International Court LD debate case help?
So, I’m working on a case for the Jan/Feb ‘09 LD topic, which is:
The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court to prosecute crimes against humanity.
However, I’m confused in a couple of places.
Does the resolution state that the International court would prosecute countries (e.g., saying the U.S. could submit to the court) that have committed crimes against humanity, or is it saying that the court would prosecute people who have committed crimes against humanity?
And,
Would crimes against humanity be violent crimes, like murder and rape? Or would they be crimes against large groups of people, such as mass genocide?
Any help is greatly appreciated.
You might also want to go to the American Bar Association website. Since the ABA and the U.S. Government were major players in early drafts of the treaty until the U.S. decided to walk away, they should have some information on it.
Basically, the purpose of the International Court is to handle criminal cases against individuals. (I don’t know how you could prosecute a country.) The jurisdiction includes things like genocide, war crimes, and other major human rights violations. Ordinary, civilian on civilian crimes are not in the jurisdiction of the court.
The reason for the change in the U.S. position was the fear that U.S. citizens could get referred to the court. When the court was originally discussed, nobody seriously considered the possibility of a referral against a major country but as it got closer folks realized that the more international conflicts that you were involved in the greater the chance that your civilian and military leadership could be referred for war crimes.
I’m also a LDer and I’ve finished my cases so I kindof know what it means, as much as anyone can in these topics, but it means that the United States as a whole should submit to the court, but noone could actualy prosecute the country, what the US would be doing is submitting its citizens to a court, and as to your second question, google "The Rome Statute." It is essentialy the constitution of the International Criminal Court, has a very good definition of "crimes against humanity."
References :
You might also want to go to the American Bar Association website. Since the ABA and the U.S. Government were major players in early drafts of the treaty until the U.S. decided to walk away, they should have some information on it.
Basically, the purpose of the International Court is to handle criminal cases against individuals. (I don’t know how you could prosecute a country.) The jurisdiction includes things like genocide, war crimes, and other major human rights violations. Ordinary, civilian on civilian crimes are not in the jurisdiction of the court.
The reason for the change in the U.S. position was the fear that U.S. citizens could get referred to the court. When the court was originally discussed, nobody seriously considered the possibility of a referral against a major country but as it got closer folks realized that the more international conflicts that you were involved in the greater the chance that your civilian and military leadership could be referred for war crimes.
References :