The Instigator
Juris
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
Adam2
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

This house believes that environmental cases should be tried in International Criminal Court

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...
Juris
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/6/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 562 times Debate No: 37527
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Juris

Pro

I will post my arguments in the 2nd round.

Round one- Acceptance.
Adam2

Con

This isn't good. This is an example of a one world body trying to infringe on national sovereignty. This is tyranny at its finest. We shouldn't have to live in fear of this kinda group.
Debate Round No. 1
Juris

Pro

Let me define first the terms and set the parameters of this debate.

Terms:

The International Criminal Court (commonly referred to as the ICC or ICCt) is a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression(Wikipedia)

Environmental cases are lawsuit where the well-being of an environmental asset or the well-being of a set of environmental assets is in dispute(Wikipedia)

Parameters:
1. So far The International Criminal Court does not handle environmental cases as provided by Part 2, Article 5 of the Rome Statute( only the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes are considered)

So with this, I propose that it should consider environmental cases. But take note, it will only be a supplementary court or an optional court; it will not take forcibly environmental cases from sovereign states- so there is no infringement of their sovereignty. States will decide if it will allow ICC to handle environmental cases.

2. The ICC is intended as a court of last resort, investigating and prosecuting only where national courts have failed. Article 17 of the Statute provides that a case is inadmissible if:

"(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;

(b) The case has been investigated by a State which has jurisdiction over it and the State has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the State genuinely to prosecute;

(c) 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;

(d) The case is not of sufficient gravity to justify further action by the Court.

Short and Clear Arguments (later will be expanded if refuted)

1. Environmental crimes are the concerned of the world, not only by a particular country, because the damage is extended to other sovereign states. For example, illegal toxic wastes disposal not only affecting the territorial sea of a certain country but also that of other part of the sea which belongs to other states.

2. Sometimes, the government is the perpetrator of an environmental crime so it cannot punish itself by its own courts, so ICC must intervene.

3. Environmental crimes are grave like genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

Adam2

Con

OK, I can see genocide, or war crimes. Still though, even without that, thought you think the ICC would be, without realizing, limiting the power of soverign nations? Some things are clearly a disaster. The UN is also not doing all that good either
Debate Round No. 2
Juris

Pro

It would limit the power of sovereign states, because as stated ICC would just be supplementary court to the national courts.

I have provided reasons for my proposal which were not refutted by my opponent.

Also, my opponent's argument is very limited. (I assume he does not have full knowledge about International Criminal Court)

Anyway,. bye.
Adam2

Con

I confess you beat me. I admit some of it is my bias against the ICC. International law is good in certain areas.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
JurisAdam2Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con concedes. Pro also has better spelling and conduct.
Vote Placed by yay842 3 years ago
yay842
JurisAdam2Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con admits defeat and states no argument against Pro.