NEGATIVE MIXED
Resolved: the united states should become party to the United
Nations Conventions on the Law of The Sea and/or The Rome
Statute of the International Crime Court. For clarification of
today's round, I offer the following counter definitions. United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): embodies
traditional rules for using the oceans in one instrument, introduces
new legal concepts and regimes, and addresses new concerns.
(imo.org). International Criminal Court (ICC): a permanent
international court established to investigate, prosecute, and try
individuals accused of committing the most serious crimes of
concern to the global community as a whole, namely the crime of
genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of
aggression. (Icc-cpi.int) Rome Statute: Among other things, it sets out
the crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the ICC, the rules of
procedure, and the mechanisms for States to cooperate with the ICC.
The highest value of today's round is National sovereignty. National
sovereignty is the highest value of today's round because it ensures
that the US retains full control over its decision-making, avoiding
external interference and protecting its national interests. The
criterion that best upholds my value is Preserving autonomous
authority. This criterion works best by ensuring the US maintains full
control over its laws, policies, and decisions without external
interference. Innegatingg the resolution I offer the following
contentions.
CONTENTION ONE: U.S. membership in UNCLOS undermines
sovereignty and offers no new maritime benefits.
Right or freedom that the U.S. does not already enjoy. The U.S. can
best protect its rights by maintaining a strong U.S. Navy, not by
acceding to the convention. For more than 30 years, through domestic
law and bilateral agreements, the U.S. has established a legal
framework for deep-seabed mining. U.S. accession would penalize
U.S. companies by subjecting them to the whims of an unelected and
unaccountable bureaucracy and would force them to pay excessive
fees to the International Seabed Authority for redistribution to
developing countries.
As a sovereign nation, the U.S. can—and has—secured title to oil and
gas resources located on the U.S. extended continental shelf without
acceding to the convention or seeking the approval of an international
commission based at the United Nations.
If the U.S. accedes to the convention, it will be required to transfer a
large portion of royalties generated on the U.S. extended continental
shelf to the International Seabed Authority, and, through the authority,
to corrupt and undemocratic nations. The U.S. should instead retain
these royalties and use them for the benefit of the American people.
The U.S. does not need to join the convention to access oil and gas
resources on its extended continental shelf, in the Arctic, or in the Gulf
of Mexico. To the extent necessary, the U.S. can and should negotiate
bilateral treaties with neighboring nations to demarcate the limits of
its maritime and continental shelf boundaries.
If the U.S. accedes to the convention, it will be exposed to climate
change lawsuits and other environmental actions brought against it by
other members of the convention. The U.S. should not open the door
to such politically motivated lawsuits that, if resulting in an adverse
judgment against the U.S., would be domestically enforceable and
harm our environmental, economic, and military interests.
The U.S. has successfully protected its interests in the Arctic since it
acquired Alaska in 1867 and has done so during the more than 30
years that the convention has existed. The harm that would be caused
by the convention’s controversial provisions far outweighs any
intangible benefit that allegedly would result from U.S. accession.
(heritage.org)
CONTENTION ONE: joining the ICC causes sovereignty and security
issues.
Among other concerns, past U.S. Administrations concluded that the
Rome Statute created a seriously flawed institution that lacks prudent
safeguards against political manipulation, possesses sweeping
authority without accountability to the U.N. Security Council, and
violates national sovereignty by claiming jurisdiction over the
nationals and military personnel of non-party states in some
circumstances. These concerns led President Bill Clinton to urge
President George W. Bush not to submit the treaty to the Senate for
advice and consent necessary for ratification.[1] After extensive
efforts to change the statute to address key U.S. concerns failed,
President Bush felt it necessary to "un-sign" the Rome Statute by
formally notifying the U.N. Secretary-General that the U.S. did not
intend to ratify the treaty and was no longer bound under international
law to avoid actions that would run counter to the intent and purpose
of the treaty. Subsequently, the U.S. took several steps to protect its
military personnel, officials, and nationals from ICC claims of
jurisdiction.
Until these and other concerns are fully addressed, the Obama
Administration should resist pressure to "re-sign" the Rome Statute,
eschew cooperation with the ICC except when U.S. interests are
affected, and maintain the existing policy of protecting U.S. military
personnel, officials, and nationals from the court's illegitimate claims
of jurisdiction. Nor should the Obama Administration seek ratification
of the Rome Statute before the 2010 review, and then only if the Rome
Statute and the ICC and its procedures are amended to address all of
the serious concerns that led past U.S. Administrations to oppose
ratification of the Rome Statute. (heritage.org)
