Sadat 20—(Leila Nadya Sadat, the James Carr Professor of International Criminal Law and

Director, Whitney R. Harris World Law Institute, Washington University School of Law, St.
Louis; Special Adviser on Crimes Against Humanity to the ICC Prosecutor since 2012], xx-xx-
2020, "REFORMING THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT:“LEAN IN” OR “LEAVE",
https://journals.library.wustl.edu/lawpolicy/article/1021/galley/17856/view/) //doa2-9-2025
+ master chen
former Yugoslavia and the Rwandan genocide, “we must rid this planet of the obscenity that a
person stands a better chance of being tried and judged for killing one human being than for
killing 100,000.”54 Although the ICC has had difficulties fulfilling the expectations of its
founders, the institution is still relatively young, and the atrocities it was intended to combat
result from centuries-old ways of thinking about state power. Although the Court’s
performance may be subpar in some respects, the recent conviction of Bosco Ntaganda,55 the
Court’s successful potential intervention into the situation of the Rohingya in Bangladesh56,
and the Appeals Chamber’s decision on immunities in the al-Bashir case57 are all recent
positive developments. There are also serious and concrete efforts at reform being made
within the ICC itself, and by outsiders hoping for its success. This suggests that abandoning the
effort is the wrong strategy. At a time of rising authoritarianism, during which some world
leaders appear to be countenancing high levels of civilian casualties in wartime, acts of
aggression, and life tenure for themselves, and evoking nationalist and sovereigntist arguments
to justify the commission of crimes,58 abandoning the ICC sends the wrong signal. As James
Goldston recently wrote, [L]etting [the ICC] die would deliver a huge blow to the fight against
impunity. Flawed as it is, the ICC remains a capstone of our centuries-long search for a world
in which the law prevails over brute force. Giving up on it now would set back that struggle
immeasurably and would be a grave disservice to the many courageous activists who have
given their lives for the cause of fighting crimes against humanity and genocide.59

Sadat 20—(Leila Nadya Sadat, the James Carr Professor of International Criminal Law and
Director, Whitney R. Harris World Law Institute, Washington University School of Law, St.
Louis; Special Adviser on Crimes Against Humanity to the ICC Prosecutor since 2012], xx-xx-
2020, "REFORMING THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT:“LEAN IN” OR “LEAVE",
https://journals.library.wustl.edu/lawpolicy/article/1021/galley/17856/view/) //doa2-9-2025
+ master chen
The hostility of the United States has also posed a major challenge for the Court, as noted
above.100 Although instrumental in the establishment of the ICTY and the International
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in the 1990s, and relatively supportive in terms of funding,
intelligence sharing, and the secondment of personnel, the U.S. government has historically
been on the fence about the establishment of a permanent international criminal court.101
While a lack of U.S. support may not be fatal to the Court, it has weakened it. It has
jeopardized the ability of countries to cooperate with the Court (due in part to the Article 98
Agreement campaign, which targeted both State and non-States Parties). It also deprived the
Court of financial and logistical support. Some argue that the Court is not even handed
because it cannot compel U.S. persons to appear before it even though the United States has
participated in Security Council referrals to the Court in three cases involving non-States Parties
(while exempting or attempting to exempt its own nationals from the Court’s jurisdiction):
Sudan,102 Libya103 and Syria.104 This gives rise to the appearance—and perhaps the reality—
of double standards, which erodes the Court’s perceived legitimacy. The Prosecutor’s request
to open an investigation into the situation in Afghanistan, which implicated U.S. persons and
policies, obviated some of the critique directed towards the ICC itself, but led to other
difficulties as the Court found itself on the receiving end (again) of blistering attacks from the
U.S. government.105 There is also speculation that the Pretrial Chamber’s decision finding that
the investigation could not be opened “in the interests of justice” was a direct result of U.S.
pressure, undermining the Court’s legitimacy and independence. The U.S. attacks on the Court
harm not only the ICC, but the United Nations more generally, given the Rom

CICC 22— (Coalition for ICC [A coalition aimed at supporting the ICC.], xx-xx-2022, "Victims
could lose out with states’ double-standard on International Criminal Court resources", No
Publication, https://coalitionfortheicc.org/news/20220330/OpenLetter_ICCresources, accessed
2-7-2025) //FK

While the positive response of States Parties signals a commitment to justice, States Parties’
chronic underfunding of the Court has led to an exceptional request by the Office of the
Prosecutor for voluntary contributions to be provided outside the Court’s regular budget,
including through a newly established trust fund and gratis personnel. The Coalition has
repeatedly called attention to the significant and long-standing gap between the Court’s
workload and the resources available to it in its regular budget. The Court’s budget has
consistently been limited by States Parties, including through the insistence of some on “zero
nominal growth” and in setting arbitrary financial envelopes, including for legal aid, and by
failures on several occasions of the Court to request the resources it needs. This has impacted
the Court’s effectiveness and delayed victims’ access to justice. This recent call by the Office of
the Prosecutor to States Parties for voluntary contributions and gratis personnel to support its
investigative activities – and the enthusiastic response by some States Parties – amounts to an
admission by the Court and its States Parties that the Court does not have adequate resources.

ICC 98 — (ICC Rome Statute [The International Criminal Court; prosecutes individuals for committing
crimes], 7-17-1998, "", No Publication,
https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/NR/rdonlyres/ADD16852-AEE9-4757-ABE7-
9CDC7CF02886/283503/RomeStatutEng1.pdf, accessed 2-3-2025) //FK

Article 86 General obligation to cooperate States Parties shall, in accordance with the provisions of this Statute, cooperate fully
with the Court in its investigation and prosecution of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.

Ferragamo 24 — (Mariel Ferragamo [Mariel Ferragamo covers Africa and global health and edits the Daily News Brief. Her
previous experience includes roles at the Energy for Growth Hub and in the U.S. Congress. Mariel holds a bachelor’s degree in environmental
policy from Colby College and a certification in journalism from New York University. ],
11-22-2024, "The Role of the ICC",
Council on Foreign Relations, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/role-icc, accessed 2-3-2025) //FK

The ICC’s annual budget for 2024 stands at roughly $187 million [PDF], the vast majority of which comes from member states.
Contributions are determined by the same method the United Nations uses to assess dues, which
roughly correspond to the size of each member’s economy. In 2022, the largest contributions [PDF] came from Japan,
Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. Some countries, notably Argentina, Brazil, and Venezuela, have run up millions of dollars in overdue
payments.

Ellyatt 25 — (Holly Ellyatt [Holly Ellyatt writes for CNBC.com focusing on European macro-economics and politics. She has led digital
coverage of the European financial crisis, U.K. and euro zone politics, Brexit, the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia and the war in Ukraine. ], 1-
23-2025, “Can Trump force the hand of NATO allies to spend up to 5% of GDP on defense?”, CNBC,
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/23/can-trump-get-nato-allies-to-spend-more-on-defense.html,
accessed 2-8-2025) //FK

As U.S. President Donald Trump looks to immediately fix his greatest political and economic bugbears, the thorny issue of NATO
defense spending is likely to quickly return to the global fore. Trump’s relationship with the Western military alliance was acrimonious
during his first presidency, with the Republican leader frequently lambasting NATO member states for not abiding by a 2014 target to spend at
least 2% of GDP on defense every year. Ahead of his second term in office, Trump signaled that the debate over military spending — and
Trump’s perception that NATO members are over-reliant on the U.S. for their own security — will be back on the
agenda, stating that NATO’s 32 member countries should contribute even more toward defense. “I think NATO should have 5% [of their GDP as
a NATO contribution target],” he said in January. “They can all afford it, but they should be at 5%, not 2%”, he said at a press conference in
which he also refused to rule out using military force to seize the Panama Canal or Greenland — a territory that belongs to NATO member
Denmark. There has been a broad increase in defense expenditure among NATO members since Trump
was last in power. In 2018, at the height of the White House leader’s irritation with the military bloc, only six member states met even the 2%
of GDP target.

Kalu 24 Benjamin Okezie Kalu and Nabiebu Miebaka, [Benjamin Okezie Kalu CON is a Nigerian politician who is currently serving as the
deputy speaker of the House of Representatives of Nigeria since 2023. He represents the Bende federal constituency], “The International
Criminal Court: Analyzing Its Efficacy in Combating International Crimes in the 21st Century,” jurnal.fs.umi.ac.id. 2024. Accessed 02/03/2025.
https://jurnal.fs.umi.ac.id/index.php/alpamet/article/download/751/486/ //sarah + recut STANFORD CHAMP ELI CHEN

The findings of these empirical papers have been compiled in a research-paper published as recently as 2020. You will be astonished to see
the positive impact the ICC has had on international crime prevention. It has been determined that the ICC has been able to prevent
violence, reduce civilian casualties and lead to fewer infractions of human rights. Some of the more prominent findings from these studies
include:
1. The more action that was taken by the ICC in relation to Libya, the lower the civilian fatalities
dropped.
2. While the ICC‟s involvement did not completely abate the violence, it did statistically speaking reduce it.
3. States acceding to the Rome Statute and enacting domestic legislations have an impact on the human rights”protection in the
state as a lower level of human rights”infractions have been noticed in such states.
4. The ICC can have a deterrent effect.
5. State-parties to the Rome Statute with greater commitment to the ideals of the ICC have lower incidences
of “political violence” domestically in comparison to state parties having a lesser commitment to the ICC.
6. States with ongoing civil wars is likely to see lesser number to civilian deaths where the
state has ratified the Rome Statute and enacted a domestic legislation in furtherance to its commitments under
the Rome Statute in comparison to a nationstate which has not ratified the statute.
7. Ratification of the Rome Statute nearly reduces the acts of state-sponsored killings by half.
8. Ratification of the Rome Statute has no impact on the behavior of the rebel groups operating from the state.
9. Opening an ICC investigation in the concerned state has a deterrent effect on rebel groups as a
reduction in “rebel-sponsored civilian killings” has been observed in situations where investigations have been initiated.
10. A state which ratifies the Rome Statute while a conflict is on-going is more likely to end the conflict by way of peaceful
negotiations than other states.
11. Conflicts where the ICC intervenes are shorter than their counterparts where the ICC does not intervene. You will be astonished
to know that where
the ICC intervenes, a conflict generally lasts for 2.05 years whereas, on the other
hand, where the ICC does not intervene, the conflict lasts for 3.41 years.
12. State-parties to the Rome Statute were less likely to engage in new conflicts in comparison
to their counterparts, that is, non-state parties.
13. The ICC does not prolong conflicts. Rather, on the contrary, it helps in reducing violence and the timeframe for which conflicts
continue.
14. The states which ratify the Rome Statute have a significant impact on the reduction of
human rights violations in comparison to their non-ratifying counterparts. This naturally reduces
violence.
If achieving the goal of “highest expected value” does not sound like success then what does?

[2a] We give u the warrant

Benjamin Appel, xx-xx-2018, "In the Shadow of the International Criminal Court: Does the ICC Deter Human Rights Violations?," Journal of
Conflict Resolution, https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.ivc.edu/stable/48597287?seq=1, accessed 1-30-2025 //savdharia
As one analyst claimed, ‘‘the sensitive nature of the investigation brings increased risk for those involved’’ (Human Rights
Watch 2013). International Audience Costs Potential perpetrators can suffer international costs across all stages
of ICC’s involvement. The logic here is similar to work that focuses on how international actors Appel 9 and organizations
can engage in naming/shaming and other forms of international coercion. As Krain (2012, 576) argues, ‘‘naming and
shaming human
rights abuses brings atrocities to light and creates common understandings of the actions of perpetrators across the
international community.’’ This, in turn, can cause third parties to implement economic and political sanctions
or otherwise reduce their cooperation with a targeted leader (e.g., Lebovic and Voeten 2009; Murdie and Davis 2012;
Schneider 2000). The ICC acts as a similar international spotlight that informs the international community about a leader’s
wrongdoing. ICC’s involvement sends a signal to third parties that those being investigated have potentially committed grave
human rights abuses. In turn, third parties may sanction targeted leaders, or lessen their cooperation with them, which can
lead to a reduction in the benefits accrued from international cooperation (i.e., foreign direct
investment, military assistance, etc.). Lower levels of international support also mean that leaders have fewer
resources to provide to their supporters, eroding their base of support and potentially weakening their hold
on power. As Akhavan (2001, 12) argues, ‘‘The stigmatization associated with indictment . . . may significantly threaten the
attainment of sustained political power.’’ Third parties have implemented sanctions against governments being investigated
by the ICC. Shortly after the ICC started

Simmons 16 – (Hyeran Jo, Beth Simmons, Andrea Mitchell University Professor of Law and Political Science Penn Law, University of
Pennsylvania, researches and teaches international relations, international law and international political economy, year working at the
International Monetary Fund, directed the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvards, “Can the International Criminal Court
Deter Atrocity?”
Cambridge University Press, Summer 2016.
https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.carleton.edu/stable/pdf/24758127.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default
%3A0a2c652f507af81c473565a39e1b8363&ab_segments=&initiator=&acceptTC=1, accessed 1-10-25) //
BC + DP
Model 2 looks at the effect of ICC actions, the three-year moving average of previous preliminary examinations, investigations, and warrants by
the OTP. According
to the incidence-rate ratio based on Model 2, one additional investigation each year
over the three-year term is estimated to reduce intentional civilian killing by a factor of 0.570. (See Table 1
for an estimate of lives spared, which is substantial.) Note that the significant effect of ICC actions is robust even after including post-ICC
regime, a variable that captures the court's existence, but not its actions . It is therefore quite unlikely that the effect of ICC actions is merely
an artifact of some general violence-reducing temporal trend or the result of a passive court . Rather, ICC
actions represent new
information, available to all actors, demonstrating that the ICC is operational, authoritative, and that
the prosecutor means to bring perpetrators to justice

Baroness D’souza, DPhil Oxford (1976), UN consultant (1985–88), and Article 19 director (1989–2002), specializing
in human rights and press freedom,, 9-13-2018, "Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity," No Publication,
https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2018-09-13/debates/CB30CF91-D412-4C1C-84A0-
88A2E9D951CA/G enocideAndCrimesAgains%20tHumanity //rchen

Since 1948, the convention has undergone many interpretations, legal provisos and reforms for implementation. It is estimated that
between 1956 and 2016, there have been 43 genocides resulting in the death of some 50 million
people, an equal number of whom have been displaced. The crime of genocide is irrespective of the
context in which it occurs: peace, war, internal strife or international armed conflict. The indicators of
impending genocide have also been documented, thereby allowing, in theory at least, action to prevent ensuing mass killings.
These indicators include: repeated allusions to “us” and “them”; symbols of hatred being forced on pariah groups, such as the yellow
star in Poland and its ghettos; pariah groups being defined as less than human—for instance, Tutsis being called “cockroaches” or “vermin” by
Hutus in Rwanda prior to the 1994 genocide; trained and armed Toggle showing location ofColumn 2456specialist armies or militia groups;
victims being identified and separated as distinct groups, such as the Muslim Rohingya in Myanmar; and, finally, an outright denial of any

atrocities having been committed. These are warning signals and inevitably result in massacres. So what precisely are the
responsibilities of member states party to the convention when these warning signs are evident? As I said,
all signatories are required to prevent and punish genocide. Genocide is
such a heinous crime that its prevention and prosecution qualifies as customary international law.
Furthermore, since 2002, the International Criminal Court in The Hague can exercise jurisdiction if
national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute the offence, but it leaves the primary responsibility to investigate and prosecute alleged criminals to individual states. The UK has unambiguous jurisdiction to
prosecute UK and any other nationals and residents for a range of international crimes, including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity such as hostage-taking and torture—wherever they are committed within the
scope of universal jurisdiction. This is where we must now look at the actions of the UK Government in fulfilling their obligations in today’s world. The Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, seeks to facilitate
individuals or groups applying to the High Court for a preliminary determination that genocide has taken place. If this is determined, the UK Government—that is, the Foreign Secretary—are then obliged to refer the matter to the
International Criminal Court or the UN Security Council, or both. This then would be the trigger mechanism for further international action, which is to be welcomed. However, the UK Government’s position is that it is for the
international judiciary to determine whether or not genocide is likely to take or has taken place. I assume the International Criminal Court and/or the International Court of Justice are what is meant by international judiciary. It is
worth remembering that the UK already has legislation: the Genocide Act 1969, which has now been taken over by the wider International Criminal Court Act 2001, enables the UK to investigate and prosecute genocide before the
UK courts. My concern is that the Government do not attempt to evade their obligations by invoking the authority of the international judiciary—they already have active obligations. An appeal to the High Court would be time-
consuming and may not even succeed if, legally speaking, the evidence put before the court is not sufficient to make a determination of genocide. What is most important is that the competent UK authorities investigate all cases
of genocide which come before them, are sufficiently resourced to carry out this work and do not, under any circumstances, allow the UK to become a safe haven for the perpetrators of genocide. The UK Government should also

lend their assistance to the International Criminal Court when requests are made for
information, transfers or other types of support. Equally, the Governmentshould support, foster and
encourage international efforts to secure accountability for genocide through Security Council referrals to the
ICC, and related actions to encourage states to surrender suspects to the ICC in response to arrest
warrants.

Al Jazeera 1/7 — (Al Jazeera Staff, an independent news organisation funded in part by the Qatari
government, 1-7-2025, "‘Hell will break out’: Trump hints at military moves in Mideast, Americas", Al
Jazeera, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/1/7/hell-will-break-loose-
trump-hints-at-military-moves-in-mideast-americas, accessed 1-29-2025) //FK

United States President-elect Donald Trump has hinted at possible military intervention in the Americas and the
Middle East, as well as other items on his foreign policy agenda, during a wide-ranging news conference in Florida. But his most
consequential statements concerned foreign policy. Trump expounded on a sweeping expansionist vision , with
consequences for countries across the world. He repeated his desire for US control of the Panama Canal, Greenland

and Canada, while emphasising that “all hell will break out” if captives held in Gaza are not released before he takes
office. Some observers have interpreted Trump’s statement as a threat of possible US military intervention in Gaza, a line that
outgoing President Joe Biden has refused to cross, despite surging military aid to Israel.

Kuo 24 --- (Felisha Kuo, [researcher @ UCLA], 5-10-2024, "Analyzing the United States in
International Law: A Case for U.S. Membership in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and
International Criminal Court (ICC)", https://bruinpoliticalreview.org/articles?post-slug=analyzing-
the-united-states-in-international-law-a-case-for-u-s-membership-in-the-international-court-of-
justice-icj-and-international-criminal-court-icc-) //doa2-9-2025 + master chen 💆at 12:26 AM
In the international arena, these actions translate to the United States abandoning multilateralism and international law. But even in the
glaring hypocrisy of its actions, the past and present United States administrations have been reluctant to join or support the ICC. When first
established, the Clinton administration, fearing that the ICC’s jurisdiction would infringe on the U.S.’ sovereignty over its military personnel and
citizens, considered the statute incompatible with the U.S. Constitution, further citing an unchecked power and politicization. U.S. hostility
towards the ICC grew during the Bush administration. In the same year the ICC started its operations, President Bush signed the so-called
“Hague Invasion Act,” which “authorizes the President to use all means necessary to bring about the release of covered U.S. persons and allied
persons held captive by… the Court” [3]. The law then takes additional steps to ensure that its troops get immunity from prosecution,
threatening the withdrawal of military assistance from countries ratifying the ICC treaty [4]. This obstructs the ICC from prosecuting any United
States citizen, rendering international law inapplicable to Americans. In addition to the hostility towards ICC investigations concerning the
United States, Congress has attempted to obstruct ICC investigations in its allies, such as in 2021 when Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated
the United States “firmly opposes and is deeply disappointed” by the decision to open an investigation into the Palestine situation [5]. To
regain its soft power, the United States should ratify the Rome Statute. The United States could regain its legitimacy as a legal actor in
international law among global actors, and increasing legitimacy is an investment in soft power. Furthermore, by signing the Rome Statute, the
United States can help reshape the ICC’s legal infrastructure in the direction of the United States’ interests and address its current critiques of
the Court. As the Court’s efficacy depends heavily on the amount of financial and legal resources its member states are willing to contribute,
the United States could gain opportunities to explore changes to the Court’s structure. The ICC operates under the principle of
complementarity, giving the state of which the accused is a national priority jurisdiction [6]. It is only when states do not have the

infrastructure or the willingness to investigate amid blatant human rights violations the ICC can instigate an investigation.

Considering the United States’ well-established military court system, an

ICC investigation on U.S. nationals is highly unlikely. Joining the ICC, then,
will encourage senior U.S. officials to make more careful choices when it
comes to decisions that involve military force. With 750 military bases
across eighty different countries, the United States’ large military presence
must be accompanied by thorough decision-making as any use of military
force could further escalate ongoing conflicts. Reflecting on the history of American military
adventurism, whether in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, most are wars of choice. Given that the choice rests on high-level officials and military

personnel, considering the legal liability encourages careful consideration of the human and financial costs of
war. It will also encourage better attempts at trialing and self-enforcing military guidelines when it
comes to war crimes. Take the Iraq War in 2003, where a U.S.-led coalition overthrew the Saddam Hussein government,
justifying the intervention by citing evidence for weapons of mass destruction. Seven years and more than $3 trillion U.S. dollars later, the
defeat of the Iraqi army signaled the end of the war [7]. However, the U.S.’ supposed evidence of weapons of mass destruction and biological
weapons were unfounded. “The Americans lost a lot of credibility from this war,” says Dr. Karin von Hippel, the director-general of the Royal

United Services Institute think tank in an interview with BBC. The Americans did not just lose credibility in terms of intelligence. Allegations

of gross human rights violations in secret detention centers and the indiscriminate cluster bombings
against the U.S. followed. Legal experts of international law concluded that the attacks were
disproportionate and indiscriminate, violating international humanitarian law which prohibits “attacks
which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective,”
[8]. Now, 13 years after the end of the war, the United States has shielded its military officers from

international law by staunchly opposing investigation attempts by the ICC. Even in domestic
courts, the U.S. has failed to instigate an investigation of high-ranking U.S.
officials, and no senior U.S. officials have been trialed or brought to justice .
Had the United States considered international legal repercussions under
pressure from the ICC before deciding to invade Iraq, the outcome could
have involved fewer civilian deaths. ICC membership will also pressure the United States to conduct a more
thorough trial of its military officials and learn to avoid fighting another unnecessary war. Contrary to these claims, Congress continues to
criticize ICC’s legal infrastructure, claiming its unchecked judicial powers infringe upon U.S. sovereignty, making it incompatible with the U.S.
Constitution. Some U.S. officials further argue that the ICC is corrupted by increasing politicization against American interests. U.S. membership
indeed invites the ICC to second guess the judicial and sovereign decisions made domestically in the United States, even under the principle of
complementarity. Under the Rome Statute, the ICC has the ability to investigate and prosecute nationals of member states if they deem the
initial investigation by the state “non-genuine.” Therefore, it is understandable why current and future administrations refuse membership
because part of U.S. national sovereignty is divested to ICC jurisdiction if the U.S. ratifies the Rome Statute. Joining the Court then becomes a
question of balancing U.S. national sovereignty against respect for international law. If the United States remains adamant about not playing
the legal way, then why should other states? U.S. impunity undermines the legitimacy of international courts, and in doing so, degrades world
order. By not signing the Rome Statute, the United States demonstrates that impunity is acceptable for a state with military might, and as John
Messing writes, “the unjustifiable uses of force hinder the establishment of a legal order to control international violence and coercion” [9].
Ultimately, the United States must decide if it is willing to give up part of its national sovereignty and military adventurism for the sake of
improving world peace and justice.

Saul 22 Neil Saul serves as Program Manager for the Prevention Practitioners Network at the Eradicate
Hate Global Summit. [“The ICC’s Potential to Check US Warmongering,” Inkstick, January 2022, accessed
2/3/25] //VS + Recut FK
For law to fill its role, there have to be incentives for all to abide by it, including the powerful and the weak, the large and the small, the just and
the unjust. International institutions like the ICC certainly have their own set of problems, but ultimately can serve as tools to hold states
responsible for their questionable behavior, especially powerful states like the US. For
the US, joining the ICC is actually a
sound strategy. By cooperating with the ICC, the US would put in place an incentive structure to rein in
lawless behavior, including overreach on the part of the US executive. Committing the US to
international law and human rights in our decisions about foreign policy and war, therefore, creates a
safeguard against executive overreach, which is essential if we want to end endless wars. As a president who
has spoken about refocusing US foreign policy several times, President Joe Biden is well-positioned to pivot US foreign policy away from war
and more toward restraint. Seeing the ICC as a way to improve US foreign policy and standing in the world, however, requires thinking outside
the box and political will, both of which may be lacking in today’s White House. WHY THE ICC? Many have railed against the ICC as an
infringement on sovereignty because it restricts power, but that is the point of a constitution: To subject power to law. Not only is
accountability for gross atrocity crimes well precedented in international law, but sovereignty is no excuse to shield policymakers from
perpetrating these crimes. Popular criticisms of the ICC cover three elements: Jurisdiction, the potential for political power play, and weak
enforcement mechanisms. These criticisms, however, are not only overblown but also unreasonable. ICC jurisdiction is narrowly defined and
reserved only for the most heinous offenses, such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression. The complementarity
principle ensures that the Hague could only investigate and prosecute American officials where, according to Article 17 of the Rome Statute, the
US is either “unable or unwilling.” More importantly, a US investigation into its own conduct essentially prohibits any ICC jurisdiction over US
officials. Unfortunately, these investigations either get swept under the rug, like we’ve seen with recent US drone strikes, or war criminals like
Eddie Gallagher are all together commuted. In theory, updating the US legal code to include these atrocity laws is enough to address this
concern, but there are significant gaps. The US has already signed and ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions as well as the 1948 Genocide
Convention. Additionally, in 2007, the Genocide Accountability Act was signed into law, further codifying genocide in the US penal code. While
there is no international treaty with regards to crimes against humanity, the ICC refers to the “widespread or systematic attack directed against
any civilian population,” including murder, extermination, torture, and sexual violence, among other heinous crimes. Yet, those systematic
crimes, individually illegal in US law, are not codified in such a way to curtail executive and military abuse overseas. Some may fear that a rogue
prosecutor might indict US officials for political purposes. A remote logical possibility should not be an obstacle to embracing lawfulness.
After all, rogue prosecutors can go off the rails domestically too, but that is a weak argument
against having a criminal justice system. More significantly, it has never happened. While the
ICC prosecutor remains independent and can initiate an investigation on their own with the
approval of the Pre-Trial Chamber, the ICC’s previous prosecutors have never done so.
Indeed, prosecutors only investigated situations referred to by member states themselves or
by the UN Security Council or within states already signed on to the treaty that were “unable
or unwilling” to conduct their own investigations. Some may fear that a rogue prosecutor
might indict US officials for political purposes. Yet, that has never happened. The Trump
administration raised populist fears about the ICC and even imposed sanctions on ICC
officials, but the complementarity principle was clearly applied in Afghanistan: The
prosecutor initiated an investigation but in March 2020, deferred by request of the Afghan
government to investigate any alleged crimes — by all parties — on its own. In other words, the
prosecutor has cooperated. Since the US withdrawal, the ICC’s new prosecutor, Karim A. A. Khan QC, has received incredulous pushback for his
decision to focus on crimes committed by the Taliban and the Islamic State-Khorasan (ISK), rather than US forces. While this scrutiny bears
merit, his justification is due to the reality that the ICC has limited resources and the crimes committed by the ISK “constitute a global threat to
international peace and security.” The Taliban and ISK continue to commit gross atrocity crimes and it is therefore more prudent to shift
resources to bring these criminals to justice. The
final, and probably most common criticism against the ICC is
that it does not have the ability to enforce its decisions. Like all international bodies, the ICC is
constrained by resources and relies on member-state cooperation. However, a lengthy list of
arrests and convictions isn’t necessarily a measure of success either. Human rights scholars Geoff
Dancy and Kathryn Sikkink have found evidence that state parties who sign on to the Rome Statute are
much more likely to adopt atrocity laws into their own domestic penal codes with the technical
assistance of the ICC, resulting in more domestic prosecutions. Therefore, individual states that are
able and willing to conduct their own trials and hold their own officials accountable is a better
indicator of an effective institution than trials and convictions by the ICC. https://inkstickmedia.com/the-iccs-
potential-to-check-us-warmongering/

Perry 24—(Dan Perry, a writer, entrepreneur and communications professional who served as
the Middle East Editor of the Associated Press news agency, based in Cairo, during the Arab
Spring and the resultant regional upheaval, 12-18-2024, "The ICC’s Israel arrest warrants have
backfired", https://thehill.com/opinion/international/5044761-icc-arrest-warrants-israel-
backfire/amp/) //doa2-9-2025 + master chen
The International Criminal Court’s decision last month to issue arrest warrants against Israeli
leaders appears to have badly backfired. The court is now confronting a growing list of
member countries weighing grants of immunity to the Israeli officials and the threat of
punishment from the incoming U.S. presidential administration of Donald Trump. At a Dec. 2
meeting of the court’s 124 member nations, the atmosphere was one of emergency. There was
a clear sense that the indictments of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former
Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, for their actions in the war against Hamas in Gaza, have
exposed such glaring vulnerabilities that the institution is itself in danger. The problem that has
been exposed is that the court needs its member countries to agree to make its arrests, and a
growing list of European countries don’t want to do it. But there is also a larger issue that
bedevils all global institutions: The idea that countries should hand over authority to bodies
they cannot control sits badly with some, not least Trump. That idea — which lies at the heart
of the very notion of international law — has run into trouble with Republicans especially. They
feel America is in danger of being ensnared in a web of global institutions, from the
International Monetary Fund to the World Health Organization, that is inching towards a
”global government.” This fear has been turbo-charged by the ICC, in the eyes of its critics,
taking sides in the world’s most intractable war. Its decision to charge top Israeli figures is not
balanced by equal indictments against Hamas. Only one Hamas leader, Mohammed Deif, has
been charged with the massacre and hostage-taking of Oct. 7, and he is most likely dead. As a
result, the court is facing a head-on collision with the incoming Trump administration. During
his last term, Trump imposed sanctions against the ICC’s chief prosecutor and is likely to do so
again. And his allies in Congress plan on doing more. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-
S.D.) — who called the arrest warrants “outrageous and unlawful” has promised Senate
passage for a House-passed bill requiring wider sanctions on the ICC. The true hammer blow
for the court will come from a second piece of legislation, which Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
has vowed to get to the president’s desk. That bill would impose sanctions against any country
that fails to give arrest immunity for the Israeli suspects. It is this legislation that threatens to
cripple the court, perhaps extinguishing it forever. Graham has made no bones about the
sanctions threat against even America’s key allies, should they fail to comply. “To any ally —
Canada, Britain, Germany, France — if you try to help the ICC, we’re going to sanction
you,” Graham told Fox News. ICC officials are taking him seriously. “The court is being
threatened with draconian economic sanctions by another permanent member of the Security
Council, as if it was a terrorist organization,” protested ICC president Tomoko Akane in a
speech to the representatives of the member nations. Central to the crisis is the little-
understood Article 98 of the court’s founding statute, which provides member states with the
ability to grant immunity to officials from other nations. Intended to balance state sovereignty
with international justice, it means the member states have a painless way of granting the
arrest immunity America will shortly be demanding, simply by lodging an Article 98 declaration.
France has already taken advantage of this loophole, declaring that, while it adheres to its ICC
obligations, it is also giving Israelis immunity. Italy, Hungary and Greece have followed suit,
and more countries, including Austria, Australia, Argentina, the Czech Republic and the
Netherlands are considering it. The tactics, which may now shield Netanyahu, were honed two
decades ago by the United States to protect its o

Casert 25-- (Molly Quell and Raf Casert, 2-7-2025, "ICC condemns sanctions by Trump
administration and pledges to continue its work", https://apnews.com/article/icc-sanctions-
trump-israel-gaza-17422a0d6dc57ac211be35abb3f9fb41) //doa2-7-2025 + master chen 💆
Human rights groups have criticized the U.S. sanctions. “Sanctions are for human rights
violators, not those working to hold rights abusers to account,” Liz Evenson, international
justice director at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement. “Trump’s executive order borrows
a page out of Russia’s playbook, which has sought to obstruct the court’s work through arrest
warrants against its judges and prosecutor,” she added. Court officials had been preparing for
sanctions for months. In January, the court gave staff a three-month advance on their salaries,
two court insiders told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they weren’t
authorized to speak to media. Should the U.S. sanction the court itself, it could cripple
operations, leaving the institution unable to pay staff, fund investigations, or access
information stored on servers in the United States. At least two senior staff members at the
court have resigned since Trump was elected in an effort to avoid sanctions. ‘ICC’s actions have
no legal basis’ In an increasingly polarized Western world, Hungary stood side by side with
Trump. “The ICC has recently turned itself into a biased political tool and has discredited the
entire international court system,” Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó said. “Its decisions have also
only contributed to exacerbating insecurity in already difficult parts of the world.” Israel’s
Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar said that “the ICC’s actions are immoral and have no legal basis.”
It is the second time that Trump has gone after the court. During his previous term in office, he
imposed sanctions on former prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and one of her deputies over her
investigation into crimes committed in Afghanistan. U.S. President Joe Biden lifted the sanctions
when he took office in 2021.

Janet H. Anderson, A freelance journalist covering international justice - Rwanda, The Hague, Sierra Leone,
Uganda - for several decades, 01-21-25, "Can the ICC survive the U.S. sanctions? (Part 2)," JusticeInfo.net,
https://www.justiceinfo.net/en/140499-can-the-icc-survive-the-u-s-sanctions-part-2.html //rchen
The upcoming U.S.
sanctions against the International Criminal Court (ICC) are throwing the court into
unknown territory. They have the potential to disable the institution. Individuals working for or even interacting
with the Court may find themselves subject to punishment. Banks and essential service providers may find it too risky to make business with
the Court. Experts explain how this works, while hoping for the best. “Next week we're introducing bipartisan legislation that will prohibit
countries cooperating with the [the International Criminal] Court from engaging in business with America. This will fundamentally
alter
the existing paradigm, and I'm unmoved by whatever international pressure may come my way,” said U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, in
an interview to the newspaper Israel Hayom published on Jan 19, 2025. Sanctions are officially designed to change behaviour, says Adam Keith,
now director for accountability at Human Rights First, an NGO, and previously a senior policy advisor in the Office of Global Justice at the U.S.
State Department. For the International Criminal Court (ICC), he says, “among the purposes of pushing the sanctions, is to make the ICC or its
officials radioactive”. Sanctions from the United States work precisely because it has a lot of financial power: “If you're targeting individuals or
the entity, an institution that is based in Western Europe, deeply integrated into Western economies, sanctions can be quite powerful in terms
of convincing banks or other institutions not to do business with an institution or an institution that has individuals in it that are on the U.S.
sanctions list.” “If sanctions are imposed against you, all of your assets, all of your financial transactions in US dollars are frozen.
And about 90% of all global financial transactions are conducted in dollars,” notes Milena Sterio, a law professor
at Cleveland State University and managing director at the Public International Law and Policy Group (PILPG), a legal NGO. “So when they talk
about sanctions, experts on sanctions call it a civil death for the individual who's sanctioned because of the burdens imposed on the person,”
she says. That is part of the intention, according to Todd Buchwald, former U.S. ambassador for global justice in the last year of Obama’s
presidency and the first six months of Trump’s first mandate. “Financial
institutions can be unwilling to conduct business
with those subject to sanctions, even where doing that business is not actually covered by the
sanctions,” he explains. “In other words, financial institutions – just as a matter of business prudence –
have an incentive not to come any place close to the line and to just cut off relationships with the ICC.”
What's different than 2020 There are a number of elements that make the expected sanctions by the new Trump administration different from those Trump issued in 2020 in an Executive Order. [At press time, Trump has already
reinstated his 2020 executive order on the first day of his new presidency, January 20, 2025, according to the Israeli press.] “This time around, it's gotten support from members of Congress. And then, unfortunately, 45 Democrats
have voted for it,” notes State Department former legal adviser Harold Koh. In traditional sanctions practice, “a company or an institution or an individual could be sanctioned if they do the sanctionable activity that's described in
the Executive Order or in the legislation,” says Keith. In 2020 Trump drew on existing sanctions powers to issue his Executive Order. This time Congress may be providing a different authority. Sterio says the bill that has cleared the
House and that “will in all likelihood be passed by the Senate, will be worse [than last time], because the sanctions regime is very broad”. She also points out that last time it was the president’s “discretionary authority as
commander in chief to impose the sanctions,” whereas “this time this bill actually mandates that ‘the president shall sanction’. So if this bill becomes the law, the president's hands are tied”. Will the U.S. target UK citizens? The
crux of the matter though is who Trump would actually sanction, Sterio says. “The president still has the discretion to say ‘I'm sanctioning individuals X, Y and Z’.” In the current circumstances Karim Khan, the ICC prosecutor, is a
British national. The two main individuals in charge of the Palestine investigation, standing behind Khan in his video announcing the arrest warrants last May, are Brenda Hollis, who is a U.S. citizen who cannot be put on a
sanctions list because it's only for foreign persons, and Andrew Cayley from the UK. Will London use its close ally status to protect its citizens? “Many people believe that because we're talking about UK citizens,” says Sterio, “the
president would not actually go after them. Last time around, we were talking about a Gambian [ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda] and a Lesotho citizen. Those are countries that the United States doesn't care about as much. But
to actually sanction UK citizens would be an extra unprecedented move.” Talking to other people in the field, Sterio says that “some folks hope that the president may actually be a lot more discreet in who he sanctions”.
Therefore, she continues, “if we're talking about a more limited number of sanctioned individuals, then the court can continue to exist”. However, Keith has one caveat regarding Hollis’ relative protection as a U.S. citizen: “As an
American, if she continues to work for a prosecutor who is on the sanctions list, that could attract civil or criminal penalties in terms of sanctions enforcement by the Treasury Department,” he says. “And that's the sort of second-
order effect.” Could U.S. citizens continue to engage with the ICC? The effects of sanctions on U.S. citizens would extend well beyond those Americans who work at the court to those who work alongside the court, explains Sterio:
“If you help work with a sanctioned individual, you as an American citizen expose yourself to civil and criminal fines and penalties – civil fines of up to 250,000 dollars and criminal penalties of up to 20 years of imprisonment. So
very, very serious penalties.” So if certain individuals are put on the sanctions list and “a U.S. NGO provides tailored support to the prosecutor in the form of a brief for the prosecutor's use in an investigation, that can attract
sanctions enforcement penalties,” Keith outlines. “Americans can't be put on the sanctions list, but can be hit in this other direction. So the effect is to criminalize basic forms of human rights advocacy when it comes to taking the
documentation of your NGO and sharing it with perhaps the only court that has jurisdiction or the only court that's actually investigating in a situation.” Last time in 2020, Sterio joined a group to challenge the sanctions because
she, as a dual national, could have been prevented from providing “education, training, advice, and other forms of assistance to the ICC”, as well as to the sanctioned individuals. This time, that loophole – the vague term “foreign
persons” in the Executive Order which could be read as dual nationals – has been closed. But she may still fight. “Even though I personally would not be at risk for being sanctioned, if I were to continue to engage with the court I
would risk being fined in a civil way or being prosecuted and imprisoned. Many of us would be willing to sue again, because all the arguments from last time still stand. And then obviously the other avenue would be to just say for

”A
the next four years, I'm not really going to engage with the court. I think most of us would not want to do that. First of all, this is my work, this is what I do. But also out of principle, I think that's sort of the cowardly way out.

potential threat to the very existence of the court Looking further around the court, Keith notes a
number of key persons who
might come into consideration for sanctions for their roles in enabling the Palestine arrest warrants , but
whose nationality could make their governments react strongly. “One of the reasons we have argued the sanctions are such a bad idea,” he
says, “is that this is pitting the United States against some of its closest allies because, apart from the prosecutor from Britain, the three judges
from the pre-trial chamber [that allowed the arrest warrants] include a French person and a Slovenian. Many of the individuals who have
publicly supported the prosecutor's investigation are also from major European allies.”

WZB 23 — (WZB, conducts research with a focus on problems of modern societies in a globalized world,
around 200 scientists from various disciplines work together at the WZB, mainly from sociology, political
science, economics, and law, member of the Leibniz-Association. The WZB closely cooperates with Berlin
universities, 4-4-2023, "Unintended Consequences of US Interventionism",
https://www.wzb.eu/en/news/unintended-consequences-of-us-
interventionism, accessed 1-29-2025) //FK
In the last decades, the US government has spent billions of dollars on military interventions in many
countries. Has this type of foreign intervention been a success or failure from the perspective of the supporting country? For a sample
of 174 countries between 1968 and 2018, Eugen Dimant (University of Pennsylvania), Tim Krieger
(University of Freiburg) and Daniel Meierrieks (WZB) study how US military aid affects anti-American
terrorism and military and economic-political conditions in aid-receiving countries. One of the main results:
Higher levels of military aid result in more anti-American terrorism in recipient countries. Additionally, the empirical work shows
that US military aid has not been successful in enhancing military capacity in the recipient countries of
military aid, but has rather contributed to exclusion and corruption. The article “Nation building through military
aid? Unintended consequences of US interventionism” discusses the effectiveness of US military aid as a component of nation-building and as
means of reducing anti-American terrorism and solidifying US security interests. Here, US interventions are not only carried out to stabilize
foreign countries but also to aid the United States. The article’s main example covers the US invention in Afghanistan,
but the article also examines US interventionism since World War II and its consequences , highlighting the
historical geopolitical and geostrategic interests that have guided US interventions. Using a sample of 174 countries between
1968 and 2018, the authors show that US military interventionism often does not achieve its main
goals because it frequently produces unintended consequences. These consequences include the
production of anti-American terrorism as well as increases in economic-political exclusion and
corruption in aid-recipient countries. Such
consequences will make it almost
impossible to reach a development path that achieves desired nation-
building goals in the medium and long run. At the same time, an initially successful intervention (as in
Afghanistan) may eventually turn problematic because, for example, experiences of corruption become more and more prevalent.

Watson 24 — (Watson Institute for International & Public Affairs, conducts and publishes research
about the ongoing consequences of the United States post-9/11 wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and
elsewhere, housed at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, 10-x-
2024, "Civilians Killed & Wounded", Brown University, https://watson.brown.edu/
costsofwar/costs/human/civilians#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20post%2D9/11,Precise%20mortality%20figures
%20remain%20unknown., accessed 1-4-2025) // DP
In Israel, Gaza, the West Bank, and elsewhere since October 7, 2023, war costs such as forced displacement and the destruction of hospitals will
inevitably lead to far higher numbers of deaths than direct war violence. After one year of war, 96 percent of Gaza’s population (2.15 million
people) faced acute levels of food insecurity. According to an October 2, 2024 letter to President Biden from a group of U.S. physicians, 62,413
people in Gaza have died of starvation. The U.S. post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, and
Somalia have taken a tremendous human toll. The total death toll in these war zones, including direct and indirect deaths, is at least 4.5-4.7
million and counting. Of these, an estimated 408,000 civilians died directly from war violence. Precise mortality figures remain unknown. In
Afghanistan, even after the withdrawal of U.S. troops in 2021, people continue to die due to the war-induced breakdown of the economy,
public health, security, and infrastructure. The majority of the population faces impoverishment and food insecurity. The CIA armed Afghan
militia groups to fight Islamist militants and these militias are responsible for serious human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings of
civilians. Unexploded ordnance from this war and landmines from previous wars continue to kill, injure, and maim civilians. Fields, roads, and
school buildings are contaminated by ordnance, which often harms children as they go about chores like gathering wood. In Pakistan, the U.S.
increased its support of counter-insurgency campaigns by the government through direct military aid and training, and compensation for
assistance to the U.S. war in Afghanistan. This increased U.S. support coincided with a dramatic escalation of the conflict between Pakistani
insurgents and their government. In Iraq, the U.S. invasion and occupation beginning in 2003, and later military operations against the Islamic
State in Iraq and Syria beginning in 2014, have compounded the ill effects of decades of harmful U.S. policy actions towards Iraq since the
1960s, including economic sanctions in the 1990s that were devastating for Iraqis. Despite billions committed to aiding and reconstructing Iraq,
many parts of the country still suffer from lack of essential infrastructure. Key Findings At least 408,000 civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq,
Syria, and Yemen died as a direct result of the post-9/11 wars. Civilian deaths have also resulted from U.S. post-9/11 military
operations in Somalia and other countries. An estimated additional 3.6-3.8 million people have died indirectly in these war zones, bringing
the total death toll of the post-9/11 wars to at least 4.5-4.7 million and counting. More than 7.6 million children
under five in post-9/11 war zones are suffering from acute malnutrition. Indirect war deaths from
reverberating effects, like malnutrition and the destruction of healthcare systems and the environment, far outnumber deaths
from combat.

Extra frontline card:

A2 no sanctions
Even if US can't sanction ICC, US sanctions top prosecutor, ev is from this thursday
Peltz 25 [Jennifer Peltz, "US hits international court's top prosecutor with sanctions after Trump's
order", 02/13/2025, AP News, https://apnews.com/article/trump-international-criminal-court-
sanctions-un-4a77229e4eacd288d6dfc331b9f51ec5] // TSGAPFDAH (The Savior of Germantown
Academy Public Forum Debate Arthur Hu)

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.S. sanctioned the International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor
Thursday, following up on President Donald Trump’s order last week targeting the court over its investigations of Israel.
The prosecutor, Karim Khan, was added Thursday to Washington’s list of “Specially Designated
Nationals and Blocked Persons.” Those on the list are barred from doing business with Americans and
face restrictions on entry to the U.S. The Hague-based court is tasked with prosecuting war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. The U.S. never has
recognized the ICC’s authority, and Trump has criticized the court for years. His first administration sanctioned Khan’s predecessor, Fatou Bensouda, and the Biden administration subsequently
lifted those sanctions. After returning to office last month, Trump signed a Feb. 6 executive order imposing sanctions on the ICC. He accused the court of “illegitimate and baseless actions
targeting America and our close ally Israel,” citing the ICC’s arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes in
Gaza. They deny the accusations, and Netanyahu has called the warrant “absurd.”