You are on page 1of 3

1. International law key to solve global problems.

Chimni 11 (B.S Chimni is a Professor of International Law at the Jawaharlal


Nehru University and a scholar in law, Capitalism, Imperialism, and
International Law in the Twenty-First Century, Revised version of keynote
address from October 20-22 2011, Date Accessed: 7/28/14,
http://law.uoregon.edu/org/oril/docs/14-1/Chimni.pdf)
Indeed, international human rights law has arguably become the only global
vision of social justice currently available.68 It has replaced all other isms and promises
a just world order. Mention may also be made of a rapidly evolving international criminal law with the

There are conventions that seek to address


the problems of organized crimes, including the trafficking and smuggling of
people, as also combating corruption.69 The rapid development of
international laws to combat international terrorism has further renewed faith
in international law. A dozen international treaties and a Counter Terrorism Committee (CTC)
International Criminal Court (ICC) at its heart.

established by the U.N. Security Council hold out the promise of effectively fighting international terrorism
through international cooperation.70 The need to develop an appropriate response to the current problem

The work of bodies like the


International Law Commission (ILC), United Nations Conference on
International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), and the Human Rights Council (HRC) also
give the impression of a constantly developing international law that plug
gaps in global law and facilitate international cooperation to address pressing
problems. International institutions also help renew faith in international law by co-opting critique in the
same way as capitalism does. The ability of international institutions to take critique
and turn it into an instrument of its own legitimacy and advancement is a
remarkable story. The World Bank is a good example of how critique is co-opted to strengthen the
of piracy further fortifies the spirit of international law.

institution. In order to deflect the censure it has faced over the years the Bank has adopted cosmetic
policy changes to represent itself today as being gender sensitive, green, and a friend of the poor.71 The
role of the community of international lawyers is also crucial in renewing the spirit of international law.

Democratization of law solves.


Cohen 4 (Jean L., PhD, Professor of Political Thought, Columbia University,

Whose Sovereignty? Empire Versus International Law 2004,


https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/journal/18_3/articles/5052.html/
_res/id
%3Dsa_File1/5052_Cohenforweb.pdf&sa=U&ei=48RTU_b4N_SQ4gSey4HYDQ
&ved=0CFcQFjAO&usg=AFQjCNFcq1AZ6zf0me1g3nXL9toL7zDvRA Accessed
July 27th, 2014)//bb
the articulation of sovereignty within a community of states that
decides to consider one another as equals is the political precondition for
feasible and effective international law. In other words, international law has to be based on
a set of political relationships between states to which sovereignty is ascribed within a
common framework, based on shared political norms, involving mutual
recognition, balance, and institutionalized cooperation . Moreover, formal equality has
to be linked to some degree of material equality among the states. In an institutionalized
structure of power and counterpowers, no single sovereign state should be
able to prevail over all the others and impose its will as law . This does not exclude a
Accordingly,

guarantor of international right and international law that is, a state powerful enough to ensure that
others play by the rules to which it also subscribes. The

ascription of sovereignty to states by

an international community by virtue of which they become members and


equals is thus a way of limiting as well as empowering those states . Without this,
an opponent becomes nothing more than an object of violent measures, while law becomes mere window
dressing. I see no reason why this conception cannot be generalized to all states construed as equal
members of the international community along the lines of the UN Charter. Equality need not be construed
as a substantive principle of homogeneity based on a friend/enemy conception of the political. It is enough
that the general principles of the international ordersovereign equality and human rightsare accepted
in principle (as they are by any state that has joined the UN), and allowed to develop into a shared culture

democratization of external
sovereignty backed up by international law is thus the third step in the project.
of mutual respect of rights and accountability. The

2. At worst, Chimni 11 and Cohen 07 are both functional reasons as to why


the K goes away, so neither of us have a link to the rotb. At best, Chimni 11 is
offense for the aff into the rotb, because its a reason why international law is
necessary to be able to deconstruct oppressive norms in the first place by
creating a venue to turn criticism into reality, to create real world legislative
solutions to exploitation and coercion. Means that the ACs discourse is
functionally positive to critical education because its key to actually creating
a method of liberation for the oppressed.
3. Just because international law has historically been exclusionary doesnt
mean its currently being used as a tool of colonialism. This is a logical fallacy.
Cohen 07 proves that reform has been made and ilaw is no longer
exclusionary because of the democratization of law.
4. Arguments of the form x justifies oppression so we should destroy y,
have been utilized to justify oppression. This means that by their logic, their
discourse is problematic because its intertwined with a history of coercion as
well.

Grant me an RVI on the pre-fiat DA. Multiple reasons:


1. She couldve read a million reasons why my discourse was bad and I
wouldve had to refute every single one of them to even stand a
chance of winning, because one argument why my discourse is bad is
enough for you to negate under the rotb, which means its key to
reciprocity.
2. The neg can layer the debate (like she does) and she can just go for
the layer I undercover.
3. 1AR timeskew 7-4 6-3 means its impossible for me to adequately
address all issues in the round, so its key to rectify time skew. Also
supplements the impact off the layering arguments
4. If her arguments arent true, that means that she was making false
accusations about the ACs discourse which reentrenches the same
oppression and exclusion shes trying to solve under her rotb.
5. Detracts us from substance debate which is key to education.

6. Necessary to counteract NCs rotb choice. She read a rotb in the NC


which mooted 6 minutes of ACs post-fiat offense and forced me to a
higher layer which she had preemptive offense on.
Impact analysis:
1. If Im winning any of the defensive reasons and Im winning the RVI,
you affirm.
2. If Im winning any of the offensive reasons, then the DA goes away and
I have offense to the rotb so you affirm.