The united states ought to join the ICC

Resolved, The United States ought to join the ICC. Because I agree with justice, protection of human rights, and the US constitution itself, I strongly affirm the resolution. An international court would promote just actions, protect human rights, offer equality to all, and encourage peace. In order to offer clarity to the round, I offer the following definitions: Ought – Used to indicate moral obligation or duty. (American Heritage Dictionary) Submit – To yield oneself to the will or authority of another. (American Heritage Dictionary) Jurisdiction – The extent of authority or control. (American Heritage Dictionary) International Court – A court extending across or transcending national boundaries. (American Heritage Dictionary) Crimes against Humanity – I define crimes against humanity as offered by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, Crimes , "are 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. My value for this round will be that of Justice. Justice is the quality of being just; equitable, and moral right. Justice applies to this resolution in that courts are meant to do one thing: establish justice in their area of jurisdiction. Justice will be better achieved when crimes against humanity are prosecuted by an international court. If protecting human rights is essential to justice then prosecuting "crimes against humanity" is an obligation for all nations. Every human being should have rights, and thus rights are global. If these rights are global, would it not follow suit that these crimes ought to be prosecuted globally? It would not be just for the United States to rise above other nations and refuse to participate in an international court. My Criterion is Protecting Human Rights. The aim of the resolution is clearly to protect human rights. If these rights were not worthy of protecting, then why bother prosecuting crimes against them? Only when these rights are fully protected can justice be fully achieved. This brings me to my first contention. Contention 1: Justice would be more fully achieved were the United States to submit to an international court. The United States does not currently do its duty to protect human rights, and thus, is not as just as it perhaps should be. Consider, for a moment, the events that were taking place at Guantanamo Bay. The government tortured and horribly humiliated the detainees at the facility in the hopes of gaining information. Gregg Bloche, M.D., J.D., and Jonathan H. Marks, M.A., B.C.L., state, "There is no scientific answer to the question of which interrogation strategy is more effective. For obvious ethical and legal reasons, there is unlikely to be one. At Guantanamo, the fear-and-anxiety approach was often favored. The cruel and degrading measures taken by some, in violation of international human rights law and the laws of war, have become a matter of national shame." (1) A federal judge ruled in early 2005 that these detentions are unconstitutional. How is a country just when it will not even uphold the document that the country is based on? Recall the final thought of the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance: "With Liberty and Justice for all." (2) It is, therefore, imperative that the United States uphold justice. These activities at Guantanamo have gone on for years with little or no action. How is this justice? How are human rights protected? The answer is simple: they are not. It is clear that the United States ought to submit to an international court to prosecute these atrocious crimes against humanity to further promote justice. If the U.S. cannot or will not stop the torture at Guantanamo, surely an international court should. To protect human rights, and to promote justice, it is necessary. Contention 2: Human Rights would be better protected under an international court. There is a major difference between an international court and one that is country-specific – the global authority of the international court. As was stated in my explanation of the choice for my criterion, Protection of Human Rights, human rights are a global issue. Something connects the beings of the human world – our species. Philosophers throughout the ages have declared human rights global. Look no farther than Kant's Cosmopolitanism, Locke's inalienable rights of "Life, Liberty, and Estate,"(3) or Cromwell's Freedom Rights. Even the Declaration of Independence of the U.S. states that "We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness." (4) Note that it does not say "that all persons who were born in the United States are created equal," but that "all persons are created equal." This certainly shows the global issue of the protection of human rights. Certainly a national court cannot adequately process a global issue. Considering the global issue of crimes against humanity, it seems obvious that the most fair, accurate, and unbiased judgment would come from a conglomerate of nations. It is only just that a global issue be addressed globally. How can it be just that a criminal against humanity in one nation receive several years in a prison, yet another criminal who has committed the same crime in another country be issued the death penalty? It is only just that these issues be addressed nationally, where human rights would be better protected. As I have shown, an international court would promote justice, protect human rights, and uphold our own constitution. "Resolved, The US Ought To Join to the ICC" Affirmed.