LD international Court Resolution

I have an opening statement about hybrid courts, then the rebuttal. Hybrid courts are a slightly newer mechanism. They combine properties of international courts with a country's local court. For example, if a U. S. official were to be tried by a hybrid court, the Supreme Court would be supplemented to try the individual. Hybrid courts are not considered international courts. Once again, Etelle Higgonet speaks: "Hybrids blend the international and the domestic with legal and organizational innovations that constitute important divergences from international ad hoc tribunals. In some cases they coexist with the local judiciary, operating in parallel, while in others, they have been grafted onto the local judicial system. But in all cases their nature is mixed. Usually, they are composed of international and local staff with foreign judges sitting alongside their domestic counterparts to try cases prosecuted and defended by teams of both local and foreign lawyers. Domestic law--reformed to include international standards--is typically applied alongside international law. Ultimately, hybrid criminal bodies form a family of their own, apart from other judicial entities. " Alright, I'll address everything Metz said in the order stated. Opening Statement -"Lets start with the assumption that I support submitting to the ICC. .. " While my opponent does bring up the U. N. War Crimes Tribunal, he goes on to talk about the ICC, and his second contention is all about the ICC. In fact, the tagline is "Joining the ICC would further legitimize it". So if he isn't favoring the ICC why have this contention? At this point we have two choices. If my opponent truly does not favor one court over another, his second contention is unduly narrow. Why talk about the ICC alone? He presents two courts in his entire case. So it is natural that I attack the examples he presents. -"Thus the Neg must defend all international courts. .. " (I must attack all international courts) My opponent asks that I oppose all international courts (designed to prosecute crimes against humanity). Sure. You can apply my second contention to international courts in general. These kinds of institutions will face cultural and linguistic barriers. International courts are too inflexible to be feasible. My First Contention -"In this contention all my opponent does is attack the ICC. .. " Of course I attack the ICC! All my opponent does in his first contention is tout two successes of international courts! If you want a major problem with U. N. Tribunals, here's one: the different countries in the U. N. have so many differing opinions that it is difficult to unite and come to decisions. Even when decisions are made, countries remain bitter. In his first contention, my opponent touts the successes of international courts. However, there are just as many, if not more failures of international courts. For example, tribunals formed after Rwandan and Yugoslavian genocides completely failed. These courts were formed in the 1990s, and both tribunals are still prosecuting individuals! I'd say almost 20 years and counting is a complete failure. The Khmer Rogue tribunals are another failure of international courts. According to the 2006 timeline, the 5 trials should be complete. Now they are expected to continue past 2010! The latest delay has been caused because defense lawyers want all documents translated to French! Remember those linguistic obstacles? -"While in some instances unchecked power leads to abuse this is not always the case. .. ." Pre-set limitations mean nothing. Dictators who arise from regular government positions had pre-set limitations, but that never stopped them. Member states selecting judges can lead to political choices. A judge could be selected to advance the standings of member states rather than to serve justice. There exists no outside power that can check the ICC. My opponent ignores this fact. If you look at the U. S. government, each branch is checked by the outside power of the other branches! This is how a successful system of checks and balances is formed. Not by members, but by an outside power. The government's branches are checked by each other. My Second Contention -"Again this is a focus on the ICC and not necessarily other international courts. " While the evidence is directed to the ICC, these same obstacles will be faced by any international court. Ultimately, an international court will be perceived as a court of foreigners applying laws that citizens are unused to. My opponent uses ought saying "used to express advisability". He admits it is doubtful the ICC will reach out, and then accepts that it has shortcomings. It is not advisable to join such an organization with shortcomings. There is no reason the U. S. should submit to an international court that does not have a good structure. Hybrids, which are different, are far better. My Third Contention -"As I see it this Contention is essentially a Concession. .. " Not a concession, a statement. Higgonet describes the difference between hybrid and international courts (see my opening statement). As it is, there is no opposition to this contention. He present absolutely NO arguments against it! Regardless, hybrid courts possess the benefits of international courts without the shortcomings. The Affirmative Case -"Value. .. " I would like to remind everyone that hybrid courts are not international courts. -"Criterion. .. " There is a serious problem with international courts that prevents them from being cosmopolitan. Cosmopolitanism suggests that the primary moral obligation is towards all humans. Political arrangements should reflect this. International courts do not incorporate laws, rules, traditions or anything from the state where the trial is held. How is this cosmopolitan? Hybrid courts (which are different from international courts) incorporate the local government, which is far more considerate. Thus, submitting to hybrid courts provides a far more cosmopolitan society than international courts. Because I better meet the value and criterion, I should win this round. His First Contention -"Again my opponent Concedes that International courts are beneficial. .. " I said that international institutions are beneficial. That is, when countries work together for the good of mankind, it is beneficial. International courts are plagued by many troubles, and are not beneficial (for one, those cultural and language barriers). Most of the first contention is based towards the International Criminal Court. His Second Contention -"My Opponent claims the ICC to be illegitimate because of several flaws. .. " Just because the U. S. helps doesn't mean it's legitimate. If the U. S. were to join the ICC, then other countries would join. But that isn't necessarily good. The U. S. joining anything would make other countries want to join. But as I show, the ICC is not a good thing. Right now, the ICC has just 55% of the countries on its side, which is barely more than half of the world. Don't believe the number of countries, look to the percentage. If a law were passed on 55% of the vote, that sends a message that the law has some major weak points. -" Hybrid courts, these ARE INTERNATIONAL" Once again, look to the beginning of this post and what Etelle Higgonet said. Hybrid courts are completely different. His Summary -"My Opponent Essentially is saying that Yes we need international courts. .. " I am saying we need hybrid courts, which are different from international courts. Please, please, please understand the difference. My Summary We must negate this resolution. Hybrid courts are far more advisable then international courts, and there is a distinct difference. The ICC is a bad choice, so are other international courts. My opponent obviously supports the ICC, as his case is directed mostly towards it. I offer the best protection of huma