ddi11 rs courts 1ac

8/3/2019 Ddi11 Rs Courts 1ac

1/31

Courts Property Rights 1AC DDI 2011

RS Lab __/__

Last printed 2/2/2012 10:42:00 PM

1

COURTS 1ACInherency and Plan........................................................................................................................................................... 2OuterSpace Treaty Advantage ...................................................................................................................................... 3-8Competitiveness Advantage ........................................................................................................................................ 9-15Disease Advantage ......................................................................................................................................................... 16Judiciary Advantage courtsclog scenario .................................................................................................................... 18Judiciary Advantage judicial independencescenario .................................................................................................... 21Solvency ........................................................................................................................................................................ 29

You can choose which advantage modules to read in the 1AC, making sure you read pg. 2 and 29-31.


2/31


RS Lab __/__

Last printed 2/2/2012 10:42:00 PM

2

Courts 1AC Inherency and Plan

Contention One the Status Quo:

Courts have been contradictory in their application of the Gardiner precedent of floating islandterritoriality to space -- need clarity to bring private investment on board.

Twibell 97. (Ty S. Twibell, JD Candidate at UMKC Law, "Space Law: Legal Restraints on Commercialization and Developmenof OuterSpace", University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, 65 UMKC L. Rev. 589, Spring 1997, lexis)

Theholding in Gardinerv. Howeextended jurisdiction of United States patent law to coverinfringement aboard a UnitedStates flaggedvessel on the ocean 201 andhas been followed by morerecent decisions. 202 However, somecourtshavedisagreed on the Gardinerrationale, whichsupports U.S. jurisdiction onextraterritorial application of its patent lawsviaterritorial jurisdiction ora "floating island" theory of U.S. territoriality. 203 The analogy ofspacecraft floating ininternational space and oceanvessels floating in international watersshould be apparent. The analogy in law should be thesame (at least until propertyrights inspace/celestial bodies are permitted) and theredoesnot appearto be anyreason whycourtsshould behesitant to bring an analogous legal structure into outerspace. 204 Unfortunately, private firms planningon investing inspacecannot rely on Gardinerbecause they "cannot becertaincourts will apply itsrule." 205 Insum, courts

appearwilling and likely to apply U.S. intellectual propertyrights inspace, 206 however, court approval remains uncertain207 until moredisputes overdiscoveries inspacecanspawnnew case law orprompt Congressional action.

Thus the plan: The United States Supreme Court, citing the Gardiner v. Howe precedent, should apply

the floating island doctrine beyond the Earths mesosphere.


3/31


RS Lab __/__

Last printed 2/2/2012 10:42:00 PM

3

Courts 1AC OST Advantage (1/6)

Contention __ is Outer Space:

Outer Space Treaty fails- lack of specificity and inability to regulate

Thomas 06, [John Thomas, JD, magna cum laude, Florida Coastal School of Law, 2006, Spatialis Liberum, LexisNexis|AF]

C.The OuterSpace Treaty Fails to Accommodate the Post-Modernist World in Using the Medium of OuterSpace TheOuterSpace Treatyshouldnot be applied to the medium of outerspace. n77 The biggest stumbling block of the OuterSpace Treaty is ArticleII'snon-appropriationsclause and thedesignation of the use and benefit ofspace as belonging to the"province of all mankind." n78 These terms of art have been interpreted invarious ways bydeveloped anddevelopingstates. n79 Independent ofeither interpretation, such uncertainty in the law will not encourage thecostly investmentsrequired. n80 With the privatization of outerspace, investors will not seekventures where there is inadequate orno returnon investment. n81 The OuterSpace Treaty'snon-appropriationsclause will discourage the privatesectorfrom travelingand performing appropriation activities in outerspace. Although the OuterSpace Treaty addressessome potential noveltiesin outerspaceexploration, its premise, asreflected in ArticleI, is antithetical to therealities of this market-driven world.The treatydoesnot encourage activecommercial exploitation ofspace travel, but limits its influential impact to therealmofscientificexploration by governmental agencies forthecommon good ofhumankind. The OuterSpace Treaty's biggest

and most [*593] profound failure is its lack of prospective thought on the impact of privatization of outerspaceventures.This themehas been propounded upon by academics that view outerspace's potential as truly the final frontierofhumanityand wish to be there. n82 Therefore, the treaty will serve as a barto extraterrestrial appropriations by juridical persons, andwill impede outerspace travel by tentatively barring space tourists, cargo ships, colonists, for-profit science, etc., fromouterspace. The othermajorproblem with the OuterSpace Treaty is its failure to address a widerange of issues. As thetitle indicates, the treaty addresses "Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of OuterSpace." n83 Principlesserve as a guide to rule-making, but do little to provide practical solutions forspace-faring nations.The OuterSpace Treatycannot serve as a properbasis for thecorpus jurisspatialis. The treaty fails to deal with manyanticipated issues forouterspaceexploration. Forexample, the OuterSpace Treaty fails to propose laws forenvironmentalstandards, immigration, distribution of appropriated materials for the benefit of mankind, role of juridical persons and/orgovernmental contractors in outerspace, space pirates, colonization, penalties foractsagainst the OuterSpace Treaty, andvarious jurisdictional issues. Many of therules propounded by the OuterSpace Treaty arevague and problematic. Forexample, Article VIIstates that the launchstate, orstate that procured the launch, retains jurisdiction andcontrol overthelaunched object; n84 however, Article VII fails to anticipate launches by global corporations into outerspace. n85Likewise, astronauts areconsideredenvoys of mankind, n86 but it is unclearifspace tourists, [*594] contractors, or

juridical persons are also considered "envoys." Therefore, the OuterSpace Treaty's "principles" do not adequatelydeal witha wide-range of potential issues, especially as they pertain to non-governmental entities.

Violations of OST inevitable- no enforcement and already happening in squo

Davidson '98 [Jim Davidson, former president of Houston Space Society, 1998, "Property in Space"http://indomitus.net/space/moon.html|AF]

ArticleIX A State Party to the Treaty on whoseregistry an object launched into outerspace iscarriedshall retainjurisdiction andcontrol oversuch object, and overany personnel thereof, while in outerspace oron a celestial body. Forgetfora moment that some of the personnel within an object launched into outerspace might wish to defect. Consideronly theissue ofhow "control oversuch object, and overany personnel thereof" can beestablished and maintained. Space isvery

large. As Douglas Adamshassaid, it isreally, really tremendously large. Much largerthan a walk to thecornerpharmacy.It takesradio frequencycommunications many minutes to reach Mars. During the interval whilecontrol statements arebeing sent, objects and people on thesurface of Mars arenot underthecontrol of anynation on Earth, no matterwhetherthat nation is a State Party to the Treaty ornot. Right now, today, there are objects outside ourSolarSystem put there bythe United States. It takesradio communicationshours to reach the Voyagerspacecraft. There arestrong indications thatNASA won't keep thosechannels open indefinitely. There are alreadydozens ofspacecraft placed into outerspace whosepowersupplieshave failed. The US is already inviolation of the Treaty, because it doesnot control many of the objectsplaced into space. And it cannot control people and objects lightyears away, oreven light minutes away. The idea isludicrous. It suggests a powerbeyondreason. There isno hope ofenforcing this Treaty obligation, andno penalty forfailing to enforce it, so why allow it to exist?


4/31


5/31


6/31


RS Lab __/__

Last printed 2/2/2012 10:42:00 PM

6


Failure to regulate space would cause national competition over territory

Thomas 06, [John Thomas, JD, magna cum laude, Florida Coastal School of Law, 2006, Spatialis Liberum, LexisNexis]

Although the United States' presence inspace isdiminishing, the presence of its juridical persons isnot. n112 Corporations,such as Lockheed Martin, Virgin Galactic, and thesatellite industry, will continue to placevaluable assets in outerspace.n113 Many of these [*599] ventures may becomeso profitable that, like the trade in the Sixteenth and Seventeenthcenturies, n114 asmall group ofstates which possess outerspace militarysupremacy will desire to exclude otherstates, andtheirpersons, from participating in the lucrative market forthe benefit of theirowncitizenry. Although the United Statesmaynot lay formal claim to thevacuum ofspace in fee, theexistence of taxes, levies, red tape, n115 andclearances maymake a few select players putative owners of outerspace. At least onecommentatorhasexpressedconcern about the UnitedStates' possible presence in outerspace. n116 Nina Tannenwald argues that the United States' military is poised fordominance by the US Space Command (Spacecom). n117 Spacecom argues that militarystrength isnecessary to protectUnited States' assets in OuterSpace. n118 Spacecom urges that it would protect those assets by "dominating thespacedimension . . . to protect U.S. interests and investment[s] . . . and . . . integrating space forces into warfighting capabilities .. . ." n119 Tannenwald also asserts that the Bush administration is implementing procedures to assure that the United States'space assets are adequately protected. n120 With thesmall amount of outerspace players in the world, Tannenwald'sconcerns arenot farfetched. Continuing technological advances in propulsion, and other technological innovations, will

raise thestakes to compete forextraterrestrial resources andservices. This trendhas already occurred within thesatelliteindustry. n121 [*600] Thus, it is likely that if thevast expanses of outerspace arenot designated asrescommunis, then,

just as in Grotius'day, states may layclaim to vast regions of outerspace in orderto capture potential resources. Due totheseconsequences and the benefits associated with freedom ofspace, outerspaceshould beconsideredrescommunis bythe international community.

Space cooperation prevents escalation

Rendleman and Faulconer, 10 [James Rendleman, Col, and J. WalterFaulconer, Col, 2010, Improving international spacecooperation: Considerations for the USA, Space Policy 26|AF]

4. Global engagement Forthousands ofyears, tribes, thencities, states, andnations, have formedcooperative agreements,partnerships andrelationships with others to promote matters of mutual interest, such assecurity andselfdefense,commerce, andhumanitarian assistance. Cooperation presents an opportunity to develop dependencies among nations thatmay obviateconflict. Suchsharing also gives a nation an opportunity to gain what may be a rare insight into what acompetitororadversary knows about space technologies andhow theycan beemployed. This understanding canhelpreduce theneed to prepare fordoomsdayscenarios where one imagines orprojects the technologies that an adversarycoulddevelop, regardless of the technical merit orreality. Today, international cooperationextends to a wholehost ofscientificendeavors, reflecting the best spirit and intentions of the OuterSpace Treaty, whose preamblecalls forspace to be used forpeaceful purposes.19 Thishas been thehopesince the beginnings of thespaceera. In 1955, before thevery firstsuccessful space launches, cooperation wasdeclared a centerpiece of US foreign policystrategy when the White Houseannounced: The President has approved plans by thiscountry forgoing ahead with launching ofsmall unmannedearth-circling satellites as part of the United States participation in theInternational Geophysical .This program will forthe firsttime inhistoryenablescientists throughout the world to makesustained observations in theregions beyond theearthsatmosphere.20 The full realization ofcooperations promise occurrednearly fourdecades laterwith theend of theColdWar. Space and Earthscienceresearch andspaceexploration wereno longerconstrained by an overarching

competition between two superpowers. Capitalizing on opportunities and leveraging theexpertise of othernations, thoseseeking to jumpstart oradvance theirscientific initiativesrushed into thenew multi-polarworldcreating a surplus ofinternational space alliances and partnerships.21 The USA iscontinuing this trend byreaching out moreconstructively tolargenuclearglobal powers likeIndia and China, in thehope that suchengagement shapes theirfuturespace andengineering activities in positivedirections. Ofcourse, a nationsdecision to engage inspacecooperation isvery much a

political decision. Nations pick andchoose if, when, where, andhow theyexpend theirnational treasure. Theychoose themannerandextent of theirforeign investments forreasons both known and unknownto othernations. The onlyconstant isthat a decision to join in cooperation is, ineverycase, a calculated political decision byeach potential memberof a

[CARD CONTINUES ONNEXT PAGE NO TEXT OMITTED]


7/31


8/31


RS Lab __/__

Last printed 2/2/2012 10:42:00 PM

8


A strong legal system in space is key to check nuclear conflict

Law Library - American Law and Legal Information, 3/9/10, Space Law, http://law.jrank.org/pages/19073/Space-Law.html

Coming as it did in the middle of the Cold War, thedawn of thespace agecreated two majorfears. The first was that spacemight become an arena forexpanded militaryconflict, withnuclearbombsstationed in orbit, ready to bedropped at shortnotice on those below. Thesecond was that a scramble for territory andresources inspace, akin to thescramble forAfricancolonies in the latenineteenthcentury, might increase tensions to the point where they would touch off a nuclearwaronearth. These issues were addressed by the 1967 OuterSpace Treaty. In addition to addressing a numberof important issuesregarding liability, registration ofspacecraft, and treatment ofstranded astronauts, the Treatyhad two majorprovisions.ArticleII provided that outerspace wouldnot besubject to national appropriation, meaning that nationscouldnot claimthe Moon orothercelestial bodies asnational territory. And ArticleIV provided that nationscouldnot placenuclearweapons orotherweapons of massdestruction in orbit oroncelestial bodies. The provision wasdrafted this wayso as to

permit ballistic missiles, which pass throughspace but do not enterorbit. The OuterSpace Treaty prohibitednationalappropriation, but not private propertyrights. The 1979 Moon Treatysought to ban private propertyrights in outerspace,and to subject anyresourceextraction to international controls. Although that treaty isnow in force, itssignatories includeno space powers, making its impact minimal. At present, althoughnational appropriation is forbidden, privateclaims to

spaceresourcesremain possible. This is likely to become an issue of importance by theseconddecade of the twenty-firstcentury, as privatespace missions grow more ambitious and morecapable.


9/31


10/31


RS Lab __/__

Last printed 2/2/2012 10:42:00 PM

10

Courts 1AC Competitiveness Advantage (2/7)

Extraterrestrial property rights are key to investment needed for space development

Sattler 4 Rosanna SattlerChairof the firms Space Law and Telecommunications Group Esquire, [TRANSPORTING A LEGALSYSTEM FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS FROM THE EARTH TO THE STARS]

In addition to financial incentives, thereport recommends protecting andsecuring the propertyrights of private industry inspace. However, thereport offers littlespecificdirection as to how propertyrights inspace are to becreated and protected,though it does point out that two treaties, the OuterSpace Treaty and the Moon Treaty,17 exist that may makesuchownership difficult. In fact, thereport states: Because of this treatyregime, the legal status of a hypothetical privatecompanyengaged in making products from spaceresou rces is uncertain. Potentially, this uncertaintycouldstrangle anascent space-based industry in itscradle; no company will invest millions ofdollars indeveloping a product to which theirlegal claim is uncertain. The issue of private propertyrights inspace is a complex one involving national and internationalissues. However, it is imperative that these issues berecognized and addressed at anearlystage in the implementation ofthevision, otherwise there will be littlesignificant privatesectoractivity associated with thedevelopment ofspaceresources, one of ourkey goals.18 (Emphasis added) The implementation of the Presidentsvisionrequires an overhaul ofthecurrent treaties and laws that govern propertyrights inspace in orderto develop betterand more workable models thatwill stimulatecommercial enterprise on the Moon, asteroids and Mars. Theexpansion of a commercial spacesector toinclude activities oncelestial bodiesrequires theestablishment of a regulatoryregimedesigned to enable, not inhibit, new

space activity. Thedevelopment ofspecific laws, which areconsistently applied, will create a reliable legal system forentrepreneurs, companies and investors. Theestablishment of a reliable propertyrightsregime will remove impediments to

business activities on these bodies, and inspire thecommercial confidencenecessary to attract theenormous investmentsneeded for tourism, settlement, construction and businessdevelopment, and for theextraction and utilization ofresources.

4 internals into growth. First, space property rights are key business confidence and space development

Cherian & Abraham 7 Jijo George Cherian & Job Abraham [National University of Advanced Legal Studies, Kerala, India]In January 2004, the US President George W. Bush announcedhisvision for the future ofspaceexploration and thedevelopment ofspaceresources and infrastructure andcreated the Commission onImplementation of United StatesExploration Policy whichrecommends that Congress increase the potential forcommercial opportunitiesrelated to thenational spaceexplorationvision by: 1) providing incentives forentrepreneurial investment inspace; 2)creating significantmonetary prizes forthe accomplishment ofspace missions and/ortechnologydevelopments; and 3) assuring appropriate

propertyrights forthose who seek to develop spaceresources and infrastructure. Thereport also recommends protectingandsecuring the propertyrights of private industry inspace andrecognizes that the issue of private propertyrights inspaceis a complex one involving national and international issues (Presidents Comm., 2004). A general view in thisregard is thatthe implementation of thisvisionrequires an overhaul of thecurrent treaties and laws that govern propertyrights inspace inorder to develop betterand more workable models that will stimulatecommercial enterprise on the moon, asteroids, andMars. Theexpansion of a commercial spacesectorto include activities oncelestial bodiesrequires theestablishment of aregulatoryregimedesigned to enable, not inhibit, new space activity. Thedevelopment ofspecific laws, which areconsistently applied, will create a reliable legal system forentrepreneurs, companies, and investors. Theestablishment of areliable propertyrightsregime will remove impediments to business activities on these bodies and inspire thecommercialconfidencenecessary to attract theenormous investmentsneeded for tourism, settlement, construction, and businessdevelopment, and fortheextraction and utilization ofresources (Rosanna S., 2005). The working of theInternational SpaceStation (ISS) and theInternational Telecommunications Union (ITU) isshowcased as thesteps to beemulated in orderto achieve a workable framework, so as to recognizesome form of propertyrights inspace. The Antarctica Treaty model

(Antarctica Treaty System, 1959) is also anotherapproach that issaid to be adaptable withregard to space laws. All thesedevelopmentsshowcase a growing need to address theconcept of propertyrights inspace law. In addition, spaceexploration isno more limited to nations alone, andneitherconfined to realm ofscience fantasy only. Commercialactivities inspace are gaining momentum, (Micheal C., 2004) and more and more participation of private individuals is theneed of thehour, forwhich anexplicit recognition of propertyrights is a necessity.


11/31


12/31


RS Lab __/__

Last printed 2/2/2012 10:42:00 PM

12


[CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE]have a substantial competitive advantage overlaterdeveloping countries. Hence, if a commercial space travel industryhadalready been booming in the 1980s, theshrinkage in aerospaceemployment aftertheend of the "cold war" wouldhave

been farless. Consequently it seems fairto conclude that thedecades long delay indeveloping space travel hascontributed

to the lack ofnew industries in therichercountries, which isconstraining economic growth andcausing thehighest levelsof unemployment fordecades. Therapideconomicdevelopment of China andIndia offers great promise but creates aseriouschallenge for the alreadyrichcountries, whichneed to accelerate the growth ofnew industries if they are to benefitfrom thesecountries' lowercosts without creating an impoverished under-class in theirownsocieties. The long-term cost ofsuch a sociallydivisive policy would greatly outweigh theshort-term benefits of low-cost imports. Thedevelopment ofIndia and China also createsdangers because thedemands of 6 billion people arenow approaching the limits of theresources of planet Earth. As these limits are approached, governments become increasinglyrepressive, thereby addingmajorsocial costs to thedirect costs ofenvironmental damage [22]. Consequently, asdiscussed furtherbelow, it seems thatthedecades-long delay instarting to use theresources of thesolarsystem has alreadycausedheavy, selfinicteddamage tohumans'economicdevelopment, and must be urgently overcome, forwhich a range of policieshave been proposed in[23,24].

This solves resource wars and neo-con war mongeringCollins & Autino 8 Patrick Collins PhD, well known andrespected authority onspaceeconomics, space tourism, reusable

launchvehicles Adriano Autino President of the Space RenaissanceInitiative.2008 What the Growth of a Space Tourism Industry

Could Contribute to Employment, Economic Growth, Environmental Protection, Education, Culture and World Peace

Although the use ofextra-terrestrial resources on a substantial scale maystill besomedecades away, it is important torecognise that simply acknowledging its feasibility using known technology is thesurest way ofending the threat ofresource wars. That is, if it is assumed that theresources available forhuman use are limited to those on Earth, then it can

be argued that resource wars are inescapable [22,37]. If, bycontrast, it is assumed that theresources ofspace areeconomically accessible, thisnot onlyeliminates theneed forresource wars, it can also preserve the benefits ofcivilisationwhich are being eroded today by "resource war-mongers", most notably the governments of the "Anglo-Saxon" countriesand their"neo-con" advisers. It is also worthnoting that the $1 trillion that thesehave alreadycommitted to wars in theMiddle-East in the 21st century is orders of magnitude more than the public investment needed to aidcompaniessufficiently to start thecommercial use ofspaceresources.

Third, Space industry is key to employment solves the econ

Collins & Autino 8 Patrick Collins PhD, well known andrespected authority onspaceeconomics, space tourism, reusable



In most countries, most of the populationdo not haveeconomicallysignificant landholdings, andso employment is theeconomic basis ofsocial life, providing income andenabling people to havestable family lives. Thehigh level ofunemployment in most countries today is thereforenot only wasteful, it also causes widespread poverty and unhappiness,and issociallydamaging, creating furtherproblems for the future. Onereason for investing in thedevelopment of passenger

space travel, therefore, is that it couldcreate majornew fields ofemployment, capable of growing as farinto the future aswecansee. As of 2001, thehotel, catering and tourism sectorwasestimated to employ 60 million people world-wide, or3% of the global workforce, and 6% of Europeans [15]. Hence wecanestimate that the passengerairtravel industry,including airlines, airports, hotels and othertourismrelated work, indirectlyemploys 1020 times thenumberof peopleemployed in aircraft manufacturing alone. Likewise, passengerspace travel servicescould presumablycreateemploymentmany times that in launchvehicle manufacturinginvehicle operations and maintenance, at spaceports, in orbiting hotels,in manycompaniessupplying these, inservicessuch asstaff training, certification and insurance, and in a growing range ofrelated businesses. This possibility is particularlyvaluable becausehigh unemployment, both inricherand poorercountries,has been the majoreconomic problem throughout the world fordecades. Consequently the growth ofsuch a majornewmarket foradvanced aerospace technology andservicesseemshighlydesirable, asdiscussed further in [16].


13/31


RS Lab __/__

Last printed 2/2/2012 10:42:00 PM

13


Space industry solves all impacts

Collins & Autino 8 Patrick Collins PhD, well known andrespected authority onspaceeconomics, space tourism, reusable



The authors argue that thecreation of a popularnew industry of passengerspace travel could beeconomically andsociallyvery beneficial increating new employment in aerospace andrelated fields in order to supply theseservices. Indoing so,the application ofnearly a half-century of technological development that hasyet to be usedcommerciallycouldcreatemanynew aerospaceengineering business opportunities. In addition, by growing to largescale, space tourism has unique

potential to reduce thecost ofspace travel sharply, thereby making many otheractivities inspace feasible and profitable.The paperdiscusses thescope fornew employment, stimulating economic growth, reducing environmental damage,sustaining education particularly in thesciences, stimulating cultural growth, and preserving peace byeliminating anyneedfor"resource wars".

Fourth, Space tech leadership ensures economic strength for the future

NASA 11National Aeronautic and Space Administration Fiscal Year2012 NASA

Space Technologycreatesnew space technologies that enableexploration, scientificdiscovery, and a strongereconomicfuture. The FY 2012 budget request forSpace Technology is $1,024.2 million. Technology improves ourliveseveryday,andyet, U.S. leadership in technologydevelopment is underattack, a fact that hasserious implications fortheNationsglobal competiveness andeconomy. Recognizing that a technology-basedeconomy is a robust one, the President haschallenged Federal agencies to strengthen theirinvestments innew technologydevelopment and innovation. NASAsSpace Technologydevelopscritical space technologies through multi-phased technologydevelopment efforts,demonstrations, competitive opportunities, and partnerships. Thesestrategiesengage thecreativity and problem-solvingnature of theNations brightest minds, whetherthey work in Government, industry, academia, ora backyard workshop.Space Technology provides the technological advancesrequired forNASA's future missions inscience andexplorationwhile also creating advances that can lowercosts and improvecapabilities of othergovernment agency andcommercialspace activities. These investments will stimulate theeconomy and build theNation's global economiccompetitivenessthrough thecreation ofnew products andservices, new business and industries, andhigh-quality, sustainable jobs. NASAhistory of technology transferproves that that space-derived technologies, tools, and processeshave applications for

commercial markets. NASAs Small BusinessInnovation Research and Small Business Technology Transferprogramsencouragesmall businesses to participate in the Agencys technologyresearch anddevelopment work. In FY 2012, NASAwill increase maximum award levels to $150,000 forPhase 1 research, and to $1 million forPhase 2 activities. Thisincreased Agencycommitment to engaging small business inresearch anddevelopment will encouragecreativity andinnovation incompanies that might not otherwise bedrawn toNASA andspaceexploration. Increasedengagement by U.S.industry will improve the technological position of the U.S. andhelp to build a robust spacecommercial market.


14/31


RS Lab __/__

Last printed 2/2/2012 10:42:00 PM

14


Continued economic downturn will lead to wars and extinction

Mead 09.

[WALTERRUSSELL,SENIORFELLOW INU.S.FOREIGNPOLICY AT THE COUNCIL ONFOREIGNRELATIONS,NEW REPUBLIC,FEBRUARY4,HTTP://WWW.TNR.COM/POLITICS/STORY.HT...83915F5F8&P=2]

So far, suchhalf-heartedexperimentsnot onlyhave failed to work; theyhave left thesocieties that have tried them in a progressivelyworse position, fartherbehind the front-runners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russiandevelopment has fallenfartherbehind that of the Balticstates and Central Europe. Frequently, thecrisishas weakened the powerof the merchants,industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisiscanalso strengthen thehand ofreligiousextremists, populist radicals, orauthoritarian traditionalists who aredetermined to resist liberalcapitalist society fora variety ofreasons. Meanwhile, thecompanies and banks based in thesesocieties are often lessestablished andmorevulnerable to theconsequences of a financial crisis than moreestablished firms in wealthiersocieties. As a result, developingcountries andcountries wherecapitalism hasrelativelyrecent andshallow roots tend to suffergreatereconomic and political damagewhencrisisstrikes--as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises oftenreinforceratherthanchallenge the globaldistribution of powerand wealth. This may behappening yet again. None of which means that wecan just sit back andenjoy therecession. History maysuggest that financial crises actuallyhelp capitalist great powers maintain theirleads--but it has other, less

reassuring messages as well. If financial criseshave been a normal part of lifeduring the 300-yearrise of the liberal capitalist systemunderthe Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War;the American Revolution; theNapoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; thecold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list offinancial crises. Badeconomic timescan breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, butthe Depression poisoned German

public opinion andhelped bring Adolf Hitlerto power. If thecurrent crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might startslouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, orNew Delhi to be born? The United States maynot, yet, decline, but, if wecan't get theworldeconomy back on track, we maystill have to fight.

Experts agree privatization is key to space power

Nelson 11 StevenNelson writes forthe Daily Callerews website based in Washington, D.C., United States with a focus on politicsoriginal reporting, breaking news Fiscal conservativescall for increased privatization ofspace The Daily Caller

Members of the task force issuedseveral recommendations to Congress, including finding an Americanreplacement to theSpace Shuttle (so to minimize thecostlyexpenditures on use of Russianspacecraft) andencouraging more private

investment in thedevelopment of mannedspacecraft. FormerRepublican Rep. Robert S. Walkerof Pennsylvania said, Ifwereally want to win the future, wecannot abandon ourcommitment to spaceexploration andhumanspaceflight. Thefastest path to space isnot through Moscow, but through the Americanentrepreneur. Task Forcechairman Rand Simberg,of the Competitive EnterpriseInstitute, said, By opening space up to the American people and theirenterprises, NASA canignite aneconomic, technological, and innovationrenaissance, and the United States will regain itsrightful place as theworld leaderinspace.


15/31


RS Lab __/__

Last printed 2/2/2012 10:42:00 PM

15


US military power prevents escalation and all scenarios of global conflict.

Thayer 6 (Bradley A., Prof of Defense and Strategic Studies @ Missouri State University, In Defense of Primacy., NationalInterest; Nov/Dec2006 Issue 86, p32-37)

Throughout history, peace andstabilityhave been great benefits of anera where there was a dominant power--Rome,Britain orthe United States today. Scholars andstatesmenhave long recognized the ireniceffect of poweron the anarchicworld of international politics. Everything we think of when weconsiderthecurrent international order--free trade, arobust monetaryregime, increasing respect forhumanrights, growing democratization--isdirectly linked to U.S. power.Retrenchment proponentsseem to think that thecurrent system can be maintained without thecurrent amount of U.S.

powerbehind it. In that they aredead wrong andneed to bereminded of one ofhistory's most significant lessons: Appallingthingshappen when international orderscollapse. The Dark Ages followed Rome'scollapse. Hitlersucceeded the orderestablished at Versailles. Without U.S. power, the liberal ordercreated by the United States will endjust as assuredly. Ascountry and western great Ral Donnersang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it)." Consequently, it isimportant to note what those good things are. In addition to ensuring thesecurity of the United States and its allies,American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes forWashington and the world. The firsthas been a more peaceful world. During the Cold War, U.S. leadership reduced friction among manystates that werehistorical antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today, American primacyhelps keep a numberofcomplicatedrelationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea and Japan, India and

Pakistan, Indonesia and Australia. This isnot to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson'svision ofending all war. Warsstill occurwhere Washington's interests arenot seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a Pax Americana doesreduce war'slikelihood, particularly war's worst form: great powerwars. Second, American powergives the United States the abilityto spreaddemocracy and otherelements of its ideology of liberalism: Doing so is a source of much good for thecountriesconcerned as well as the United States because, as John Owennoted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue, liberaldemocracies are more likely to align with the United States and besympathetic to the American worldview.( n3) So,spreading democracyhelps maintain U.S. primacy. In addition, oncestates are governeddemocratically, the likelihood ofany type ofconflict issignificantlyreduced. This isnot becausedemocraciesdo not haveclashing interests. Indeed theydo.Rather, it is because they are more open, more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably inconcurrence with U.S. leadership. Andso, in general, democraticstates are good for theircitizens as well as foradvancingthe interests of the United States.


16/31


RS Lab __/__

Last printed 2/2/2012 10:42:00 PM

16

Courts 1AC Disease Advantage (1/2)

Contention __ is Disease:

Patent law limits development- reduces incentives for companies to innovate

Kurt G. Hammerle is an intellectual property attorney for theNational Aeronautics and Space Administrationet al. i 3-18-2011[Matthew Kleiman is Corporate Counsel at the DraperLaboratory, Theodore (Ted) Ro is an intellectual property attorney at JohnsonSpace Center,PATENT INFRINGEMENT IN OUTER SPACE IN LIGHT OF 35 U.S.C. 105: FOLLOWING THE WHITERABBIT DOWN THE RABBIT LOOPHOLE,http://bujostl.org/content/WORKING_PATENT_INFRINGEMENT_IN_OUTER_SPACE.pdf]

The foregoing discussionhasshownhow the 105(a) Exceptionshavecreated a loophole in U.S. patent law that couldpermit privateentities to insulate themselves from patent infringement liability in the United States for theirouterspaceoperations undercircumstances wherein they might otherwise be liable undercurrent U.S. extraterritorial principles. Thisloophole poses at least two problems. First, allowing companies to avoid liability for infringing U.S. patentscouldhampertheeffectiveness of the U.S. patent system. Patents traditionally play an important role in promoting high technologyresearch and innovation. An ineffective patent system couldreduce incentives forprivatespacecompanies to innovate andcausespacecompanies to protect theirinventions as tradesecrets instead ofdisclosing them to the public in patent filings.78 Second, while a purpose of Exception 2 is to recognize anddefer to the United States obligations underthe OuterSpaceTreaty and the Registration Convention, it is unclearwhethercompletelydeferring to the Registration Convention wasactuallyrequired in orderto accomplish this goal. In fact, entirelyceding responsibility forpatent infringement byspaceobjects that . are operated by U.S. persons orcompanies may be inconsistent with the United States obligations undertheOuterSpace Treaty. To examine thisview further, consider, asstatedsupra, that the OuterSpace Treaty provides that aState Party to the Treaty on whoseregistry an object launched into outerspace iscarriedshall retain jurisdiction andcontroloversuch object, and overany personnel thereof, while in outerspace. 79 Although the language shall suggests amandatoryedict is being placed on the launching State, withrespect to retain jurisdiction, neither the OuterSpace Treatynorthe Registration Conventionrequires that thedesignated launching Stateexerciseexclusive jurisdiction overitsregisteredspace objects. The failure of the OuterSpace Treaty to vest a singlestate withexclusive jurisdiction overspaceobjectsseems intentional whencompared with language in the 1959 Convention on the High Seas, which provides thatShipsshall sail underthe flag of one State only and, save inexceptional casesexpressly provided for in internationaltreaties orin these articles, shall besubject to itsexclusive jurisdiction on thehighseas. 80 Bycontrast, the language inarticle VIII of the OuterSpace Treaty is much lessrestrictive. Furthersupport in theview that the State of Registrydoesnot

necessarilyhaveexclusive jurisdiction overitsregisteredspace objectscan be found by the fact that the RegistrationConventionseems to encouragecreative jurisdictional arrangements when there are multiple potential launching States.Specifically, the Registration Conventionstates that thedetermination of the launching Stateshall be made without

prejudice to appropriate agreementsconcluded or to beconcluded among the launching States on jurisdiction andcontroloverthespace object and overany personnel thereof. 81 A 1986 report by the U.S. Congressional Office of TechnologyAssessment evenspeculated that this provision of the Registration Conventioncould be a basis upon which to establish

joint jurisdiction underthe Registration Convention for the thenproposed international spacestation. 82

Independently, Private space research is key to medical breakthroughs government fails

TaylorDinerman, 4/23/07, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/856/1

The US space agency is just not in the business ofdeveloping new medicines. It conducts a lot of biomedical research, butit doesso more forthesake ofscience than with any well-defined business goals in mind. The messy anddisorganizednature of basicresearch ishard to fit into thedisciplined, step-by-step procedure mandated by the FDA. To criticizeNASAfor this is like blaming a bearfornot being a gazelle. Only the privatesectorhas theright set of motivations andresourcesto effectivelyexploit the medical research possibilities inherent in theISS. The SPACEHAB corporation, based in Texas,aims to be the premierspace medical manufacturing company. Afternearly being delisted from theNASDAQ exchangeand flirting with bankruptcy afterthe Columbia disaster, thiscompanyhopes to reinvent itself asentrepreneurial spacemanufacturer, ratherthan as a NASA service provider.


17/31


18/31


RS Lab __/__

Last printed 2/2/2012 10:42:00 PM

18

Courts 1AC Judiciary Advantage Courts Clog (1/3)

Contention __ is Judiciary: Subpoint A is Courts Clog

Property claims in space are inevitable. The absence of an effective legal regime cause IP lawsuits to

proliferateWasser and Jobes 08 Alan Wasser, Chairman of The Space Settlement Institute, Douglas Jobes, President of The SpaceSettlement Institute, 2008, National Space Society, SPACE SETTLEMENTS, PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONALLAW: COULD A LUNAR SETTLEMENT CLAIM THE LUNAR REAL ESTATE IT NEEDS TO SURVIVE?,http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/library/SpaceSettlementLandClaimsRecognition-Wasser2008.pdf

Anotherpossible argument, based on the inevitable future, is that there isno need to push the legal envelope by passingLunarlandclaimsrecognitionnow, because once a spacesettlement isestablished, a propertyrightsregime will evolvenaturally. It certainly is true that, if a permanent spacesettlement wereestablished without prior legislation, there would beclaims of property ownership inspace that wouldhave to be litigated at length in thecourts of the United States and othercountries. In fact, ifno advance legislationhas been passed, there will beoutrageous property claims based on muchlesserbases than actual settlement. 156 This legal uncertaintyscares off space developers who fearthat, aftertheyhavespent a fortunedeveloping space, they will only win the right to spend another fortune on legal bills. 157 Worse, itwould force unqualified judges to legislate inhaste from the bench, possibly producing very badrules

Federal court clog undermines legitimacy

Bassler 96. (William G. Bassler, Judge @ US District Court ofNew Jersey and Adjunct Prof of Law @ Seton Hall,RutgersLaw Review, 48 Rutgers L. Rev. 1139, Summer1996, lexis)

In addition to thedelegation of opinion writing to clerks, thedelegation of authority in general 92 is a majorcost of the[*1157] caseloadexplosion. "Thecaseload perfederal judgehasrisen to the point wherevery few judges, howeverable

anddedicated, can keep up with the flow without heavyreliance on law clerks, staff attorneys, andsometimesexterns too."93 This bureaucratization94 of the federal judiciarycan onlyserve to erode itseffectiveness, independence, and publicrespect, as well as the morale of the federal bench itself. Thesheervolume ofcaseserodes the ability of the judge to give

personal and individual attention to eachcase. 95In order to stay abreast ofhis orherdocket, a judge may be tempted toresort to forcedsettlements, excuses to remand to statecourts, and aggressivedispositions bysummary judgmentsratherthancarefully weigh the arguments of bothsides. Theever-increasing criminal docket with itsrequirements forearlydisposition ofcases under the Speedy Trial Act 96 preventscareful pretrial management of thecivil docket by the judge andmandatesreliance on the magistrate. Theever-increasing docket will, bynecessity, invite morecourt administratorinvolvement with the inevitableerosion of the traditional independence of the federal judge. 97 Increased pressure todispose ofever in- [*1158] creasing backlogs also invites well-intentionedefforts to find betterways to manage thedocket. This in turnrequires judges to attend anever increasing numberofcommittee meetings 98 whichnaturally takesaway from time on the bench. 99 While "the federal courtsdo not exist for the purpose ofclearing theirdockets," 100 thecurrent caseloadcrisisdoes at least require those advocating theexpansion of federal jurisdiction101 to justify theneed forfederal action. Considering the [*1159] publicexpectations of the federal judiciary, impaired performance anddiminishedindependence arecosts thecountrycannot afford. 102


19/31


RS Lab __/__

Last printed 2/2/2012 10:42:00 PM

19


Judicial legitimacy is key to prevent terrorism.

Shapiro '03 (Jeremy Shapiro, Associate Directorand Research Associate, BrookingsInstitute, March 2003, "French Lessons:TheImportance of the Judicial System in Fighting Terrorism http://www.brookings.edu/fp/cusf/analysis/shapiro20030325.htm)

The uniquenature of terrorism means that maintaining the appearance of justice anddemocratic legitimacy will be muchmore important than in past wars. The terrorist threat is in a perpetual state of mutation and adaptation inresponse togovernment efforts to oppose it. The waron terrorism morecloselyresembles the warondrugs than World WarII; it isunlikely to have anydiscernableendpoint, only irregularperiods ofcalm. The Frenchexperienceshows that ad-hoc anti-terrorist measures that have little basis insocietal values andshallow support in public opinion may witherawayduring the

periods ofcalm. In the U.S., there is anenormous reservoir of legitimacy, established by over200 years ofhistory andtradition, in the judiciary. That reservoirrepresents animportant asset that the U.S. government can profit from tomaintain long-term vigilance in this type of war. Despite the unusual opportunity forinnovation afforded by thecrisis ofSeptember11, the U.S. government hasnot tried to reform American judicial institutions to enable them to meet the threatof terrorism. To prevent the next wave of attacks, howeverfaroff they might be, and to avoidre-inventing a slightlydifferent wheel each timewill require giving life to institutions that can persist and evolve, even in times of lowterrorist activity. Given thenumerousdifferences between the two countries, the U.S. cannot andshouldnot simply

import the Frenchsystem, but it can learn from theirmistakes. Theirexperiencesuggests a few possiblereforms: Aspecialized U.S. Attorney taskedsolely with terrorism cases andentirelyresponsible forprosecuting suchcases in the U.S.

Direct and formal links between that U.S. Attorney's office and thevarious intelligence agencies, allowing prosecutors to

task the intelligences agenciesduring judicial investigationsSpecial procedures forselecting and protecting juries interrorism cases andspecial rules ofevidence that allow forincreased protection ofclassified information in terrorist casesCreating a normal, civilian judicial process that can prosecute terrorists andyet retain legitimacy isnot merely morallysatisfying. It may also help to prevent terrorist attacks in the long run. Not incidentally, it woulddemonstrate to theworld a continuing faith in the ability ofdemocraticsocieties to manage the threat of terrorism without sacrificing theveryvalues theyso desperatelydesire to protect.


20/31


RS Lab __/__

Last printed 2/2/2012 10:42:00 PM

20


Unchecked terrorism will expand and cause extinction

Alexander '03 (Yonah Alexander, professoranddirectorof theInter-University forTerrorism Studies inIsrael and the

United States, August 28, 2003, The Washington Times l/n)

Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrateddramatically that theinternational community failed, thus farat least, to understand the magnitude and implications of the terrorist threats to theverysurvival ofcivilization itself. Even the United States andIsrael have fordecades tended to regard terrorism as a meretactical nuisance orirritant ratherthan a critical strategicchallenge to theirnational securityconcerns. It isnot surprising,therefore, that on September11, 2001, Americans werestunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terroristsstriking a devastating blow at thecenterof thenation'scommercial and military powers. Likewise, Israel and itscitizens,despite thecollapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 andnumerous acts of terrorism triggered by thesecond intifada that

began almost threeyears ago, arestill "shocked" byeachsuicide attack at a time of intensivediplomaticefforts to revivethe moribund peace process through thenow revokedcease-fire arrangements [hudna]. Why are the United States andIsrael, as well asscores of othercountries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised bynewterrorist "surprises"? There are manyreasons, including misunderstanding of the manifoldspecific factors that contribute toterrorism'sexpansion, such as lack of a universal definition of terrorism, thereligionization of politics, doublestandards ofmorality, weak punishment of terrorists, and theexploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychologicalwarfare. Unlike theirhistorical counterparts, contemporary terroristshave introduced a new scale ofviolence in terms ofconventional and unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization ofcurrent and futureterrorism make it clearwehaveentered an Age of SuperTerrorism [e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclearandcyber] with itsserious implicationsconcerning national, regional and global securityconcerns. Two myths in particularmust bedebunked immediately if aneffectivecounterterrorism "best practices" strategycan bedeveloped [e.g.,strengthening international cooperation]. The first illusion is that terrorism can be greatlyreduced, ifnot eliminatedcompletely, provided theroot causes ofconflicts - political, social andeconomic - are addressed. Theconventional illusionis that terrorism must be justified by oppressed peopleseeking to achieve theirgoals andconsequently the argumentadvanced by "freedom fighters" anywhere, "give me liberty andI will giveyou death," should be tolerated ifnot glorified.This traditional rationalization of "sacred" violence oftenconceals that thereal purpose of terrorist groups is to gain

political powerthrough the barrel of the gun, inviolation of fundamental humanrights of thenoncombatant segment ofsocieties. Forinstance, Palestiniansreligious movements [e.g., Hamas, Islamic Jihad] andsecularentities [such as Fatah's

Tanzim and Aqsa MartyrBrigades]] wishnot only to resolvenational grievances [such as Jewishsettlements, right ofreturn, Jerusalem] but primarily to destroy the Jewishstate. Similarly, Osama bin Laden's international networknot onlyopposes the presence of American military in the Arabian Peninsula andIraq, but itsstated objective is to "unite allMuslims andestablish a government that follows therule of the Caliphs." Thesecond myth is that strong action againstterrorist infrastructure [leaders, recruitment, funding, propaganda, training, weapons, operational command andcontrol]will only increase terrorism. The argument here is that law-enforcement efforts and militaryretaliation inevitably will fuelmore brutal acts ofviolent revenge. Clearly, if this perceptioncontinues to prevail, particularly indemocraticsocieties,there is thedangerit will paralyze governments and therebyencourage furtherterrorist attacks. Insum, past experience

provides useful lessons fora realistic futurestrategy. The prudent application of forcehas beendemonstrated to be aneffective tool forshort- and long-term deterrence of terrorism. Forexample, Israel's targeted killing of Mohammed Sider,the Hebroncommanderof theIslamic Jihad, defused a "ticking bomb." The assassination ofIsmail Abu Shanab - a topHamas leaderin the Gaza Strip who wasdirectlyresponsible forseveral suicide bombings including the latest bus attack inJerusalem - disrupted potential terrorist operations. Similarly, the U.S. military operation inIraqeliminated Saddam

Hussein'sregime as a statesponsorof terror. Thus, it behooves thosecountriesvictimized by terrorism to understand acardinal messagecommunicated by Winston Churchill to the House of Commons on May 13, 1940: "Victory at all costs,victory inspite of terror, victoryhowever long andhard theroad may be: Forwithout victory, there is no survival."


21/31


RS Lab __/__

Last printed 2/2/2012 10:42:00 PM

21

Courts 1AC Judiciary Advantage Independence (1/8)

Subpoint B is Judicial Independence

Obama is combating judicial activism now

Jakubic 10 Mark Jakubic Jakubic Law Firm 2010 Obamas Disingenuous Attack on Judicial ActivismOne of the longest running debates in American politics and one on which theconservativesidehas fairlyconsistently prevailed

involves the properrole of thecourts in ourConstitutional system. Pollshaveconsistentlyshown that a solid majority of theelectorate agrees that thecourtsshould limit themselves toppling the law, andshouldrefrain from creating rights. The latteris afunction that is, undertraditional American political theory, properlyreserved to the legislature. Thisnotion that courtsshouldnot involve themselves increating new positiverights has often been labeled with theshorthand term judicial restraint.Recognizing that theyve lost thedebate ascurrently framed, and fearful that the more ambitious aspects of the progressiveagenda maynot fareso well in thecourts, the Obama Administration, and its friends in legal commentarycircles, arenow seekingto change the terms of thedebate, or, perhaps more accurately, to change the meaning of the terms about which we aredebating.Obamasnew riff, designed to makehimself appearto be the true conservative and to paint thecurrent Supreme Court asradical activists, is that judicial restraint requirescourts to deferto the legislature whenreviewing dulyenacted legislationeven,

presumably, when the legislation underconsideration plainlyviolates the Constitution. Jeffrey Toobin, a consistent Obama ally,addshisvoice to the leftsnewfound love forjudicial restraint in a piece in the May 24 issue of TheNew Yorker. Toobinquotes Obama to theeffect that an activist judge wassomebody who ignored the will of Congress, ignoreddemocratic processes,

and tried to impose judicial solutions on problems instead of letting the process work itself through politically. Toobin thenopines that the Roberts Court has betrayed itself as an activist court through itsdecisionsstriking down portions of the McCain-Feingold law, certain pieces of local legislation imposing quotas in publicschool enrollment and the District of Columbias banonhandgun ownership. Theclearobjective of Toobin, and those who write in a similarvein, is to discredit thesedecisions and the

jurisprudential principles underlying them, as activist, and to lay the groundwork fora defense of the progressive agenda inpart based on a plea forjudicial restraint. Toobin and Obama however, are advancing a flawed argument, and aredoing sodisingenuously.

Property rights rulings stir judicial activism

Cole 5 Daniel H. Cole [Bruce Townsend Professorof Law, Indiana University School of Law at Indianapolis] 2005 Supreme CourtEconomic Review POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS, JUDICIAL REVIEW, AND PRIVATE PROPERTY: A COMPARATIVEINSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS

At its base, Epsteins theory of takings is motivated by a distrust ofdemocratic government that Lockedidnot share.According to Epstein,[t]he argument for judicial activism rests on the perception that flaws in thedemocratic process leadto thedeprivation of individual rights, including those of propertyhave pointed out the imperfections of any one body (suchas a legislature) always make anotherbody (such as the judiciary) appearsuperior. The problem is that all organizations andinstitutions, including governments, courts, and markets, are imperfect. Consequently, the imperfections of onecannotautomatically justify a preference foranother. Comparative institutional analysis isrequired to determine theinstitutional/organizational choice that, in thecircumstances, fails least. Emphasis upon the imperfections of governmentleads to strict scrutiny and moreextensive judicial action.23

Court rulings with wide compliance boost judicial independence

David S. Law, Professorof Law and Political Science Washington University, March 2009, Georgetown Law Journal, A Theoryof Judicial Powerand Judicial Review, 97 Geo. L.J. 723, Lexis

Part IV of this Articlediscusses a counterintuitive implication of a coordination-based account of judicial power.Conventional wisdom suggests that courtssecurecompliance with theirdecisions bydrawing upon theirstore oflegitimacy, which is undermined bydecisions that are unpopular, controversial, orlack intellectual integrity. 25 Part IVargues that precisely the opposite is true: an unpopularorunpersuasivedecisioncan, in fact, enhance a court's power infuturecases, as long as it is obeyed. Widespreadcompliance with a decision that iscontroversial, unpopular, orunpersuasiveserves only to strengthen the widelyheldexpectation that otherscomply with judicial decisions. Thisexpectation, in turn, isself-fulfilling: those who expect others to comply with a court'sdecisions will find it strategically

prudent to comply themselves, and the aggregateresult will, in fact, be widespreadcompliance. Part IV illustrates thesestrategic insights--and the Supreme Court's apparent grasp of them--bycontrasting [*734] Bushv. Gore 26 with Brownv.Board of Education 27 and Cooperv. Aaron. 28


22/31


RS Lab __/__

Last printed 2/2/2012 10:42:00 PM

22


Government support cant sustain independence- judicial action is key

Office of Democracy and Governance, 2 (Office of Democracy and Governance, branch of the United States Agency forInternational Development Bureau of Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance, Guidance forPromoting Judicial

Independence andImpartiality, January 2002,http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/publications/pdfs/pnacm007.pdf|AF)

While placing administrative and budgetaryresponsibility with the judiciarycreates a framework that encouragessubstantive independence, it is byno meanssufficient. Problemscan arise when administrative authority is transferredwithout first, orsimultaneously, developing the interest andcapacity of judicial leaders to discharge theirincreasedresponsibilitieseffectively, with attention to theneeds of the loweras well as thehighercourts. Forexample, the lack of

professional court management in the Basqueregion in Spainresulted in transferof administration back to the ministry ofjustice. Throughout thecommonwealth, administrativeresponsibility for thecourtshas traditionallyrested with thechiefjustice andseniorjudicial officers. Where thechief justicehas been independent, theresponsibility foradministrationhastended to strengthen this independence. In the absence ofsuch leadership, it is perceived to have been irrelevant.

Emerging democracies model the US and need a strong judiciary- SCOTUS legitimacy sends a key signal

The Center for Justice and Accountability et al, March 1, 2004(Amici Curiae insupport of petitioners in Al Odahet al. v USA, "Brief of the CenterforJustice and Accountability, theInternationalLeague forHuman Rights, andIndividual Advocates for theIndependence of the Judiciary in Emerging Democracies,"http://www.jenner.com/files/tbl_s69NewsDocumentOrder/FileUpload500/82/AmiciCuriae_Center_for_Justice_Int_League_Human_Rights_Adv_For_Indep_Judiciary2.PDF, ldg) accessed 5/26/10

Many of thenewly independent governments that have proliferated overthe past fivedecadeshave adopted these ideals.Theyhaveemerged from a variety of less-than-freecontexts, including theend of Europeancolonial rule in the 1950's and1960's, theend of the Cold Warand the breakup of the formerSoviet Union in the late 1980's and 1990's, thedisintegrationof Yugoslavia, and thecontinuing turmoil in parts of Africa, Latin America andsouthern Asia. Somecountrieshavesuccessfully transitioned to stable anddemocratic forms of government that protect individual freedoms andhumanrights

by means of judicial review by a strong and independent judiciary. Othershavesuffered therise of tyrannical andoppressiverulers who consolidated theirhold on powerin part bydiminishing orabolishing therole of the judiciary. And

still othershang in the balance, struggling against the onslaught of tyrants to establishstable, democraticgovernments. In theirattemptsto shed theirtyrannical pasts and toensure the protection of individual rights, emerging democracieshaveconsistently looked to theUnited States andits Constitution in fashioning frameworks that safeguard the independence of theirjudiciaries. See RanHirschl, The Political Origins of Judicial Empowerment through Constitutionalization: Lessons from FourConstitutionalRevolutions, 25 Law & Soc. Inquiry 91, 92 (2000) (stating that of the [m]anycountries . . . [that] haveengaged infundamental constitutional reform overthe past threedecades, nearly all adopted a bill ofrights andestablishe[d] someform of active judicial review). Establishing judicial review by a strong and independent judiciary is a critical step instabilizing and protecting thesenew democracies. See ChristopherM. Larkins, Judicial Independence and Democratization:A Theoretical and Conceptual Analysis, 44 Am. J. Comp. L. 605, 605-06 (1996) (describing the judicial branch ashaving"a uniquely important role" in transitional countries, not only to "mediateconflicts between political actors but also [to]

prevent the arbitraryexercise of government power; see also Daniel C. Prefontaine and Joanne Lee, The Rule of Law andtheIndependence of the Judiciary, International Centre forCriminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy (1998)("There is increasing acknowledgment that an independent judiciary is the key to upholding therule of law in a freesociety

. . . . Most countries in transition from dictatorships and/orstatist economiesrecognize theneed to create a morestablesystem of governance, based on therule of law.")


23/31


RS Lab __/__

Last printed 2/2/2012 10:42:00 PM

23


Scenario 1- Ukraine

Ukraine models judicial independence from the United StatesOtherexamples: Argentina and Chile

The Supreme Court of Ohio 8 (The Supremecourt of Ohio and the Ohio judicial system, Ukrainian Judicial Delegation toStudy American Judicial System During Week-Long Visit Nov. 14, 2008www.sconet.state.oh.us/PIO/news/2008/ukraine_111408.asp|AF)

The Supreme Court of Ohio will welcomesix members of the Ukrainian judiciary on Monday as they begin a week-longvisit to study the American judicial system. The Supreme Court of Ohio, the Supreme Court of Ukraine and the SupremeRada of Ukrainehave been partners for16 years to exchange ideas and furtherthe ideals ofdemocracy in bothcountries,said Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer. We arehonored to host this Ukrainiandelegation and again provide a forum on therule of law and thedemocraticelectoral processes. FourUkrainian judges, onecourt administratorand one facilitatorareat the Court fora five-dayvisit with judges, attorneys, court personnel and university professors. Theirvisit is marked byseveral highlights, including discussions with Chief Justice Moyerand a visit to the Montgomery County Courthouse toobservecourt proceedings. Theirvisit will begin with the traditional Ukrainian welcoming Bread and Salt Ceremony at

8:30 a.m., Monday, Nov. 17, at the Ohio Judicial Center. Thedelegation also will participate in a panel discussion about therole of thecourts in a maturing democracy at the John Glenn School of Public Affairs at The Ohio State University andnumeroussessions focusing on trial procedures andcourt policies. During the Bread and Salt Ceremony, thevisitors will

be presented with bread, whichrepresentshospitality, andsalt, whichsymbolizeseternal friendship, in a custom dating tothe Middle Ages. While in Dayton, thedelegates will meet with Judge Michael T. Hall, Administrative Judge for theMontgomery County Court of Common Pleas, and otherjudges. In addition to an overview of the Ohio judicial system bythe Chief Justice, the group will learn about thedifferences andsimilarities between the United States and Ukrainesystemsof justice from Elena V. Helmer, a visiting assistant professorof law at the OhioNorthern University Pettit College of Law,who has taught in law schools in Russia, Kazakhstan and the United States. Anotheraspect of theirlearning will centeronthe Ohio judicial branch budgeting process. Leaders from all three branches of government will explain theirroles in

proposing, developing orconsidering the budget including Steven C. Hollon, Supreme Court administrativedirector; DavidEllis, assistant directorof the Ohio Office of Budget and Management; and State Rep. Scott Oelslager. Several othertopicsround out thedelegations lesson plan including a comparison of administrative justice in the United States and the

Ukraine, Ohio criminal justice, public accountabilitycases, disputeresolution assistance and overviews of Ohios CriminalSentencing Commission and the Courts Domestic Violence Program. Thevisit to the Supreme Court of Ohio is part of a10-dayvisit to the United States organized through thecongressionallysponsored Open World Program and the RussianAmerican Rule of Law Consortium (RAROLC). Priorto theirarrival in Columbus, the Ukrainiandelegation is inWashington, D.C., fororientation meetings with federal officials. Ohio isrepresented at the Washington meetings byLicking County Common Pleas Court Judge Jon R. Spahr. Managed by the Open World Leadership Center, Open World isthe onlyexchange program in the U.S. legislative branch. Participants get an inside look at the U.S. judicial system anddevelop ties with the U.S. judges who host them. They also gain insight into how the U.S. political system promotes and

protects judicial independence and therule of law. The Open World Program is a nonpartisan initiative of the U.S.Congress that builds mutual understanding between theemerging political andcivic leaders of participating countries andtheirU.S. counterparts. The Open World Leadership Centerhas awarded a grant to the Russian American Rule of LawConsortium of Colchester, Vermont to administerthis andsimilarexchanges in 2008. Chief Justice Moyerworked with

judicial leaders of Ukraine to develop an independent judiciary afterthe fall of the Soviet Union. The Ohio Ukraine Rule of

Law Project involvednumerousexchange trips by Ohio judges and lawyers to introduce Ukraine to conceptsrelated to therule of law. The Chief Justice also has worked with the U.S. Department of State inconducting education programs forjudges and lawyers in Argentina and Chile.


24/31


25/31


26/31


27/31


28/31


RS Lab __/__

Last printed 2/2/2012 10:42:00 PM

28


Bosnian growth solves war

Tanner 8 (Adam Tanner, AlertNet through Reuters, Analysis: Concerns grow over instability in Bosnia, 11-10-2008http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/B349555.htm|AF)

Political instability isdamaging Bosnia's prospects of joining the European Union andcausing some officials to worry thatthe Balkancountrycould onedayslide back into conflict. The formerYugoslavrepublic, which wasdivided into a SerbRepublic and a Muslim-Croat entity afterthe 1992-95 Bosnian war that killed about 100,000 people, isrun by a weakcentral government andsome Serbs favoursecession. Ethnicquarrels were among problems identified by the EU last weekin its annual report on Bosnia's progress towards membership of the wealthy bloc. Political tensions arenow running sohigh that someregional experts and leaderssayviolencecouldeventually flare again in thecountry of about 4 million

people. "Therecould be war," said Sulejman Tihic, thehead of Bosnia's largest Muslim political party and formerMuslimmemberof the tripartite presidency. "A yearortwo ago I wouldnot havesaid this is possible." The Democratization PolicyCouncil, a non-profit group, said in a report last week that renewedconflict was possible and added: "Bosnia hasnot onlystagnated overthe past threeyears -- it has beensliding backwards at an accelerating pace." Tensionhas mounted overmoves taken by Bosnian Serb Prime MinisterMilorad Dodik independently of thecentral government in Sarajevo, sayingheseekseconomic prosperity andeventual EU membership forhis people. Someexperts fearBosnian Muslims might hit

back militarily if the Serb Republic's push forstate-like powers goes out ofcontrol. "Warisnot going to break out

tomorrow, but if this is allowed to continue, it may break out a yearfrom now, ortwo years from now, orfouryears fromnow," said a foreigndiplomat withyears ofexperience of theregion. Otherexpertsdo not expect renewedconflict, even iftensions arehigh.

Instability in the Balkans draws in the US and Europe and triggers global war

Baker 95 (James, former US secretary of State and Treasury, former Chief of Staff, JD@UT-Austin, lawyer, administrativedirector of the James A. BakerIIIInstitute for Public Policy @ Rice University, Flash point in the Balkans: Drawing the Line aMacedonia, LA Times, 4-30-95, http://www.hri.org/news/forpapers/95-04-30.frp|AF)

The first great Europeanconflict of thiscentury began in the Balkans. Unless we arecareful, so may the last. Threeyearsafterthe beginning of war in Bosnia, international attentionremainsriveted on the fate of that tragicnation. But Macedoniais perhaps aneven moredangerous fash point in the Balkans. Unless the international community takesstrong action wecouldsee the outbreak of a general Balkan warthat could draw in the European powers andeven the United States. And

there will beno suchstrong action without firm U.S. leadership. Thestrategic importance of Macedonia transcends itssize, about that of Vermont, and its population, just a fraction more than 2 million. It looms large because of the Balkans'unforgiving geography and Macedonia's ownvolatileethnic mix. Tension between thecountry's Macedonian majority andAlbanian minority -estimated at between 20% and 40%- alreadyrunshigh. Should this tensionescalate into civil war, itmight prompt intervention from Albania to the west. Conflict couldspread across Macedonia'snorthern borderwith Serbia-where there is a large andrestive Albanian population in Kosovo. Greece, alreadyconsumed by an angrydispute withMacedonia, might be tempted to become involved. Turkey, Bulgaria and otherscould follow. Undersuch a scenario, theWest Europeans, the United States andeven Russia could be forced to picksides -withdisastrousconsequences for the

peace of Europe.


29/31


RS Lab __/__

Last printed 2/2/2012 10:42:00 PM

29

Courts 1AC Solvency (1/3)

Contention __ is Solvency

The Court can apply Gardiner without Congressional legislation

Reynolds 90. (Glenn H. Reynolds, Associate Professor of Law @ University of Tennessee and JD from Yale," LegislativeComment: The Patents in Space Act", Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 3 Harv. J. Law & Tec 13, Spring 1990, lexis)

... I. IMPACT OF THE BILL ON UNITED STATES PATENT LAW ... Forexample, thecase of Gardinerv. Howe isoftencited for its language that "[t]he patent laws of the United States affordno protection to inventions beyond oroutsideof the jurisdiction of the United States; but this jurisdictionextends to thedecks of Americanvessels on thehighseas, asmuch as it does to all the territory of thecountry, and formany purposes iseven moreexclusive." ... Thus, since thecurrent

patent law expresses its jurisdiction in territorial terms, andsince it containsno express provision forapplication to U.S.spacecraft, anyone anxious to see patent protectionextend to space objects on the U.S. registry would be well advised tosupport legislation making such provision. ... CertainlyI wouldhope that acourt confronted with thisquestion in theabsence of legislation would go ahead andextend patent protection to innovations aboard U.S. spacecraft, since there arenoconceivable policy grounds fornot placing U.S. spacecraft within U.S. patent law, andsince a judgment in favorofextending patent protection to outerspace activities would in fact be more in accord with the intent of Congress in passingthe patent laws. ...

Legal development of property rights in space is a prerequisite to other forms of space development

White 1997, [WayneN. White Jr, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1997, Real Property Rights in OuteSpace, http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/real_property_rights_in_outer_space.shtml|AF]

The 1967 OuterSpace Treaty[1] doesnot provide a positiveregime for the governance ofspacedevelopment. The 1979MoonTreaty[2] provides a regime fordevelopment, but that regime prohibitsreal propertyrights. Forthat and otherreasons, most nationshavenot signed orratified the Moon Treaty. A development regime which providessome form of

propertyrights will become increasinglynecessary asspacedevelops. Professionals foresee an integratedsystem ofsolarpowergeneration, lunarand asteroidal mining, orbital industrialization, andhabitation in outerspace. In the midst of thiscomplexity, theright to maintain a facility in a given locationrelative to anotherspace object maycreateconflict. Suchconflicts may arisesooner than weexpect, if privatecompanies begin building subsidiary facilities aroundspacestations.

Eventually large public facilities will become thehub of privatespacedevelopment, and owners will want to protect theproximityvalue of theirfacility location. It also seems likely that at some point national governments and/orprivatecompanies will clash overtheright to exploit a given mineral deposit. Finally, the geosynchronous orbit is alreadycrowdedwithsatellites, and otherorbits with uniquecharacteristics may becomescarce in the future. The institution ofreal propertyis the most efficient method of allocating thescarceresource of locationvalue. Spacehabitats, forexample, will beveryexpensive and will probablyrequire financing from private as well as publicsources. Selling propertyrights forliving or

businessspace on thehabitat would be one way of obtaining private financing. Private law condominiums wouldseem tobe a particularly apt financing model -- inhabitantscouldhold title to theirliving space and pay a monthly fee for life-support services and maintenance ofcommon areas. Even thosecountries whichdo not have launchcapability would

benefit from a propertyregime. Privateentities from thedeveloping nationscould obtain propertyrights by purchasingobsolete facilities from foreignentities that are more technologically advanced. A regime ofreal propertyrights would

provide legal and political certainty. Investors andsettlerscould predict the outcome of a conflict with greatercertainty byanalogizing to terrestrial property law.


30/31


RS Lab __/__

Last printed 2/2/2012 10:42:00 PM

30


Functional property rights only allow jurisdiction over facilities. It is distinct from territorial

Dalton 10, [TaylorR. Dalton, JD and LLM, Cornell Law, 10/6/10, Developing the Final Frontier: Defining Private Property Rightson Celestial Bodies for the Benefit of All Mankind,http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=lps_papers&sei-redir=1#search=%22US%20claim%2C%20functional%20claim%2C%20territorial%20claim%2C%20outer%20space%20territory%2C%20functional%20sovereignty%22|AF]

Functional propertyrights are a kind of propertyright distinguishable from real propertyrights. This is the argument thatstates that have jurisdiction andcontrol overa facility orvehiclecanexercisedominion overthe facilities that are attachedorconstructed onto thecelestial land, can beexercised overan area and fora perioddetermined by occupation and use.Thiscontrol anddominion isdescribed as functional propertyrights.73 WayneN. White advocates that this limited formof functional sovereignty would allow fora form of propertyrights because it isdistinct from territorial sovereignty.74Problem of interplanetary fixtures: A fixture is a chattel that has been fixed to land and thushasceased being personal

property andhas become part ofrealty. Fixtures pass with the ownership of the land theysit on. The purpose of theattachment generallycontrols whetherit is part of thereal property orchattel. The party wishing to make a chattel a fixtureto the land must have an objective intention to make thechattel part of the land.

This functional rights approach resolves the tension between global and corporate presence in space

Dalton 10, [TaylorR. Dalton, JD and LLM, Cornell Law, 10/6/10, Developing the Final Frontier: Defining Private Property Rightson Celestial Bodies for the Benefit of All Mankind,http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1041&context=lps_papers&sei-redir=1#search=%22US%20claim%2C%20functional%20claim%2C%20territorial%20claim%2C%20outer%20space%20territory%2C%20functional%20sovereignty%22|AF]

Whites argument that a certainset of functional private propertyrights are permissible inspace is likely most accurateand appropriate for the furtherdevelopment ofspace and itsresources. Wassers position, that private actorscan obtainrights to a large plot ofreal propertyseems untenable and to runcontrary to overarching principle ofshared benefits inspace law. His position advocates from broad private propertyrights overland that isnot actively being used, but is

prospective. Thisseems to beno morevalid of a claim than theclaims ofcompanies that purport to sell landclaims on themoon. There must be more than a simple proclamation of ownership; there must besome activeelement involved. On theotherend of thespectrum, Gangles theoryreads the prohibitions onnational apportionment too broadly. It seemsunreasonable that no privaterights are permissibleeven when an individual puts theirown investment and laborinto theacquisition of the property. Thiscomplete prohibition on private propertyrights inextraterritorial property isnot found inany of the other legal regimes, namely the law of thesea and the Antarctic treatysystem. The functional approach to private

propertyrights inspace best balances the interests of the privateentity and the interests of the global community in theresources of the universe. It allowsclaims to rights only in that which is actually being used, not to property as faras theeyecansee. Nonetheless, because the legal regimecurrentlystands, there is too much ambiguity andno court orbody toclarify the provisions. Thereforesomeclarification on whetherprivateenterprises will be able to invest inestablishingsettlements orotheroperations oncelestial bodies with the guarantee that those investments will be protected by a set of

propertyrights. Many advocate that we look to terrestrial legal regimes as providing useful analogies that canhelp resolvethe ambiguities in the outerspaceregime.


31/31


RS Lab __/__


And your disad is not unique. NASA has a direct funding program for private investment - proves our

aff is predictable

Clark, 10 [Stephen Clark, Spaceflight Now, 2/22/10, NASA released new details of commercial crew program

spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/22commercial|AF]

In a fiscal year2011 budget estimate posted Monday, NASA unveiledseveral details of thecommercial crew initiative, butofferedno specific timetable forwhen the agency will beginselecting providers. NASA officials previouslystated theyhoped to start operational commercial flights asearly as 2014, but thoseschedules may be optimistic. The fastestcompaniessay theyreach initial operating capability around threeyears afterreceiving approval, and the first contracts maynot be awarded until 2011. Thedocument suggestedNASA will procurecrew-carrying spacecraft in a waysimilarto theCommercial Orbital Transportation Services, orCOTS, program that is applying government funding to SpaceX andOrbital Sciences to develop capsules to ferrycargo to theInternational Space Station. Such an acquisition paradigm would

provideNASA funding to commercial partners based on milestones achieved in technical development and financing. Thepartners would also berequired to addsignificant private funding to the program. TheNASA budget request for2011includes $6 billion overthenext fiveyears forcommercial crew development. "These funds will becompeted throughCOTS-like, fixed-price, milestone-based Space Act Agreements that support thedevelopment, testing, anddemonstrationof multiplecommercial crew systems," the budget estimatesaid. NASA awarded $50 million inseed money to fivecompanies inearly February, part of the Commercial Crew Development program that seeks to aidcompanies inearlydesign anddevelopment work forkeyspace technologies. The CCDev funding was appropriated by Congress in the 2009stimulus package. The CCDev work will becompleted by theend of 2010, andNASA says there will be a "full and opencompetition forcommercial development activities at theconclusion of the CCDev activities." That schedule means theoutcome of anycompetition would likelynot occuruntil 2011.

ddi11 rs courts 1ac

Documents