I offer the following Definitions from Merriam Webster's Dictionary
Political Process- the process of the formulation and administration of public policy usually by interaction between social groups and political institutions or between political leadership and public opinion
Human Rights- freedoms established by custom or international agreement that impose standards of conduct on all nations. Human rights are distinct from civil liberties or legal rights, which are freedoms established by the law of a particular state and applied by that state in its own jurisdiction.
Justify is defined as both "to show to have had a sufficient legal reason" and "to prove or show to be just right or reasonable." The first is whether or not the proposed action conforms to doctrine or law of the United States, as this is what ultimately determines our justice system, and if this justification cannot be resolved, we default to looking at the round through a theoretical justification. If we're looking at this round through a scope as per having sufficient legal reason, you vote affirmative on face.
Intervene: To involve oneself in a situation so as to alter or hinder an action or development
Abuse: Violations of human rights
Multilateralism: In international relations, multilateralism is multiple countries working in concert on a given issue.
I value Morality. Because the resolution is asking whether or not the US is justified in intervening in the paramount value in this round should be justice.
Observation 1: Multilateralism
The US can act multilaterally within the scope of the resolution
Observation 2: Justification Analysis
Justification merely deems the action as permissible. It is thus not obligatory. Therefore, if the US is justified in committing a certain action, but they can reasonably conjure that committing that action has a high risk of negative consequences, such as more human rights violations, the US can exercise this discretion and choose not to intervene in another nation. In other words, the affirmative does not have to advocate that intervention is the best possible choice for the United States to take.
Thus, my criterion is upholding human rights. Because human rights are fundamental rights belonging to every human being, these rights must be upheld. Any violation against these rights is wrong and unjust. If that sovereign cannot uphold these rights then another party should step in. We uphold these rights because it is morally right to do so and that justifies why the action is permissible.
Contention 1: A justifiable act
Subpoint A: States that abuse human rights forfeit sovereignty
Paul Di Stefano writes
When a state abuses the human rights of its citizens, then it ultimately forfeits its sovereignty and the legitimacy of that governing body is decayed.