Jan/Feb LD International Court Resolution

Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. Value: Justice My value is justice; justice is the quality of being just, impartial, and fair. Justice is the value for the resolution because the goal of determining whether the U.S should submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity or not is to bring justice to the world. Value Criterion: National Sovereignty My value criterion is national sovereignty. National sovereignty is a nation being free from external control. We can achieve justice through national sovereignty because by keeping the national sovereignty and let the country such as the U.S itself has the jurisdiction we can achieve justice. Notice the resolution use the word "ought" that we should determine whether the resolution should be achieved or not in terms of morality. ICC is an international court that is designed to prosecute crimes against humanity that most fits the resolution. Since the U.S is part of the UN, the U.S seeks to promote the cooperation of the world to bring justice Argument 1: The U.S court is more appropriate to prosecute its own citizens. A.The ICC got nothing done The ICC treaty has been signed more than 10 years ago, but the ICC couldn't fully prosecute any criminals who committed crimes against humanity. For instance, even though the ICC has dealt with 12 cases, the ICC fails to prosecute any criminals. The case, The prosecutor vs. Joseph Kony, began in 2004, but he still commits crimes against humanity. With the ICC alone, it is in reality, not feasible to punish any criminals. B.Contains many flaws i.There is no checks and balance system 1.Although the court is being overseen by many nations, the court itself doesn't have any system to prevent the future abuses. So far, all the authorities of the ICC are in the hands of the prosecutor and the judges. Excluding the U.N Security Council to oversee the whole system and any counteracting branch, it is invulnerable to political abuses. 2.Arrest warrants A.Despite all 12 arrest warrants that are issued, only four are under arrest and can't boast of a single prosecution. C.U.S court is very effective in prosecution A.The prosecution of the U.S court almost all the time succeeds. B.Fine check and balances system i.Counteracting branches exist to prevent future abuses D. Link: The ICC is not appropriate to prosecute any criminals that the U.S court has better system to prosecute the criminals who committed crimes against humanity. Through preserving the national sovereignty and having the criminals punished with the U.S court, we will have justice in the most appropriate court. Argument 2: The United States can't possibly agree with the ICC because it doesn't protect constitutional rights A.no right to jury trial…. B. no right to speedy trial- in the U.S the prosecution can take place for 90 days. ICC prosecutors must only ensure defendants the right to be tried without undue delay. C. International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTFY) practive, which the ICC is based, also unlimited hearsay evidence and anonymous witnesses to testify in trials. Using this vague evidence to prosecute criminals, they can't bring justice. D. Could place in double jeopardy in ICTFY, the prosecutors have appealed very judgment of acquittal. E. It is obvious that the U.S gov. can't possibly adhere to the ICC, which fundamentally contradicts the U.S ideology of what rights should be considered fundamentally rights. F. The U.S has the best judicial system in the world- for over 200 years prosecuted crimes but still has the structure for a successfully functioning government. Maintained independence with checks and balance system. G. With the best judicial system, the U.S has been bringing justice effectively however the ICC, which doesn't guarantee all the rights, it can't bring justice as effective as the U.S. By keeping its national sovereignty, the U.S will preserve justice in its own land. Now moving on to rebuttal..... Value: The whole resolution, specifically "crimes against humanity" and "international court" deals with justice not peace. A court, including an international court, exist to serve justice, and the main goal of the whole resolution is to determine the most effective way to serve justice because proving the legitimacy of the resolution implies that an international court having the jurisdiction will serve justice better than the U.S court, and disproving implies the other way around. The resolution deals with the prosecution of criminals who comitted crimes against humanity, which implies serving justice to humanity. Furthermore, one outcome of justice is peace (other outcomes can be retribution, equal rights...), which means that peace needs justice in order for it to be acheived. Absence of war, which is peace, can be acheived by having justice, giving everyone their fair due (granting equal rights, punishing all the criminals.....) that justice will eliminate all the elements of war. On the other hand, justice doesn't require peace in order to be achieved. Therefore justice is the superior value. VC: Harmonic Cosmopolitanism contradicts the submission to an international court because submisstion to an internatinal court will result in violation of self-determination right of citizens, which is deprived from one of the natural rights (liberty). Contentions: C1: My C1 outweighs my opponents' C1 in its importance because the ICC's, which is the international court used by both sides, purpose is to prosecute criminals who committed crimes against humanity however the ICC so far couldn't bring justice to any criminals. The court may deter crimes, such as hate speech, but the court is not able to bring justice to criminals like Joseph Kony who is actually committing crimes against humanity. It has been about 5 years since the arrest warrant was issued, but Joseph Kony is still committing severe crimes. Thus, the ICC is not able to do its job, stopping the most severe crimes against humanity. C2. 1. There's no reason why the U.S is morally obligated to legitimize this insufficient court that hasn't been able to prosecute any criminals in 10 years. 2. The U.S joining the ICC will not make other countries follow and join the ICC because Bill administration, one of the founders of the ICC, eventually didn't ratify the treaty because the administration couldn't make enough changes on its own to be satified. Which means that the U.S is not influential enough to make changes in other countries opinions. 3. If the U.S join the court now, the court will not operate to work torwards peace because of its insufficiency and no counteracting branch to prevent it from abuses. Even if the U.S joining legitimizes the court, it would be strenghthening this dangerous court. C3. A: First of all, U.N war Crimes Tribunal is not an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. No evidence of ICC being a beneficial entity in terms of doing its job. B. 1. The U.S stance proves that the U.S clearly not finds the court to be helpful 2. Not Hypocritical because the courts' record and it's invulneralbility to abuses obviously shows that it is right choice to be careful in deciding whether the U.S should join or not. 3. The U.S already has bigger internatinoal Bulwarks like U.N NATO... no need for another one. How can an international court can be a bulwark if it only serves as a judicial function. 4. As I wrote earlier, submission will actually will work to destroy cosmopolitanism 5. Agreeing that we can't perdict what kind of disaster will happen in future, we shouldn't submit to this laking court. 6. Court actually disturbs peace because ICC warrants broke the peace negoetiations with LRA...