Characterization will be important in this motion. None of you, Team Affirmative nor Team Negative, not even the adjudicators should picture yourselves as being debaters for this motion. Don’t think of yourselves (or rather, let’s just say, for now, ourselves) as the society, as the government, as the people – none of that would matter. All of us are now UN members, and we happen to be inside this debate chamber because we have differing opinions one another. Now, whether or not we are all UNSC or another different body separate from UNSC but is still under the UN, that could be debatable, should both Team Affirmative and Team Negative wish to establish a clash regarding that point.
So that characterization will automatically clear any geographical bias context that might arise. Well.. let’s start.
Because UNSC is a coward.
It just so happens that we want to wash our hands the moment we don’t have any nerve to carry out / implement an action so we just throw it out, right? And isn’t it very convenient to have UNSC cherry-picking which issues they would like to intervene and which issues, should they intervene, would make the image of UNSC look bad in front of the eyes of public? Guess what, the fact that the current status quo is like this and as of recent issues in Kenya where our beloved UNSC exercised this convenience (by the way, go Google it, really – knowledge about this issue might give you 2-3 extra assertions available at your disposal – President Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and some of his cronies were apparently involved in some shenanigans and in the process killed thousands, following late 2007 elections) aand UNSC just happens to have some bit of contradiction. really and this site might help: it is so good and useful it has a hyperlink towards previous news related to the same issue
You have got the big idea now, and you are already in possession of those links to news related to this issue. That should be enough to provide you all elaborations you need to satisfy your burden of proof. Happy reading!
MegaSableye: “Guys, you know what? Pontius Pilate used to do this: The public demanded for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, or at least convict Him in any form, but Pontius Pilate couldn’t find any clause that could provide enough precedence and grounds to incriminate Him. So, he just washed his hands and said “none of my business” – people’s rules – no longer any Roman clauses henceforth.”
Because there should be this separation and distinction of influence and jurisdiction.
Apparently there is this confusion happening right now. There is no clear threshold nor parameter for international disputes and other equivalent cases that sets things clear which goes to where. On a parallel example, let’s take a look at how the law system in virtually almost all countries are: federal courts handle cases in which the country is a party, and/or when a case involves violation of the constitution or federal law (and bankruptcy cases) – local and magistrates courts hear less serious matters – court of tax appeals assumes a different body from supreme courts – and other parallel examples. Well, you get the idea.
There is this leeway being granted to the United Nations in which they are free to interpret cases of international disputes in any way they see fit – is it simply a matter of dispute? No wait it’s actually debatable, as this is not a dispute anymore; it clearly constitutes a violation of law. Let’s throw this away to the ICC.
When this issue gets to its worst case possible scenario, it becomes a political instability and it shows just how much of a hypocrite the United Nations there is. United Nations yeah right.
Because we want to force UNSC to be accountable of all their future deeds.
The wording of the motion sets up a tone of “forcing” in which it leaves no way out for UNSC to just raise their arms above their heads and give up and simply refers the case they no longer have any desire to absolve into immediately stamping something as a crime and thus leaving it under the hands of the ICC. The role of UNSC in this case is pretty much more or less the same as ICJ. Settling arguments and disputes among countries. Not like ICC, punishing people. The current status quo leaves UNSC with an option of determining something as “Well, you know what? There clearly is no dispute in this case. One party is clearly at the wrong and the other is clearly at the right. Okay, now you win and you lose. Go to ICC” whilst most of the time, it would happen because UNSC happens to succumb to political and international pressure. Characterize this weakness of UNSC and how this motion would serve them to actually lick their wounds and man up towards these pressures, creating a stronger (psychologically speaking) body that can hopefully withstand against these pressures, then assert the extra benefits generated from having a stronger UNSC in terms of.. courage.
Because it is unethical to remove this right.
This right to refer and defer cases is both inherent and earned. It is unethical to remove inherent rights, because that means one would be violating the foundations of existence in which that individual (or body.. or institution) bases itself upon. Well, of course, unless a certain extreme circumstance takes place. But otherwise, you don’t see rights to live removed from individuals. You don’t see rights for constitutional challenge removed from institutions/companies. Supposing if the debate comes to this, then Team Affirmative will likely respond with “But the situation at the current status quo, is, indeed, an extreme circumstance taking place!” In which then you will have to fortify this elaboration by dampening the urgency, asserting that the situation is not as urgent as it seem to be (presented by Team Affirmative). And then and it is unethical to remove earned rights. Because they have already finished their responsibilities. Their duties. Their tasks. The right for this referral and deferral being earned manifests the moment this right brings more benefit than harm, that’s one. Another reason is because the right to interpret the debatable-ness of issues should still belong there – what constitutes a right to interpret the debatable nature of issues and disputes? It is common knowledge and should be accepted that the UN is the highest authority in the world and has the right to control all sovereign countries (well, at least the ones registered to belong with them and under them). UNSC is the subsidiary, the right hand of this controlling body that maintains the goal of what the UN initially had in mind upon formation: world peace. So because this UNSC is the one body that is the right hand of the boss, and provides the much needed security and feeling of safety for the whole world, they should be given the right to interpret whether things are still disputes, or already a violation of constitution/law/basic human rights.
As a comparison, the right is bestowed and granted upon the ICJ and ICC is already different. So there should also be another different right bestowed and granted upon the UNSC: ICJ settles arguments between countries, ICC delivers punishment. It should only be obvious that the right to determine which goes to ICC which goes to ICJ and which stays belong to UNSC.
Because this is not a good time.
Timeframe challenge! Yeay! Timeframes refer to the time contexts and biases in which this motion would be applicable—preferable. Time challenge, is a prerogative right in the possession of negative teams. Team Affirmative has the burden of always having to interpret the proposal motion as “going to do it straightaway” whilst Team Negative on the other hand can interpret the proposal motion as either “won’t do it no matter what how or when or where” or “okay we agree to do that but wait”. So, what to do for Team Negative next, is to prove how the social condition and phenomenon is actually providing as a detrimental background for an implementation of this motion. The whole reason behind abolishing this right is the fact that there is a negative stigma coming from the perspectives, views, and reception of the international community and public towards how the UN is exercising this “freedom of interpretation”, IN LIGHT OF recent events in Kenya. Isn’t abolishing the right RIGHT NOW means that we, as the United Nations, show how maliciously convenient that right of ours are, indeed, CONFIRMING THE SUSPICION they had been having until present?
Isn’t it better for the rights to remain there, and to still have UNSC deferring and referring this Kenya case to the ICC, then wait for a few more 5-6 more years, and hopefully the situation peacefully dies down and no further future events alike this one arises, then we abolish this right WHEN there is no conflicting scenarios calling for us to expose our own sins?
Pay attention to the tone of this argument and its underlying stance: Running this argument pretty likely means that you are conceding all of Team Affirmative’s arguments so far, and contradicting your Team Affirmative Argument 1. Notice how you are on the same page as Team Affirmative now, with the only difference between you being when you would like to implement the motion.
Oh well, our standard warning. Nothing new here. As usual.
Wait first until the situation dies down then carry out the motion, or else people will suddenly assume things because the events are still “recent” and “in light of”.
Because they do not possess the capability to solve certain disputes of their own.
The right to refer and defer cases is a form of provision of the panic button to UNSC. Make this argument simple. You have the stance of believing that everybody, and every body, should be given the chance to give up.
There are some certain scenarios of cases that compels them to give up and throw away matters of case to the ICC. But first, there is a clash of precedence when you run this argument. Team Affirmative will likely have stated that this act of throwing away cases is an act of cowardice and awful convenience in exercising flexibility of stance given your high position. You have to challenge this precedence. Assert that they are not being coward throwing away cases like that, but instead that they are being wise, because there is no use to try to solve a case in which you don’t have any capability of carrying out in the first place (like, what do you want – solve a case half-ashed-ly and making everybody worse off than before and making you yourself a public enemy?).
The right for deferral and referral has always been an integral part in all jobs with the similar tone: a general medical practitioner, a general doctor, will refer a patient who is suffering from serious heart issues. Because that is the most rational thing to do. Supreme courts refer cases to constitutional courts.
The jurisdiction differs due to different credibility and caliber of the people operating the body, hence it is unwise to “force them” to solve something not within their capabilities. Otherwise, it would feel like you are forcing a 10-year-old to pass university entrance exams then punish him if (actually when, because it’s likely to happen) he fails.