Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
1
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#4939

Ineffectiveness of international law towards state conflict

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1300
rating
221
debates
44.8%
won
Description

International courts are useless.

First and foremost, there are three existing international courts. The ICC, ICJ and the ITLOS have regulations and policies set and binding upon all signatories. However, a state may refuse to follow the rule and will at most receive economic restrictions which it can also impose as retaliation. Take China for example because of its abuse and humanitarian violations the USA banned certain Chinese Companies, in turn, China retaliated and imposed restrictions against the USA the result? Nothing, only mutual destruction which is equal.

China ratified with the UN and ITLOS giving both courts Jurisdiction over China in matters of territory and state concerns. in light of the ratification it is legally binding upon China. However, China's disregard is evident by the fact that it is still currently occupying the West Philippine Sea and even instructing armed officers to harass mere Filipino Fishermen who are unarmed.

Then there is the Security Council which is an organ of the United Nations. Last 2003 the USA declared war against IRAQ under the presidency of President George W. Bush and the entirety of the Security Council was against it but the state exercised its veto powers, disregarded the Security Council, and still attacked Iraq. Another instance is Russia's war against Ukraine wherein the Security Council was also against it but Russia as a permanent member of the Security Council still invaded Ukraine by exercising its veto powers and the worst part? It can't even be brought to the ICJ because of the lack of consent due to the doctrine of state supremacy a country can't be sued without the consent of the aggressor historically the aggressor has always had never given consent to be sued. The veto power system is prone to abuse and renders international courts useless these powers are exclusively conferred upon the permanent members, predominantly powerful nations that often wield them in a manner perceived as abusive, given that these countries are typically the most active internationally, particularly in the realm of armed conflicts and other global affairs.

It is unambiguous and unequivocal that these facts constitute that international courts have no enforcing capabilities hence it is useless and is historically correct that it is prone to abuse.

Round 1
Pro
#1
International courts are useless.
First and foremost, there are three existing international courts. The ICC, ICJ and the ITLOS have regulations and policies set and binding upon all signatories. However, a state may refuse to follow the rule and will at most receive economic restrictions which it can also impose as retaliation. Take China for example because of its abuse and humanitarian violations the USA banned certain Chinese Companies, in turn, China retaliated and imposed restrictions against the USA the result? Nothing, only mutual destruction which is equal.
China ratified with the UN and ITLOS giving both courts Jurisdiction over China in matters of territory and state concerns. in light of the ratification it is legally binding upon China. However, China's disregard is evident by the fact that it is still currently occupying the West Philippine Sea and even instructing armed officers to harass mere Filipino Fishermen who are unarmed.
Then there is the Security Council which is an organ of the United Nations. Last 2003 the USA declared war against IRAQ under the presidency of President George W. Bush and the entirety of the Security Council was against it but the state exercised its veto powers, disregarded the Security Council, and still attacked Iraq. Another instance is Russia's war against Ukraine wherein the Security Council was also against it but Russia as a permanent member of the Security Council still invaded Ukraine by exercising its veto powers and the worst part? It can't even be brought to the ICJ because of the lack of consent due to the doctrine of state supremacy a country can't be sued without the consent of the aggressor historically the aggressor has always had never given consent to be sued. The veto power system is prone to abuse and renders international courts useless these powers are exclusively conferred upon the permanent members, predominantly powerful nations that often wield them in a manner perceived as abusive, given that these countries are typically the most active internationally, particularly in the realm of armed conflicts and other global affairs.
It is unambiguous and unequivocal that these facts constitute that international courts have no enforcing capabilities hence it is useless and is historically correct that it is prone to abuse.
Con
#2
Well, the international law does have some benefits. Big ones may be immune to it, but little countries have to follow it. It deters little countries from starting wars.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Forfeited
Con
#4
Oh well
Round 3
Pro
#5
Forfeited
Con
#6
Well, the international law does have some benefits. Big ones may be immune to it, but little countries have to follow it. It deters little countries from starting wars.
Round 4
Pro
#7
I apologize it's my first time using the website I wasn't receiving the notifications.

I'll cite North Korea, if you consider it as a "little" country based on your classification since povery is apparent in this nation.
North Korea has never from the start followed international law despite being a signatory

Syria is also in that classification as a "little" or poor country, it utilizes chemical weapons which is illegal.
Iran, Myanmar and Israel to nameĀ  a few.

In your context of wars

The Iraq war, Kosvo War and Libya Intervention.


In a sense it doesn't deter war, "little countries" just have little resources hence avoids war for that reason not because of International Law which is merely a diplomatic means in order to gain more profit. The only thing stopping little countries from war are lack of resources and man power.
Con
#8
Well, usually, forfeiting 40% or more of debate means voters dont have to consider arguments.

But I think voters should not vote based on those two forfeited rounds. It does seem like forfeiting was due to being new on the site and not receiving notifications. Plus, the debater came back and didnt abandon the debate, so the forfeited rounds should not be counted in vote. Instead, voters should consider the arguments that were presented.

I and my opponent agree on this, so voters should follow that agreement when voting.