Current Jan/ Feb LD Resolution
Debate Rounds (3)
It is because I believe in the value of global stability that I affirm the resolution
Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.
For clarification of the round I would like to offer the following definitions from Merriam Webster Dictionary:
Ought: a moral obligation
Moral obligation: the demands of conscience to do the right thing
Jurisdiction: the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised
Submit: to yield to governance or authority
Crime against humanity as defined by the Rome Statute: any crimes such as murder or rape when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack
I would also like to offer the following observation
Observation: Due to the wording of the resolution it should be clarified that the International Criminal Court, sometimes called the ICC, is the best fit for this resolution because this court is designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.
Value: My value is global stability. Based on the resolution global stability is the inherent idea and any negative or affirmative case cannot truly affirm or negate the resolution without proving how global stability would be achieved.
Value Criterion: My value criterion is the proper allocation of due. If everybody in the world knew that they were not going to get punished for criminal activities the world would be in chaos. On the other hand if people knew they were going to be administered the death penalty for stealing a pack of gum everybody would revolt. Therefore proper allocation of due is the way to achieve global stability.
Contention 1: My first contention is that the United States has a moral obligation to join the International Criminal Court because it is the right thing to do. History has been filled with widespread bloodshed against innocent civilians, genocide, and other crimes against humanity and currently the commiters of these crimes are going unpunished by international courts. The International Criminal Court might be one of the most effective deterrents to such unmoral crimes such as these so the US has a moral obligation to join the ICC. With the United States's military and resources the International Criminal Court would have increased efficiency and power to bring commiters of immoral crimes to justice. This would reduce the amount of immoral crimes so the US has a moral obligation to join the ICC.
Contention 2: My second contention is the fact that the US rejecting the International criminal court caused many smaller countries to do the same and overall hurts the court. The United States of America is recognized as a superpower across the world because of its massive resources and military. Right now, all of these resources are being used to forge agreements with other countries to stop the International Criminal Court from capturing and prosecuting United States soldiers. OR these resources are being used to threaten smaller countries, such as Iraq to not join the court, as the Coalition for the International Criminal Court claims. These actions actively undermine the International Criminal Courts power and set a precedent for other countries to do the same. Other countries do not join because without the United States they believe the international criminal court does not have the necessary power to capture criminals. Therefore the United States should join the ICC to lend credibility, power, and legitimacy to the ICC. With the United States backing, the International Criminal Court would become a powerful entity to be reckoned with across the world.
Contention 3: My third contention is the fact that the United States has lost power by not joining the ICC. The United States have arranged over 100 treaties wit individual countries that protect US soldiers but at least 50 countries have refused even with the United States threatening withdrawal of military aid. As a result of these treaties the United States has lost the support of many Latin America countries. The treaties were "Meant to protect U.S. service personnel from politically motivated prosecution at the ICC,[but] the net result has been that Washington has been cut off from its normal engagement with its Latin American military counterparts" as Russel Crandall says.
The United States not joining the ICC results in a separation from former allies(France, Canada, most of Europe are in the Court) and a general loss of respect. The United States could gain these back by joining the ICC and should do so.
For clarity I would like to offer the following definitions:
2.Jurisdiction: area of legal power
3.International Court: the ICC; International Criminal Court created for the prosecution of crimes against humanity and the promotion of human rights.
For analysis of the resolution I offer the following observations:
1.The resolution states ought to, defined as should. Therefore, by joining, there should be some greater goal being achieved. I.e. the successful prosecution of crimes against humanity, and thus the protection of human rights.
2.Since the resolution states the US, the resolution becomes a resolution contextualized to the actually world, not an idealistic world. The resolution has a real world impact.
3. Neg. Burden: Prove the resolution untrue.
I value justice, defined as giving each their due. Since the resolution is debating a court system, we must look at the main duty of such a system, which is the allocation of justice to criminals. This value is achieved by the criterion of Enacting Proper Enforcement. Justice can only be achieved if a court can enforce its jurisdiction. If it cannot, justice has not been achieved.
Contention I: Lack of Enforcement Powers
Since the ICC is a court and not a nation unto itself it has no army or police force. Thus, it has no way to enforce its jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is only as effective as its enforcement abilities. For example, a country�€™s judicial system would not be able to function if its courts could not effectively enforce power over those in its jurisdiction. For instance, murder can be outlawed in a certain country, but there is no point to that law if murderers could not be arrested, and then tried. A judicial system is only effective if it can punish those that break laws. Dr. Goldsmith, professor of international studies at Chicago University, explains �€œThe ICC has no army or police force and thus it does not have the ability to arrest people that commit crimes against humanity. It is much more likely that the ICC will fail to assert jurisdiction over recalcitrant oppressors at all, either because it lacks a Security Council referral and thus will lack jurisdiction, or because no nation will be willing to bring the defendants to the court because of fear of prosecution itself. The US would be joining an institution that cannot meet its function as a court system, and at the same time be putting itself in jeopardy of condemnation by the court.�€�
V: Global Stability
1. Inherency to resolution
--> He never proves why this value is inherent. He merely makes the assertion that based on the wording it is. What specific wording? Without clarifying there is no way to weigh or impact this value.
VC: Proper Allocation of Due
--> I dont diagree.
2. Total Stability
--> What my opponent advocates, would result in stability but he totally undermines the "proper allocation of due, tagline for his VC. Giving the death penalty to a person who stole a pack of gum isn't proper due, because it isn't proportionate.
C1: Moral Obligation
1. It is moral
--> He never warrants why joining is moral. If good can be produced without joining, it is moral. But by joining, and positive impacts are not achieved, then it is immoral.
--> Key Word: "The International Criminal Court MIGHT be one of the most effective deterrents." The use of the word might proves that it is not absolute solvency. It might happen, it might not.
--> (Turn) I would argue that less deterrence is created because all power is being centralized into one inefficient system, as shown by my case. Therefore, it will give more incentive to criminals because the system cannot stop them.
--> (Drop) I would argue that his point holds now water because most people that commit crimes agaisnt humanity are not sane, and thus would not be deterred. E.g. Hitler
C2: Rejection deters other countries from joining
1. Deter small nations because without US court is still inefficent
--> Court would still be inefficient because it has no enforcement arm, and thus lacks enforcement powers.
--> Joining creates a bind on the US to mitigate using military force. Thus, our national security would be weakened. Joining the ICC only paralyzes us from using military force.
--> Little countries would hold little to no weight in the ICC anyway.
C3: Lost power
--> He never proves why we would lsoe respect. Furthermore, joining would weaken us further, because we would be at a disadvantage agianst our two biggest competitors: china and Russia, who r not in the ICC.
--> Link my mitigation of military power to this point as well.
For these reasons you can negate.
redguard56 forfeited this round.
redguard56 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.