Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
1AC Material
1AC-Courts Plan
The federal judiciary should substantially reduce the economic
embargo against Cuba by ruling it in violation of international
law.
more seriously approach its duty to uphold the Constitution, rather than simply relying on the judiciary, by
admitting the unconstitutionality of its own enactments and duly repealing the various laws comprising the Cuban
embargo. n9 President Barack Obama had an opportunity to demonstrate a renewed commitment to complying
with the "law of nations" in September 2009, but he instead chose to stay the course of his predecessors, dating
back to Jimmy Carter, and extended the executive's power to implement the embargo. n10 For now, with no
meaningful action being [*421] taken by the executive and little likelihood of intervention in this contentious
political issue by the judiciary, it is up to Congress to "be cognizant of this country's global leadership position and
the need for it to set an example with respect to human rights obligations." n11
However, Article XXI of the GATT provides a general exception to GATT requirements for measures that a nation "considers
necessary for the protection of its essential security interests." n85 Thus, the United States claims that Cuba poses a risk to its
national security and that the embargo is necessary to protect that security. n86 At the height of the cold war, when the embargo
was started, the embargo seemed justified under the Article XXI exemption. n87 However, since the cold war has ended, the
question now remains whether Cuba still poses a threat to United States' national security. [*505] The CDA made several findings,
including: that Castro's government has violated human rights, "decreased the well-being of the Cuban people," trafficked narcotics,
and supported the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) guerillas in El Salvador; and that the United States should
"promote a peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba." n88 The Helms-Burton Act reiterated these charges, elaborated on the
human rights violations to some extent, and mentioned the "theft of property from United States nationals by the Castro
government." n89 Helms-Burton also mentioned that in 1962 Castro "advocated the Soviets' launching of nuclear missiles to the
United States ... ." n90 Finally, Helms-Burton contained a condemnation of the 1996 Cuban attack on American civilian aircraft. n91
Although the TSRA and the new House bill do not contain any findings charging the Castro government with wrongdoing, the CDA
and Helms-Burton Act findings might suggest that Cuba does pose a threat to national security: the trafficking of narcotics, support
for the guerillas in El Salvador, advocating launching a nuclear missile into the United States, and the attack on the American civilian
aircraft. However, the various legislation taken as a whole also suggests that the real purpose of the embargo is to force Cuba to
reform its government, and that the references related to national security are merely added to the legislation to provide an air of
legitimacy. In the eight paragraphs of the "Findings" portion of the CDA, one paragraph mentions the Cuban military, the narcotics
trafficking, and the support of the guerillas, but six paragraphs discuss the oppression of the Cuban people, and the need for a
Cuban democracy. n92 In the ten paragraphs of the "Statement of Policy" portion of the CDA, two mention the Cuban military and
six relate to promoting Cuban democracy and providing rights to the Cuban people. n93 In the twenty-eight paragraphs of the
"Findings" section of the Helms-Burton Act, four paragraphs mention narcotics trading, armed subversion and terrorism, the Cuban
military, or the national security, but fourteen paragraphs discuss the oppression of the Cuban people and a need for Cuban
democracy, and [*506] four paragraphs are devoted to explaining why using the sanctions as a means to promote Cuban democracy
is justified under the United Nations policies. n94 The Helms-Burton Act does devote an entire section to condemning the shooting of
American civilian aircraft by the Cuban military, but the section does not even mention that this demonstrates that Cuba poses a
threat to national security. n95 Thus, the focus of the legislation is clearly on changing the Cuban government, and national security
considerations are given incidental consideration. In fact, some claim that the United States has conceded that it does not consider
Cuba to be a national security risk. n96 Jerry W. Cain claims that Robert S. Gelbard, who was Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of
within Cuba." n97 Gelbard made this statement before the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives in 1992: "
"The United States has followed a policy of isolating Cuba diplomatically and economically for [the last] three decades. We continue
that policy today in an effort to encourage a change to a democratic government in Cuba.' " n98 Although this suggests that the
United States may have other motives in isolating Cuba, it does not necessarily preclude the possibility that the United States views
Cuba as a threat to its security.
2. Extraterritoriality
Johnson 07 (Brent Johnson, J.D. Candidate, B.S., Chemistry, Brigham
Young University, Ph.D., Chemistry, University of California, NOTE AND
COMMENT: EXPORTING MEDICAL PRODUCTS TO CUBA AS AN
EXCEPTION TO THE UNITED STATES' EMBARGO, winter 2007, Whittier
Law Review, 29 Whittier L. Rev. 493, LexisNexis//MRG)
accepted in the United States and other jurisdictions, including "[Germany], Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland,
France, Greece, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland." n109 The effects doctrine says that a
state may regulate "conduct outside its territory that has or is intended to have substantial effect within its
ship is prohibited from entering a United States port for business that occurred in Cuba, which is outside of the
United States, the CDA regulates activities outside of the United States. Thus, in order for the CDA to be acceptable
subsidiaries and ships, as a means of promoting democracy in Cuba and of protecting its national security. Although
promoting democracy is a laudable goal, there is no particular reason that the lack of a democratic government
makes a country a threat to its neighbors. The United States has alleged that Castro's government has violated
such connection. Thus, none of these activities by the Cuban government have a significant enough effect within
the United States territory to justify the extraterritorial application of the CDA. The United States has alleged that
the Cuban government traffics narcotics. n115 Trafficking narcotics might have a substantial effect upon the United
States, but the CDA does not regulate drug trafficking, it regulates legitimate trade. It is difficult to imagine how
cutting off legitimate trade between third parties and Cuba will have any effect upon illegal trade between Cuba
and American criminals. Thus, it does not appear that the CDA is a reasonable means to effectively stop the Cuban
government's alleged drug trafficking. Furthermore, the [*510] invasion of the sovereignty of innocent third party
countries is significant. The CDA impedes free trade by these countries. The very existence of NAFTA, the GATT, and
a
country's economy is very important. Controlling corporations within its jurisdiction and
the WTO is evidence of the fact that most countries place a great value on free trade. Furthermore,
controlling international trade and shipping of its citizens are important tools a country uses to protect its economy.
Among the reasons cited for denouncing the act was its
violation of the sovereignty of other nations. n117 Furthermore, the United Kingdom and
occasions ... ." n116
Canada enacted retaliatory legislation that made it "illegal for subsidiaries of U.S. companies ... to comply with the
CDA." n118 Therefore, the relatively insignificant effect of the trade regulated by the CDA within the territory of the
United States is outweighed by its violation of the sovereignty of other nations. And as a result, the effects principle
claim that Cuba is a national security threat is very weak, and the
violation of the sovereignty of other nations is great. Thus, the CDA has an
illegal extraterritorial efect and does not fall under the exception of the
efects doctrine.
government in the world except the United States, the comprehensive embargo on Cuba incontrovertibly violates
international human rights law and international humanitarian law due to its devastating humanitarian impact.
n104 In reality, the views of the world community and those of the United States may not be as far apart as
commentators might suggest. The government does continue to argue publicly that its conduct is wholly consistent
with international law. n105 Recent modifications to the embargo undertaken for "humanitarian reasons," however,
undercut this position. n106 At least with respect to the embargo's humanitarian consequences, there is evidence
the United States appreciates that its embargo may violate certain
international legal norms. n107 [*443] Yet, the international community's efforts to impel the United
States to lift its embargo for humanitarian reasons, and the United States's efforts to minimize the humanitarian
Even
if the United States were somehow able to mitigate, or eliminate entirely, the
ruinous consequences the embargo has on the Cuban people, such a
comprehensive embargo would nevertheless be illegal under international
law. n109 In other words, the illegality of such measures under international law is not simply predicated on its
impact of the embargo, have only addressed violations of a discrete set of international legal norms. n108
effect on the Cuban people on a micro-level--it also is established by reference to the nation-state itself and the
matter of domestic law, it is clear the United States may disavow or ignore its obligations under international law.
n119 This principle does not extend to the international arena--failure to give domestic effect to international legal
commitments does not absolve the United States of those obligations on the international level. n120 With respect
to both treaty obligations and international legal norms that have risen to the level of customary international law,
then, the United States is bound to follow international law or risk defaulting on its obligations as a member of the
more is at stake, though--if the United States wishes to use international legal mechanisms to pursue its interests, it
must demonstrate to the world that it takes international law seriously within the constitutional framework. n123
Especially in the context of the Cuban embargo, where U.S. federal law is
in direct conflict with international law, the United States must accord
adequate respect for the latter and take steps to resolve the tension. n124 In
order to accomplish this, each branch of government--executive, legislative, and judicial--has a role to play. n125
meaningful enforcement mechanisms, this does not seem particularly problematic. n122 [*446] So much more is at
stake, though--if
By the early 1970s, the right to development [*426] was undergoing a more formal, comprehensive articulation in
the specific language of human rights. n22 Over the course of the next fourteen years, the right to development
was proclaimed in various texts, including regional multilateral instruments. n23 In 1986, the overwhelming
majority of nations, acting through the U.N. General Assembly, built upon the foundation laid in the International Bill
of Human Rights and certified the right to development as a human right. n24 Since the passage of the Declaration
on the Right to Development, the right has become a fixture in the pantheon of internationally-recognized human
rights, regularly appearing in such texts as multilateral treaties, declarations of international conferences and
summits, annual resolutions of the General Assembly, reports of the Secretary General, and annual reports of the
customary international law is a fluid, evolutionary process, which is ascertained by reference to the general
practice of states rooted in a sense of legal obligation over a period of time. n27 The right to development is clearly
traceable in this manner. n28 It has been over sixty years since the foundations of the right were laid in the U.N.
Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and over forty years since they were strengthened in the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [*428] and the International Covenant on Economic and Social
Rights. n29 It has been thirty-eight years since the right was proposed using the specific language of human rights,
twenty-four years since the international community recognized the right in a formal, broad-based multinational
instrument, and seventeen years since a consensus involving all governments was reached on the right to
the
right is so fundamental, so inviolable, and so broadly accepted, it may even be
properly considered a jus cogens norm. n32 States are therefore bound
development. n30 The right is consistently invoked by states as a rule of international law. n31 Indeed,
The
United States, therefore, is not exempt from its dual responsibilities under
treaty and customary international law regarding the right to
development. n42
subject to reservations), if that treaty also embodies customary international law, the state is bound. n41
AFTER TWO decades of postCold War liberal triumph, U.S. foreign policy
is being challenged by the return of an old antilibcral vision. According to this
vision, the world is not marching toward universal liberal democracy and
the end of history Rather, it is polarizing into diferent camps and entering
an era of rivalry between Western liberal states and dangerous
autocracies, most notably China and Russia. Unlike the autocracies that Failed so
spectacularly in the twentieth century todays autocracies are said to be not only compatible with capitalist success
Russia, Vladimir Putins government rolled back democratic gains and became increasingly autocratic. At the same
time,
relations between Russia and the West have deteriorated from the
near amirv of the early postCold War era, and China and the Vest remain
divided over Taiwan, human rights, and oil access. Meanwhile, much less powerful
autocratic states, such as Venezuela and Iran, are destabilizing their regions. There even appear to be
signs that these autocratic states arc making common cause against the
liberal Western states, with nascent alliances such as the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization. The United Nations, and particularly the Security Council, has returned to the paralysis of the Cold
Var. In this view, the liberal West faces a bleak future. The new prophets of autocratic revival draw important foreign
Robert Cagan,
insists that it is time for the United States and the other liberal democracies to
abandon their expectations of global convergence and cooperation . instead,
policy implications from their thesis. One of the most forceful exponents of this new view,
they should strengthen ties among themselves, perhaps even through a formal league of democracies, and gird
themselves for increasing rivalry and conflict with the resurgent autocracies. Containment rather than engagement,
military rivalry rather than arms control, balance of power rather than concert of powerthese should be, according
to such theorists, the guideposts for U.S. foreign policy Fortunately, this new conventional wisdom about autocratic
revival is as much an exaggeration of a few years of headlines as was the proclamation of the end of history at the
end of the Cold War The proposition that autocracies have achieved a new lease on life and are emerging today as
autocracies may be more competent and more adept at accommodating capitalism than their predecessors were,
they are nonetheless fundamentally constrained by deep-seated incapacities that promise to limit their viability
over the long run. Ultimately, autocracies will move toward liberalism. The success of
regimes such as those in China and Russia is not a refutation of the liberal vision; the recent success of autocratic
states has depended on their access to the international liberal order, and they remain dependent on its success.
surveyed students mentioned AIDS as a potential pandemic-causing virus. It is true that scientists have been
unable thus far to find a sustainable cure for AIDS, mainly due to HIVs rapid and constant evolution.
Specifically, two factors account for the viruss abnormally high mutation
rate: 1. HIVs use of reverse transcriptase, which does not have a proof-reading
mechanism, and 2. the lack of an error-correction mechanism in HIV DNA
polymerase (8). Luckily, though, there are certain characteristics of HIV that make it a poor candidate for a
large-scale global infection: HIV can lie dormant in the human body for years without manifesting itself, and AIDS
for more
easily transmitted viruses such as influenza, the evolution of new strains
could prove far more consequential. The simultaneous occurrence of
antigenic drift (point mutations that lead to new strains) and antigenic shift (the inter-species
transfer of disease) in the influenza virus could produce a new version of
influenza for which scientists may not immediately find a cure. Since influenza
can spread quickly, this lag time could potentially lead to a global
influenza pandemic, according to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (9). The most recent scare of this variety came in 1918 when bird flu managed to kill over 50
itself does not kill directly, but rather through the weakening of the immune system. However,
million people around the world in what is sometimes referred to as the Spanish flu pandemic. Perhaps even more
frightening is the fact that only 25 mutations were required to convert the original viral strain which could only
infect birds into a human-viable strain (10).
Extinction
Tickell 8 (Oliver Tickell, journalist, author and campaigner on
health and environment issues, and author of the Kyoto2
climate initiative, On a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare
for is extinction There's no 'adaptation' to such steep warming.
We must stop pandering to special interests, and try a new,
post-Kyoto strategy, August 11, 2008,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climate
change//MRG)
The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing longterm sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be
lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure,
and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography
would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when
sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and
Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and
unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and
hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced.
Billions would undoubtedly die.
Some
countries have successfully transitioned to stable and democratic forms of
government that protect individual freedoms and human rights by means
of judicial review by a strong and independent judiciary. Others have suffered the rise of
late 1980's and 1990's, the disintegration of Yugoslavia, and the continuing turmoil in parts of Africa, Latin America and southern Asia.
tyrannical and oppressive rulers who consolidated their hold on power in part by diminishing or abolishing the role of the judiciary. And still others hang in
Constitutionalization: Lessons from Four Constitutional Revolutions, 25 Law & Soc. Inquiry 91, 92 (2000) (stating that of the [m]any countries . . . [that]
have engaged in fundamental constitutional reform over the past three decades, nearly all adopted a bill of rights and establishe[d] some form of active
Christopher M. Larkins, Judicial Independence and Democratization: A Theoretical and Conceptual Analysis, 44 Am. J. Comp. L. 605, 605-06 (1996)
also Daniel C. Prefontaine and Joanne Lee, The Rule of Law and the Independence of the Judiciary, International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and
of Albania" available at http://www.ipls.org/services/others/chist.html (last visited Janaury 8, 2004); Jean-Marie Henckaerts & Stefaan Van der Jeught,
Human Rights Protection Under the New Constitutions of Central Europe, 20 Loy. L.A. Intl & Comp. L.J. 475 (Mar. 1998). In South Africa, the new
constitutional judiciary plays a similarly important role, following generations of an oppressive apartheid regime. South Africa adopted a new constitution
in 1996. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Explanatory Memorandum. It establishes a Constitutional Court which makes the final decision
whether an Act of Parliament, a provincial Act or conduct of the President is constitutional. Id. at Chapter 8, Section 167, Item (5), available at
http://www.polity.org.za/html/govdocs/constitution/saconst.html?r ebookmark=1 (last visited January 8, 2004); see also Justice Tholakele H. Madala, Rule
Under Apartheid and the Fledgling Democracy in Post-Apartheid South Africa: The Role of the Judiciary, 26 N.C. J. Intl L. & Com. Reg. 743 (Summer 2001).
Afghanistan is perhaps the most recent example of a country struggling to develop a more democratic form of government. Adoption by the Loya Jirga of
Afghanistan's new constitution on January 4, 2004 has been hailed as a milestone. See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/02/world/main59111
http://www.hazara.net/jirga/AfghanConstitution-Final.pdf (last visited January 8, 2004). See also Ron Synowitz, Afghanistan: Constitutional Commission
Chairman Presents Karzai with Long-Delayed Draft Constitution (November 3, 2003), available at
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/11/03112003164239.as p (last visited Jan. 8, 2004). B. Other Nations Have Curtailed Judicial Review During Times
Of Crisis, Often Citing the United States' Example, And Individual Freedoms Have Diminished As A Result. While much of the world is moving to adopt the
institutions necessary to secure individual rights, many still regularly abuse these rights. One of the hallmarks of tyranny is the lack of a strong and
Many of
the rulers that go down that road justify their actions on the basis of
national security and the fight against terrorism, and, disturbingly, many
claim to be modeling their actions on the United States. Again, a few examples illustrate this trend. In
independent judiciary. Not surprisingly, where countries make the sad transition to tyranny, one of the first victims is the judiciary.
Peru, one of former President Alberto Fujimoris first acts in seizing control was to assume direct executive control of the judiciary, claiming that it was
justified by the threat of domestic terrorism. He then imprisoned thousands, refusing the right of the judiciary to intervene. International Commission of
Jurists, Attacks on Justice 2000-Peru, August 13, 2001, available at http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2587&lang=en (last visited Jan. 8, 2004). In
Zimbabwe, President Mugabes rise to dictatorship has been punctuated by threats of violence to and the co-opting of the judiciary. He now enjoys
virtually total control over Zimbabweans' individual rights and the entire political system. R.W. Johnson, Mugabes Agents in Plot to Kill Opposition Chief,
Sunday Times (London), June 10, 2001; International Commission of Jurists, Attacks on Justice 2002 Zimbabwe, August 27, 2002, available at
http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2695&lang=en (last visited Jan. 8, 2004). While Peru and Zimbabwe represent an extreme, the independence of
the judiciary is under assault in less brazen ways in a variety of countries today. A highly troubling aspect of this trend is the fact that in many of these
instances those perpetuating the assaults on the judiciary have pointed to the United States model to justify their actions. Indeed, many have specifically
referenced the United States actions in detaining persons in Guantnamo Bay. For example, Rais Yatim, Malaysia's "de facto law minister" explicitly relied
on the detentions at Guantnamo to justify Malaysia's detention of more than 70 suspected Islamic militants for over two years. Rais stated that
Malyasia's detentions were "just like the process in Guantnamo," adding, "I put the equation with Guantnamo just to make it graphic to you that this is
not simply a Malaysian style of doing things." Sean Yoong, "Malaysia Slams Criticism of Security Law Allowing Detention Without Trial," Associated Press,
September 9, 2003 (available from Westlaw at 9/9/03 APWIRES 09:34:00). Similarly, when responding to a United States Government human rights report
that listed rights violations in Namibia, Namibia's Information Permanent Secretary Mocks Shivute cited the Guantnamo Bay detentions, claiming that
"the US government was the worst human rights violator in the world." BBC Monitoring, March 8, 2002, available at 2002 WL 15938703. Nor is this
disturbing trend limited to these specific examples. At a recent conference held at the Carter Center in Atlanta, President Carter, specifically citing the
Guantnamo Bay detentions, noted that the erosion of civil liberties in the United States has "given a blank check to nations who are inclined to violate
human rights already." Doug Gross, "Carter: U.S. human rights missteps embolden foreign dictators," Associated Press Newswires, November 12, 2003
(available from Westlaw at 11/12/03 APWIRES 00:30:26). At the same conference, Professor Saad Ibrahim of the American University in Cairo (who was
jailed for seven years after exposing fraud in the Egyptian election process) said, "Every dictator in the world is using what the United States has done
under the Patriot Act . . . to justify their past violations of human rights and to declare a license to continue to violate human rights." Id Likewise, Shehu
Sani, president of the Kaduna, Nigeriabased Civil Rights Congress, wrote in the International Herald Tribune on September 15, 2003 that "[t]he insistence
by the Bush administration on keeping Taliban and Al Quaeda captives in indefinite detention in Guantnamo Bay, Cuba, instead of in jails in the United
States and the White House's preference for military tribunals over regular courts helps create a free license for tyranny in Africa. It helps justify
Egypt's move to detain human rights campaigners as threats to national security, and does the same for similar measures by the governments of Ivory
Coast, Cameroon and Burkina Faso." Available at http://www.iht.com/ihtsearch.php?id=109927&owner=(IHT)&dat e=20030121123259. In our uni-polar
United States model when developing independent judiciaries with the ability to check executive power in the defense of individual rights. Yet others have
justified abuses by reference to the conduct of the United States. Far more influential than the words of Montesquieu and Madison are the actions of the
United States. This case starkly presents the question of which model this Court will set for the world. CONCLUSION Much of the world models itself after
this countrys two hundred year old traditions and still more on its day to day implementation and expression of those traditions. To say that a refusal to
The intertwining of
the economic life of diverse countries today is even greater than was the
interdependence of diferent regions within the same state only half a
century ago. Order and predictability of the behavior of actors on the
international scene can be achieved first of all with the aid of social
norms, among which international law occupies an important place. A second
reason for the growth of the role of international law is inextricably connected with the first. The threat of a
thermonuclear catastrophe, universal ecological crisis, and acute
economic problems in developing countries are of global concern and
endanger the very existence of humanity. Resolution of these problems demands
countries or regions have a global significance affecting the destiny of all peoples.
coordinated efforts of all states and peoples, which would be impossible to achieve without the aid of international
norms, procedures, and institutions. A third reason is the breathtaking political transformations of recent years. The
changes that began in 1985 in the former Soviet Union and were unleashed in Eastern Europe have radically
Charter of Paris for a New Europe, 32 countries of Europe, together with the United States and Canada, affirmed
that the era of confrontation and division in Europe has ended. The end has come not only for division in Europe,
but also in the world at large. But this fact can hardly lead automatically to a non-contradictory, stable, world order.
The acuteness of conflicts that are not connected with the so-called fundamental contradiction of the epoch can
even intensify, as the unleashing of savage interethnic conflict in the former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union
may be found in the reaction of world society to the aggression of Iraq against Kuwait and the reining in of the
aggressor with the aid of U.N. mechanisms in accordance with the U.N. Charter and other norms of international
law.
adversely affect the global climate or the ozone layer. n1 Discharges that pollute the common spaces of the oceans
not have to bear the costs of the requisite environmental protection. They would be free riders on the system and
would benefit from the environmentally protective measures introduced by others at some cost. Furthermore, the
example of such free riders might undermine the system by encouraging other states not to participate, and could
to legislate universal norms. States are said to be sovereign, thus able to determine for themselves what they must
or may do. n3 State autonomy continues to serve the international system well in traditional spheres of
international relations. The freedom of states to control their own destinies and policies has substantial value: it
permits diversity and the choice by each state of its own social priorities. n4 Few, if any, states favor a world
government that would dictate uniform behavior for all. Consequently, many writers use the language of autonomy
when they declare that international law requires the consent of the states that are governed by it. Many take the
position that a state that does not wish to be bound by a new rule of international law may object to it and be
exempted from its application. n5 If sovereignty and autonomy prevailed in all areas of international law, however,
one could hardly hope to develop rules to bind all states. In a community of nearly two hundred diverse states, it is
virtually impossible to obtain the acceptance of all to any norm, particularly one that requires significant expenses
or changes in behavior. Complete autonomy may have been acceptable in the past when no state could take
whether some or all of international law may be made universally binding regardless of the position of one or a
small number of unwilling states. To accomplish this objective, I begin by analyzing the secondary rules of
recognition (the doctrine of sources) used to establish primary rules of international law. While treaties may require
the consent of individual states to be binding on them, such consent is not required for customary norms. Finally, I
explore in greater depth the actual processes by which many customary law norms have come into being in the last
These procedural developments strengthen the argument that the system may establish general international law
binding on all states, regardless of the objection of a small number of states.
environmental law in the United States, the growth of global environmental concern, and the U.S. response to these
concerns. A. Domestic Environmental Law Explosion Like the universe according to the big-bang theory, United
States domestic environmental law has been steadily expanding in all directions since its original explosion in 1970.
In 1971, the Environmental Law Institute published a summary of environmental law that required thirty-three
the
Environmental Law Reporter had published over 5,000 federal court
decisions on environmental law. n3 This rapid expansion of U.S.
environmental law was triggered largely by growing concern about
domestic environmental problems experienced in the U.S. since or shortly before
the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970. For instance , laws regulating toxic substances in the
United States arose in reaction to concerns about polybrominated
biphenyls (PBBs) in Michigan and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the
Hudson River, kepone in Virginia, the Valley of the Drums near Louisville,
Kentucky, and Love Canal in Erie County, New York. n4 Thus, although U.S.
environmental law has continued to expand at a rapid rate in the last 25
years, this vast body of U.S. environmental law has been drafted largely to
correct or prevent domestic environmental problems . [*178] B. Growing
International Environmental Concern Since the early 1980s, international
pages. n1 In 1993, the text of the statutes alone took up more than 600 pages. n2 By 1993,
debt, drug smuggling, trade imbalances, currency coordination, and trafficking in human beings, to name just a few.
Addons
Bioweapons
CIL stops the use of biological weapons
Koplow 9 (David A. Koplow, Michigan Journal of International Law,
ASAT-isfaction: Customary International Law and the Regulation of
Anti-Satellite Weapons, Summer 2009,
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1452&context=facpub//MRG)
A. Discrimination The first fundamental precept is that a military force
must target only military persons, materiel, and locations; civilians and
other nonbelligerents cannot lawfully be made the direct and intentional
focus of an attack, and neutral States" and their property'85 are similarly
of-limits. LOAC does not prohibit all "collateral damage" harm to civiliansthat would probably be an impossible goal in any realistic military
engagement-but it is axiomatic that force may lawfully be directed only at
military objectives. A weapon system that is inherently incapable of that degree of finesse (or one that is
sufficiently directional, but is in fact wielded in an indiscriminate fashion) is illegal. 86 This principle
underpins much of the law's hostility to chemical and biological weapons,
among others. Typically, those armaments would be employed in a scattershot fashion, unleashed as a
cloud that may drift uncontrollably with the wind, rather than being precisely confined to an enemy's military
Although human pathogens are often lumped with nuclear explosives and
lethal chemicals as potential weapons of mass destruction, there is an obvious, fundamentally
important diference: Pathogens are alive, weapons are not. Nuclear and
chemical weapons do not reproduce themselves and do not independently
engage in adaptive behavior; pathogens do both of these things. That deceptively
simple observation has immense implications. The use of a manufactured weapon
is a singular event. Most of the damage occurs immediately. The aftereffects,
whatever they may be, decay rapidly over time and distance in a reasonably predictable manner. Even
before a nuclear warhead is detonated, for instance, it is possible to estimate
the extent of the subsequent damage and the likely level of radioactive fallout. Such
predictability is an essential component for tactical military planning. The use of a pathogen, by
contrast, is an extended process whose scope and timing cannot be precisely
controlled. For most potential biological agents, the predominant drawback is that they would not act swiftly
or decisively enough to be an effective weapon. But for a few pathogens - ones most likely to
have a decisive efect and therefore the ones most likely to be
contemplated for deliberately hostile use - the risk runs in the other
direction. A lethal pathogen that could efficiently spread from one victim
to another would be capable of initiating an intensifying cascade of
disease that might ultimately threaten the entire world population. The 1918
influenza epidemic demonstrated the potential for a global contagion of this sort but not necessarily its
outer limit. Nobody really knows how serious a possibility this might be, since there is no way to measure it
reliably.
Democracy
International law incorporation key to democracy
Benvenisti 08 (Eyal Benvenisti, Professor of Law, Tel Aviv University,
Reclaiming Democracy: The Strategic Uses Of Foreign And
International Law By National Courts, 2008, 102 A.J.I.L. 241,
LexisNexis//MRG)
law
therefore actually
Death Penalty
Plan results in death penalty repealit violates ilaw
Amnesty International 2008 (Cites measures from 2008), Death Penalty in
International Law;
[http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/international-law]
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations
General Assembly in December 1948, recognizes each persons right to life. It
categorically states that No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 5). In Amnesty
Internationals view, the death penalty violates these rights. The
community of states has adopted four international treaties specifically
providing for the abolition of the death penalty. Through the years, several
UN bodies discussed and adopted measures to support the call for the
worldwide abolition of the death penalty. In December 2007 and 2008 the
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted resolutions 62/149 and
63/168, calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. Since
then, other regional bodies or civil society coalitions adopted resolutions and
declarations advocating for a moratorium on executions as a step towards global
abolition of the death penalty. These resolutions are not legally binding on
governments, but represent important milestones for the abolitionist
movement and constitute a continued progress towards the total
exclusion of capital punishment from International Law.
-Relations Good-Terrorism
US-EU relations solves terrorism
Garcia 3/26/4,Bradtke Discusses U.S.-European Relationship, War On Terror,
[http://newsarchives.tamu.edu/stories/04/032604-15.html]
March 26, 2004 - Noting that U.S.-European relations have come through a difficult period, Deputy Assistant
Texas A&M University European Union Center, the South Texas College of Law, the George Bush Presidential Library
have to work together to crack down on financing that goes to terrorist organizations, and at times we will also have
Cooperation at Stanford University, Former visiting scholar at Harvard and MIT, and
author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb which won the Pulitzer Prize in
Nonfiction, National Book Award, and National Book Critics Circle Award. Reducing
the nuclear threat: The argument for public safety
[http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/reducing-the-nuclear-threat-theargument-public-safety]
The response was very different among nuclear and national security experts
when Indiana Republican Sen. Richard Lugar surveyed PDF them in 2005. This group of 85
experts judged that the possibility of a WMD attack against a city or other
target somewhere in the world is real and increasing over time. The median
estimate of the risk of a nuclear attack somewhere in the world by 2010 was 10 percent. The risk of an attack by
2015 doubled to 20 percent median. There was strong, though not universal, agreement that a nuclear attack is
more likely to be carried out by a terrorist organization than by a government. The group was split 45 to 55 percent
reports introduction. It is the economic dilemma and the moral challenge of the current age. On September 11,
2001, the world witnessed the destructive potential of international terrorism. But the September 11 attacks do not
Weapons of
mass destruction have made it possible for a small nation, or even a subnational group, to kill as many innocent people in a day as national armies
killed in months of fighting during World War II. The bottom line is this, Lugar
concluded: For the foreseeable future, the United States and other nations will face an existential
come close to approximating the destruction that would be unleashed by a nuclear weapon.
-Relations Good---Disease
US EU relations solve disease outbreak
James B. Steinberg Summer 3, Vice President and Director, Foreign Policy
Studies, Brookings Institution, (SURVIVAL, p. 155.)
Both the United States and Europe face new global
threats and opportunities that. In almost every case, can be dealt with far
more successfully if we act together. Transnational threats, from terrorism
and international crime to environmental damage and disease pose an
increasing danger to our wellbeing/ Porous borders and the extraordinary global flows of goods, money,
But skeptics have it half wrong, too.
people and ideas facilitate the spread of economic opportunity but also foster the proliferation of technology for
weapons of mass destruction/ Weak states threaten our security as much as powerful ones. Ocean and land barriers
offer little protection. Non-state actors from businesses and NGOs to terrorists and money launderers play an
A pandemic will kill off all humans. In the past, humans have indeed fallen victim to viruses. Perhaps the best-known case was the bubonic plague that
killed up to one third of the European population in the mid-14th century (7). While vaccines have been developed for the plague and some other
surveyed students mentioned AIDS as a potential pandemic-causing virus. It is true that scientists have been unable thus far to find a sustainable cure for
AIDS, mainly due to HIVs rapid and constant evolution. Specifically, two factors account for the viruss abnormally high mutation rate: 1. HIVs use of
reverse transcriptase, which does not have a proof-reading mechanism, and 2. the lack of an error-correction mechanism in HIV DNA polymerase (8).
Luckily, though, there are certain characteristics of HIV that make it a poor candidate for a large-scale global infection: HIV can lie dormant in the human
body for years without manifesting itself, and AIDS itself does not kill directly, but rather through the weakening of the immune system. However, for more
variety came in 1918 when bird flu managed to kill over 50 million people around the world in what is sometimes referred to as the Spanish flu pandemic.
Perhaps even more frightening is the fact that only 25 mutations were required to convert the original viral strain which could only infect birds into a
human-viable strain (10).
Nuclear War
Upholding international law is vital to preventing nuclear
conflict
NAPF 99 (The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, A Renunciation of
Nuclear Weapons One Citizen at a Time Six Arguments for Abolishing
Nuclear Weapons, 1999 http://nonukes.org/cd18_sixarg.htm//MRG)
Even possessing something so deadly is wrong. These radiation-laden bombs can destroy most life on Earth and
would be better described as national and global suicide devices rather than weapons. What could be more evil? As
Joseph Rotblat, the 1995 Nobel Peace Laureate, urged when speaking against nuclear weapons, "Remember your
humanity!"
and enforce law by unilateral means has shown. It is not ready to renounce law as an instrument, because law
stabilizes expectations and reduces the costs of later negotiation and of the enforcement of certain policies.
Thus, the question is whether it is in the U.S. interest to accept the more
egalitarian process of international law instead of using unilateral,
hierarchal legal instruments. Although it is impossible to enter into a comprehensive discussion of
the general value of international law in this chapter, I shall outline at least some arguments in favor of such an
worthwhile noting that past great powers similarly influenced the international legal order to such a degree that it is
possible to divide the history of international law into epochs dominated by these powers epochs that have left
states show greater unity. Although it remains to be seen whether in the Case of Russia and China this greater unity
is only symbolic, other instances, such as the strong stance of the like-minded states in the ICC, indicate a more
substantive regrouping in the face of U.S. predominance. Similarly, the accelerated integration of the EU can be
September 2001, and the U.S. president not only sought to build an international ad hoc coalition but also taken
steps to bolster the international legal regime against terrorism, in particular by transmitting conventions against
circumstances as with the loss of the seat in the Commission for Human Rights, or the suit brought and vigorously
a pilot executing a low pass will gain enough altitude to make a safe landing, a law of nuclear deterrence is invoked
to quiet any concern over possibly killing billions of innocent people: Since World War III would mean the end of
civilization, no one would dare start it. Each side is deterred from attacking the other by the prospect of certain
destruction. That's why our current strategy is called nuclear deterrence or mutually assured destruction (MAD). But
the Berlin crisis of 1961, the Yom Kippur War of 1973 and NATO's Able Archer exercise of 1983. In each of those
of the Cold War removed the nuclear sword hanging over humanity's head. Aside from the fact that other potential
crises such as Taiwan were unaffected, a closer look shows that
The assassination of Austria's Archduke Ferdinand by a Serbian nationalist led Austria to demand that it be allowed
to enter Serbian territory to deal with terrorist organizations. This demand was not unreasonable since interrogation
of the captured assassins had shown complicity by the Serbian military and it was later determined that the head of
Serbian military intelligence was a leader of the secret Black Hand terrorist society. Serbia saw things differently
and rejected the demand. War between Austria and Serbia resulted, and alliance obligations similar to NATO's
Article 5 then produced a global conflict.
Perhaps even more important is Sagan's critique of Waltz's assumptions about rational deterrence logic. By using
organizational theory, Sagan demonstrates problems with all three of the
Neg
Congress cp
Explanation
The net benefit is reverse politics (CIR will pass, cp drains capital, CIR is bad), the
court doesnt link to politics and when the court and congress act at the same time
the court shields the link, which means only the cp can derail immigration reform,
which you say is a good thing.
Assemble---get a will pass uniqueness card, a link card, and pick a reason CIR is bad
from the impact turn file.
1NC---Congress
The legislative branch of the United States federal government
should remove the economic embargo on Cuba.
The counterplan is legitimate, tests the agent of the 1AC.
Congress solves the Af better
Benjamin Manchak Spring 10 Staff Writer, Boston College Third World Law Journal, Comprehensive
Economic Sanctions, The Right To Development, And Constitutionally Impermissible Violations Of International
Law, 30 B.C. Third World L.J. 417
Ext---Congress Solves
Congress solves bestcomparative
Benjamin Manchak Spring 10 Staff Writer, Boston College Third World Law Journal, Comprehensive
Economic Sanctions, The Right To Development, And Constitutionally Impermissible Violations Of International
Law, 30 B.C. Third World L.J. 417
Although both the executive and the judiciary can play a role in
constitutionalizing the blockade, it is the U.S. Congress that possesses the
greatest power to square federal enactments with international law. The
legislature can accomplish this either by passing new legislation stating
the United Statess intentions to flout international legal norms, or
repealing altogether the legislative enactments giving force to the
embargo. If the United States values its reputation as an advocate of
human rights and the rule of law in the international sphere, the choice
between these two options is obvious.
I-Law bad
Heg
International law checks US powermost efective way
Rivkin 2kPartner @ Baker & Hostetler LLP [David, The Rocky Shoals of
International Law,
[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_2000_Winter/ai_68547471/]
The impetus for extending the reach of international law stems from both
our allies and our adversaries, who have chosen to use it as a means to
check, or at least harness, American power. While each group has different
strategic goals, from the perspective of both, the great "problem" of
international afairs in the post-Cold War world is the unchallenged
military, diplomatic, economic and even cultural predominance of the
United States. Our global antagonists, particularly China, would like to see the
United States disengage from world affairs. For our allies, who continue to
depend far too much on U.S. military might to wish for a new American
isolationism, the great danger has become American "unilateralism"an
all-purpose term for U.S. action not sanctioned by the "international
community." They do not want to prevent U.S. global engagement; they
want to influence and control it. Both our allies and our adversaries
understand the value of international law in achieving their ends. Law and
its rhetoric have always played a far more important role in the United States
than in almost any other country. We are a nation bound together not by ties of
blood or religion, but by paper and ink. The Declaration of Independence itself
was, at its heart, an appeal to lawthe laws of nature and of natures Godto
justify an act of rebellion against the British Crown. As Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in
the early days of the American republic: "[t]he influence of legal habits [in the
United States] extends beyond the precise limits I have pointed out. Scarcely any
political question arises in the United States that is not resolved, sooner or later,
into a judicial question. Hence all parties are obliged to borrow, in their daily
controversies, the ideas, and even the language, peculiar to judicial proceedings."
Tocqueville was clearly prescient. Today almost every key policy issue in the United
States is framed as a legal question. Law is our genius and our Achilles Heel.
If the trends of international law in the 1990s are allowed to mature into
binding rules, international law may prove to be one of the most potent
weapons ever deployed against the United States.
Ext---heg
New international law undermines US hegemony
Rivkin 2kPartner @ Baker & Hostetler LLP [David, The Rocky Shoals of
International Law,
[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_2000_Winter/ai_68547471/]
Second, as a practical matter, the new international law has the potential to
undermine American leadership in the post-Cold War global system. Even more
fundamentally, international law may well make the world safe for aggression, by
imposing undue constraints on those countries that are willing to use force to deter
and punish it. Although, as noted above , the new international law has a
number of manifestations, those elements dealing with the use of military
force, and the potential consequences for individual American officials
who order or implement its use, are the most advanced and pernicious . As
the worlds pre-eminent military power, with global interests and responsibilities,
the United States should be very concerned about any efort to create
international judicial institutions capable of prosecuting individual
soldiers, officers and elected officials in the chain of command .
and no collateral damage are not only attainable outcomes in modern combat, but
that these should be the norm. The combination of the unrealistic norms and
unaccountable judicial bodies that would apply them is particularly problematic.
The American military is particularly vulnerable here. This is because U.S.
military doctrine has always been attrition-oriented, emphasizing the
intensive application of firepower and the use of "decisive force." It is
inevitable that damage to civilian sites, and civilian casualties, will result. This is all
the more likely given the growing American aversion to combat casualties,
which forces our military commanders to rely more and more on air strikes
and missile attacks. This raises the real possibility that American soldiers
and officials will be considered subject to prosecution, even in situations
where the intervention has been "humanitarian" in character, as with the air
campaign against Serbia. . . .
US hegemony cannot exist under international law
State Theory 9/2/12, aiming at discovering and dissemination of the true
nature of the State as of social phenomenon - what the State is, what it can and
cannot do and what interests are underlying its each and every action
[http://state.zxq.net/international_order.htm]
International law as well as any other law is based solely on the balance of power and
if it is not reflecting or not following the power balance it is becoming nonoperational right away. There are no any laws without their foundation on the balance of power. Law, which
does not reflect the balance of power is merely a proclamation of principle
or rather a fantasy, simply because nobody is there to punish the
lawbreaker for incompliance. There is an even stronger issue, which is
undermining modern international law. Modern international law is based upon a
sovereignty of the States; i.e. subjects of the law are States. State generally has no
any intrinsic value, while particular individuals have it all. It is mainly a low level of
social and human development enhanced by egocentric financial interests of the
top level state bureaucracies what generates worship of the State and patriotism
generally for that matter. There is a great deal of inconsistency in the very basis of
international law, especially with the majority of countries in the world being based
on the governance system of dictatorship. While international law and international
organizations normally are not only going blind on this matter, but are actually
supporting dictatorial regimes of low social value both politically and through the
means of international aid. Military combat of every dictatorship is probably not a
solution. However, it is obvious that international order based upon the sovereignty
of nations is defected in its foundations.In the late history international law and
international organizations are presented to the people as a kind of opposition to
international hegemony of one separately taken superpower and recently
particularly to the world hegemony of United States (even though European Union is already more
colossal in all the dimensions). Such a thesis is understandable when expressed by the state leaders living up to a variety of material and non-material
benefits coming from the State power, but it is quite strange to hear from common people.
Death Penalty
Plan results in death penalty repealit violates ilaw
Amnesty International 2008 (Cites measures from 2008), Death Penalty in
International Law;
[http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/international-law]
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations
General Assembly in December 1948, recognizes each persons right to life. It
categorically states that No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 5). In Amnesty
Internationals view, the death penalty violates these rights. The
community of states has adopted four international treaties specifically
providing for the abolition of the death penalty. Through the years, several
UN bodies discussed and adopted measures to support the call for the
worldwide abolition of the death penalty. In December 2007 and 2008 the
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted resolutions 62/149 and
63/168, calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. Since
then, other regional bodies or civil society coalitions adopted resolutions and
declarations advocating for a moratorium on executions as a step towards global
abolition of the death penalty. These resolutions are not legally binding on
governments, but represent important milestones for the abolitionist
movement and constitute a continued progress towards the total
exclusion of capital punishment from International Law.
n168
n169
n170
n171
n172
n173
n174
former leaders such a George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger, and Sam
Nunn, despite the manifest failure of arms control to constrain the weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) threat, call for A world free of Nuclear Weapons because
the United States can address almost all of its military objectives by non-nuclear
means.1 This view ignores the monumental verification problems involved and the
military implication of different types of WMDchemical and biological (CBW)
attack, including the advanced agents now available to potential enemies of the
United States and our allies. A U.S. nuclear deterrent is necessary to address
existing threats to the very survival of the U.S., its allies, and its armed
forces if they are subject to an attack using WMD. As former Secretary of Defense Harold Brown and
former Deputy Secretary of Defense John Deutch wrote in The Wall Street Journal, However, the goal, even the aspirational goal, of eliminating all nuclear
weapons is counterproductive. It will not advance substantive progress on nonproliferation; and it risks compromising the value that nuclear weapons
continue to contribute, through deterrence, to U.S. security and international stability.2 Why can't the United States deter WMD (nuclear, chemical,
threat of nuclear electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack, as assessed by a Congressional Commission in 2004, is so severe that one or at most a handful of
EMP attacks could demolish industrial civilization in the United States.3 The view that conventional weapons can replace nuclear weapons in deterrence or
warfighting against a state using WMD is not technically supportable. Precision-guided conventional weapons are fine substitutes for non-precision
weapons, but they do not remotely possess the lethality of WMD warheads. Moreover, their effectiveness in some cases can be seriously degraded by
counter-measures and they clearly are not effective against most hard and deeply buried facilities that are associated with WMD threats and national
leadership protection. If deterrence of WMD attack fails, conventional weapons are unlikely to terminate adversary WMD attacks upon us and our allies or
already have the ability to launch devastating WMD attacks against our allies and our forward deployed forces, and in time may acquire capabilities
against the United States. Iran will probably have nuclear weapons within approximately 2 to 5 years.7 The United States already faces a chemical and
biological weapons threat despite arms control prohibitions. Due to arms control, we do not have an in-kind deterrent. Both Iranian and Syria acquisition of
nuclear weapons could be affected by sales from North Korea, which have been reported in the press.8 International law contains a large number of
obligations relevant
Case Defense
jurisprudence isnt needed to answer the questions that courts and legal authorities ask about customary
international law's content, the legal obligations it creates, and its domestic legal effect.
contra the expectations of many philosophers, it is not possible to appropriate the work of John Rawls in defense of
rejection of international economic egalitarianism does not denote my acceptance of the status quo. I argue that a
robust duty of international assistance is a necessary component of any theory of global economic justice. I argue
that we can turn to contractarian political theory to explain why international assistance demands that relatively
wealthy nations contribute more assistance than they currently do. I defend this claim by showing that the parties
to Rawls's international original position would choose a demanding principle of international assistance.
Disease Defense
Disease cant spread enough to cause extinction
Peters & Chrystal 03 (Dr. Clarence Peters, director of biodefense and
Emerging Infectious Diseases, and Dr. Ronald Chrystal, chairman of
Genetics Medicine at Cornell, FDCH Political Transcripts, U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTOPHER COX (R-CA) HOLDS HEARING ON
COUNTERING THE BIOTERRORISM THREAT, March 15, 2003, Lexis
Nexis//MRG)
the Spaniards being able to conquer the New World with relatively few people. I think we have something going on
right now with SARS that we don't know exactly what the end of it's going to be, but we already know that Asian
economies are suffering tremendously. My prediction is that they will not be able to control it in China. If that's
true, then we will be dealing with repeated introductions in this country for the indefinite future so that we may see a
change in our way of life where we are taking temperatures in airports, in addition to taking your shoes off and
putting them through the X-ray machine. And we may see emergency rooms rebuilt so that if you have a cough
you go in one entrance and go into a negative pressure cubicle until your SARS test comes back. So I think that
the fact that Homo sapiens has managed to survive every disease to assail it
of its existence is a source of genuine comfort, at least if the
focus is on extinction events. There have been enormously destructive plagues, such as the
Black Death, smallpox, and now AIDS, but none has come close to destroying the entire
human race. There is a biological reason. Natural selection favors germs of
limited lethality; they are fitter in an evolutionary sense because their
genes are more likely to be spread if the germs do not kill their hosts too
quickly. The AIDS virus is an example of a lethal virus, wholly natural, that by lying dormant yet infectious in its
host for years maximizes its spread. Yet there is no danger that AIDS will destroy the entire human race. The
likelihood of a natural pandemic that would cause the extinction of the
human race is probably even less today than in the past (except in prehistoric times,
Yet
when people lived in small, scattered bands, which would have limited the spread of disease), despite wider human
contacts that make it more difficult to localize an infectious disease.
medical science.
But the comfort is a small one. Pandemics can still impose enormous losses and resist
prevention and cure: the lesson of the AIDS pandemic. And there is always a lust time.
Davidson 01 (Keay Davidson, The Chronicle science journalist, "Compassionate parasite Microscopic creatures could kill
host quickly, but that might threaten their own survival," April 23, 2001, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?
f=/c/a/2001/04/23/MN138648.DTL//MRG)
Classic problem' of evolution. For decades, evolutionary biologists speculated that if a species
of
pathogen is to survive, it should wreak only so much infectious havoc, and no more. It is "a classic problem" of
evolution, said famed evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University. "You wonder, `Why would anything limit
its own capacity to do what it's doing?'" Gould said. "And the obvious Darwinian answer is: If it kills its host, it
(ultimately) kills itself - and that's not to its advantage." Although this theory of
pathogenic self-control is supported by observations of the spread of infectious
organisms, direct evidence has remained elusive. And no one knew exactly how a microbe might
short-circuit its own proliferation - until now.
Extinction unlikely, the disease will burn out before any major
impacts
UE 07 (Understanding Evolution, UC Berkeley, "Evolution from a virus's view,"
December 2007,
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/071201_adenovirus//MRG)
Environment Defense
The risk of environmental collapse has decreased over the past
decadeno risk of the impact
Lomborg 13 (Bjrn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist
and Cool It, subject of the film Cool It, director of the Copenhagen
Consensus Center, and adjunct professor at Copenhagen Business
School, Obsessing over doom-and-gloom scenarios distracts us from
real global threats, June 26, 2013,
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/project_syndicate/2013/06/clima
te_panic_ecological_collapse_is_not_upon_us_and_we_haven_t_run_out.
html//MRG)
We often hear how the world as we know it will end, usually through ecological collapse. Indeed, more than 40 years
after the Club of Rome released the mother of all apocalyptic forecasts, The Limits to Growth, its basic ideas are still
early 1970s, the flush of technological optimism was over, the Vietnam War was a disaster, societies were in
turmoil, and economies were stagnating. Rachel Carsons 1962 book Silent Spring had raised fears about pollution
and launched the modern environmental movement; Paul Ehrlichs 1968 title The Population Bomb said it all. The
first Earth Day, in 1970, was deeply pessimistic. The genius of The Limits to Growth was to fuse these worries with
fears of running out of stuff. We were doomed, because too many people would consume too much. Even if our
ingenuity bought us some time, we would end up killing the planet and ourselves with pollution. The only hope was
to stop economic growth itself, cut consumption, recycle, and force people to have fewer children, stabilizing
third of their level 150 years ago. Technological innovations have replaced mercury in batteries, dental fillings, and
thermometers: Mercury consumption is down 98 percent and, by 2000, the price was down 90 percent. More
broadly, since 1946, supplies of copper, aluminum, iron, and zinc have outstripped consumption, owing to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that global GDP per capita will increase 14-fold over this
hectares are in reserve). Malnourishment has dropped by more than half, from 35 percent of the worlds population
to under 16 percent. Nor are we choking on pollution. Whereas the Club of Rome imagined an idyllic past with no
particulate air pollution and happy farmers, and a future strangled by belching smokestacks, reality is entirely the
reverse. In 1900, when the global human population was 1.5 billion, almost 3 million people roughly one in 500
died each year from air pollution, mostly from wretched indoor air. Today, the risk has receded to one death per
pollution still kills more people than malaria does, the mortality rate is
falling, not rising. Nonetheless, the mindset nurtured by The Limits to Growth continues to shape popular
2,000 people. While
and elite thinking. Consider recycling, which is often just a feel-good gesture with little environmental benefit and
significant cost. Paper, for example, typically comes from sustainable forests, not rainforests. The processing and
government subsidies associated with recycling yield lower-quality paper to save a resource that is not threatened.
Likewise, fears of overpopulation framed self-destructive policies, such as Chinas one-child policy and forced
sterilization in India. And, while pesticides and other pollutants were seen to kill off perhaps half of humanity, wellregulated pesticides cause about 20 deaths each year in the U.S., whereas they have significant upsides in creating
cheaper and more plentiful food. Indeed, reliance solely on organic farminga movement inspired by the pesticide
fearwould cost more than $100 billion annually in the U.S. At 16 percent lower efficiency, current output would
require another 65 million acres of farmlandan area more than half the size of California. Higher prices would
reduce consumption of fruits and vegetables, causing myriad adverse health effects (including tens of thousands of
diseases still claim 15 million lives every year25 percent of all deaths. The solution is economic growth. When
lifted out of poverty, most people can afford to avoid infectious diseases. China has pulled more than 680 million
people out of poverty in the last three decades, leading a worldwide poverty decline of almost 1 billion people. This
has created massive improvements in health, longevity, and quality of life.
documentation is presented at the end of this article. These include (1) the fact that bad news "sells" better than
good news; (2) a belief that the randomness of evolution means the future is unpredictable and that we must try to
control it; (3) the rise in contributions to environmental activist groups when the public is scared that the
environment is collapsing; (4) the rise in corporate profits when an old, lowprofit-margin product is phased out "to
protect the environment," only to be replaced by a substitute (often legally mandated) with a much higher profit
margin; (5) the increased poverty and resulting higher mortality rates brought to third world countries as part of the
UN environmental and population control agenda; (6) the rationale provided by "environmental crises" for higher
taxes and more government agencies to deal with the "crises," thus accelerating the drive toward "Big Brother"
the
environmental movement furthers the agendas of virtually every segment
of the power elite, including the media moguls, the evolutionary
community, environmental activist groups, mega-corporations, the UN and
other population control activists, big government promoters, and the
neo=pagans. All of these circles of power are much larger and much more entrenched than is generally
government; (7) a rationale for reestablishing pagan earth worship, now heavily promoted by the UN. In short,
realized. It is no wonder therefore that global environmental collapse is continuously predicted regardless of the
There Is No
Manmade Global Warming. The linchpin of the environmental movement is
the false claim that there is a global temperature rise that will eventually
cause the entire environment to collapse. To prevent this catastrophe, we are told, we must
massive amounts of data demonstrating that God is really taking care of His earth after all! I.
reduce our standard of living and allow the governments of the world to extract huge amounts of tax monies to
scientists agree the greenhouse effect is real' followed by the observation that `the six warmest years in the record
are all in the past decade.' An interesting response can usually be elicited by asking, `How warm were those years
in the 1980s?' The common retort is that they were 2 C to 4 C (3.6 F to 7.2 F) warmer than before and that the
ice caps are melting. In fact, most apocalyptics are incredulous when they learn that there has been so little
warming and that the Greenland ice sheet - the largest glacier in the Northern Hemisphere - is growing. . . . Given
that minuscule warming, we must ask ... "[Is there] a deliberate attempt to mislead?"2
Bioweapons Defense
Biological weapons not deadly
HSC 03 (The Henry L. Stimson Center, Biological and Chemical
Weapons, Frequently Asked Question: Likelihood of Terrorists Acquiring
and Using Chemical or Biological Weapons, September 18, 2003,
http://www.accem.org/pdf/terrorfaq.pdf//MRG)
Have terrorists been actively seeking chemical and biological weapons capabilities? If so, what have
Prof of Poli Sci @ Georgia Southern University, The Role of the Supreme Court in American Politics: The
Least Dangerous Branch? 2002 p 175-6)
The limitations on the Court are not as significant as they once seemed. They constrain the Court, but the
boundaries of those constraints are very broad. Justiciability is self-imposed and seems to be a function of the
composition of the Court, rather than a philosophical position. Checks and balances are seldom successfully invoked
against the judiciary, in part because
justify its decisions. The Supreme Court has a relatively high level of diffuse support that comes, in part,
from a general lack of knowledge by the public and that contributes to its legitimacy.[6] The cloak of the
Constitution and the symbolism attendant to the marble palace and the
law contribute as well. As a result, presidents and Congress should pause before striking at the Court or
refusing to follow its directives. Indeed, presidents and members of Congress can often
use unpopular Court decisions as political cover. They cite the need to
enforce or support such decisions even though they disagree with them . In
the end, the institutional limitations do not mandate judicial restraint, but turn the focus to judicial capacity, the
subject of the next chapter.
Obama fought for passage of the landmark 2010 health care law,
very small minorities say their attitudes about him would change one way
or the other should the Supreme Court strike down the law that is so often referred
to as Obamacare. Two-thirds of those surveyed in a new public-opinion poll said
that their respect for Obama would be unchanged if the Supreme Court
struck down his signature legislative achievement. Fourteen percent said they would
respect Obama more under such a scenario, while 15 percent said they would respect him less. That trend
was consistent across the political spectrumsimilar proportions of
Republicans, Democrats, and independents said they would be unmoved,
despite the pundits speculation that a Court decision declaring the
A ffordable C are A ct unconstitutional in part or in its entirety might alter public opinion
toward the president. The nonplussed attitude also held across nearly all age, income, regional, and
racial categories, with at least 60 percent of each surveyed group saying that the
ruling would have no impact on their view of the president .
Even though President
encouraged others to do the same. That has led to an acceptance of the court's role in these issues." It seems
counterintuitive that politicians would want to defer to the court on some of the most high-stakes decisions in
Whittington has found that they do so because the court often rules
in the ways that presidents want and provides politicians with the political cover
government, but
they need. In 1995, the Clinton administration faced a proposal from the Senate to regulate pornography on
The president thought the bill was unconstitutional, but he didn't
want to risk appearing lenient on such a hot-button issu e right before he was up for
the Internet.
re-election, Whittington said. Clinton signed the legislation with the hope that the Supreme Court would strike it
down as unconstitutional, which it later did.
The Article closes by discussing the problem of congressional inaction. If a court certified a question to Congress
that Congress chose not to answera situation that might occur frequentlyI contend that Congresss silence
would serve as an implicit delegation of legislative power to the courts. Judges could then engage in more
freewheeling and creative reading of legislation than would be justified had Congress not first turned down the
by referring questions to
Congress, judges will have bought themselves some political cover
against charges of judicial activism for filling gaps and reconciling inconsistencies in
ambiguous statutes. For that reason, the value of certification is two-fold: In some cases, Congress
will step in to provide a legislative solution; in all the rest, Congresss silence will
opportunity to amend ambiguous statutory language. Moreover,
simply
recover funds on the government's behalf. Grassley emphasized the historical support for qui tam statutes and
expressed concern that the Supreme Court might strike them down.
Many of the panel's Democrats spoke in identical terms. New York's Charles E. Schumer emphasized the need for
judges to "respect" Congress. He asked Roberts to agree "that Congress deserves a great deal of deference when it
decides something is commercial." Massachusetts's Edward Kennedy pressed Judge Roberts on voting rights -- not
to support past judicial decisions protecting such rights, but to confirm that Congress has the authority to protect
them. Vermont's Patrick Leahy, the panel's ranking Democrat, explored the need for courts to permit Congress to
give ordinary citizens the right of access to federal courts.
Liberal Decisions-GOP BL
LIBERAL COURT DECISIONS CAUSE GOP BACKLASH
NEWSWEEK 10-6-2005
In other words, Bushs message to conservatives is Trust me. Yet, with the Miers nomination, Bush faces the same
troubles he has on post-Katrina funding. Bushs word, alone, no longer seems to be enough for some conservatives,
who feel that the administration has burned them on fiscal issues, the war and by seemingly putting less effort into
the fight on social issues like a ban on same-sex marriage. With some on the right already concerned about Chief
Justice John Robertss conservative credentials, some predict a major backlash against Republicans in future
elections if Bushs court nominees turn out to be more liberal on the bench than predicted. The only thing that has
held the Bush coalition together has been judges, says Paul Weyrich, head of the conservative Free Congress
Foundation. People would have left on account of the spending, immigration, the war, you name it. But theyve
held on because of judges, and if [Miers and Chief Justice Roberts] end up being something other than what the
president has promised, weve got big, big problems.
While the president isnt seeking re-election, he cannot afford to write off the partys grass roots. With Congress
stalled on much of his second-term policy agenda and his political capital in Washington lessening by the day, Bush
likely will have to use the partys grass roots to exert pressure on lawmakers to act on the proposals he hopes to push
through before leaving the White House. Most notably, that list includes Social Security, the presidents top
domestic agenda item, which has stalled in Congress. (On Tuesday, Bush dejectedly admitted that there seems to be
a diminished appetite to reform the federal retirement plan.) More importantly, Bush needs Republicans in
Congress to stick with him, both on Miers and on his overall agenda. It's a task made more difficult by the looming
midterm elections and a presidential race in 2008.
"The horse would die. The Republican Party would be a minority party for 10 or 20 years. It would be that long
before Christian conservatives picked up the flag again."
David-, Washington Bureau Chief, Hartford Courant, For Bush, a Term for the Worse;
A Troubled Presidency
In Bush's case, conservatives see themselves as his most ardent supporters ,
providing a political base in the first term and turning out en masse to give him a
second. Now they expect payofs -- and so far in 2005 they are not satisfied.
Exhibit A, conservatives say, is that they've pushed for sharp spending cuts and a
lower deficit for some time, but spending keeps rising at record levels and deficits
are at historic highs.
Conservatives want Bush to use his political capital, said Michael Franc, vice
president for government relations at Washington's Heritage Foundation. ``They
feel he never has really used his clout to control spending,'' and now the
Republican-dominated Congress is struggling to pass a budget package.
Nothing matters to conservatives, though, like judgeships. Budget fights occur
every year, but judges serve a lifetime.
Some conservatives said Thursday they had successfully used their political
firepower to block a flawed nominee. Earlier in the week, for example, Americans for
Better Justice began an ad campaign urging Bush to pull the Miers nomination.