Viewing Single Post From: LD topics

Viewing Single Post From: LD topics
*Sentenal*	Jan 5 2009, 11:57 PM
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat. Posts: 15,616 Group: FEFF Emperor Member #1 Joined: May 16, 2005	Quote: Consider this though: by accepting laws regarding to humanity - not laws like speeding or laws about pirating music or whatever - a country can protect the citizens it hosts. For example: say Russia starts killing citizens in Georgia (the country). Should Georgia agree to submit to an international court, then they arguably have the protection of said international court. They can mobilize with the knowledge that other members of the court will protect their rights, et cetera. It's a matter of protection for citizens because if someone tries to stomp on our citizen's human rights - not their rights granted in the US constitution - we have protection. Then it would be beneficial for a small country like Georgia. But what sort of backing would Georgia receive from the international court? If push comed to shove, and military force had to be used to enforce its rulings, would it not be mainly American forces which would be enforcing them? In the past, UN operations have always been spearheaded by the US, and I don't see how that would change in the future. But if we applied this to the United States, such a situation doesn't really apply, since America would be mobilizing anyway. Protection of an International Court wouldn't really mean anything. Submitting to such laws would have a pro, and a con. The Pro, is that they protect you when you are the victim. The con is that it allows you to be prosecuted as the villain. The United States really wouldn't have any use for UN protection, since its the US who normally enforces UN resolutions. So then that would only leave the possibility of the con, allowing the US to be prosecuted for something. If that makes any sense.


LD topics · Debate Forum