Framework

Value: Justice

Criterion: Increasing credibility

- The willingness of other countries to trust and believe the eachother concerning international
affairs
- This is crucial to any international impact in the round- whoever wins the credibility argument
wins the round
 Overfishing

Marine biodiversity is collapsing, fewer and fewer areas are under protection
Gabbatis 18’ (Josh Gabbatis, 26th Jul 2018, "Only 13% of Worl’s oceans are still untouched wilderness,
scientists find", The Independent, https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/oceans-conservation-
arctic-pacific-islands-marine-fishing-climate-change-a8465401.html, 4th Jan 2025)/AA-ERG

The area of the ocean that remains undamaged by humans is tiny, according to the first ever
comprehensive analysis of “marine wilderness”. Global shipping, fishing operations and pollution
running into the sea from land have all taken their toll on the world’s seas, including some of the most
remote areas. Areas of true wilderness are vital as they are some of the most diverse parts of the
ocean and the last places on Earth still inhabited by sizeable numbers of large predators like sharks.
ADVERTISING READ MORE Krill fishing industry backs massive Antarctic ocean sanctuary Even the few
fragments that remain are threatened as advanced fishing technologies and melting sea ice expose them
to human activity. Most of the remaining wilderness, which covers no more than 13 per cent of the
world’s oceans, can be found in the polar regions and around remote Pacific Island nations. The
scientists behind the study have called for international agreements to recognise the unique value of
these zones. 00:15 / 00:30 SKIP AD Independent - Daily Highlights Watch Full Screen Kendall Jones of the
University of Queensland, who led the research, said they were “astonished by just how little marine
wilderness remains”. Colombian reserve becomes world’s largest rainforest national park 12 show all
"The ocean is immense, covering over 70 percent of our planet, but we've managed to significantly
impact almost all of this vast ecosystem,” he said. Crucially, less than 5 per cent of the remaining
wilderness is officially protected. "This means the vast majority of marine wilderness could be lost at
any time, as improvements in technology allow us to fish deeper and ship farther than ever before,"
explained Mr Jones. ADVERTISING inRead invented by Teads "Thanks to a warming climate, even some
places that were once safe due to year-round ice cover can now be fished." READ MORE Skipper
describes horror at seeing ‘endless’ ocean of rubbish The research, published in the journal Current
Biology, used available data on 19 different human impacts such as fertiliser pollution, as well as fishing
activities across the world. They defined areas as wilderness if they were in the lowest 10 per cent of
these impacts. Wide variation existed in the extent of human impacts, with 16 million square kilometres
of wilderness remaining in the warm Indo-Pacific, but less than 2,000 square kilometres in temperate
southern Africa. Efforts are being made to protect some of the remaining wilderness regions, such as
the push to create the world’s largest marine sanctuary in Antarctica.

Modern fishing methods destroy ocean life

DUJS 12’ (Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of Science, member of the Directory of Open Access
Journals, an international group of science and scholarly journals that meet high quality standards by
exercising peer review and editorial quality, “The Threats of Overfishing: Consequences at the
Commercial Level”, 3/11/12, http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/winter-2012/the-threats-of-overfishing-
consequences-at-the-commercial-level#.U8TgwmfjgwV)
Fishing gear is often non-selective in the fish it targets. For example, any fish that are too big to get
through the mesh of a net are captured. Therefore, overfishing does not only threaten the species of
fish that is targeted for food, but also many non-target species. As a result, these other species,
including marine mammals and seabirds, are accidentally caught in the fishing gear and killed (6). For
example, for every ton of prawn caught, three tons of other fish are killed and thrown away. Those in
the trade refer to this practice of inadvertent catching of other species as bycatch (4). The FAO has
pointed out that about 25 percent of the world’s captured fish end up thrown overboard because they
are caught unintentionally, are illegal market species, or are of inferior quality and size. Many of the fish
caught this way include endangered and over exploited species, 95 percent of which are eventually
thrown away (2). Bycatch is not just limited to just unwanted fish, but rather affects all types of marine
life, including whales, dolphins, porpoises, fur seals, albatrosses, and turtles. For example, tuna fisheries
are indirectly responsible for the deaths of an estimated one million sharks annually due to bycatch.
Small cetaceans, such as dolphins and porpoises, are also targets of bycatch as they are often caught in
fishing nets. In fact, hundreds of dolphin corpses are washed up on the beaches of Europe every year,
bringing attention to the growing scale of this problem (6). Many modern fishing methods are also
irreversibly destructive. For example, bottom trawling, a technique that uses extremely wide nets armed
with heavy metal rollers, can crush everything in the path of the gear, destroying fragile corals, smashing
rock formations, and killing several tons of fish and animals as bycatch (7). As such, these practices can
wreak havoc on delicate marine ecosystems. Not surprisingly, it has been reported that industrial fishing
takes between only 10 and 15 years to wipe out a tenth of whichever species it targets (2). In fact,
several marine species have already been fished to commercial extinction, and this number is rapidly
increasing (1). One of the reasons for this is that the regulation of fishing vessels and the fishing industry
is universally inadequate. Roughly two-thirds of the ocean is free of laws and fishing vessels only follow
the laws ratified by their country of origin. However, most fishing countries have not ratified any
international convention to protect the sea or marine life (2). Moreover, fishing factory ships and
companies are given access to fisheries before the long–term impact of their fishing practices is
understood (1). If current trends continue, we are very likely to see ‘fishless oceans’ by 2050. This would
be a tragedy not just for the oceans’ ecosystems, but for the people that rely on them to survive.
Globally, some 43.5 million people work directly in the fisheries sector, with the great majority in
developing countries. Adding those who work in associated processing, marketing, distribution and
supply industries, the sector supports nearly 200 million livelihoods. Unless current trends are reversed,
millions of livelihoods could be lost.

Ocean health is critical to the existence of all life on earth

Craig 03’ (Associate professor or law, Indiana University of Law, 3rd Jan 2025, 34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155,
pp. 161-2)

The world's oceans contain many resources and provide many services that humans consider valuable.
"Occupy[ing] more than [seventy percent] of the earth's surface and [ninety-five percent] of the
biosphere," oceans provide food; marketable goods such as shells, aquarium fish, and pharmaceuticals;
life support processes, including carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, and weather mechanics; and
quality of life, both aesthetic and economic, for millions of people worldwide. n18 Indeed, it is difficult
to overstate the importance of the ocean to humanity's well-being: "The ocean is the cradle of life on
our planet, and it remains the axis of existence, the locus of planetary biodiversity, and the engine of
the chemical and hydrological cycles that create and maintain our atmosphere and climate." n19 Ocean and
coastal ecosystem services have been calculated to be worth over twenty billion dollars per year, worldwide. n20 In addition, many people assign heritage and existence value to the ocean and
its creatures, viewing the world's seas as a common legacy to be passed on relatively intact to future generations. n21
Traditionally, land-bound humans have regarded the ocean as an inexhaustible resource and have pursued consumptive and extractive uses of the seas, such as fishing, with little thought of

Degradation of
conservation. n22 In the last two or three centuries, however, humanity has overstressed the world's oceans, proving that the ocean's productivity is limited.

the marine environment is becoming increasingly obvious: Scientists have mounting evidence of rapidly
accelerating declines in once-abundant populations of cod, haddock, flounder, and scores of other fish
species, as well as mollusks, crustaceans, birds, and plants. They are alarmed at the rapid rate of
destruction of coral reefs, estuaries, and wetlands and the sinister expansion of vast "dead zones" of
water where life has been choked away. More and more, the harm to marine biodiversity can be traced
not to natural events but to inadequate policies. As a result, "human activities now pose serious threats
to the oceans' biodiversity and their capacity to support productive fisheries, recreation, water
purification[,] and other services we take for granted."

UNCLOS provides a sustainable framework to limit overfishing --- legal and

environmental guidelines
Soares 14, (Miguel de Serpa, Under-Secretary-General, Legal Affairs at the United Nations Legal
Counsel, “The Role of UNCLOS in Sustainable Development”, United Nations Office of Legal Affairs,
2/3/14, http://legal.un.org/ola/media/info_from_lc/mss/speeches/MSS_DOALOS_Side_event-3-Feb-
2014.pdf) ADL
In The future we want, States reiterated that international law, as reflected in UNCLOS, provides the
legal framework for the conservation and the sustainable use of the oceans and their resources and
urged all its parties to fully implement their obligations under the Convention . In Rio, parties to the
United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement were also urged to implement their obligations under the
Agreement. More than thirty years after its opening for signature and twenty years after its entry into
force, UNCLOS continues to provide an effective, comprehensive and overarching international legal
framework for the oceans and seas. Indeed, the General Assembly has recognized the pre-eminent
contribution of the Convention to the strengthening of peace, security, cooperation and friendly
relations among all nations, to the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples of
the world, as well as to the sustainable development of the oceans and seas. Because UNCLOS covers a
wide range of ocean issues, it also provides the legal framework for their sustainable development.
UNCLOS provides the global community with a carefully balanced and equitable package of rights and
duties in the various maritime zones. Central to the package is the balance of the enjoyment of rights
and benefits with the concomitant undertaking of duties and obligations. Moreover, implementation
cannot be effected in a piecemeal fashion since the provisions of UNCLOS are closely interrelated and
form an integral package. Thus, for example, States cannot benefit from the enjoyment of rights, e.g. the
sovereign right to exploit their natural resources, without also fulfilling their obligations. These relate,
inter alia, to the protection and preservation of the marine environment, the conservation of the living
resources and the rights of navigation of other States.
 Human Rights

Law of the Sea is key for human rights.

Pelliconi 21’ (Andrea Pelliconi, Feb 2021, "Unexpected Martime Crossroads: the duty to rescue, and
the Human Rights Content of the Law of the Sea", International Review of Human Rights Law, Sixth
Issue, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370025114_Unexpected_Maritime_Crossr
oads_The_'duty_to_rescue'_and_the_human_rights_content_of_the_Law_of_the_Sea, 3rd Jan,
2025)/AA-ERG

For its part, the law of the sea also borrows principles from human rights law. The ITLOS itself has
incorporated human rights ideas into its own judgements, as recently highlighted by Marta Bo and Anna
Petrig. 11 As stressed by the ITLOS in M/V Saiga 2, “[c]onsiderations of humanity must apply in the law
of the sea, as they do in other areas of international law.”12 And indeed, some law of the sea provisions
arguably have human rights content. The 2005 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against
the Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA Convention), for example, contains detailed human rights
guarantees at sea that span from the safety of life to the protection of human dignity, and even from the
right to effective remedies to the fair treatment of persons in custody.13 The SUA Convention also
contains a non-prejudice clause safeguarding human rights in general, stating: “Nothing in this
Convention shall affect other rights, obligations and responsibilities of States and individuals under
international law, in particular the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and
international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law.”14 Despite not being as explicit as the SUA
Convention, the UNCLOS can be read as having human rights content too. This is highlighted in the
analyses of some prominent commentators: Oxman noted that the UNCLOS “addresses traditional
human rights preoccupations with the rule of law, individual liberties and procedural due process;”15
Treves noted that “concerns for human beings, which lie at the core of human rights concerns, are
present in the texture of [UNCLOS] provisions;”16 Papanicolopulu noted that the purpose of several
UNCLOS provisions is the protection of the life and physical integrity of people at sea.17 The human
rights concerns contained in the UNCLOS emerge in particular when States exercise extraterritorial
jurisdiction in the matter of crime prevention at sea. Even in international waters, the Convention
generally imposes that States observe human rights obligations. 18 For instance, when conducting
counter-piracy enforcement operations, which are primarily regulated by UNCLOS rules,19 States are
expected to respect the right to life of apprehended pirates and the prohibition of torture and arbitrary
detention.20 Failure to ensure respect for human rights may attract the competence of human rights
courts, as happened in the abovementioned Medvedyev v. France. The same applies to the fight against
maritime drug trafficking, slave transport, human smuggling.21 The law of the sea also protects against
arbitrary deprivation of liberty in cases concerning the arrest of crew members for violation of anti-
pollution or fisheries rules: Art. 73 UNCLOS contains the ‘principle of prompt release,’ according to
which “[a]rrested vessels and their crews shall be promptly released upon the posting of a reasonable
bond or other security.” The same provision also forbids imprisonment and corporal punishments and
imposes a duty to notify the flag State of the arrested foreign vessels. The ITLOS has applied this
principle of prompt release in several cases where it ruled in favour of the right to personal freedom of
shipmasters and their crew.22 Remarkably, in the Juno Trader case [2004] the Tribunal expressly
acknowledged the human rights impact of Art. 73 UNCLOS and highlighted how the duty of prompt
release “includes elementary considerations of humanity and due process of law.”23 The Tribunal also
stressed that “fairness” is a core purpose protected by art. 73.24 In the Tomimaru case [2007], the
Tribunal went further into specifying that States confiscating foreign vessels should respect not only the
duty to promptly release but also “international standards of due process of law.”25 Another field
where both the law of the sea and international human rights law have a role to play is migration by sea.
In 1993, the US Supreme Court upheld an executive policy that regulated the interception of vessels
transporting aliens seeking to enter the United States illegally by sea. 26 The policy imposed to return
migrants to their country of origin without first determining whether they qualify as refugees. The
Supreme Court assumed that human rights law, including the principle of non-refoulement, did not
apply to the interception of boats on the high seas. This sentence was then overturned by the Inter-
American Commission for Human Rights (IACHR), which concluded that the United States had
impermissibly returned intercepted migrants without making an adequate determination of their
potential refugee status. 27 In particular, the Commission recognised that human rights law prevails
over general maritime policies on visit and entry into national waters. Further, that the United States
had breached the rights to life, liberty, personal security, equality before the law, effective remedy and
the right to seek and receive asylum.28 Nowadays, it is almost undisputed that human rights law cannot
be disregarded in the matter of migration by sea.29 For instance, in the landmark case of Hirsi Jamaa v.
Italy, the ECtHR was adamant in clarifying that States must comply with the prohibition of refoulement
and collective expulsion during rescue operations in international waters too.30
States have a moral and legal duty to rescue people stranded at sea regardless of
national origin.
Pelliconi 21’ (Andrea Pelliconi, Feb 2021, "Unexpected Martime Crossroads: the duty to rescue, and
the Human Rights Content of the Law of the Sea", International Review of Human Rights Law, Sixth
Issue, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370025114_Unexpected_Maritime_Crossr
oads_The_'duty_to_rescue'_and_the_human_rights_content_of_the_Law_of_the_Sea, 3rd Jan,
2025)/AA-ERG

5. Conclusion: Unfolding duties and upholding rights It has been mentioned in the second section of this
paper that traditional law of the sea considers international law as a primarily inter-State matter, where
obligations are due only towards other States. However, the author has exposed how the law of the sea
contains express duties that States bear towards not only their citizens but humans in general. It is held
that States have the duty to rescue people in need and disembark them in a safe place. This obligation is
mirrored by the correlative right of people to be rescued and disembarked, regardless of their origin,
national belonging etc. Hence, the author suggests that this erga omnes subjective legal position
constitutes a “human right to disembark in a safe place” which is a logical-juridical corollary of the duty
to rescue. Thus, this paper claims that not only human rights and refugee law protections are to be
applied in maritime contexts, but also that the law of the sea contains human rights norms itself, in
particular the right to safe disembarkation. In other words, the law of the sea holds in itself a precise
humanitarian and human rights content which is not borrowed from external legal frameworks, but
rather is enshrined in maritime legal instruments and is rooted on the law of the sea’s own legal
principles, rationales and consuetudes. The rationale behind these norms lies on the centrality of human
safety. This paper adds to the growing literature seeking to overcome the traditional fragmentation of
branches of international law. The embodiment of human rights within the law of the sea and vice versa
is gradually starting to receive some recognition within legal scholarship.62 Significant examples are the
work of Itamar Mann on ‘humanity at sea,’63 and Papanicolopulu’s conceptualisation of the ‘special
regime’ of human rights at sea.64 This is further supported by the advocacy and research work
stemming from civil society organisations, such as the recent NGO Human Rights at Sea (HRAS), which
prompted the development of the 2019 Geneva Declaration on Human Rights at Sea.65 Ultimately, a
human rights interpretation of the law of the sea is coherent with the theoretical view on the role of
general international law in current times. This joins critical international law scholarship in welcoming a
central role for humans and human rights within the broad international legal discourse – what Theodor
Meron would call “humanisation of international law”.66 This is premised on a human-centric
understanding of international law, which acknowledges the necessity of a shift from the centrality of
State sovereignty to the centrality of State responsibility towards its inhabitants and people in general.
International law should “serve human beings” and be a “creative medium devoted to building a
humane world public order… [and] advancing an enlightened global system dedicated to the promotion
of human dignity.”67 Indeed, the specific role of international (human rights) law is that of protecting
humans and preserving their wellbeing and existence; and the law of the sea is no exception to this.
The Law of the Sea is key to the right to perform maritime rescues, which some states
criminalize as part of the broader persecution of migrants.
Mann 20’ (Itamar Mann, 2020, "The right to perform rescue at sea: Jurisprudence and drowning",
German law Journal,
https://www.academia.edu/42704947/The_Right_to_Perform_Rescue_at_Sea_Jurisprudence_and_Dro
wning , 3rd Jan, 2025)/AA-ERG

III. The Law of the Sea Why talk about a right to perform rescue at all, when the Law of the Sea
enshrines a duty of rescue? Under Article 98 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,67
which reflects customary international law, “[e]very state shall require the master of a ship flying its
flag” to “render assistance” when informed of a boat in distress. Under the Safety of Life at Sea
Convention, too, the duty to facilitate and coordinate acts of rescue is imposed upon states.68 If a duty
of rescue at sea obtains, it seems trivial to talk about a right to perform rescue. What is the point in
insisting that one is legally permitted to do what they are already legally obliged to? The maritime duty
of rescue is crucial for rescue activities. As will become clear below, the maritime duty to render
assistance constitutes a legal link between activists and migrants, which activists can use in order to
rectify migrants’ rightlessness. But before that can be demonstrated, readers should also acknowledge
the limits to its application.69 Under the 1979 International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue,
governmental agencies have a duty to coordinate rescue in their respective SAR Zones.70 They also have
the duty to make sure that vessels flying their flags initiate rescue activities when they are informed of a
vessel in distress and can provide help.71 The latter requirement, which applies on the high seas,
obtains when it can be carried out “without serious danger to the ship, the crew or the passengers.” 72
It is triggered when flag ships have some physical proximity to vessels in need of rescue.73 But there are
surely vessels sailing on the high seas, in need of rescue, where no specific actor has the legal duty to
perform rescue. Protections for migrants who have been forced to choose between de facto
rightlessness, and perilous journeys at sea, might not exist simply by application of the law of the sea.74
This may occur beyond states’ SAR zones, or even in such zones—if no other vessel is around.75 At
present, it may also occur in Libya’s recently-declaredSAR zone,76 where Libya is not willing or able to
render authentic rescue— a monumental understatement.77 These are the areas I have called
“maritime legal black holes.” In such areas, humans may find themselves de-jure rightless.78 Italy has
taken on rescue operations beyond its SAR zone during operation Mare Nostrum (2013–2014). Surely,
Italy had a privilege, under international law, to initiate a rescue operation at sea. Once the operation
was in place, and Italy’s vessels were in a position to do so even beyond Italy’s maritime space, Italian
vessels also had a duty to assist. As Heller and Pezzani have documented, when that operation ended,
the EU decided to deploy a much more limited operation without a rescue mandate (Operation Triton,
now replaced by Operation Themis). Private volunteer vessels aimed to step in and fill the gap.79 Yet,
states aiming to chill rescue operations, including not only Italy but also Malta and Greece—with an
umbrella of EU backing—placed limitations on the freedom of movement at sea upon rescue volunteers.
The latter were part of the system by which rescue at sea was ultimately, in many cases, criminalized.
Ever since, we have been living through a constant push-and-pull dynamic between states imposing laws
to limit rescue and solidarity activists engaging in a form of maritime civil disobedience. Granted, neither
group is homogenous in the kinds of relationships it establishes with the law.80 What is clear
nonetheless, is that the law of the sea in and of itself cannot always decide between the opposing
forces. And when maritime law is superimposed with a layer of domestic criminal limitations designed to
quell rescue activities, the maritime duty of rescue cannot prevent widespread deaths by—preventable
—drowning. In this context, another fundamental principle of the law of the sea emerged as crucial for
asserting a right to perform rescue. This is the freedom of navigation, also referred to as the freedom of
movement on the high seas.81 Beyond narrow exceptions, international law does not permit states to
limit the movement of vessels, private solidarity and rescue vessels included. This principle, however,
does not apply in Libyan territorial waters, where there are serious security risks for migrants. Libya has
arguably, since 2011, been more of a battleground for rival armed groups than a state with effective
control over its territory.82 For most international lawyers, however,
Libya remains recognized as a sovereign state, protected by the principle of nonintervention.83 If this is
indeed the case, Libya retains authority to exclude seafarers from its territorial waters—except for
“innocent passage” under the law of the sea.84 As will become clear below, the question whether such
passage is “innocent” or not cannot be determined solely by application of the law of the sea. The
human rights of those who want to pass and perform the passage—in our case political rights such as
the freedom of assembly—are in question.In short, the law of the sea provides a generally auspicious
context for private volunteer rescue operations. In the way it reshuffles jurisdictional assumptions that
seem firmer when one considers only territorial borders, it creates opportunities for transnational
solidarity, and for the performance of rescue. Principles like the duty of rescue and the freedom of
navigation construct this maritime environment. Yet these do not always suffice to establish
accountability towards migrants at sea. A possible illustration is that, perhaps tragically, the law does
not currently provide the legal infrastructure for transportation initiatives aiming to ferry migrants—that
would reduce drownings to zero—across the Mediterranean. The Malta-based Migrant Offshore Aid
Station (MOAS) has thus had to constantly shake off the accusation of being a “ferry for migrants.” 85
Such initiatives risk clashing head-first into criminal law provisions against smuggling,86 and the idea
that international law grants states the authority to enforce their borders.
 Credibility

Credibility is low (US)

Bell 24’ (Bell, P. (2024). Public Trust in Government: 1958-2024. Retrieved from
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/06/24/public-trust-in-government-1958-2024/?
form=MG0AV3)

Public trust in the federal government, which has been low for decades, . As of April 2024, 22% has increased modestly since 2023

of Americans say they trust the government in Washington to do what is right “just about always” (2%)
or “most of the time” (21%). Last year, 16% said they trusted the government just about always or most
of the time, which was among the lowest measures in nearly seven decades of polling.

Also low with the UN

Trihart 23’ (Trithart, Albert, and Olivia Case. "Do People Trust the UN? A Look at the Data." IPI Global
Observatory, 22 Feb. 2023,)

But a more pessimistic picture emerges from the 2017–2022 World Value Survey and European Value
Survey (WVS/EVS), which cover around 90 countries and territories from every geographic region. Here,
net confidence [1] in the UN was positive in only around half of the countries and territories surveyed,
with many displaying remarkably low levels of confidence. (It bears mentioning that, apart from differing geographic samples, these surveys
vary in whether they ask about trust, confidence, or favorability, which could play some role in explaining differences in results.)

Lack of Credibility harms international cooperation and trust

Bolan 19’ (Christopher J. Bolan, American credibility is dangerously low: Just not for the reasons you
may think. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.fpri.org/article/2019/07/american-credibility-is-
dangerously-low-just-not-for-the-reasons-you-may-think/?form=MG0AV3)

Our strategic competitors are keenly aware of America’s ability to militarily dominate any foe in a
conventional confrontation and therefore are deliberately pursuing strategies that avoid provoking an
overwhelming U.S. military response. As President Trump’s former National Security Advisor, Lieutenant
General H.R. McMaster once quipped, “There are two ways to fight the United States military:
asymmetrically and stupid.” Our adversaries are quite sensibly keen to avoid becoming the victim of a
major conventional U.S. military campaign. Consequently, Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran have all
explicitly adopted strategies that seek advantage in competition below the threshold of conventional
conflict—the so-called gray zone. Instead, the greater damage to American credibility has been the
steady failure of U.S. policymakers to deliver incentives offered to adversaries to curb behaviors
injurious to U.S interests. In a recent paper for RAND, scholar Michael J. Mazaar observed that
particularly in contemporary cases aimed at resolving nonproliferation challenges, the most successful
deterrence strategies combine threats of punishment with offers of rewards, concessions, and
reassurances. The cases of North Korea, Libya, and Iran suggest that while military and economic
pressures may be sufficient to compel adversaries to the negotiating table, successful and sustained
implementation of any agreement is largely dependent on delivering agreed-upon rewards. North Korea
In 1994, the Clinton administration reached an “Agreed Framework” in which North Korean leaders
agreed to freeze and “eventually dismantle” its nuclear weapons programs in exchange for the lifting of
U.S. sanctions and pledges of U.S. support for building two light-water reactors and the provision of
heavy fuel oil for a period of five years until these new reactors were built. Almost immediately,
however, the agreement came under attack from critics in Congress and inadequate funding led to
frequent delays in the deliveries of promised oil supplies. Meanwhile, the U.S.-led international
consortium tasked to build the pledged light-water reactors was burdened by severe debt, and the
reactors were never built. While not leaving the North Koreans blameless, the senior U.S. official who
negotiated the deal, Robert Gallucci, assessed that while both sides largely complied with the
fundamental “hard” terms of the deal, he also admitted that North Korean complaints about U.S. delays
and reneging on the “soft” promises of enhanced political and economic rewards “have some validity.”
Mike Chinoy, author of Meltdown: The Inside Story of the North Korean Nuclear Crisis, put it more
succinctly concluding that it was “Pyongyang’s growing conviction the US was not living up to its
commitments” that pushed it to pursue other military options beginning in 1998. Ultimately, the
framework agreement effectively collapsed in 2002 with President George W. Bush’s labelling of North
Korea as part of an “Axis of Evil” and North Korea’s withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty a year later. Libya The case of Libya’s decision to surrender its nuclear and chemical weapons
programs in late 2003 offers another example of the negative impacts when U.S. policymakers fail to
make good on commitments of rewards and reassurances. Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi pledged
to dismantle its nuclear and chemical weapons programs along with a significant portion of its ballistic
missiles while submitting to a rigorous international arms control inspection regime in exchange for
improved relations with the West and an implicit acceptance of Qaddafi’s continued rule. Over the next
several years, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the U.S. State Department itself had
repeatedly verified Libyan compliance with its obligations. However, in March 2011, when Qaddafi
threatened to show “no mercy” to rebels in Benghazi, President Obama announced the launch of U.S.
airstrikes and a NATO campaign to forestall what he anticipated would be “a massacre that would have
reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.” Months later, Qaddafi himself
would suffer a gruesome death at the hands of rebels during the battle for Sirte. Rightly or wrongly,
authoritarian leaders around the world have since decried the West’s military campaign against
Qaddafi’s rule in Libya as yet another instance of the U.S. backtracking on promised rewards and
reassurances once an adversary had agreed to disarm. North Korean media have explicitly cited Libya as
an example of U.S. duplicity and as a cautionary tale warning against abandoning its nuclear deterrent.
Similarly, Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei observed that Qaddafi had “wrapped up all his nuclear
facilities, packed them in a ship, and delivered them to the West” while one of Iran’s most influential
journalists and reformist concluded that because of these events “our leaders assess that compromise
[with the West] is not helpful.”
International cooperation and trust is the foundation for everything good and peace-
without it, we are lost.

Ghosh 23’ (Gargee Ghosh, Reviving International Cooperation in an age of distrust. (n.d.-b). Retrieved
from https://www.edelman.com/trust/edelman-trust-institute/reviving-international-cooperation-age-
distrust#:~:text=Acute%20food%20insecurity%20shot%20up,in%20repeated%20cycles%20of%20crisis.)

Consider the case of smallpox. In 1966, smallpox was killing as many as two million people and infecting
another 15 million annually. In a move that surprised even those who proposed it, the U.S., Soviet Union
and the World Health Organization agreed to a joint effort to try and eradicate the disease. This was a
remarkable bit of cooperation coming just four years after the Cuban Missile Crisis had brought the
world to the brink of nuclear war. (But as a reminder of the thick atmosphere of lingering distrust, the
World Health Organization insisted that an American be put in charge of the eradication effort because
they feared it would fail and didn’t want the UN to be blamed.) By 1977, the last case of wild smallpox
was recorded in Somalia and the world had succeeded in eradicating a disease for the first time. The
fruits of this labor were enormous. Not only were millions and millions of lives saved, the Center for
Global Development estimates that the U.S. saves the total of all its contributions to the smallpox
eradication campaign every 26 days because it no longer needed to vaccinate Americans against the
disease. And why did it succeed? Well according to D.A. Henderson, the American physician who
spearheaded the effort, it was certainly not because there was perfect alignment between governments
and the United Nations. Instead, Henderson and most others who have looked at the effort credit the
remarkable work of the some 150,000 frontline workers who administered vaccines and the group of
international middle managers who worked with them. The esprit de corps and dedication of the people
on the ground – who knew the ravages of smallpox all too well – was decisive. Another example: Amid
rising scientific concern about the impact of chlorofluorocarbons on the ozone layer, UN Member states
and concerned citizens gathered in Montreal in 1987. Their subsequent agreement, which aimed to
protect the ozone layer by phasing out the production and consumption of some 100 ozone-depleting
chemicals, was a landmark in environmental cooperation, and the first treaty in United Nations history
to be ratified by every single country on earth. Cooperation was again a success with the agreement
helping phase out 98 percent of global ozone-depleting chemicals. But before we mistake this as the
product of some golden era of international trust, it is useful to remember that 1987 was the same year
that President Reagan stood in Berlin and implored Soviet Premier Gorbachev to “tear down this wall!”
Ratifying Law of the Sea is essential to restoring US and it’s credibility, which is tanked
by the international perception of American double standards on treaties.
Scheffer, David. "The United States Should Ratify The Rome Statute." Articles of War. July 17, 2023.
Web. December 10, 2024. <https://lieber.westpoint.edu/united-states-shouldratify-rome-
statute/>.

In so many discussions I have had about the ICC and U.S. policy over the years, particularly dialogues
with foreign scholars, lawyers, think tankers, diplomats, and journalists, there arises the constant refrain
that American invocations about international criminal justice fall on deaf ears overseas, particularly in
the Global South, because of the foreign perception of double standards. The complaint centers on the
United States negotiating treaties like the Rome Statute that it then does not ratify. In their view, the
U.S. military sometimes acts illegally on a large-scale, such as the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in
2003 and the use of torture in Afghanistan, foreign black sites, and Guantanamo during the so-called
war on terror. These are very deep scars. While I was negotiating the Rome Statute, other negotiators
often would press me in sidebar discussions about perceived American hypocrisy and the peculiar
American failure to commit. They would remind me that they re-opened the Convention on the Law of
the Sea at President Ronald Reagan’s insistence to revise the deep sea mining provisions. But once they
met U.S. demands and ratified the treaty amendments, the United States never followed through with
ratification of that critical treaty. And yet today our government relies heavily on the rights protected by
that treaty, albeit claiming they are customary international law, to ensure U.S. commercial and military
access on the seas. Our foreign friends are not pacified and are quite cynical. There is deep resentment
that the United States intensively negotiates international treaties, signs many of them, and then often
fails to follow through with ratification. The United States would begin to overcome the double-
standards perception, which cripples our influence on so many fronts, including international criminal
justice, if the

U.S. Senate were to follow through on major treaties that the United States took the lead in negotiating
and then often signed. These include the Convention on the Law of the Sea,

Additional Protocols I and II of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities, and, yes, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. All but one of these
treaties have been languishing for decades. For example, it has been 23 years since the United States
signed the Rome Statute. Despite some flaws in its performance, the ICC has demonstrated its
credibility, competence, fairness in protecting due process rights, reasoned jurisprudence, and a mixture
of convictions and acquittals. It also is demonstrating every day its relevance in a highly dynamic and
violent world. All of Europe and Latin America, most of Africa, the Caribbean and Central America, and a
good number of Asian and Pacific nations are committed to a credible ICC.
 Blocks

deep sea mining is good for acquiring renewable resources, which is necessary for moving away from
climate change -- mining necessary for rare earth minerals that are utilized by US to build green
infrastructure -- this forces China to be pushed into green tech as well and reduce coal production

5:19

Jason Barton

delay cp's are abusive -- the negative could delay in any possible way and for any significant way, this
means aff can never properly prepare for the cp debate (neg flex is bad along these lines because no aff
ground), delay cp's are also pic's and pic's are bad because they force the aff to argue against itself, are
infinitely regressive

deep sea mining is good for acquiring renewable resources, which is necessary for moving away from
climate change -- mining necessary for rare earth minerals that are utilized by US to build green
infrastructure -- this forces China to be pushed into green tech as well and reduce coal production

5:19

Jason Barton

delay cp's are abusive -- the negative could delay in any possible way and for any significant way, this
means aff can never properly prepare for the cp debate (neg flex is bad along these lines because no aff
ground), delay cp's are also pic's and pic's are bad because they force the aff to argue against itself, are
infinitely regressive

New

5:20

Jason Barton

deep sea mining happening in status quo so their impacts should've already been triggered; private
companies will continue even if US does not engage in deep sea mining; other countries will engage in
deep sea mining; their impacts become inevitable