U.S. ought to submit to an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity

To my opponent, I would like to structure this debate as LD please. Thanks. "Historically, courts in this country have been insulated. We do not look beyond our borders for precedents." This quote from United States Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor states that the United States courts have no need to look beyond its borders to resolve injustices dealing with United States. Therefore, I negate the resolution: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. I offer the following definitions in support of our case from the People's Law Dictionary. 1.Crime – violation of a law, injury to the public or a member of the public 2.Humanity – all human beings I have made the following observations in support of my case. Observation 1: The crime against humanity must have been committed within or is a situation that pertains to the United States. Observation 2: A crime against humanity is an act that hurt any member of "humanity". My value is Justice. Justice is what a court strives for. Since justice is relative, we must look to the country that we strive to be just in. Justice in this round can be described as giving people what they deserve by the law of the governing body. My value criterion is National Sovereignty. National sovereignty calls for a government of a country to govern the country. As the courts are part of the U. S. government, by upholding this value criterion we uphold the idea that U.S. should govern itself. My first contention is that negating the resolution results in national sovereignty. Subpoint A: U.S. has differing views from other countries. By giving up our right to interpret justice to a higher power, U.S. has turned itself into colonialism, dependent on the international governing body. In the Iraq war, France said that the U.S. and British-led move to war is premature, resulting in a changing of name from French fries to freedom fries in many American restaurants. Citizens of the United States think like citizens of the United States, so when asked to make decisions relating to the United States, we should not turn to other countries due to their differing views. Subpoint B: Courts are just to the morals of the contained areas. People have different morals and laws, so more local system can judge a local area better than a universal. As said in the November 22, 2008 issue of the Economist, "no other nation in the world chooses judges by a democratic method". The practices of the United States are not the same as the practices in the rest of the world, and the laws of the U.S. are made for the U.S. By applying international laws to the U.S, we are devaluing the law, or enforcing something that should not be enforced in the U.S. My second contention is upholding national sovereignty maximizes justice. Sub point A: It allows justice to be judged more locally and pertaining more to those involved. By negating the resolution, the United States government is able to judge the crimes at hand within its own borders, therefore being more pertinent to what laws the people involved follow. This will allow the judging to be more fair and just to these people. In the article "In This Case, Might Is Right: It looks bad" from TIME Magazine published on July 15, 2002, it states, "Europeans say the U.S. could protect its interests by signing the treaty while negotiating exemptions. Washington says that a signature would be the first step on a slippery slope; once it had conceded that Americans could be subject to the court's jurisdiction, the way would be open for a foreign prosecutor to frivolously accuse a U.S. soldier [its peacekeepers](or Defense Secretary, for that matter) of war crimes." As you can see, if the US joins an international court, the citizens can be wrongly accused by other countries of crimes that are not considered bad here in the US. Therefore, if the US could judge crimes on its own, we would not run into these problems and the judging would be on a just basis. Sub point B: The individual government has a more specific governing body. The US has certain laws that pertain to us set by the US Constitution, but some countries do not agree with these laws. If the US joins an international court, it will have to give jurisdiction on some of these laws which are crucial in our government and violate the Constitution. For example, the article "Q&A: International Criminal Court" in CNN published August 8, 2002, it stated, "Consistent with international human rights standards, it has no authority to impose a death penalty." As you can see, certain standards will be set by the international court which will exclude the laws the US has established, undermining the justice system in the US and not allowing the US to practice its national sovereignty. In conclusion, the US should not submit to the jurisdiction of an international court because it will weaken the justice system of the US and will not allow the US to uphold its national sovereignty which every government if justly entitled to. Justice is important because without it, you cannot determine if an action being taken is fair and just for a country and its people. Without national sovereignty, the US cannot uphold its laws that it has created and will be controlled by other countries' decisions, which should not be the case. Therefore, I negate the resolution Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity. Therefore I urge you strongly to vote negative. Thank You.