User Tools
Sidebar
Resolved: The United States ought to become party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and/or the Rome Statute of he International Criminal Court.
In affirming this resolution, I will focus exclusively on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, or ICC.
Because it is the purpose of court systems to administer justice, we must focus on the value of justice in this round. The purpose of justice is to seek redress for victims of a crime. Whichever side provides the best system for this redress should win the round.
While the United States has a system of justice that is constantly changing, it provides a venue for the fair adjudication of crimes as defined by the criminal codes of the United States. The Rome Statute of the ICC provides a venue for the adjudication of crimes in a way that the US system of justice cannot. While the ICC addresses many worthy issues, I will focus attention on two: war crimes, and crimes against humanity
Contention 1: The ICC seeks redress for war crimes.
According to the Council on Foreign Relations, an independent, non-partisan think tank, the ICC has jurisdiction over “…war crimes, including grave breaches of the laws of war under the Geneva Conventions and serious violations under customary international law, such as torture, taking of hostages, willfully causing great suffering, intentionally attacking civilian populations as such, attacking undefended civilian property, schools, historic monuments, or hospitals, using starvation of civilian populations as a method of warfare, or using child soldiers; …” The world saw grievous examples of this in the most recent events in the Middle East. The Hamas government of Gaza took civilian hostages from Israel, with evidence of torture, and exercised missile attacks targeting civilians. The Israeli government responded with actions that also appears to have targeted civilians willfully causing famine and disease. We don't need to adjudicate these claims in this debate round. We need an impartial body to adjudicate these accusations. It cannot be the role of one warring party to be judge and jury to the other warring party. Without the ICC, there can be no fair adjudication of war crimes, and without fair adjudication, there is no hope for deterrence of these crimes. Yevgeny Vindman, a former colonel in the U.S. Army and deputy legal advisor on the White House National Security Council, wrote in Foreign Policy magazine in 2023, “… the ICC’s warrant [on Russian President Vladimir Putin] is ignored, then the other remaining guardrails to prevent illegal warfare may erode, too. Inversely, abiding by international legal norms, including those enforced by the ICC, has the potential to walk back the damage Russia has already done to the rule of law. If the global community can put up a united front to hold Russia accountable for its crimes, other would-be aggressors—especially Russia’s backers in Beijing— would take note.”
Contention 2: The ICC seeks redress for crimes against humanity
The Council on Foreign Relations writes that the ICC has jurisdiction over “crimes against humanity, or violations committed as part of a large-scale attack against any civilian population, including murder, rape, unjust imprisonment, slavery, persecution, torture, or apartheid; …” They offer the example of Omar Al-Bashir: “The first sitting president to be indicted by the ICC, Bashir is sought on allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in Sudan’s Darfur region. He is accused of planning mass killings and deportations of members of several ethnic groups. Bashir avoided arrest by traveling abroad only with assurances from friendly foreign leaders that they would not turn him over.” How can citizens of a nation redress grievances against a tyrant without an independent body to adjudicate their claims? The ICC was formed to provide a stable organization that could provide this forum, as opposed to the ad hoc tribunals that were previously in place. When nations like the United States refuse to become party to the ICC, it emboldens other nations to ignore these crimes and provide safe haven to criminal political figures.
Contention 3: The ICC provides adequate protection against those accused of a crime
Some argue that the ICC would allow politically motivated prosecution of Americans. The Coalition for the International Criminal Court tells us that “One of the main achievements and pillars of the Rome Statute is the independence of the ICC, including the prosecutor and judges, from governments and from the United Nations Security Council. The ICC Rome Statute carries with it safeguards against politically motivated investigations and prosecution.” The fear of politically motivated prosecution is fair, but not unique to the ICC. The US courts have been accused of the same thing, and need to be continually monitored for these abuses of justice. Those opposing the ICC raise fears that would prevent any administration of justice, and would embolden those who want to reject the concept of justice when their actions are called into question. We must affirm the quest for justice within the ICC and continue to monitor it for abuse. The Coalition points out “Through its governing body, the Assembly of States Parties, the ICC provides forum for states to shape the future of international criminal justice and to advocate for reform. Each state has one equal vote.” In addition, the Court expressly defers to national courts. “The ICC is intended to complement rather than replace national courts. It can only act when national courts have been found unable or unwilling to try a case.” As Vindman points out in his Foreign Policy article, “The ICC steps in only when a state fails to use its own national criminal justice apparatus to handle war crimes, as is currently the case in Russia. In the United States, however, the robust military justice systems ensure that crimes are investigated and prosecuted as a matter of maintaining order and discipline within the armed forces, making ICC jurisdiction against U.S. military personnel unlikely, so long as the United States continues to police its own behavior.” If you believe that the US should police itself against war crimes in its own justice system, there is no reason to fear the ICC.
Contention 4: Joining the ICC advances American Foreign Policy
Vindman writes “ A demonstrated commitment to accountability will strengthen the United States’ own institutions and make U.S. leadership of international institutions more credible and viable. Further, ICC membership would potentially chill U.S. political leaders’ appetite for unjust wars that could land them in dicey moral and legal terrain. An added layer of restraint and accountability may prevent future foreign-policy follies, whether by the White House or even by an expansionist China eyeing Taiwan. American choices made in the coming months and years will either further erode the international system or accelerate Russia’s status as a global pariah. By making the right choice and joining the ICC’s efforts for justice, the United States adds to its own security by fortifying the rules-based international order and dissuading aggressive adventures by its competitors.”
The Coalition for the ICC states “[The ICC] is a Global Court for the powerless - Around the globe, victims of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are demanding justice and redress. By making the ICC and Rome Statute system of international justice truly GLOBAL, individuals suspected of committing these universally abhored crimes can be held to account in courts of law around the world.” Clearly, and reluctance to become party to the Rome Statue of the ICC is bad for the United States, and bad for the advancement of justice for our citizens, and all citizens of the world. I urge you to affirm.
