Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Impact Defense File
AT: Genocide 1. Status quo measures prevent genocide A. Early warning system
Download 2.71 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- C. Tribunals
- 2. Nuclear war outweighs.
AT: Genocide1. Status quo measures prevent genocide A. Early warning systemCSM, 2004 (Abraham McLaughlin, 4/7, http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0407/p10s02-woaf.htm) There are, for instance, new anti-genocide structures: The UN and US now have officials devoted exclusively to the prevention of mass killings. New forums for crimes against humanity have emerged with the establishment of the International Criminal Court in The Hague last year, Belgian courts has tested the limits of "universal justice" in human rights cases, and the ongoing Yugoslav and Rwanda war-crimes tribunals. UN chief Kofi Annan is expected to announce Wednesday a new early-warning system to help prevent genocide. B. The ICC Daily News Leader, 2002 (7/5, l/n) The International Criminal Court serves as a deterrent to monsters; it provides a venue for the powerless to have a voice. Anyone committing genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity - Americans included - in the 74 nations that have ratified the treaty could be prosecuted for those crimes. Unless we have some reason to fear, something to hide, we should be supporting this treaty, not deriding it. C. TribunalsWaldorf, 2001 (Lars, International Justice Tribune, 7/27, l/n)In his letter, Philpot raises the real possibility that sending Akayesu to Mali and Ruggiu to Italy could create "inequality among detainees" if Italy has more favorable rules governing parole. That's because, under the Tribunal's rules, eligibility for pardon or commutation of sentences depends on the legislation of the state where the sentence is being served. Dieng pointed out that it will be up to President Pillay to decide where Akayesu serves his sentence. Without referring to Philpot's letter, the Registrar's spokesman, Kingsley Moghalu stated: "We feel that if the sentences are enforced in Africa ... the work of the Tribunal will have a greater deterrent effect in the continent. The Rwandan genocide is simply the fundamental problem of the continent writ large, that is, impunity." 2. Nuclear war outweighs.Kahn 99 (Paul W, Professor of Law, Yale Law School, Journal of International Law and Politics, 31 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol. 349, Winter/Spring, l/n) If the law of human rights protects individuals from physical abuse at the hands of state officials, but leaves them open to nuclear holocaust, it appears to be arbitrary and irrational. Again, on what principle can the genocide convention protect groups from intentional efforts to destroy them, 86 but be indifferent to the far greater destruction such groups would suffer in a nuclear war? And if environmental law is about protection of nature, what is the principle that would protect nature from particular pollutants but not from total destruction? If international law purports to be principled, how can these principles fail to apply to the use of nuclear weapons? But is contemporary international law defined by these normative justifications or is it about state interests as perceived by the nation-states of the world and expressed in their consent to specific legal propositions? 3. No moral obligation to help the victims of genocide – responsibility falls on the targeted group Kuperman, 2002 (Alan, Visiting Scholar for Center for International Studies, USC, http://www.isanet.org/noarchive/kuperman.html) As the above discussion should make clear, there is no humanitarian intervention policy that the international community can adopt that is likely to eliminate completely massive civilian violence from communal conflicts. However, two key lessons from this study can help to inform a more enlightened intervention policy. First, although perhaps disconcerting, we must acknowledge that such tragedies are most often the direct result of conscious decisions taken by leaders of the subordinate groups that become the primary victims of massive civilian violence. These subordinate-group leaders launch violent challenges against the state in full knowledge that the state will retaliate violently against members of their own group. When thousands of subordinate group civilians are slaughtered, the international community is shocked, but leaders of the group are not because they intentionally pursued this disastrous outcome. International voices of opinion – politicians, media, NGOs, the UN and other international organizations – react to such violence by proclaiming that the international community has a “responsibility” to protect the innocent civilians of the subordinate group. However, regardless of whether one believes in a general cosmopolitan responsibility to those outside one’s own political community, most observers would agree that the primary responsibility for protecting a group falls on the group itself, and by delegation upon its leaders. If a group chooses to sacrifice its own civilians, it is not obvious that the international community automatically has a responsibility to deny the group that choice. Directory: files -> documents documents -> North Mankato Taylor Library documents -> In the Red and Brown Water documents -> - documents -> I. Disaster Summary Sheet II. Tropical Cyclones documents -> Cbp and Trade Automated Interface Requirements Appendix: pga december 22, 2015 documents -> Ace abi catair customs and Trade Automated Interface Requirements documents -> Ace abi catair customs and Trade Automated Interface Requirements documents -> Mobile audio/video recording systems documents -> Cartographic Concepts for Realizing a Location Based umts service documents -> 1/ Background Statistics Human development index rank Download 2.71 Mb. Share with your friends:
|