Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an

international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.

The United States has never accepted the jurisdiction of an international body which
could pass judgment upon the United States’ actions. One of the facts that the
affirmative needs to accept is that defending the affirmation of this resolution
means defending a radical move away from traditional modes of US governance.
We would be granting a supranational court the power to try and punish US citizens
for what are determined to be “crimes against humanity.” Because the affirmative
must argue that the US “ought to submit to the jurisdiction,” it is clear that the US
would be doing more than paying lip service to the concept of international law and
human rights. This is an area that students should research in depth; clarifying
what it means to “submit” to the jurisdiction of a court is a very important aspect of
argument on the resolution. Debaters need to be able to defend or deny that the
US government, an agency of its government, its leaders, and/or its citizens should
be liable to be accused of being in violation of such laws and/or rights, could be
tried and convicted, and could be sentenced and made to serve that sentence.
Otherwise, the US would not be submitting to any court’s jurisdiction. Additionally,
it is crucial that debaters examine what makes a court a “criminal” court, and what
defines a court as “international.” The resolution does not say that the US should
submit to the jurisdiction of “the” current International Criminal Court (the ICC), but
rather states that the US should submit to the jurisdiction of “an” international
criminal court. This distinction is important.

Although this resolution does propose that we ought to make a fairly radical change
in the way the United States respects international law, there are many advocates
of just such a radical change. They argue that the only way there can ever be a real
commitment to respect the rights of all humans is to enforce laws which punish
those who violate these rights. The United States certainly cannot pretend, in a
post 9/11 world, that it has not engaged in policies which arguably violate human
rights: the imprisonment without charge for an indefinite period of time of hundreds
in Guantanamo; the sexual, physical, and mental abuse and degradation of
prisoners in Abu Ghraib; and the use of torture against others taken prisoner either
by “extraordinary rendition” or by other means of arrest. In fact, some argue,
unless the United States and other powerful nations agree to submit to the
jurisdiction of an international court, there can be no meaningful steps taken
towards assuring global human rights.

The lesson plans to follow will focus on assignments to gain historical background
on international courts, but the annotated bibliography provides cites for writings
providing two different perspectives on enforcement of international morality which
can be helpful to introducing the resolution with further reading. Jamie Mayerfeld, in
her article “Who Shall Be Judge?” grounds her defense of the need for international
law (and the need for the United States to accept the jurisdiction of international
law) in the socio-political philosophy of John Locke, arguing that accepting a world
order without any “refereeing” mechanisms will lead to the same sort of
overreactions by nations that wronged individuals may inflict on those they are in
conflict with in a state of nature.

The second perspective is provided by one of the classic realist thinkers, George
Kennan, in his essay “Morality and Foreign Policy,” which consistently argues that
the introduction of moral precepts such as international human rights only serves to
lead to arrogance about moral rightness and greater disharmony and conflict
among nations. Kennan, and other realist thinkers, point to the lack of practicality
in assuming there can be any universal consensus on what constitutes human
rights, as well as what they regard as the folly of believing that enforcement
mechanisms can or should be put in place to punish nations who violate such rights.

It is important, however, to note that Kennan and other realists, particularly the old
school realists such as Morgenthau and Niebuhr, do not deny the possibility that
progress towards a more democratic and humane world is a good idea. They
believe, however, that the only way to actualize this idea is through individually
chosen actions which are largely self-determined by nation states. They do not
believe, as do current neo-realists such as Khalilizhad, that the US should act
hegemonically. They believe, instead, that all nations need to accept that other
nations have interests and need to be negotiated with diplomatically. Nevertheless,
none of the original realist thinkers agree that the way to promote democracy or
rights is by proposing grandiose universal declarations which no one actually
follows. The classic realists would respond to current US transgressions of human
rights by saying that the US needs to follow its own values first. That step would
not only model to others, without judgment of others, what the US believes to be
just; it is also something which can be enforced with currently available legal
mechanisms, if we have the integrity to do so. It can be argued that advocates of
international law instead continue to pursue an unachievable dream with no hope
for actual change via action and enforcement.

Annotated Bibliography

http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/php/docs_swi.php?DI=1&text=bibliogr

The President and Fellows of Harvard College. “Nuremberg Trials Project: A Digital
Document Collection.” Harvard Law School Library 2003. (collection of historical
documents, analysis, and opinion about the Nuremberg trials)

http://topics.cnn.com/topics/radovan_karadzic

Cable News Network. “Radovan Karadzic: News and Videos.” Cable News Network.
Updated August 29, 2008. (detailed information on the international criminal
tribunal prosecution and background of human rights abuses in the former
Yugoslavia)

http://hrw.org/wr2k5/

Human Rights Watch. “World Report 2005.” January 2005. (provides in-depth focus
on Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and Darfur)

Jane Mayer, "A Doctrine Passes," New Yorker, October 10, 2002. (provides a good
overview of realist foreign policy philosophy, especially the thinking of George
Kennan, and provides insight into how the old school realists react to current
foreign policy adventurism.)

Richard Falk. “Recovering Normative Consciousness,” International Relations, 2005.

(I got this article while at Baylor University from http://ire.sagepub.com, but the
article may not be accessible without paying for it if you don’t have university
access. This is excellent advocacy for the justification of international law from one
of the most well-known advocates of international norms and international law
enforcement.)

Jamie Mayerfeld. “Who Shall Be the Judge?: The United States, the International
Criminal Court, and the Global Enforcement of Human Rights,” Human Rights
Quarterly 25, 2003 by Johns Hopkins University Press. (offers a unique justification
of international law, incorporating John Locke’s social contract theory on a more
international level.)

Sample Three Day Lesson Plans

Day One/Day Two

On the first day of introducing the topic, the students can be given the overview,
but before they go the suggested articles for reading/discussion and starting to
gather specific ideas about the resolution’s opposing arguments, they should first
read a considerable amount about the crimes against humanity which have taken
place in history and the ones which continue today. The resources available are,
unfortunately, voluminous; providing some focus on important concerns and
international court action is key.

Each teacher can adjust how she wants to divide up to work, but I suggest a
research/reporting back assignment that focuses on the Nuremberg Trials; the
ongoing prosecution of accused war criminals in the former Yugoslavia; the
genocide in Darfur; and the United States’ actions in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo
(and perhaps the US practice of “extraordinary rendition”). You may or may not
want to require a written product, but making students responsible for a thorough
explanation of how these specific historical events are relevant to the resolution is
crucial. Debaters should not be presenting the typical oversimplified power point
chronological regurgitation of generic facts, and you need to make that clear to
them. Of course adjust your expectations for novice and more experienced
debaters, but establish high expectations for their final product.

In the annotated bibliography, I have provided links which can be accessed with any
internet search, that have full information on all of these focus areas. One of the
benefits of this resolution is that there is in-depth analysis and opinion readily
available which clearly outlines both sides of the United States granting jurisdiction
to an international court.

A student who is well read on the realities of crimes against humanity and the
benefits and problems of international court prosecutions will simply be much better
prepared to debate this topic, and spending time upfront requiring reading and
reporting back to others who are working on the Lincoln-Douglas topic will establish
a healthy team approach to gathering and sharing evidence and ideas. It will also
make brainstorming about arguments much more substantive.

Let the students work in class time (or practice time) on reading and gathering
evidence for their reporting back to the other debaters. Have the reporting back
due on the third day (adjust as needed for different practice times or class length)
and encourage students to be ready to ask and answer questions.

Day Three

The entire time may well be spent with the students presenting what they learned
regarding the different historical and current background of international courts
acting in response to crimes against humanity.

Students should ask questions of their fellow debaters in order to gain more
complete understanding, and it is usually a good idea for any coaches in class or at
practice to also stimulate discussion and further elaboration of ideas by asking
questions such as the following:

Did all nations accept the jurisdiction of the Nuremberg court, or was their
jurisdiction limited in scope?

Does Nuremberg actually represent a type of international court designed to

prosecute crimes against humanity?

Do the Nuremberg trials demonstrate the need for a permanent international court
to which most countries ought to grant jurisdiction?

Why has the UN been so ineffectual in prosecuting crimes against humanity in

Darfur?

What countries have cooperated fully with the international court prosecutions
regarding crimes against humanity in the former Yugoslavia, and how has this led to
some progress in these cases?

Why is the United States so resistant to granting jurisdiction to the International

Criminal Court? What justifications did the Clinton and Bush administrations give
for rejecting such jurisdiction?

At the end of this day, students should be given the Kennan and Mayerfeld articles
for reading. It might be a good idea to provide some annotation to both articles
(bracketing passages and explaining them briefly in the margins with notes),
especially if you are working mainly with younger Lincoln Douglas debaters.