今天我们为大家带来2025冬季邀请赛PF辩题 Sample Case，从正反双方提供视角和思路希望大家能够从中得到启发，打开备机构路～
接下来，让我们一起看看今天Sample Case的具体内容吧~
Sample Case
PRO
Framework
A .Infinite responsibility Ethics: Racism and genocide are not aberrations performed by perverse people- nor are they predestined. The kill to save mentality and the attribution of threatening qualities to the strange and foreign enemy stem from the failure to recognize our vulnerability in the face of the other and devaluation of difference.
Burggrave; 2005;
USA Hegemony Good
A. Uniqueness
The problem with USA Hegemony on the CON is that they hope to achieve this with means that bring about all the negative consequences associated with coercive hegemony, this hugely affects the public perception of the USA and bring to light the negative impacts of power dominance such as:
Military intervention- Hard power without soft power just causes Trump to engage in never-ending conflict
Ashdown 18(, Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, accessed 9/19/18, jmg)
Beyond PresidentTrump, in this countryweneed tofaceup toa very uncertain future. The Defence Secretary on Monday in the Commons outlined the grave threats that we face, when he said there were “four principal threats” to our country and the fourth one is, “the erosion of the rules-based international order”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/18; col. 611.] I believe what he said; I agree with him. You might normally expect me to now advocate an increase in our defence budget, and I do, but I also want to make the case for diplomacy and an end to the vandalism of our national interest that is represented by the degrading of the Foreign Office and its budget.Our military isafter allthelast line of our nation’s defence,not the first.The military is there toreinforceandstiffen diplomacyand thenrobustly toact when diplomacy fails, buthard power without soft poweris arecipe for constant conflictnot enduring peace.
B. Link-ICC increases U.S. soft power
To begin, soft power is “the ability to achieve one's goals without force, especially by diplomacy, persuasion.”（https://www.dictionary.com/browse/soft-power）
According to Chinyere Obasi in November 22, 2021（https://harvardpolitics.com/ratify-rome/）
The USA should focus on Leadership through Diplomacy and Cultural Influence instead of wielding power through military intervention or economic coercion and this could be achieved by joining the ICC, it would demonstrate a commitment to international justice, the rule of law, and human rights, thereby improving the image of U.S. hegemony globally by showing a willingness to be held accountable for its actions and setting a strong example for other nations. This move would allow the U.S. to participate in a system that ensures accountability for war crimes and other violations of international law, using its influence to strengthen the ICC and support global peace and security. U.S. hegemony would shift from being seen as coercive or imperialistic to being viewed as legitimate and responsible. By committing to the ICC and international law, the U.S. could avoid unilateral military interventions, focusing instead on collective security arrangements, which could prevent future conflicts and build a lot of trust in the U.S.'s role as a global leader.*paraphrased.
C. Impact-Soft power is key to international cooperation on warming, disease, and terrorism – means we turn case and access their framing.
Nye ’08- University Distinguished Service Professor, and former Dean of the Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, Ph.D. in Political Science from Harvard, (Joseph S., March 7, 2008, “Security and Smart Power”, , accessed 7/3/16)
Etzioni is correct that a successful policy of security first will require the combination of hard and soft power. Combining the two instruments so that they reinforce rather than undercut each other is crucial to success. Power is the ability to get the outcomes one wants. In the past, it was assumed that military power dominated most issues, but in today’s world, the contexts of power differ greatlyon military, economic, and transnational issues. These latter problems, including everything from climate change to pandemics to transnational terrorism, pose some of the greatest challengeswe face today, and yet few are susceptible to purely military solutions. The only way to grapple with these problems is through cooperation with others, and that requires smart power—a strategy that combines the soft power of attraction with the hard power of coercion. For example, American and British intelligence agencies report that our use of hard power in Iraq without sufficient attention to soft power has increased rather than reduced the number of Islamist terrorists throughout the past 5 years. The soft power of attraction will not win over the hard core terrorists but it is essential in winning the hearts and minds of mainstream Muslims, without whose support success will be impossible in the long term. Yet all the polling evidence suggests that American soft power has declined dramatically in the Muslim world. There is no simple military solution that will produce the outcomes we want. Etzioni is clear on this and highly critical of the failure to develop a smart power strategy in Iraq. One wishes, however, that he had spent a few more pages developing one for Iran.
Genocide
A.Uniqueness：US accession to the ICC would be the single most important event in the history of the court and boost its legitimacy.
Wind, University of Copenhagen Department of Political Science; 2009（Marlene; Ethics & Global Politics; 2:2; “Challenging sovereignty? The USA and the establishment of the International Criminal Court”; https://doi.org/10.3402/egp.v2i1.1973）
Joining the ICC would thus not only demonstrate to the world that the U.S. no longer thinks it is above the (international) law, it would legitimize the Court in the eyes of its member States and- perhaps even more important- indicate to other ICC critics, such as Israel and Russia, that their opposition is unwarranted. Indeed, one could easily argue without too much hyperbole that U.S. membership in the ICC would be the single most momentous event in the brief history of the Court, literally heralding the dawn of a new era for international criminal justice
B.Link-U.S. support makes the ICC effective---that solves global war.
U.S. collaboration with the ICC has made significant strides in advancing justice for victims around the globe, showcasing its potential for even greater impact as a member. In Darfur, U.S. support helped the ICC highlight and seek justice for genocide victims, restoring dignity to marginalized communities. In Libya, this partnership reduced impunity and fostered a safer environment for civilians after Gaddafi's regime. In Uganda, efforts against Joseph Kony empowered child soldiers and their communities by addressing their trauma. In the Central African Republic, U.S.-backed ICC initiatives brought justice to a chaotic region, decreasing violence and promoting reconciliation. Following Kenya’s post-election violence, accountability measures empowered victims and strengthened trust in democracy. In Ukraine, collaboration ensured the documentation of war crimes, providing hope for displaced civilians and unity against aggression. Lastly, in Myanmar, U.S.-ICC efforts highlighted the struggles of the Rohingya, signaling hope for justice and deterring future genocides. These instances illustrate that U.S. membership in the ICC could institutionalize and enhance such efforts, protecting more victims and bolstering global justice initiatives.
The ICC's Enormous Importance,” Eurasia Review, 7/28/2020, https://www.eurasiareview.com/28072020-the-iccs-enormous-importance-oped/
C.Link-Studies prove the ICC has the clear and demonstrable deterrent effects on aggression and violations.
Hörtnagl 21 [Maximilian Hörtnagl, Masters of Science in Global Politics from the London School of Economics (LSE) and a BA Management with Law from the University of Exeter. 3-3-2021https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mec/2021/03/03/can-the-international-criminal-court-deter-atrocities-some-insights-from-darfur/]
One of the raisons d’être of the ICC, as laid out in the preamble of the Rome Statute, is to prevent future crimes within its jurisdiction by putting an end to impunity. Atrocities, namely genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression, are to be effectively stigmatized through prosecuting the perpetrators
D.Prevent Genocide-
A stronger ICC having the USA as one of its members will greatly reduce or even prevent genocide, and save countless lives. The Darfur genocide in Sudan, which claimed over300,000 lives, is a stark reminder of the consequences of delayed justice. The Rwandan genocide in 1994 saw the massacre of approximately 800,000 peoplein just 100 days, and the failure to act in time shows how a fast and effective ICC is greatly needed. The Bosnian genocide, including the 8,000 men and boys killed in Srebrenica. Recently, the Rohingya genocide displaced over 500,000 peopleand left thousands dead, while in Ukraine, Russian aggression has led to thousands of civilian casualties, including evidence of war crimes. U.S. membership in the ICC would bring more resources, intelligence, and global leadership to the fight against genocide, and bring faster actions. By strengthening the ICC’s ability to act decisively, the U.S. could help prevent the mass loss of life witnessed in past atrocities, ensuring that such tragedies do not happen again.
Sample Case
CON
Resolved: The United States should accede to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
We Negate.
Framework
U.S. national interests come before prevention of genocide or war crimes. State consent is a precondition for the effectiveness of international law and can be withdrawn.
Wind, University of Copenhagen Department of Political Science; 2009
(Marlene; Ethics & Global Politics; 2:2; “Challenging sovereignty? The USA and the establishment of the International Criminal Court”; https://doi.org/10.3402/egp.v2i1.1973)
As positive law gradually replaced natural law doctrines, what we now refer to asinternational law, including treaties and international customary law, came to be regarded as ‘law’ not because of some higher moral codeor by sovereign command,but precisely because states freely consentedto abide by it. Andwhen agreements and norms are based on consentrather than an ultimate authority,it is also obvious that consent can be withdrawnshould theagreed-uponnorm no longer fit the national interest.90 The contractual conception of international law rendered it possible to accept international obligations as binding while insisting that this normative obligation was a product of state consent, generated either through explicit acceptance or through custom and established practice. The ‘free-will’ character of international obligations has thus been an indispensable feature of modern international law for many years and is clearly one of the main reasons why nations always dispute and debate (sometimes without agreement) how a certain convention or treaty should be interpreted.91
Sovereignty Contention
A. Links-First, the U.S. position on the ICC has remained the same across multiple administrations- the ICC is a threat to its sovereignty. China, India, and Russia are also nonparties to the treaty.
Groves, Director Policy Campaigns at the Heritage Foundation, & Schaefer, Research Fellow International Regulatory Affairs at the Heritage Foundation; 2009
(Steven & Brett; Heritage Foundation; “The U.S. should not join the International Criminal Court”; August 18; https://www.heritage.org/report/the-us-should-not-join-the-international-criminal-court)
Since the approval of the Rome Statute in 1998,U.S. policy toward the ICC has been clear and consistent: The U.S. has refused to join the ICC because it lacksprudentsafeguards against political manipulation, possesses sweeping authority without account ability to theU.N.Security Council, and violates national sovereignty by claiming jurisdiction overthe nationals and military personnel ofnon-party statesin some circumstances.
The United States is not alonein its concerns about the ICC. As of August 6, 2009, only 110 of the 192 U.N. member states had ratified the Rome Statute.[5]In fact,China, India, and Russia are among the other major powers thathave refused to ratifythe Rome Statuteout of concern that it unduly infringes on their foreign and security policy decisions--issues rightly reserved to sovereign governments and over which the ICC should not claim authority.
Second, both sides of the aisle oppose the ICC because it threatens U.S. sovereignty over freedom of action, provides no check against prosecutorial powers, claims jurisdiction over non-parties, and is subject to politically motivated prosecutions.
Wind; 2009
(Marlene; Ethics & Global Politics; 2:2; “Challenging sovereignty? The USA and the establishment of the International Criminal Court”; https://doi.org/10.3402/egp.v2i1.1973)
The interesting question now becomes whytwo US administrations- Democratic as well as Republican- have had such strong reservations about signingon to an ICC? Are Republicans as well as Democrats fighting ‘Global Justice’? Or are we- behind the good intentions of spreading democracy and human rights- dealing with a special conception of sovereignty and US ‘exceptionalism’ that is irreconcilable with supranational judicial bodies such as the ICC? Mansell and Haslem define American exceptionalism in relation to international law in the following manner:
The USA must be free to act in way which its citizens democratically determine. Every attempt to constrain through external agreement moves authority away from the Constitution to the international community whose interest may not coincide withthose of the USA. Why fetter future governments and, arguably, unconstitutionally hand power to outsiders?41
The many debates in the Senate and elsewhere in Washington in the late 1990s and beginning of 2000 reveals thatthe sovereignty issue plays a central role:
The formation of the ICC opens the door to new and troubling questions concerningthe future of international justice and its influence onnational sovereignty.42
The concern about sovereignty is reemphasized in an analysis from the CATO Institute on the finalization of the Rome Statute in 1998. Here, Gary Dempsey noted that: ‘...the court threatens to diminish America’s sovereignty, produce arbitrary and highly politicized ‘‘justice’’, and grow into a jurisdictional Leviathan.’43 In addition to the oft-reappearing sovereignty argument, the US administration has produced a host of additional arguments against the ICC. In a talk at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on May 6, 2002, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman makes the position of the American government quite clear. As he states:
‘Here is what America believes in:
- We believe in justice and the promotion of law.
- We believe that those who commit the most serious crimes of concern to the international community should be punished.
- We believe that states, not international institutions, are primarily responsible for ensuring justice in the international system.
- We believe that the best way to combat these serious offences is to build domestic judicial systems, strengthen political will and promote human freedom.’44
- Marc Grossman continues by spelling out how the ICC is incapable of fulfilling these objectives:
- ‘We believethe ICC undermines the role of theUnited Nations Security Councilin maintaining international peace and security.
- We believe in checks and balances. The Rome statutecreates a prosecutional system that is an unchecked power.
- We believe that in order to be bound by a treaty, a state must be party to that treaty.The ICC asserts jurisdiction over citizens of states that have not ratified the treaty. This threatens U.S. sovereignty.
- We believe that the ICCis built on a flawed foundation. Theseflaws leave it open for exploitation and politically motivated prosecutions.’45
B. Impacts-First, ICC violates the U.S. constitution and threatens its sovereignty. Sovereignty is the foundation for the protection of human rights.
Casey, Partner at Baker & Hostetler LLP, former professor of law at George Mason University, former member of the Office of Legal Counsel and Office of Legal Policy for the Department of Justice, & former Deputy Associate General Counsel at the Department of Energy; 2001
(Lee A.; Fordham International Law Journal; 25:3; “The case against supporting the International Criminal Court”; https://law.washu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/The-Case-Against-Supporting-the-International-Criminal-Court.pdf)
The United States should not ratify the ICC Treaty. There are two fundamental objections to American participation in the ICC regime. First,U.S. participation would violate our Constitution by subjecting Americans to trial in an international courtfor offenses otherwise within the judicial power of the United States, and without the guarantees of the Bill of Rights. Second, ourratificationof the Rome Treatywould constitute aprofoundsurrender ofAmericansovereignty,undercutting our right of self- government – the first human right, without which all others are simply words on paper, held by grace and favor, and no rights at all.
Second, the system of state sovereignty created stability for over 200 years and is foundation of international law and treaties.
Haas, former director of policy planning for the State Department and president of the Council on Foreign Relations; 2003（Richard; US Department of State Archive; January 14; “Sovereignty: Existing rights, evolving responsibilities”; https://2001-2009.state.gov/s/p/rem/2003/16648.htm）
Sovereignty has been a source of stability for more than two centuries. It has fostered world order by establishing legal protections against external intervention and by offering a diplomatic foundationfor the negotiation of international treaties, the formation of international organizations, and the development of international law. It has also provided a stable framework within which representative government and market economies could emerge in many nations. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, sovereignty remains an essential foundation for peace, democracy, and prosperity.
Politics Contention
A.Uniqueness-Republicans are likely to pass Trump’s tax cuts- majority in House and Senate- accomplished the same thing in 2017.
Picchi; 12/16/2024
(Aimee; CBS News; “Trump wants to extend his 2017 tax cuts- and more. Here’s what that could mean for you”; https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-tax-cuts-brackets-salt-tax-child-tax-credit-2025/)
How likely is Congress to extend Trump's tax cuts?
Republicans have a majority in the House and Senate, as they did in 2017 when Congress passed the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act. That greatly boosts the odds of extending the tax cuts.
B.Link-First, the ICC is incredibly unpopular in the Senate proven by congressional sanctions. House passage of a sanctions resolution against ICC officials makes Senate passage and Trump signature all but certain.
Demirjian; 1/9/2025
(Karoun; The New York Times; “House passes bill to impose sanctions on I.C.C. officials for Israeli prosecutions”; https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/09/us/politics/icc-sanctions-house-israel.html)
The Houseon Thursday passed legislation that would impose sanctions on officials at the International CriminalCourt,making a frontal assault on the tribunalin a rebuke of its move to charge top Israeli leaders with war crimes for their offensive against Hamas in Gaza.
The bill instructs the president to freezeproperty assets and deny visas to any foreigners who materially or financially contributed to the court’s efforts to “investigate, arrest, detain or prosecute a protected person.”Protected persons are defined as all current and former military and government officials of the United States and allies that have not consented to the court’s jurisdiction, such as Israel.
The measureis one of several that were pushed through the House by Republicans last year but died in the Democratic-led Senate, and is now all but certain to be enacted now that Republicans control both chambers of Congress andMr. Trump is taking office on Jan. 20.
Last year, asimilar measure drew some bipartisan supportin the House but still faced resistance among many Democrats, who joined Republicans in criticizing the I.C.C.’s move to prosecute Israeli leaders but called the sanctions overly broad and ineffective. With Republicans now in charge, the barriers to the bill’s passage appear to have fallen away.
Second, ratification of treaties requires expenditure of political capital and present an opportunity cost for floor time that could have been used to debate different legislation on the agenda.
Patrick; 2014
(Stewart M.; Council on Foreign Relations; “More treaty gridlock: Another impact of GOP senate takeover”; https://www.cfr.org/blog/more-treaty-gridlock-another-impact-gop-senate-takeover)
First, seeking the Senate’s advice and consent tomultiple treaties carries heavy opportunity costs. It requires the administration to expend enormous political capital it may prefer to devote to more urgent, competing executive or legislative priorities. It can also require Senate leaders to carve out a week of “floor” time for debate before bringing the treaty to a vote.
C.Internal Link-Trump has more political capital than any president since Reagan. He will use hit to immediately push for tax cuts. Delays jeopardize passage and are worse for the economy.
Targeted News Service; 12/18/2024
(“Americans for tax reform issues commentary: Conservatives urge GOP – do not delay Trump tax cuts”; Nexis Uni)
Donald Trump allies warned of the consequences of any delay in the 2025 Trump tax cuts, during a Monday segment on Fox Business Network.
Grover Norquist: "It is very dangerous. We delayed the 2017 tax cut that the President wanted, from early in 2017 to December by the time it passed. We had tremendous growth in 2019, a year after we lost 40 seats and lost the House of Representatives. Had we moved sooner on the tax cut, the year of growth would have been the year of the election.
"When Reaganwas running for office for -- he won in 1980 --the tax cut didn't really take effect fully until January of 1983. When did we get growth? All of 1983. Four million jobs. A year after we lost 25 House seats. Pass the tax cuts now. Small businesses -- all businesses -- need to know, 'What's [full business] expensing going to look like? What's the income tax rate gonna be? I can't make decisions until I know that, and that needs to happen now.'"
Art Laffer: "You shouldn't delay."
"I thinkTrump is very clear on this message: Do not delay the tax cuts."
Steve Moore: "Right now DonaldTrump is so popular. He has political capital that I have not seen since RonaldReagan came in.You do not want to delay. You want to seize the moment.One of the things that I think they ought to dois: do everything. Do the oil policy. Do the deregulation. Do the border walland do the tax cut at once. I defy the Democrats to try to stop him. The more you delay it, the more you put this tax cut in jeopardy."
Norquist also warned of the consequences of delay in a piece for The Daily Caller.
Norquist wrote:
"Imagine you are a small businessman with a factory and 80 workers. Important to your town. Are you going to hire more workers? Expand your plant and equipment? You don't know. Will the Obama tax rates come back?Every day congress waits to make the tax cuts permanent is a day decisions to create jobstoday, tomorrow, and two years form now are being made. Or not.
To delay the tax cut is to kill the tax cut.A return to higher taxes and fewer jobs.
D.Impact-Tax cuts are good for the U.S. economy- they increase real wages, employment and jobs while producing historic lows in poverty. An increase in taxes now would make inflation worse and create cost of livings crises.
Carter, US House of Representatives member from Georgia; 1/2/2025
(Buddy; Bryan County News; “Congress must save Trump’s tax cuts”; https://www.bryancountynews.com/opinion/guest-column-congress-must-save-trump-tax-cuts/)
On Dec. 31, 2025, the tax cuts signed into law bythen-President Donald Trump as part of the landmark Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017will expire, causing tax burdens to risefor most Americans.
Passage of this bill was one of the proudest votes I took as a member of Congress. For the first time in more than 30 years, we were able to provide relief for individuals and enable our job creators to invest more into middle-class and working-class families. This bill leveled the playing field for all Americans, allowing people to keep more of their hard-earned paychecks.Among the provisions was an increase in the standard tax deduction, an expanded child tax credit, a cut to small businesses’ tax burden and lower rates forlow- and middle-income Americans.
The impact on our economy has been undeniably positive.From 2018 to 2019,real wages rose 4.9%, the fastest growth in 20 years. During this time, we hadthe lowest poverty rates in history. Unemployment rates for African Americans, Hispanic workers and those without a college degreefell to historic lows. On top of that, Trump’s economy produced 5 million jobs, affording more people the opportunity to earn a living here in America. It benefited those at the bottom most,too:The bottom 10% of earners saw a 50% higher wage growth than those in the top 10%as a result of these policies.
The contrast between Trump’s roaring economy and President Joe Biden’s whimpering one is stark.
Every single dayin my office, we receive calls fromfamilies tellingus they cannot afford their basic living expenses. To use one constituent’s words, “I can’t afford (gas) to go to work, but I can’t afford not to go to work.”
Forget a rock and a hard place; this is the intersection of Bidenomics and Bidenflation.
It’s no surprise that 40% of Americans say inflation is impacting their holiday season. Nothing says “Christmas spirit” like penny pinching so Uncle Sam can continue to spend like a drunken elf.
If Biden’s economy isthis bad with Trump’stax cuts still in place,imagine how much worse it would be if that lifeline were stripped away.’
There is no good time for your tax rate to go up, butwith our current cost of- living crisis, this burden will result in manyparentsforgoing gas and groceriesto line the federal government’s wallet.
That might sound extreme, butit’s reality. A family of four making Georgia’s median income — $74,632 a year — will see a $1,515 tax increase, which is the equivalent of eight weeks of groceries.
ICC Fails Contention
First, only 11 convictions in over 20 years- more are still at large.
Keith; 2024
(Adam; Human Rights First; “Q&A International Criminal Court”; https://humanrightsfirst.org/library/q-a-international-criminal-court/)
The ICC is only able to prosecute a handful of casesin any given investigation, and it tends to focus on senior officials or others responsible for crimes at a high level.As of July 2024, the ICC has charged a total of 54 different individualswith war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide, and an additional eight for related offenses such as witness intimidation. (See Human Rights First’s ICC case trackerhere.) Eleven defendants have been convicted and 24 are still at large.
Second, ICC slow and inefficient.
Groves, Director Policy Campaigns at the Heritage Foundation, & Schaefer, Research Fellow International Regulatory Affairs at the Heritage Foundation; 2009
(Steven & Brett; Heritage Foundation; “The U.S. should not join the International Criminal Court”; August 18; https://www.heritage.org/report/the-us-should-not-join-the-international-criminal-court)
While the International Criminal Court represents an admirable desire to hold war criminals accountable for their terrible crimes, the court is flawed notionally and operationally. The ICC has not overcome many of the problems plaguing the ad hoc tribunalsestablished for Yugoslavia and Rwanda. It remains slow and inefficient. Worse, unlike ad hoc tribunals, it includes a drive to justify its budget and existence in perpetuityrather than simply completing a finite mission.
Third, we are past the point of no return- the ASPA would have to be repealed for the U.S. to effectively participate in the ICC.
Colonel Burrell; 2004
(Robert; US Army War College; May 3; “The International Criminal Court and Future American Military Operations”; https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA423416.pdf)
In this writer’s opinion, we have gone down a road from which there is likely no return— even if a later administration were in favor of “coming back into the fold,” Congress would have to amend or repeal the American Servicemembers Protection Act, an unlikely prospect. What we are left with is dealing with the consequences of choosing not to play in an institution supported by over a hundred nations worldwide, including many of our allies.
Fourth, Poland's decision to allow Netanyahu entry in the country despite an ICC arrest warrants proves the court has lost all credibility.
Middle East Monitor; 1/10/2025
(“Former ICC head slams Poland’s decision to protect Israel’s Netanyahu from arrest warrant”; https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250110-former-icc-head-slams-polands-decision-to-protect-israels-netanyahu-from-arrest-warrant/)
The former Polish President of theInternational Criminal Court (ICC), on Thursday, slammed Warsaw’s decision to protectIsraeli Premier, Benjamin Netanyahu, from the Court’s arrest warrantshould he decides to attend a commemoration of the liberation of Auschwitz, Anadolu Agency reports.
Speaking to Polish news outlet, Onet, Piotr Hofmanski said: “I don’t know much about politics, but from a legal point of view, the matter is crystal clear. There’s an arrest warrant for the Prime Minister of Israel on suspicion of committing war crimes, and states are obliged to execute it.”
“The Polish government’s decision isa purely politicaldecision, the government is clearly ignoring its legal obligations,” he added.
“There is a legal and international obligation to fully cooperate with the ICC, and a state that does not fulfil this obligation puts itself in a very uncomfortable situation, and its international position becomes drastically limited,” he argued.
“This calls into question the very purpose of the ICC’s existence if states refuse to complywith its obligations,” he said.
Works Cited
1. Darfar-https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/23/sudan.unitednations
2. Rwanda-https://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/historical-background.shtml
3. Bosnia-https://www.britannica.com/event/Srebrenica-genocide
4. Ukraine-https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116768/documents/HHRG-118-ZS00-20240130-SD002.pdf
辩题公布时间线
【竞赛报名/项目咨询+微信：mollywei007】
