AVHS

MITCH ELE AFFIRMATIVE J/F 09

I affirm. Submit means to yield to the control of another. The act of submission is an
unlikely political move as states normally show a lack of respect for international obligations:
most treaty signatories establish sovereign reservations over treaties. This is not an act of
submission, as control is not forfeited to an international institution: it is retained by the state
as the national government is able decide whether or not to execute treaty obligations. True
submission means accepting treaty conditions as binding.

The value is justice because it is the basis of what we owe others. The criterion is promoting
the equal protection of human rights.

1. All individuals should have equal access to basic human rights. No person should be
deprived of rights on the based on factors that are out of their control, such as the nation in
which they reside. Currently there is a vast disparity in rights protection between nations.

Andreas Follesdal [Thomas Winfried Menko Pogge, Real World Justice 2005 p. 90]

the necessary legal precondition for the

This articles aims not at adding yet another individual human right, but formulates
realization of basic rights, namely [is] a global legal order. Human rights are not only important
claims of individuals on other individuals and on their states, but also on the institutional order
in which individuals and states are to function. Furthermore, this seems to be fully in accordance with Rawlss moral
intuition, namely that a persons prospects and possibilities in life should depend on choices that she
makes for herself and on the responsibilities she accepts, but not at least not to a large extent on the
natural and social structures into which she is born. Individuals should start with equal rights,
and their societies should not give an undeserved advantage to some and an equally undeserved disadvantage to others. In our present
world, the prospects of individuals are undeniably not only determined by their social place of
birth within the national society, but also by the placing of their national society within the
global order.

2. There are no morally relevant distinctions between persons because everyone is equally
human thus; all lives have equal moral importance. As a result all humans deserve the
protection of their basic rights.

-1-
 AVHS
MITCH ELE AFFIRMATIVE J/F 09

3. All humans are members of the same moral community. Everyone is equally deserving of
human rights.

Martha Nussbaum [Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism,The Boston Review 1994

http://www.soci.niu.edu/~phildept/Kapitan/nussbaum1.html]
The Stoics who followed his lead developed his image of the kosmou polits or world citizen more fully, arguing that each of us dwells, in effect, in two
communities -- the local community of our birth, and the community of human argument and aspiration that "is truly great and truly common, in which
we look neither to this corner nor to that, but measure the boundaries of our nation by the sun" (Seneca, De Otio). It is this community that is, most
fundamentally, the source of our moral obligations. With respect to the most basic moral values such as justice, "we should regard all human beings as
We should regard our deliberations as, first and
our fellow citizens and neighbors" (Plutarch, On the Fortunes of Alexander).
foremost, deliberations about human problems of people in particular concrete situations, not
problems growing out of a national identity that is altogether unlike that of others. Diogenes knew that
the invitation to think as a world citizen was, in a sense, an invitation to be an exile from the comfort of patriotism and its easy sentiments, to see our
own ways of life from the point of view of justice and the good.The accident of where one is born is just that, an
accident; any human being might have been born in any nation. Recognizing this, his Stoic successors
held, we should not allow differences of nationality or class or ethnic membership or even gender
to erect barriers between us and our fellow human beings. We should recognize humanity
wherever it occurs, and give its fundamental ingredients, reason and moral capacity, our first
allegiance and respect. This clearly did not mean that the Stoics were proposing the abolition of local and national forms of political
organization and the creation of a world state. The point was more radical still: that we should give our first allegiance to no
mere form of government, no temporal power, but to the moral community made up by the
humanity of all human beings. The idea of the world citizen is in this way the ancestor and source of Kant's idea of the "kingdom of
ends," and has a similar function in inspiring and regulating moral and political conduct. One should always behave so as to
treat with equal respect the dignity of reason and moral choice in every human being.

4. We should adopt the goal of equal access to rights because concern for the welfare of
others allows us to make more rational policy choices.

Martha Nussbaum [Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism,The Boston Review 1994

http://www.soci.niu.edu/~phildept/Kapitan/nussbaum1.html]

One of the greatest barriers to rational deliberation in

Through cosmopolitan education, we learn more about ourselves.
politics is the unexamined feeling that one's own current preferences and ways are neutral and
natural. An education that takes national boundaries as morally salient too often reinforces this
kind of irrationality, by lending to what is an accident of history a false air of moral weight and
glory. By looking at ourselves in the lens of the other, we come to see what in our practices is
local and non-necessary, what more broadly or deeply shared. Our nation is appallingly
ignorant of most of the rest of the world. I think that this means that it is also, in many crucial
ways, ignorant of itself.

The affirmative thesis is that an international court is necessary to promote the recognition of
human rights as something belonging inherently to individuals and not something to be
granted by a state. The U.S. must join the ICC in order to do its part to promote equality. If we
do not join we deny our own citizens access to the protections the court offers.

-2-
 AVHS
MITCH ELE AFFIRMATIVE J/F 09

First, the ICC checks state abuses of citizens by regulating their conduct.

Atul Bharadawaj [International Criminal Court and the Question of Sovereignty, Strategic Analysis, January-
March 2003 Vol. XXVII No. 1]

The charisma of states authority is under strain. The staggering rise in intra-state
conflicts in the post-Cold War world and the growing tentacles of transnational terrorism
have raised questions about state legitimacy. States are no longer considered to be the most
effective means of enforcing international norms and order among individuals. The
detailed scrutiny of the human rights records of certain countries by the international
community is leading towards a new international order, where the absolutes of state
sovereignty are being challenged. In the new international setting stability and order take precedence over equality
among states. The sovereign immunity enjoyed by states is being restricted and limited by
the emergence of international constitutional structures, which exist beyond the
boundaries of states. The ongoing trends in the discourse on sovereignty suggest that a perceptible shift is occurring away from
the theories of national sovereignty, which had dominated the post-Second World War world, towards constitutional notions of sovereignty
that intend to limit sovereignty. At the end of the Second World War, Charles E. Merriam had argued, sovereignty must make friends with
The right to hold
constitutional values, scientific values, idealistic values, which are the heart of our new civilization. 47
individuals responsible and accountable and the thrust towards international
humanitarianism are a part of the same cosmopolitan ideology. The advanced
technology available with the international community enables it to look into the
happenings within state territories. The spatial reach of the international community is
leading towards the construction of an international moral solidarity against
infringement of individual rights. 48 The fresh wave of cosmopolitanism is something akin to the medieval
cosmopolitanism, which came via the church. However, one fundamental difference between the medieval and current cosmopolitanism is
that while the former was based on the authority derived from God, the latter relies on scientific means of monitoring human activity for its
The growing interconnectivity and interdependence in the world is leading
legitimacy.
towards redefining sovereignty in terms of its obligation to international rules. According to
the former UN Secretary-General, Javier Perez de Cuellar, Sovereignty and international responsibility are different sides of the same
coin...The nexus between sovereignty and humanitarianism introduces us to the notions of international rule of law... Sovereignty and
International responsibilities of states are
international responsibility leads back to the international rule of law. 49
normally associated with their external sovereignty. The right to be an equal member in
the comity of nations is an important aspect of external sovereignty. Alan James finds splitting of
sovereignty into external and internal components to be too dangerous for the unitary character of sovereignty. Sovereignty, according to
James is constitutional independence, which can neither be shared nor be divided. 50 However, George Sorensen, while acknowledging the
impregnability inherent in constitutional independence, pierces the concept of sovereignty by dividing it into constitutive rules and
regulative rules. 51 The core of constitutive rules is composed of constitutional independence, which remains stable. But according to
Sorensen, the regulative rules remain in a state of flux. The difference between James and Sorensens constitutional independence can be
located in the age-old question: what came first, the egg or the chicken? While James holds the opinion that international law is the child of
sovereignty, Sorensen believes that sovereignty is a passport for entry into an already constituted international community. The unitary
character of James constitutional independence leaves no room for any external interference in the running of the state. However,
Sorensen merely sees constitutional independence as a piece of paper to lure the states into an international society, where their
sovereignty can be regulated through a different set of norms. Applying the George Sorensen logic to the recently constituted ICC, one can
While the ICC acknowledges the
safely argue that it does lead to a divided or truncated sovereignty for states.
constitutional validity of the states, it also undermines it by asking states to share their
absolute authority, which they enjoy over their subjects, thus circumscribing their
supremacy or constitutional independence. It is claimed that the Court is not a supra-national body but a
membership of international society. It only identifies certain core constitutional values,
which are shared by all national societies. Therefore, there is no master-slave relationship between sovereign
states and international institutions. However, one sees that states will always be subordinate to the ICC because, the latter possesses the
treaty powers to force states to comply with its requirements. Transactions between states and ICC are one-sided. It is only states that are
required to give something (person or documents). ICC is not obliged to give anything in return to states. The ICC promises not
to states but to its subjects, the protection of their rights.

-3-
 AVHS
MITCH ELE AFFIRMATIVE J/F 09

The ICC not only directly intervenes on the side of individuals against abuses by states but
also isolates leaders who choose to deny rights to their citizens. As the source of rights shifts
from the state to the individuals, states who deny rights will become increasingly isolated,
which will force a shift in their policies.

Payam Akhavan [BEYOND IMPUNITY: CAN INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE PREVENT FUTURE ATROCITIES? THE AMERICAN
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW Vol. 95:7, 2001]

Even an isolated Somali or Afghan warlord cannot entirely disregard the relation
between international acceptance and long-term survival. The stigmatization associated
with indictment, as much as apprehension and prosecution, may significantly threaten
the attainment of sustained political powerIn concert with other policy measures, resort to international criminal tribunals can play
a significant role in discrediting and containing destabilizing political forces. Stigmatizing delinquent leaders through indictment, as

well as apprehension and prosecution, undermines their influence. Even if wartime leaders still enjoy

popular support among an indoctrinated public at home, exclusion from the

international sphere can significantly impede their long-term exercise of power. Failure to deliver
on promises of economic growth and prosperity, together with the humiliation of pariah status in an interdependent world community, eventually exacts a cost on such leaders'

. Whether their
influence and authority. Moreover, political climates and fortunes change, and the seemingly invincible leaders of today often become the fugitives of tomorrow

the vigilance of international criminal justice will ensure

downfall comes through political overthrow or military defeat,

that their crimes do not fall into oblivion, undermining the prospect of an easy escape
or future political rehabilitation. A post conflict culture of justice also makes moral
credibility a valuable political asset for victim groups, rendering vengeance less
tempting and more costly. Of course, the preventive effects of international criminal justice can extend beyond post conflict peace building in directly
affected countries. The prosecution and related political demise of such leaders sends a message

that the cost of ethnic hatred and violence as an instrument of power outweighs its
benefits. Precedents of accountability, however selective and limited, contribute to the
transformation of a culture of impunity that has hitherto implied the political acceptability of massive human rights abuses. Together
with the ICTY and ICTR precedents, the ICC blueprint for a future international criminal justice system,

has raised accountability to unprecedented prominence in the politics of international

legitimacy. Criminal accusations increasingly constitute a serious political impediment
to the ambitions of existing or aspiring leaders. In the calls for the establishment of further ad hoc international criminal
tribunals, mixed tribunals, and prosecutions before national or foreign courts, in places as diverse as East Timor and Sierra Leone, Senegal, and Chile, one finds an

. This spread of accountability reflects the early glimmerings of an

unmistakable contagion of accountability

international criminal justice system and the gradual emergence of inhibitions against
massive crimes hitherto tolerated or condoned by the international community.

-4-
 AVHS
MITCH ELE AFFIRMATIVE J/F 09

Second, the ICC offers individuals an alternative to violence to reclaim rights that are denied
by their state.

Atul Bharadawaj [International Criminal Court and the Question of Sovereignty, Strategic Analysis, January-
March 2003 Vol. XXVII No. 1]

One of the main reasons for the Court to come into existence after the end of the Cold
War is that many crimes committed against humanity have been ignored by states either
due to military necessity or under the national sovereignty and territorial integrity clause. The ICC does involve a sacrifice of sovereignty,
because it envisages asserting itself when a state refuses or fails to use its national criminal justice apparatus to deal with the perpetrator of
crime against humanity. Under the Westphalian system, the sovereign power to make war and
peace is restricted to the legitimate state alone. However, the proliferation of advanced
technology and the ease with which individuals can appropriate these technologies to
cause large-scale destruction challenges the states monopoly over the means of
waging war. A suicide bomber epitomizes the sovereign powers inherent in any
individual to make war. The ICCs provisions are not directly related to controlling such
atomized individuals who have broken their agreement of allegiance with civil society and with norms identified by the
international society. However, by providing the irrational individuals viable media to seek
justice, the ICC may help to prevent the slippage of a greater number of individuals into
the Lockean state of nature. 33 The question that comes to mind is why should people hand over their rights to a supra-
national body? The rapid growth of markets devoid of any soothing political effects has generated a fresh wave of fear in the minds of
people. The growing inequalities and dwindling economic opportunities are a cause of
insecurity in the world. This is one main reason for the growth of xenophobic, ultra-
nationalist and ethnic movements across the world, which threaten minorities. The
movement towards supra-national legal structures spearheaded by the global civil
society is perhaps a response to the human need to seek justice which is being denied
within many states. Using the Lockean logic, one can argue that the sovereign individual cannot remain in a perpetual state of
nature. The rational individual, disillusioned with his own governments response to his
needs of comprehensive security, is beginning to offload the baggage of his natural
sovereign rights to a larger terrestrial body like the UN to ensure his peaceful sleep. Through the
ICC, the post-modern individual is exerting his inalienable right to appeal to a supra-
national terrestrial body which also possesses spatial powers to monitor the activities
in various parts of the world rather than trying to seek justice from a supernatural power.

The situation in Uganda, the Congo and elsewhere demonstrates that the chaos that follows a
violent conflict between rebel and government forces often results in even greater violations
of human rights. Even when the rebels are justified in revolting against an abusive state they
often commit crimes against humanity in the process of taking power and many times
become as oppressive or even more oppressive than the former regime. An international
institution that allows individuals to appeal to an authority above the state in seeking
protection of their rights can diffuse conflicts by granting rights that have been denied.

-5-
 AVHS
MITCH ELE AFFIRMATIVE J/F 09

Finally, the ICC creates a shift in the way human rights are viewed. No longer will rights be
granted by states rather they belong to individuals intrinsically. The ICC protects the status of
individuals as subjects who have the ability to make claims on their states.

Atul Bharadawaj [International Criminal Court and the Question of Sovereignty, Strategic Analysis, January-
March 2003 Vol. XXVII No. 1]

The ICC provisions aim to balance

It is an accepted norm in any society that rights and responsibilities go hand in hand.
the rights conferred on individuals by international society with responsibilities and
accountability to international law. Does this lead to a kind of supra-national citizenship, as in the case of the European
Union, which is understood not merely as an agreement among states but also as a social contract among nationals of those states? 42
what we are witnessing is the international legal status of the individual
Therefore,
undergoing a metamorphosis. The transformation of the individual from object to
subject in international legal terms is resulting in a shift in power relations both within
and between states. This means that the states monopoly over its people is fast
eroding and its political authority is being challenged. Since the Sovereign State is still
considered to be the best available institution capable of dealing with human problems
in world politics, we find that ICCs referent is both the state and the individual.

The process of adjudication entrenches universal human rights. In the past individuals had no
recourse against an oppressive state that failed to protect rights. The ICC gives individuals an
institution to appeal to when their own state fails to recognize their inherent rights.

James Bohman [Professor of Philosophy and Danforth Chair in the Humanities, St. Louis University, SPECIAL ISSUE: Democracy and
Punishment: Punishment as a Political Obligation: Crimes Against Humanity and the Enforceable Right to Membership, Buffalo Criminal Law

Review, 2002,5 Buff. Crim. L. R. 551]

The efficacy of such trials consists in the public functioning of the adjudicative process itself: it
establishes the authority of the international community through the Court over the normative
reconstruction of tyrannous authority. The legitimacy of international judicial institutions then

depends on their possession of certain competences, their capacity to perform a particular

function within political system as a whole, and not just their enforcement powers. What the
Court instantiates in its process of adjudication is the status and rights of individuals to make
claims against tyranny and in that way to participate in a social process and a political
community that recognizes them as free and equal. The dialogue is initiated via the participation of the parties in the
Court, in which freedom, equality, and legal respect are realized in the social process of adjudication itself. So normatively structured,
adjudication is also an occasion for public deliberation about the causes and reforms of the
international political system needed to recognize the wrongs of the past and reform the
system for organizing and protecting human rights in the future. Such adjudication is not confined to a criminal
court, but extended to a judicial system that provides redress for violations of the rights of voice and exit. Those whose rights are violated

appeal to such judicial institutions as recognized members of the international political

community that authorized them and not as they might to some higher foreign power. It might
be tempting to think that such an institution is effective only if it acquires sufficient coercive powers to
deter all such violations in the future. This overly instrumental conception of effectiveness shifts indivisible
sovereignty from the state to international courts, rather than the linking the effectiveness of judicial
institutions to their overall contribution in a political system as a whole.

-6-