DDO Olympic Team Debate: ThinkBig/Fire_Wings vs. MrVindication/Midnight1131

ObservationsThe resolution to this debate is “The United States should fully submit to the jurisdiction of one or more of these: the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, or the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. ” Therefore, we do not have to prove the U. S. should submit to all of these, but just at least one. In this debate, we will be contending that the United States should fully submit to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. So, to rephrase the resolution, “The United States should fully submit to the jurisdiction of the ICC. ” Framework Our framework will be centered around the need for a court to establish and enforce International Law. We also believe that the United States has an obligation to to support the ICC. Now we will go onto our arguments in this debate. Contention 1: The ICC is Necessary Our First argument is that the ICC is Necessary. ICC is an abbreviation of the International Criminal Court. First of all, to anyone who doesn’t know the ICC, there is a PDF to it [1]. Let’s just quote something from it. “On 17 July 1998, 120 States adopted a statute in Rome - known as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (“the Rome Statute”) - establishing the International Criminal Court. For the first time in the history of humankind, States decided to accept the jurisdiction of a permanent international criminal court for the prosecution of the perpetrators of the most serious crimes committed in their territories or by their nationals after the entry into force of the Rome Statute on 1 July 2002 [1]. ” Okay, now we know that the ICC is an permanent international criminal court. Now let’s go onto a definition of what’s it about. “The International Criminal Court (“the ICC” or “the Court”) is a permanent international court established to investigate, prosecute and try individuals accused of committing the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, namely the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression [1]. ” Okay, as we said, it is a permanent international court for committing of the most serious crimes in concern to the international community. Some examples are such as genocides, and crimes, war crimes, and aggression crimes. So we need to show that the US should make ICC get to make the legal judgements etc. So now we will go onto our actual argument. We showed that the ICC is a permanent international court, the “states” use it, and it is a permanent international court of serious crimes. So that shows that the ICC is very important criminal court. So, we should that the ICC is important, also The ICC is necessary because far too often, the most grievous of crimes goes unpunished. As Philippe Kirsch notes: “National courts often did not investigate the crimes adequately, or at all. The absence of a permanent international court to investigate and try those responsible meant that the exceptions to this pattern of impunity were rare and notable: the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals established at the end of the Second World War; and the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia ("ICTY") and Rwanda ("ICTR"), which were set up in the 1990s to address the crimes committee [2]. ” We showed that the ICC is necessary. Contention 2: The United States has an obligation to join the Roman Statue By refusing to ratify the Roman Statute, scholars believe that it has damaged the credibility of the United States in the eyes of the International Community. Sydney McKenney states in his paper: “Despite its repeatedly proclaimed dedication to human rights, the U. S. has not only failed to ratify the treaty, but has, at times, actively worked against the Court. While international commitments should be taken carefully, the United States’ resistance towards the Court demonstrates not a dedication to state sovereignty, but a case of extreme American exceptionalism [3]” Also, from that same source: “The ICC plays an important and distinctive role in international law; it can be seen symbolically as a definite step of progress in the worldwide framework for human rights. The United States’ disappointing role in the Court is clearly of high importance, but it begs an even broader question: what is the role that the United States is playing in international law as a whole? It seems like a lesson learned by children: it’s not what you say, it’s what you do. And the United States can give (and has given) as many long-winded speeches as it desires about its dedication to international human rights, but all of its red, white and blue rhetoric means nothing without decisive action. The United States continues to act like a bully instead of the protector of human rights it claims to be. ” By refusing to ratify the Roman Statute, the United States is being two-faced. On one hand, we are claiming to be committed to preserving human rights throughout the world. On the other hand, we are refusing to recognize the court that will help to prevent and prosecute atrocities. Conclusion In conclusion, the United States should become part of the Roman Statute of the ICC. We showed that the ICC is important, it is necessary because the most grievous of crimes go unpunished without it, so we showed that the ICC is necessary. The resolution is affirmed, vote for PRO. _______ 1. (. http://bit.ly...) 2. (. http://bit.ly...) 3. (. http://bit.ly...)