I affirm, Resolved: The United States ought to submit

to the jurisdiction of an international court designed

to prosecute crimes against humanity.

I would like to offer the following definitions to

help clarify this round

Ought— to express moral obligation (American Heritage)

Submit-accept or yield to the superior force or to the
authority (Apple Dictionary)
Jurisdiction- The official power to make legal
decisions and judgments (Apple Dictionary)
International Court—A permanent institution and shall
have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over
persons for the most serious crimes of international
concern and is complementary to national criminal
jurisdiction. However, we are not looking to a
specific international court that already exists, but
an ideal court due to the vagueness of the wording of
the resolution (ICC Roman Statue)
Prosecute: To institute legal proceedings against a
person or organization (Apple)
Crimes Against Humanity- any of the following acts
including but not limited to murder, extermination,
enslavement, torture, and rape, when committed as part
of a widespread or systematic attack directed against
any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack
(ICC Roman Statue)

I value justice, as defined as giving each their due. In the context of the resolution, both sides are
looking to the protection of human rights. However, the affirmative value of justice best achieves
this goal because the affirmative is striving to find an international view of justice that protects
the individual. Thus, on the affirmative side, there is one accepted value of justice in the
international court that is upheld by the cosmopolitan nature of the court.

Thus, the value criterion will be upholding

Cosmopolitanism, defined as having a worldwide scope
when evaluating justice. Because it is essential to
uphold all human rights, and to not allow one country
to act in a hegemonic manner, we must look to
cosmopolitanism because we are trying to create an
international consensus on what is considered “fair”
or just. Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy explains “Every cosmopolitan argues for some
community among all human beings, regardless of social and political affiliation. For some, what
should be shared is simply moral community, which means only that living a good human life
requires serving the universal community by helping human beings as such, perhaps by
promoting the realization of justice and the guarantee of human rights”. One of the primary
focuses of an international court is to uphold a universal conception of what is just. Thus, the US
should submit to the international court in order to help uphold a standard of what the concept of
justice is, and show
that it is supporting this universal concept of justice, thus acting in a cosmopolitan manner.

Contention One:
The US ought to submit to an international court
system in order to prevent the US from appearing to be
a hegemonic nation that is not supportive of
international rules.
Subpoint A:
By remaining a hegemonic nation, the United States is hurting its own foreign policy. Joining the
ICC demonstrates to other nations that the US is willing to tone down its hegemonic ways and
cooperate with other nations. A United States Hegemony is harmful to the security of the United
States. Parag Khanna explains,” Condoleezza Rice has said America has no “permanent
enemies,” but it has no permanent friends either. Many saw the invasions of Afghanistan and
Iraq as the symbols of a global American imperialism; in fact, they were signs of imperial
overstretch. Every expenditure has weakened America’s armed forces, and each assertion of
power has awakened resistance in the form of terrorist networks, insurgent groups and
“asymmetric” weapons like suicide bombers.” As the US continues to act hegemonic, it
increasingly alienates it’s allies and becomes a weaker link among powerful nations. Khanna
continues, “America’s unipolar moment has inspired diplomatic and financial countermovements
to block American bullying and construct an alternate world order…rather than bestriding the
globe, we are competing — and losing — in a geopolitical marketplace alongside the world’s
other superpowers: the European Union and China.” In stead of acting in a way that defies the
EU and China, joining an international court would signal to these nations the US is willing to
work together in order to help protect human rights. By not working together with other nations,
the United Staes will alienate its allies. For example, in the war in Iraq, a common example of
the United States acting in a hegemonic manner, only Great Britain and Australia sent over 1,000
troops to Iraq to help aid the US. The lack of support that the US received in Iraq is one example
of how US allies, such France and England, are not supportive of the United State’s hegemonic
ways and of how the United States will have to fight its battles with little support. By joining the
ICC, the United States will show that it is willing to concede some power to a greater court,
which will help other nations see the United States as a nation that is upholding
cosmopolitanism, and thus is looking to protect the good of humanity by working together with
other nations and not just acting in it’s own national interest. Thus, the United States foreign
policy will actually strengthen by joining the international court, because the United States will
have increased support when fighting for human rights as well as an increased amount of allies
from working together with others in the International court.

Contention 2: By joining the international court, the United States will improve the quality of the
court, thus allowing the United States to have a better ability to impact the protection of human
rights. Joining the international court would increase the legitimacy of both the court and of the
US’s commitment to acting in a cosmopolitan manner. Kunal Ghosh explains. By not joining the
ICC and intimidating its signatories, the U.S threatens the
court’s very existence and sets a dangerous precedent. Other countries, especially those with
histories of human rights violations (such as China), will also refuse to join the ICC thus
thwarting the international community’s efforts to prevent human rights violations around the
world. In essence, while the court can function without the United States, it will be unable to
fulfill its mission without U.S backing and active U.S efforts to prevent its activities. Nations
with leaders notorious for crimes against humanity will use the United States’ refusal to join
the court as an excuse to not join themselves. Thus, the United States will be benefitting it’s own
goal to help further protect human rights while at the same time appear to be a nation that is in
alliance with the goals of the international community. Because of the undeniable power of the
United States, joining the international court will push other nations, such as China, to join the
court as well, thus spreading the legitimacy of the court as well as preventing the continuation of
human rights violations in nations that may join the court if the US does. In addition, because the
United States has had several missions focused on preventing human rights violations, such as
the war in Iraq, it would seem hypocritical for the United States to refuse to join the court. Ghosh
continues, “the United States also risks undermining its own credibility in the fight against
human rights by not joining the ICC. In fact, along with Turkey, the U.S is the only NATO
member that has not joined the Court and the only democratic country in the world that actively
opposes it. America’s push for worldwide democracy and preservation of human rights therefore
seem hypocritical when it chooses not to support an international initiative that practices
what it preaches. By not joining the ICC, the United States has aligned itself with rogue states
and nations systematically violating human rights. America’s efforts to fight human rights
violators are clearly undermined when it chooses to side with those same violators by not joining
the ICC.” Therefore, the United States should submit to the court to be seen as a cosmopolitan
national that works to improve human rights in a way that is best for the international
community, which will make America appear to look better in the eyes of the international
community, thus improving relations with US allies.