We do not have a completely releasable table of contents yet because we add to it about every other day new briefs that need written. But we at least know our affs (and their negs). You will like them because they have plan advocates from which we derived the mandates (we don’t just make it up, as you shouldn’t let people get away with).
1. Foreign Aid Redirection
2. Indus Water Treaty Reinvigoration
3. H1B Caps Lifted
4. Actionless Advantage: Supporting India into UNSC
5. Coca-Cola Water Regulation/Compensation
6. Anti-Piracy Naval Intelligence Sharing
7. How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Iran
8. U.S. Intervention in Kashmir Crisis
9. End Preemption Doctrine
10. No more Robin Hood: Intellectual Property Rights
11. No Nukes! No Nukes! No Deal!
12. “No Sweat” Labelling
1AC 1.1 – Naval Cooperation
In a 2005 Transportation Law Journal article, J.D. Candidate Phil DeCaro wrote,
“Of vital importance to the stability and maintenance of the security of strategic sea lanes is the protection and safety of such waterways as the Straits of Malacca. Piracy is one of the most grave problems persisting in East Asia. Since the attacks of September 11, 2001 there has been considerable interest in the acts of pirates and to classify them as terrorists. “Experts, however, fail to realize that the popular perception that the international community has eliminated sea piracy is far from true. Not only has piracy never been eradicated, but the number of pirate attacks on ships has also tripled in the past decade-putting piracy at its highest level in modern history.” More than two-thirds of piratical attacks worldwide occur in Asian waters. In 2000, the region accounted for 65% of piracy worldwide. In 2003, 42% of pirate attacks took place in the Strait of Malacca between
Because today’s sophisticated pirates, with GPS, radar, and deadly force, threaten the world’s sea lanes, my partner and I are confidently…Resolved: That the
Observation I: Resolutional Analysis
1. Significantly “in an important way or to an important degree,” from Princeton’s WordNet, which also defines
2. Policy as “a plan of action.”
All other definitions are clarified by their use. To help you make the best decision about whether this resolution is true or not, we offer you
B. Policy Weighing Mechanism
In order to determine whether to change or not, it is recommended that you evaluate policy through the lense of policy goals and determine whether the status quo or our plan will better achieve those goals.
1. Goal…Maritime Security. The first sentence of the
2. Criteria: Anti-piracy. If we can increase anti-piracy efforts, then we will have enhanced maritime security.
If, absent some better goal presented by the negative team, we demonstrate an increase in maritime security at the end of this round, you should vote affirmative.
Observation II: The Threat to Maritime Security
A. Status Quo:
1) Piracy is Alive and Well. As my opening quote stated, piracy is at its highest levels in modern history. This is enough to be concerned, but let’s take a closer look at piracy’s geography.
2) The Region near
Niclas Dahlvang [J.D., cum laude, B.A., cum laude, History] “THIEVES, ROBBERS, & TERRORISTS: PIRACY IN THE 21ST CENTURY” Regent Journal of International Law, 2006 (4 Regent J. Int’l L. 17)
“It should also be noted that South and Southeast Asia, Africa, and South America accounted for 318 out of 325 pirate attacks (or ninety-eight percent) reported in 2004. Despite popular perceptions to the contrary, maritime piracy remains a significant threat. In addition to the hazard of piracy along the world’s major shipping routes, the relationship between piracy and terrorism presents a threat to all coastal nations. Action must be taken to fight piracy and stop its use as a tool and weapon of terrorists.”
Mr. Dahlvang made our third status quo point for us, which is…
3) Piracy is becoming linked to ideology.
Dr. Leticia Diaz, [Professor of Law; J.D., Rutgers University; Ph.D. (Organic Chemistry), Rutgers] AND Dr. Barry Hart Dubner, [Professor of Law; J.D., New York Law School; LL.M., University of Miami, School of Law; LL.M., New York University School of Law; J.S.D., New York University School of Law.] “ON THE PROBLEM OF UTILIZING UNILATERAL ACTION TO PREVENT ACTS OF SEA PIRACY AND TERRORISM: A PROACTIVE APPROACH TO THE EVOLUTION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW”
“The ICC Commercial Crime Services reported that on September 2, 2003, gangs of heavily armed pirates used fishing and speed boats to target small oil tankers in the
1) Major Costs to World Shipping and Tourism
Michael Bahar [Lieutenant in the
“While crews are beaten, sometimes killed, and often held hostage for long periods of time for ransom, the global economic consequences are similarly dire and extend far beyond the small dhows and cargo ships actually attacked. The IMB estimates that piracy costs transport vessels $ 13-15 billion a year in losses in the waters between the Pacific and Indian oceans alone. Small cargo dhows, for example, are extending their routes to remain at least 200 miles off
2) Threatens entire world’s economy
Again, from Michael Bahar…
“Worse is the potential for piratical terrorism. As one commentator has warned, “just as terrorists learned to be pilots for 9/11, terrorists may now be learning to be pirates.” Citing the example of the March 2003 hijacking of the chemical tanker Dewi Madrim in which the Indonesian-speaking attackers “seemed primarily interested in practicing to steer the ship down the congested waterway,” Burnett has noted that intentionally grounding a crude carrier hauling 2 million barrels of oil at a place like Batu Berhanti, where the Straits of Malacca are a mere 1.5 miles wide, would close the waterway indefinitely. The resultant “delay in oil supplies to
Thus, through these two impacts, it can be seen that piracy poses both a huge current cost, and massive potential danger if the link to terrorism is successfully and catastrophically made. To provide a more secure maritime environment, we present…
Observation III. The Plan:
Agency and Enforcement – The Executive Branch and Department of Defense
Observation IV. Maritime Security Enhanced
1) India-U.S. Cooperation Reduces Piracy Threats
Dr. James R. Holmes [former surface warfare officer and an associate professor of strategy at the Naval War College.] and Dr. Andrew C. Winner [associate professor of strategic studies at the
“Second, they [the
Thus, Jointly guarding maritime security in the Indian Ocean, the
2) Taking up
Karl F. Inderfurth [M.A. from Princeton, Former assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs, former ambassador to the UN, former Deputy U.S. Rep. on the UN Security Council, former staff for the National Security Council, International Affairs Professor], and Bruce Riedel [India expert at Brookings Institution, former CIA officer, senior advisor to 3 U.S. Presidents on South Asian issues, M.A. from Harvard in Diplomatic History], “Breaking More Naan with Delhi: The Next Stage in U.S.-India Relations,” National Interest, Nov/Dec 2007 (Issue 92, 08849382)
“Part of a PC Plus agenda involves strengthening India-U.S. military cooperation. Now it is time to build further on this relationship. Admiral Sureesh Mehta, the chief of the Indian Naval Staff, has said he wants a blue-water Indian Navy that seeks “mutually respectful partnerships that ensure the stability of the
Dr. Stephen P. Cohen [Professor of Political Science and History, Ph.D., India and South Asia expert at Brookings, former Policy Planning Staff member at State Dept.], “More than Just the 123 Agreement: The Future of U.S.-India Relations,” Testimony to House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on South Asia, June 25, 2008, http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/coh062508.pdf
“There will be many opportunities for second-tier cooperation, notably in disaster relief, anti piracy efforts, and in helping stabilize countries that are unable to maintain their own integrity. Naval cooperation is likely to be the most fruitful area, as the Indian navy performs at a very high level of professionalism, and now has a doctrine that encourages such cooperation.
We believe that we have provided a policy to better act upon the recommendations of the National Strategy for Maritime Security, which says:
“The safety and economic security of the
(Three second pause while you stare everyone down confidently… I am open for Cross-Examination)
Strategy Notes: The most crucial point in this case is the solvency. While much of the backup evidence helps to answer questions such as UN Law of the Sea, will
We additionally included a sum of money to help India’s navy modernize to act as yet another advantage that can be used when there are significant solvency points but little standing DAs by the 2AR. The real strength of this case is the lack of unique disadvantages with impact. If anyone actually does take up a position against fighting piracy, in most cases we are already doing exactly the activity the disadvantage describes and we even already operate in this ocean.
Be really happy if anyone runs inherency because it will contradict 90% of the possible DAs and solvency points against this case and it is relatively easy to prove that you are doing somewhat more than the Status Quo even if new developments this year show that we do actually increase some naval cooperation.
Significance is easy but beware of relying solely on the
Your significance points are easy: emphasize the economic and security consequences. Proving the link from piracy to ideology (terrorism) is not entirely crucial but it sure supercharges the significance. I especially like the piracy costs $13-15 billion a year card b/c it quantifies.
Lastly, on the UN law of the sea and definitions of piracy. Don’t let people trip you up to say it’s against the law somehow to conduct anti-piracy operations in littoral waters just because a bad UN definition defines piracy as on the “open seas.” No UN legal mandate is being invoked here and that would be a ridiculous standard b/c it would mean within 2 miles of any coast (public beaches perhaps) as long as pirates were still in the water every country could do nothing about them. Think of the implications of such solvency arguments and show why most of the world ignores the UN Law of the Sea.