The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.Obviously, one of the most popular values--for good reason--will be justice. National sovereignty, whether as a value or a criterion, will be huge for the Neg.
Oh, and by the way, the current body "designed to prosecute crimes against humanity," implied by the resolution, is the International Criminal Court. That should help facilitate your research.
Though many of the recent resolutions have taken a US-centric stance, at least this one places the US in a global context. I'm going to dig through my archives and see how this relates to the UN resolution from a couple years ago.
More analysis, links, and commentary to follow. As always, post your questions, case ideas, and comments. More dialogue = better debate.
Ought the United States cede aspects of its sovereignty and let an international court try American citizens who are charged with "crimes against humanity?" That is the fundamental question for this resolution. It pits notions of universal human rights, international law, and cosmopolitan justice against those of sovereignty and independence. This raises several questions: what constitutes a "crime against humanity?" What is the proper balance between sovereignty and the rule of international law? Why, if at all, should we have an international legal framework? Are human rights universal? Is the United States' refusal to join the ICC a dodge?
1. In late 2002, John Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., laid out the reasons the U.S. has not signed on to the ICC.
2. Here's a typical article supporting the ICC [pdf], in hopes that it would foster greater protection for human rights and respect for the rule of law.
3. The ICC's website.
4. The SEP on Cosmopolitanism in its various forms.
5. Ilya Somin on world government and its critics. The SEP on the same.
6. Is a temporary tribunal sufficient? Consider the ICTR.
1. A thoroughgoing analysis of the phrase "crimes against humanity," specifically, how they are defined in international law, and how they are partially distinct from genocide or war crimes.
2. Should we use the real ICC as the focus of the debate?
1. I take a look at the cosmopolitan foundations (and supranational reach) of the International Criminal Court, and the implications for the debate.
2. Value and criterion pairs: an initial list.
3. I discuss a thoroughgoing analysis of the history and constitutionality of the ICC.
4. Sovereignty, sovereignty, sovereignty.
5. Critical theory as an approach to the resolution.
6. Consequentialism as an affirmative criterion is considered.
7. Some considerations of debate strategy.
8. Furthering a human rights agenda is actually a part of US law.
9. What about retribution?
10. Does the U.S. lack the political will to prosecute its own?
11. Some interesting cases I've seen recently. Post your own!
Along with specific analysis, check out these resources: how to construct cases, use a criterion, major philosophers to know, etc.
[The Nov./Dec. felon resolution is available here.]