis of institutional inequalities that are inescapable and present from birth." Resistance to an international court is on par with any other type of discrimination, be it sexual, racial or physical, which is the most clear and blatant of proportionality and justice one can possibly imagine. The United States is obligated to support anti-discrimination, and is therefore obligated to support international justice. Contention III: International courts make national biases less likely to influence verdicts Nenad Miscevic of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy writes: "The universalist, non-invidious variant introduces enormous psychological and political complications. These arise from a tension between spontaneous attachment to one's own community and the demand to regard all communities with an equal eye." This indicates that one's inherent loyalty to his community often limits the potential for a truly unbiased view of others. This is true no more so than in trying a crime against humanity. Being the most serious crimes one can commit, the nation which it affects is anxious to be able to find someone guilty, even if they are not proven to be such beyond a reasonable doubt. International justice, however, lowers that possibility by a highly significant margin. Because the court does not consist solely of victims, it will be inherently less biased, and only truly guilty criminals will be convicted. It is obviously disproportional for one to be convicted of a crime they did not commit, or vice versa, and therefore, proportionality and justice are better upheld by affirming the resolved. Justice, being the only appropriate value for this round, and proportionality, being the only appropriate criterion, are upheld only when the resolution is affirmed, and for that reason, as well as those presented above, I urge you to vote affirmative and I stand open for cross-examination.