Current Jan/ Feb LD Resolution

I negate: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. For clarity I would like to offer the following definitions: 1.Ought: should 2.Jurisdiction: area of legal power 3.International Court: the ICC; International Criminal Court created for the prosecution of crimes against humanity and the promotion of human rights. For analysis of the resolution I offer the following observations: 1.The resolution states ought to, defined as should. Therefore, by joining, there should be some greater goal being achieved. I.e. the successful prosecution of crimes against humanity, and thus the protection of human rights. 2.Since the resolution states the US, the resolution becomes a resolution contextualized to the actually world, not an idealistic world. The resolution has a real world impact. 3. Neg. Burden: Prove the resolution untrue. I value justice, defined as giving each their due. Since the resolution is debating a court system, we must look at the main duty of such a system, which is the allocation of justice to criminals. This value is achieved by the criterion of Enacting Proper Enforcement. Justice can only be achieved if a court can enforce its jurisdiction. If it cannot, justice has not been achieved. Contention I: Lack of Enforcement Powers Since the ICC is a court and not a nation unto itself it has no army or police force. Thus, it has no way to enforce its jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is only as effective as its enforcement abilities. For example, a countryï¿½€™s judicial system would not be able to function if its courts could not effectively enforce power over those in its jurisdiction. For instance, murder can be outlawed in a certain country, but there is no point to that law if murderers could not be arrested, and then tried. A judicial system is only effective if it can punish those that break laws. Dr. Goldsmith, professor of international studies at Chicago University, explains ï¿½€œThe ICC has no army or police force and thus it does not have the ability to arrest people that commit crimes against humanity. It is much more likely that the ICC will fail to assert jurisdiction over recalcitrant oppressors at all, either because it lacks a Security Council referral and thus will lack jurisdiction, or because no nation will be willing to bring the defendants to the court because of fear of prosecution itself. The US would be joining an institution that cannot meet its function as a court system, and at the same time be putting itself in jeopardy of condemnation by the court.ï¿½€� [AC] V: Global Stability 1. Inherency to resolution --> He never proves why this value is inherent. He merely makes the assertion that based on the wording it is. What specific wording? Without clarifying there is no way to weigh or impact this value. VC: Proper Allocation of Due 1. Chaos --> I dont diagree. 2. Total Stability --> What my opponent advocates, would result in stability but he totally undermines the "proper allocation of due, tagline for his VC. Giving the death penalty to a person who stole a pack of gum isn't proper due, because it isn't proportionate. C1: Moral Obligation 1. It is moral --> He never warrants why joining is moral. If good can be produced without joining, it is moral. But by joining, and positive impacts are not achieved, then it is immoral. 2. Deterrence --> Key Word: "The International Criminal Court MIGHT be one of the most effective deterrents." The use of the word might proves that it is not absolute solvency. It might happen, it might not. --> (Turn) I would argue that less deterrence is created because all power is being centralized into one inefficient system, as shown by my case. Therefore, it will give more incentive to criminals because the system cannot stop them. --> (Drop) I would argue that his point holds now water because most people that commit crimes agaisnt humanity are not sane, and thus would not be deterred. E.g. Hitler C2: Rejection deters other countries from joining 1. Deter small nations because without US court is still inefficent --> Court would still be inefficient because it has no enforcement arm, and thus lacks enforcement powers. --> Joining creates a bind on the US to mitigate using military force. Thus, our national security would be weakened. Joining the ICC only paralyzes us from using military force. --> Little countries would hold little to no weight in the ICC anyway. C3: Lost power --> He never proves why we would lsoe respect. Furthermore, joining would weaken us further, because we would be at a disadvantage agianst our two biggest competitors: china and Russia, who r not in the ICC. --> Link my mitigation of military power to this point as well. For these reasons you can negate.