Jan/Feb LD International Court Resolution

NEG/ AFF Obsvervations: 1. this is obvious, so I accept this 2. There are other courts in existence besides the ICC, Such as the IACHR(inter-American court of human rights), while the ICC may be used as as a guideline the court does not have to be the ICC Value: I have 2 attacks on this value The Value of Justice is merely an instrument to create peace, peace is the ultimate end, Justice is only one of the possible means to that end 2. Justice is better upheld by Cosmopolitanism, Because Justice is defined as giving each their due then Cosmopolitanism, which works towards this on a global scale better uphold justice. Criterion: Three attacks Link: the link given from judicial autonomy to justice is faulty. How is justice better obtained by maintaining uniqueness? how do we give each their due through Judicial Autonomy? There is no warrant . Attack: If making independent Judicial judgments creates Justice than an International Court would also maintain Justice. This Judicial Autonomy would be Upheld in an International court, as well as offer checks to national courts. Attack2: Judicial Autonomy is not necessarily the best thing, the Purpose of an International court would be to provide oversight of national courts not only to prevent abuse but to make sure criminals do not go unpunished. Contention 1: The fact is that use of atomic bombs SHOULD be prosecuted, also Tibbets would not have been prosecuted because he was not a ranking officer and was following his orders. Also the attacks would not have fallen under the ICC definition of CAH A. If people did disguise themselves as U.S troops then they would be prosecuted, not the U.S Military. Also referrals may be made to the court but they do not prosecute all of the referrals they will receive, eliminating the threat to the U.S. Also the act of using human shields would constitute a war crimes on the part of the terrorist organization, not the U.S. Also the U.S would not be prosecuted because any casualties would be purely accidental, which is not prosecutable by the ICC. Saying that the U.S would be faced with prosecution is ridiculous, first terrorist groups have not used human shields in the past and second the ICC would not take jurisdiction unless the U.S did not launch an investigation, which is part of U.S government policy. 2nd The fact is the ICC has one of the most extensive set of due process rights in any court. Former U.S. State Department Legal Advisor Monroe Leigh explains:" The list of due process rights guaranteed by the Rome Statute are, if anything, more detailed and comprehensive than those in the American Bill of Rights. . . . I can think of no right guaranteed to military personnel by the U.S. Constitution that is not also guaranteed in the Treaty of Rome" The ICC statute also says a case is inadmissible when "The person concerned has already been tried for conduct which is the subject of the complaint, and a trial by the Court is not permitted under article 20, paragraph 3;" The ICC fully protects due process rights respecting all of the rights in the U.S constitution, except a jury trail, which even American Negotiators agreed was not practical. AFF Value: If the goal of nations is to prosper than peace is infact the highest goal of every society, as peace guarantees an international harmony. The fact is ,although the question may be legal, peace should still be the goal of every legal decision as well as a moral decision. My opponent never explained how justice encompasses the meaning of the resolution as I did with peace. peace is the goal of every foreign policy decision that is not based purely in economics. Peace, not justice should be used to weigh the round. Criterion: Just consider the attacks on this to be a strawman Fallacy. As I explained in my AC, we have a Moral duty to humanity and our political decisions should reflect this(this is a simplified version but the same basic concept). Submitting to the ICC, as I explained would uphold this moral duty to humanity, because it works to protect universal human rights and create peace. The moral relativist argument by opponent uses does not actually attack this concept at all, cosmopolitanism is not saying that all morals are universal, but rather we have a moral duty to all of humanity, these concepts are different thus my opponent does not refute and this stands. Contention 1 I will address each attack my opponent makes... 1. We may not know that it will deter crimes 100% of the time, but sometimes is better than none, if we can stop a genocide that is a very good reason to join an international court. Also under the U.S the deterrent power would only grow due to U.S influence, both soft and hard. 2. This attack does not refute either, What my point was as I states was, had there been an International court before Rwanda the genocide would have been prevented. The fact that the ICC hold no military power is irrelevant as my opponent gives no link to this argument. The ICC would not need to prosecute all the criminals at Rwanda had it been stopped as in the Cote d'Ivoire. 3. I very clearly gave a link to this contention. The U.S should join an international court because it is our cosmopolitan duty to try to stop human rights offenses for all nations. The fact is that not only the U.S should join but everyone, thus because the U.S is part of "all nations" it should join an International court. Contention 2 The Legitimacy of the ICC is pretty straight forward, it would make the ICC a more legitimate organization. Seeing as a court does not have a military power it would further legitimize and strengthen the courts actions. The U.S would Legitimize it internationally, giving it more authority and it would increase the deterrence effect as well as the legal processes of the court. Contention 3. A. What I showed here is that These court are beneficial even after the crimes begin. They ensure punishment for the Perpetrators and therefore stop any future offenses. I have already shown how the ICC has the Most extensive system of due process rights, so this attack falls. It has proven beneficial in the past, and it would be beneficial if anything should arise thus every nation should protect its people by ratifying. B. It may not offer physical protection, which I understand, however a court has more uses that prosecution, such as deterrence. It offers this International Bulwark which every wise nation should Join in order to protect its own people. Source for Due process Arguments http://untreaty.un.org... For these Reasons the resolution should be affirmed