The United States Should Submit to the ICC to prosecute crimes against humanity

I affirm the resolution, resolved: the United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. My value for this round will be Global Interest. When the U. S. makes decisions that impact the international community, we need to act in the benefit of it. We extend aid to ailing countries and promote peace throughout the world. When making a decision like submitting to an international court, we need to make sure we act in the interest of the world. My value criterion will be Maximization of Global Security. The best way to act in the interest of the global community is to maximize the security of the world, in doing so maintaining peace and human rights. Definitions: Submit – to yield or surrender oneself to the will or authority of another (American Heritage) Jurisdiction – authority or control (American Heritage) International Court – (based on writing by Hans Kelsen, Naval War College) An independent authority that can make legal decisions that supersede the national laws of participant nations Crime Against Humanity - Inhumane acts committed against any civilian population (London Charter of the International Military Tribunal) Prosecute: to initiate civil or criminal court against (American Heritage) Contention One: International Justice Provides Security A) This strengthening of the international justice system is crucial in establishing global human rights standards that can prevent future genocides. National sovereignty must be made submissive to international justice. As Michael Ignatieff, member of the independent international commission on Kosovo, said in a lecture at Princeton University: "We know from historical experience that when human beings have defensible rights—when their agency as individuals is protected and enhanced—they are less likely to be abused and oppressed. On these grounds, we count the diffusion of human rights instruments as progress. The Universal Declaration represented a return by the European tradition to its natural law heritage, a return intended to restore agency, to give individuals the juridical resources to stand up when the state ordered them to do wrong. Historically speaking, the Universal Declaration is part of a wider reordering of the normative order of postwar international relations, designed to create fire-walls against barbarism. The juridical revolution included the UN Charter of 1945, outlawing aggressive war between states; the Genocide Convention of 1948, protecting religious, racial, and ethnic groups against extermination; the revision of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, strengthening noncombatant immunity; and finally the international convention on asylum of 1951 to protect the rights of refugees. Before the Second World War, only states had rights in international law. With the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, the rights of individuals received international legal recognition. For the first time, individuals—regardless of race, creed, gender, age, or any other status—were granted rights that they could use to challenge unjust state law or oppressive customary practice. B) International law and international systems apply rules which prevent countries from acting in an unjust manner. The only power that can properly check the actions of a nation is that of the world. When international law is established and carried out, people of the world have a method of protecting themselves. Contention Two: International Courts Prevent Genocide. A) Many atrocities are committed by government heads because they do not fear punishment. Because no overhanging power exists to punish them, they are not discouraged from heinous acts. If the U. S. were to abolish its laws defining crimes, acts which we consider crimes would skyrocket, as there would be no judicial power waiting to try offenders. B) Sharon Williams, Professor of Law at Osgoode Hall Law School writes: "Would a real threat of prosecution together with enforcement capability have made a difference to the course of history? In all likelihood the answer is yes. In 1936, in a speech made at a Nuremberg rally, Adolf Hitler addressed the perceived ineptitude on the part of states collectively to take effective action against governments or individuals for committing international crimes. Had strong, united, international cooperation existed, perhaps Hitler in Germany and elsewhere in Eastern and Western Europe, Idi Amin in Uganda, Pol Pot in Cambodia, Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Kuwait, Foday Sankoh in Sierra Leone [and many more] may have been deterred from perpetrating the widespread and systematic atrocities that the world has witnessed. " Contention Three: International Courts Strengthen Multilateralism A) International Courts encourage countries to work together for the common good of mankind. This kind of collaboration enhances multilateralism and shares the burden of justice around the world. Andrew Walker, Galveston District Attorney writes: "The existence of a strong [international court] is in the United States' best interest. On a primary basis, while the United States cannot rely on most states to carry out their international obligations and must be able to protect itself from international outlaws, it cannot be required to take on all of the world's burdens. An effective international criminal court is capable of alleviating this burden by maintaining security abroad where the United States cannot or should not act. Ideally, it can force the elites of a country to respect the severity of the consequences to be imposed by political risks of international criminal acts. Furthermore, it can compel national leaders to recognize the need for an international system of multilateral accountability to replace the former bipolar political status of the Cold War. " B) When countries collaborate on international courts, there are many positive results. No one country has to shoulder a great burden in peacekeeping and incapacitating international outlaws. It can deter officials from criminal acts. Finally, it compels national leaders to work together, fostering international relationships, exchange of ideas and global interdependence. For these reasons I urge an affirmative ballot.