1. International law key to solve global problems. Chimni 11 (B.S Chimni is a Professor of International Law at the Jawaharlal Nehru University and a scholar in law, “Capitalism, Imperialism, and International Law in the Twenty-First Century,” Revised version of keynote address from October 20-22 2011, Date Accessed: 7/28/14, http://law.uoregon.edu/org/oril/docs/14-1/Chimni.pdf)Indeed, international human rights law has arguably become “the only global vision of social justice currently available.”68 It has replaced all other “isms” and promises a just world order. Mention may also be made

of a rapidly evolving international criminal law with the International Criminal Court (ICC) at its heart. There are conventions that seek to address the problems of organized crimes, including the trafficking and smuggling of people, as also combating corruption.69 The rapid development of international laws to combat international terrorism has further renewed faith in international law. A dozen international treaties and a Counter Terrorism Committee (CTC) established by the U.N. Security Council hold out the promise of effectively fighting international terrorism through international cooperation.70 The need to develop an appropriate response to the current problem

of piracy further fortifies the spirit of international law. The work of bodies like the International Law Commission (ILC), United Nations Conference on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), and the Human Rights Council (HRC) also give the impression of a constantly developing international law that plug gaps in global law and facilitate international cooperation to address pressing problems. International institutions also help renew faith in international law by co-opting critique in the same way as capitalism

does. The ability of international institutions to take critique and turn it into an instrument of its own legitimacy and advancement is a remarkable story. The World Bank is a good example of how critique is co-opted to strengthen the institution. In order to deflect the censure it has faced over the years the Bank has adopted cosmetic policy changes to represent itself today as being gender sensitive, green, and a friend of the poor.71 The role of the community of international lawyers is also crucial in renewing the spirit of international law.

Democratization of law solves. Cohen ‘4 (Jean L., PhD, Professor of Political Thought, Columbia University, “Whose Sovereignty? Empire Versus International Law” 2004, https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/journal/18_3/articles/5052.html/_res/id%3Dsa_File1/5052_Cohenforweb.pdf&sa=U&ei=48RTU_b4N_SQ4gSey4HYDQ&ved=0CFcQFjAO&usg=AFQjCNFcq1AZ6zf0me1g3nXL9toL7zDvRA Accessed July 27th, 2014)//bb

Accordingly, the articulation of sovereignty within a community of states that decides to consider one another as equals is the political precondition for feasible and effective international law. In

other words, international law has to be based on a set of political relationships between states to which sovereignty is ascribed within a common framework, based on shared political norms, involving mutual recognition, balance, and institutionalized cooperation. Moreover, formal equality has to be linked to some

degree of material equality among the states. In an institutionalized structure of power and counterpowers, no single sovereign state should be able to prevail over all the others and impose its will as law. This does not exclude a guarantor of international right and international law— that is, a state powerful enough to ensure that

others play by the rules to which it also subscribes. The ascription of sovereignty to states by an international “community” by virtue of which they become members and equals is thus a way of limiting as well as empowering those states. Without this, an opponent becomes nothing more than an object of violent measures, while law becomes mere window dressing. I see no reason why this conception cannot be generalized to all states construed as equal members of the international community along the lines of the UN Charter. Equality need not be construed as a substantive principle of homogeneity based on a friend/enemy conception of the political. It is enough that the general principles of the international order—sovereign equality and human rights—are accepted in principle (as they are by any state that has joined the

UN), and allowed to develop into a shared culture of mutual respect of rights and accountability. The “democratization” of external sovereignty backed up by international law is thus the third step in the project.

2. At worst, Chimni 11 and Cohen 07 are both functional reasons as to why the K goes away, so neither of us have a link to the rotb. At best, Chimni 11 is offense for the aff into the rotb, because it’s a reason why international law is necessary to be able to deconstruct oppressive norms in the first place by creating a venue to turn criticism into reality, to create real world legislative solutions to exploitation and coercion. Means that the AC’s discourse is functionally positive to critical education because it’s key to actually creating a method of liberation for the oppressed.

3. Just because international law has historically been exclusionary doesn’t mean it’s currently being used as a tool of colonialism. This is a logical fallacy. Cohen 07 proves that reform has been made and ilaw is no longer exclusionary because of the democratization of law. 4. Arguments of the form “x justifies oppression so we should destroy y”, have been utilized to justify oppression. This means that by their logic, their discourse is problematic because its intertwined with a history of coercion as well.

Grant me an RVI on the pre-fiat DA. Multiple reasons:1. She could’ve read a million reasons why my discourse was bad and I would’ve had to

refute every single one of them to even stand a chance of winning, because one argument why my discourse is bad is enough for you to negate under the rotb, which means its key to reciprocity.

2. The neg can layer the debate (like she does) and she can just go for the layer I undercover.

3. 1AR timeskew 7-4 6-3 means its impossible for me to adequately address all issues in the round, so it’s key to rectify time skew. Also supplements the impact off the layering arguments

4. If her arguments aren’t true, that means that she was making false accusations about the AC’s discourse which reentrenches the same oppression and exclusion she’s trying to solve under her rotb.

5. Detracts us from substance debate which is key to education.6. Necessary to counteract NC’s rotb choice. She read a rotb in the NC which mooted 6

minutes of AC’s post-fiat offense and forced me to a higher layer which she had preemptive offense on.

Impact analysis: 1. If I’m winning any of the defensive reasons and I’m winning the RVI, you affirm.2. If I’m winning any of the offensive reasons, then the DA goes away and I have offense to

the rotb so you affirm.