Jan 18, 2009

interesting cases for the ICC resolution

What are some of the most interesting cases you've encountered while debating the Jan/Feb international criminal court resolution? List 'em in the comments.

Here are some I've seen...

The Violence Against Women Aff
Since women are the largest single oppressed group, we have a moral imperative and priority to right the wrongs committed against women by joining the ICC.

The IACHR Aff
This case focuses on the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The reasoning is essentially similar to that of standard ICC cases. One potential advantage is that its jurisdiction is solely over member states; one potential disadvantage is that its scope is narrower, restricted to the Western hemisphere, so it may lack the strength and legitimacy of the ICC. (Here's the Convention that established the IACHR; articles 61ff cover the Court's jurisdiction.)

The Hegemony Aff
To preserve its strategic superiority, the U.S. ought to submit to the jurisdiction of the ICC. It's best to cooperate internationally rather than to try to maintain hegemony alone. (I've seen the Aff try to argue that the ICC wouldn't prosecute an American citizen anyway, since it wouldn't want to risk having the U.S. pull up its stakes and leave camp, but that would seem to make the phrase "submit to the jurisdiction" utterly meaningless.)

The Habermas Neg
Since discourse precedes the establishment of moral universals, and "submitting" means that true discourse is not achieved, the U.S. cannot submit to the jurisdiction of an ICC.

15 comments:

ld00b said...

Someone ran a feminist case against me the other day, and I didn't do a good job getting down the warrents but it was basically like "we need to balance the masculinity of CAH with feminine responses like a court."

Matt said...

I saw something similar to the Heg Aff except it was focused around increase in U.S soft power....

Wow, That Feminist case looks interesting.... How was that warranted it seems out there...

the IACHR is a good Principle... How did they Frame that?

Jim Anderson said...

Matt, if I recall correctly, it was set up with a justice / minimizing rights violations V/C, and had something to do with the morality of keeping one's promises (in this case, the U.S.'s involvement in the creation of the OAS and the IACHR).

PJ said...

The Habermas neg sounds really neat, where would I look for cards expressing that?

Anonymous said...

I haven't read Habermas in a long time, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Habermas actually goes the other way.

In order for discourses to create moral universals, the discursive process must be consented and submitted to. If we do not re-sign the Rome Statute, ratify it and engage in the process of truly creating the discourse of the court, those moral universals cannot be created.

Of course, this vision of the process implies that the US will have a major role in steering the court rather than simply being subject to it. If we believe that the US will be an agent in addition to a subject, then Habermas actually flips Aff.

ldn00b said...

yesterday I debated the same feminist except this time they were on neg and I actually paid attention to the warrents. We both valued justice; her vc was "applying a feminist perspective" and her cards warrented it buy saying 1. it revealed masculine assumptions by the international community (which I turned by saying catagorizing things creates assumptions) and 2. it counter-balanced the dominance of men in the international community (which I responded to by saying if male leaders started acting like women there'd be no incentive for democratic countries to elect female leaders.)
c1 was about the ICC not defining agression, and c2 was about the ICC discriminating against transsexuals etcetera by defining gender accourding to biological sex. To c1 I said that women would be covered by other crimes and protected more than the status quo, to c2 I said that in the status quo gender is defined as biology anyway but since a court can change its definitions by joining the US could potentially get the rest of the world to change.

And I threw in three reasons the rez wasn't talking about the ICC anyway.

It was quite an entertaining debate.

Anonymous said...

How could I warrant that submission to a foreign entities forgeoes the constitution, because we have submitted ourselves to a higher entity, which denies the principal of democracy that we as Americans uphold, because we do not elect the member of the International court.

Anonymous said...

re:IACHR....i've seen an AC using the ICJ, although that's slightly more complex of a case.

Matt said...

ICJ is Non-topical.... It is Not an "international Court designed to Punish Crimes Against Humanity" The ICJ is a civil court between states The ICJ's website says it's jurisdiction is"The International Court of Justice acts as a world court. The Court has a dual jurisdiction : it decides, in accordance with international law, disputes of a legal nature that are submitted to it by States (jurisdiction in contentious cases); and it gives advisory opinions on legal questions at the request of the organs of the United Nations or specialized agencies authorized to make such a request (advisory jurisdiction)."

Sexy Beast said...

Matt,

I think the ICJ can be argued topically. While it serves a slightly different purpose than the ICC, it still is an international court that has the authority to prosecute crimes against humanity. I personally wouldn't run it, but it can be done.

ldn00b said...

@Anonymous: Article 1, Section 8 and Article 3, Section 1 of the US constitution lay it out pretty clear.

Matt said...

SEXY BEAST: the ICJ is not designed to Prosecute CAH. IT is a civil court of sorts between states.

I wonder: could an AFF argue that American courts were designed to prosecute CAH because They were made to Prosecute all criminal offenses...
you could link it I just wonder if any judge would accept it

E.J said...

I recently went to view a CLD round and the winner was running a Habermas neg about universal morality,
unfortunately I did not flow,
But it seems like an odd yet effective argument to make.
I tried researching Habermas though,
but I found nothing seemingly applicable.


So how exactly do these Habermas negs function ?

Sexy Beast said...

Well Matt, I agree with you that the ICJ was not techically designed to prosecute CAHs, it still has the power to prosecute CAHs if they are committed by states.

LDn00b said...

@Sexy Beast: I don't know if that's correct. It has the power to resolved disputes beetween states; ie rule if an action needs to be stopped. But it doesn't "prosecute" in the sense of doling out a punishment for a specific crime.