LD Jan-Feb 2009 – International Criminal Court

i yose obama sighning the tready ICC would help contries come together and helps cromes against humanity

people on this topic believe in yourself and don't let anybody put one of your cases down if you know that it is a strong case it is just a psych out 

listen to opinions and constructive criticism, but if it is degrading what you believe about your case don't pay any attention to what's being said

what would be a good criterion for this topic?  and i also need help finding contentions that would work

ummm your good.

ok well im a novice debater from minnesota that wont be debating this topic but i have done a bit of research on it and i think  cosmopolitanism could be run on both sides with having the aff say cosmopolitanism is good and neg saying its bad

@eric: 
<div>I think that running the ICC leads a not so tenuous debate over what it means to <span style="font-style: italic;">submit </span>to the ICC. The Rome statue is broad reaching, and as an extension, we can go pretty far with what that word means, or what is acceptable in those terms. </div>

this topic puts the affirmative in a bind because either they advocate that the icc ought to be the international court the US submits to, or they advocate a hypothetical court.  Either way the neg can claim at least a modicum of abuse because the aff is either being condo by using the icc or is underspecifying by not choosing a court in the existing world which therefore destroys neg turn ground.  I think the better way is to specify the ICC because then the negative abuse story is much more tenuous.

i believe justice could be run for affirmative (value)

hi,
i am a high-school debater who is stuck on this topoic. could anyone please give me any ideas on any contentions, value and criterions?
thankyou
- :)

My quick thought: 
<div>
</div>

This resolution is tricky for a couple of reasons - 

<div>
</div>

What does submit mean?  - The idea of submitting oneself to an international court could be as little as signing a treaty with little to no enforcement power, like the our current involvement in the United Nations, or it could be full involvement, as we have in nuclear negotiations. The ground can be abused both ways. 

The resolution does not specify the <span style="font-style: italic;">International Criminal Court, </span>just an international court. The ICC has been mired with issues, as the powers of the Rome Statue essentially give the court unchecked power, and its jurisdiction from the beginning is not clear, and lends itself to potential abuses of power as any member of the Rome group is subject to its power, without making clear what the "crime" is, and be tried in an unfair court. Take this line from a State department official: 

<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 5px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 5px;">Numerous prospective "crimes" were suggested at Rome and commanded wide support from participating nations, such as the crime of "aggression," which was included in the Statute, but not defined. Although frequently easy to identify, "aggression" can at times be something in the eye of the beholder. </span>
</div>

I, if I were to debate the resolution, would not make the ICC my prime example of what we should do, but rather discuss it in a framework of what an international court that we submit to <span style="font-style: italic;">ought </span>look like. One in which we don't cede as much power as the Rome statue, but still make clear and unambiguous agreements over what is a crime against humanity and precisely how much power individual nations have, as well as the court itself.

<div><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 5px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 5px;">
</span></div>