Makah Whaling neg brag lab ndi 2014 Topicality t-its



Download 358.88 Kb.
Page66/142
Date20.01.2021
Size358.88 Kb.
1   ...   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   ...   142
Brunnee and Hey 13—*teaches International Law for the Master of Global Affairs at the Munk School at the University of Toronto AND **Professor of Public International Law at the Erasmus School of Law (*Jutta AND **Ellen, Transparency in International Law, Cambridge University Press, 11/7, pp.23-24)

In July 2011 the International Whaling Commission (IWC) adopted a resolution on 'Improving the Effectiveness of Operations' within it. The fact that this resolution was adopted by consensus, and that it is easily accessible at the Commission's website, may not seem remarkable. A resolution on 'effectiveness of operations' should not be controversial and, in the age of the internet, we have become accustomed to being able to follow the activities of international environmental institutions (IEIs) from our offices or homes, often even in 'real time'. In other words, we have come to take for granted a considerable degree of transparency in international environmental governance. And yet, transparency is a relative newcomer to international governance - the traditional mode of international governance, 'namely diplomacy, has relied on secrecy and confidentiality'.2 The IWC resolution encapsulates the remarkable evolution of interna- tional law. Its anodyne title masks the fact that the resolution is above all about enhancing transparency. The IWC has been notorious for clinging to the old modes of diplomacy. Even member States could not obtain official written versions of IWC decisions until long after they were taken.3 Communications and documents were difficult or impossible to access on the Commission's website, and the secretariat accepted untraceable cash payments for parties' membership dues.11 While many member States had been demanding reforms for some time, others vigorously resisted.11 They did so successfully for years, until the IWC resolved, in July 2011, that its 'procedures should be brought into line with current international good practice'.6 It acknowledged 'the impor- tance of transparency in international law', the evolution of the 'international law and practice relating to transparency and participation in international decision-making', the emergence of good practice under the auspices of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), that its operations could 'benefit from enhanced transparency', and that such improvements were 'of vital importance' to the 'authority and legitimacy* of the IWC.7

2NC I-Law – UQ – AT: US Credibility Low




Obama is upholding international law in his second term and correct for past grievances – continuing this standard is key to maintain credibility in international law.


Koh 13—Former Legal Adviser to the U.S. Department of State (Harold Hongju, “Experts Outline International Law Priorities for President Obama's Second Term,” Columbia Law School, 2/25, http://www.law.columbia.edu/media_inquiries/news_events/2013/february2013/experts-outline-obama-2nd-term)//FJ

New York, February 25, 2013—President Obama can strengthen America’s standing in the international community in his second term by modernizing human rights obligations, overcoming national resistance to foreign engagement, and building multilateral partnerships to maintain global influence, according to legal scholars who spoke at a recent Columbia Law School forum. Harold Hongju Koh The panel featured Harold Hongju Koh, who joined Columbia Law School as a visiting scholar in residence last month after serving more than three years as legal adviser of the U.S. Department of State. He pointed to some of the overarching strategies that could help the Obama administration achieve these goals. “The administration is using many toolsnot just hard power, but smart power,” which includes diplomatic and economic levers of influence, he said. Koh was joined on the Jan. 31 panel, titled “International Law in Obama’s Second Term: Priorities and Problems” by Columbia Law School Professors Sarah H. Cleveland, Michael W. Doyle and Matthew C. Waxman, who each have held high-level government positions. Dr. Bart M.J. Szewczyk, an Associate-in-Law at Columbia Law School, moderated the discussion. Obama is “pulling back from isolationism” and engaging with foreign. But with that precedent, Cleveland suggested there was little hope for other human rights treaties. She pointed to the “long suffering” Convention on the Law of the Sea, which outlines the maritime rights and responsibilities of nations in international waters, as another challenging treaty to ratify in the current domestic climate. As for military engagement in Obama’s second term, Koh pointed out that the use of drone strikes will likely continue in the fight against Al-Qaeda and associated forces. But he said the U.S. must better explain its legal case for military force by using “translation,” taking post-World War II treaties like the Geneva Conventions and principles of international humanitarian law and applying them to modern warfare. Professor Michael W. Doyle Doyle, the Harold Brown Professor of International Affairs, Law and Political Science who was assistant secretary-general and special adviser to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan from 2001 to 2003, picked up on that theme, arguing that justification for the use of force needed to be better explained under international law. He stressed the importance of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine in securing the support of the international community for military intervention against Qaddafi’s regime to prevent humanitarian massacres in Libya. Some important international treaties and norms have little meaning unless the U.S. has the ability and willingness to project power, said Waxman, who has served in senior positions at the U.S. State Department, the Department of Defense, and the National Security Council. He said he feared a diminished role of the U.S. in the world. “The retraction of American power would be very dangerous,” Waxman said, emphasizing what he called the “power of power.” Professor Matthew C. Waxman “A serious Responsibility to Protect without the United States’ capability and willingness to uphold and enforce it, will not exist,” he said, pointing out that freedom of the high seas has been “underwritten by the U.S. Navy” even though our country has not ratified the Convention on the Law of the Sea. He also warned that without U.S. power projection, human rights in some parts of the world would be not merely diminished but utterly “extinguished.” Cleveland noted, however, that in some parts of the world, such as Arab Spring countries, leading with U.S. power is not effective, and that the U.S. must seek other approaches and partners. Koh agreed the role the U.S. plays on the world stage is “indispensable.” He told the story of a foreign diplomat he worked with at the State Department who described the difference between his country and the U.S. The foreign diplomat said “when there is a problem in the world, Americans ask ‘what will we do?’” The diplomat then said, referring to his country, “and we ask, ‘what will the Americans do?’”

2NC I-Law – Link

Breaking the whaling ban weakens international law as a whole – shows that non-compliance has no consequences.





Share with your friends:
1   ...   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   ...   142




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page