The Instigator
karththegeld
Con (against)
Tied
7 Points
The Contender
yesikant
Pro (for)
Tied
7 Points

The submission of the United States to an International Criminal Court abuses intrinsicality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/24/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,531 times Debate No: 6333
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

karththegeld

Con

This debate is about an interesting contention I found in a debate between basketballer and ViRiUnCteSiGnUmRuTiLuS46. The topic was "resolved: The U.S. ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity." Here is the contention mentioned by the neg (vir...):

"My first contention is that submission of the United States to an International Criminal Court abuses intrinsicality. Should the United States submit to an International Criminal Court, the intrinsicality of its citizens would be limited. Those who, for example, join the United States army in hope of helping their country would possibly be prosecuted for patriotism. These citizens are then at risk for the simple tasks of doing their jobs. This ties right in with utilitarianism; the best way to support as many people as possible is to protect the innocent before prosecuting the guilty. After all, the United States court system goes by the philosophy of 'innocent until proven guilty.'"

I will be arguing against this, and my opponent for.

I will now present my case.

For clarification, the international criminal court (ICC) setup by the UN is what this is referring to.

The submission of the United States does not and cannot abuse intrinsicality. The argument here is that it is for the greater good that the United States does not submit to such jurisdiction. But this is false as it cannot possibly be for the greater good. The ICC has jurisdiction over the following:

1. Crimes against humanity
2. Genocide
3. War Crimes
4. Crimes of Aggression

1. Crimes against humanity means the any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

Murder;

Extermination;

Enslavement;

Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

Torture;

Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

Enforced disappearance of persons;

The crime of apartheid;

Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

This definition from the Rome Statute defies any possibility of abuse to intrinsicality resulting in the prosecution of a soldier for committing a crime against humanity. The definition says "widespread or systematic attack," thus it is necessary for the crime to be committed against a large population. In such a case, the crime cannot be justified as an act of patriotism.

Genocide is defined as a crime committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such by the Rome Statute. Again, the large number affected by the crime make it unjustifiable as an act of patriotism.

War crimes are crimes committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes as stated in the Rome Statute. The Statute then goes onto specifics, the first of which are:

Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.

Grave breaches are defined as any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly. This definition is taken from the Geneva Conventions of 1949. No crime that is grave breach of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 can be justified as an act for patriotism.

The next few specifics in the Rome Statute are all about violations of predefined international law. Again, no crime that breaks already defined law can be justified as an act of patriotism.

The last, crimes of aggression, is not under ICC jurisdiction until a certain provision is adopted. As it is not under the jurisdiction, it means nothing to this debate.

I eagerly await my opponent's response.
yesikant

Pro

Thanks for the debate and for the topic - I'm debating this too.

The main misunderstanding my opponent makes is that... he doesn't understand what we are debating about.

To make it clear: we are NOT debating "The U.S. ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity". Instead, we are debating the topic created by my opponent which reads "The submission of the United States to an International Criminal Court abuses intrinsicality".

The reason I will use for why submission violates intrinsicality is the same that his friend used: "Should the United States submit to an International Criminal Court, the intrinsicality of its citizens would be limited. Those who, for example, join the United States army in hope of helping their country would possibly be prosecuted for patriotism. These citizens are then at risk for the simple tasks of doing their jobs."

My opponent's reason why submission does not abuse intrinsicality is that "no crime that breaks already defined [international] law can be justified".

That's fine. I agree that crimes against humanity are not justified. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. We are not debating whether crimes against humanity are justified – that's a given. Instead, we are debating whether prosecution violates intrinsicality, which it does.

I'm not sure it's possible to prove that submission does not violate intrinsicality, to be honest. Since submitting to international organizations is, by definition, intrinsicality. While intrinsicality might be outweighed by other concerns, such as international law as my opponent pointed out, that does not mean that the abuse did not take place.

Thus, you vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 1
karththegeld

Con

karththegeld forfeited this round.
yesikant

Pro

I thank my opponent for the debate. However, he forfeited and did not respond to my arguments. Judges should vote accordingly.
Debate Round No. 2
karththegeld

Con

karththegeld forfeited this round.
yesikant

Pro

I thank my opponent for the debate. However, he forfeited and did not respond to my arguments. Judges should vote accordingly.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Nobody 7 years ago
Nobody
*opponents
Posted by 4EtApNoIlImErVrIsDoRcCa6 7 years ago
4EtApNoIlImErVrIsDoRcCa6
>"Keep changing my account?" I have changed it from manutdredseal46 to ViR... to 4Et... and there will be one further change.

>Permission is not granted. My contentions are for use by myself and my opponent's only.

>Apology can only be for yourself, you may not apologize for another party.
Posted by karththegeld 7 years ago
karththegeld
Nevermind, you were referred to as a friend, and if that was disrespectful or rude or something similar, I apologize on behalf of yesikant.
Posted by karththegeld 7 years ago
karththegeld
Must you keep changing your account? You were not referred to as a friend. Did I have to ask your permission? If I did, I am sorry and may I have your permission now.
Posted by 4EtApNoIlImErVrIsDoRcCa6 7 years ago
4EtApNoIlImErVrIsDoRcCa6
>I gave no permission for my words to be used as the subject of this or any debate.

>I gave no permission to be referred to as a friend of any party active on this website.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by aurora1616 7 years ago
aurora1616
karththegeldyesikantTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by yesikant 7 years ago
yesikant
karththegeldyesikantTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07