query: Unruly defendants can play up to the cameras  Televising the trial can create extra incentives for defendants to attempt to disrupt the process. During his trial, Saddam Hussein regularly made outbursts and went on political rants – based on Iraqi law, he was able to examine witnesses after his lawyer. This was not new – Slobodan Milosevic tried various antics in front of the (televised) ICTY [1] , and Ratko Mladic used those tactics post-Hussein [2] . Milosevic’s approval ratings grew, and he even won a seat in the Serbian parliament while on trial.  A televised trial creates more of a risk of a political hijacking of the trial – something that has been shown to be a successful tactic by Milosevic. This both potentially damages the successor government by giving those on trial a platform and the court itself.  [1] Scharf, Michael P., Chaos in the Courtroom: Controlling disruptive defendants and contumacious counsel in war crimes trials’, University of Galway  [2] Biles, Peter, ‘Mladic’s courtroom antics’, BBC News, 4 July 2011,

positive: ure media television law international law house opposes televising all criminal The Hussein trial identified the solution to problematic rants disrupting the trial - the TV feed cut to the judge and faded out Hussein’s sound [1] . This is part of the reason why the ICC broadcasts are on a 30 minute delay, on web and TV access – outbursts, material that should be redacted and other things can be redacted before it reaches viewers.  These antics have been used in trials before the rolling news era, such as in the Chicago Eight case in the US, the trial of eight activists (one of whose trials was separated) for conspiracy and incitement to riot for offences regarding demonstrations at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. One of the defendants, Bobby Seale, launched in to a vicious vocal tirade against the judge, and was eventually bound and gagged in the courtroom. During the trial of the other seven, the defendants tried various antics including blowing kisses to the jury, wearing judicial robes which were removed to reveal police uniforms, not standing when the judge entered the court, and draping a North Vietnamese flag over the defence table [2] . The convictions – including those of the defence counsel for contempt of court – were overturned due to improper jury selection.  Television is not necessary for such behaviour.  [1] Engel, Richard, ‘Saddam trial outbursts, heard but not seen’, NBC News, 5 December 2005,   [2] Linder, Douglas O., ‘The Chicago Seven Conspiracy Trial’, University of Missouri Kansas City,

negative: law general house would place cameras courtrooms televise court cases Putting this kind of pressure on the judiciary and lawyers does not have the same kinds of benefits that it might in the House of Commons. Politicians often focus on, and are expected to uphold, the general interest of the public, which is why having public access to televised debates is an incentive for them to push those interests through as far as possible. However, the rule of law does not always correlate to public opinion. Particularly in high-profile cases, the public may wish to see the accused given the harshest sentence possible; however, this might not be the legally correct sentence to give in those circumstances. Public outrage has been known to tamper with judicial verdicts in places such as India [1] , and is damaging to the principle of a fair trial.  [1]  , accessed 06/08/11

negative: law general house would place cameras courtrooms televise court cases Video footage of a court case would provide valuable information for both defendant and judiciary.  If the defendant is convicted of a crime, they have a right to appeal in the UK [1] and US [2] . However, this is made difficult for another court to re-assess the conviction if they cannot know how reliable evidence was in the first trial. Without film recordings of court trials, judges who have the duty to re-examine the case are unable to see witness testimonies; though new evidence does sometimes come to light during the course of an appeal [3] , it would be easier to assess this new evidence if the judges also had knowledge of how the first trial went. If the judges could watch a video of the first trial, they could judge the demeanour, body language and general impression given by each witness in the first trial. Body language can affect a court’s perception of a witness [4] , but this information could not be gained by a transcript. However, this evidence may be important for a new verdict to be reached.  [1]  , accessed 18/08/11  [2]  , accessed 18/08/11  [3]  , accessed 18/08/11  [4]  , accessed 18/08/11

negative: law general house would place cameras courtrooms televise court cases Withholding video evidence of a court trial will not stop people from automatically siding with the victim and denouncing the accused; it will just stop them from being able to see the body language and other actions which can balance out the media’s assertion that one party is definitively a ‘victim’ while the other is a ‘criminal’. These labels are already in place – televising court cases just helps us to understand the details and nuances of a case, and garner a more sophisticated view of the case in question.

negative: War criminals need to be prosecuted in order to provide justice.  In the instances of small-scale crime we accept that if a community condemns a person’s action, our sense of justice demands that they be punished. However, it is often the case that those who commit the most heinous crimes at the highest levels of responsibility are not prosecuted because of the complexities of the process. For example Slobodan Milošević the former leader of Serbia’s trial took four years and he died before the verdict was given. According to ICTY Chief Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte “The death of Slobodan Milosevic deprived victims of justice”. [i] As an international community we have repeatedly pledged to prevent war crimes, in recognition of the fact that they are beyond the scope of local courts. When they occur it is a collective failure to protect, so the responsibility to prosecute and make amends falls with the international community. An admission of our inability to prosecute war crime undermines the decades of work we have done to prevent them.  [i] Online NewsHour, 'Milosevic Death Precedes War Crimes Verdict', PBS, 13 March 2006

negative: law general house would place cameras courtrooms televise court cases People should have a right of access to justice.  Given that people are already allowed to watch court proceedings from the public gallery – including the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords in the UK [1] , and the Supreme Court in the US [2] – there is little reason why this should not be extended to give better access across the nation to anybody who wants to watch. Those with full-time jobs or who live far away from the courts are currently unfairly limited in this respect, and those who do wish to attend well-publicised trials often have to arrive hours in advance to get a seat. Individuals should not have to give up so much time and money just to be able to watch a democratic proceeding, which is a cornerstone of democratic nations. Given that many closed trials such as the trial of the Guantánamo Bay terrorism suspects [3] have still led to intense media coverage, we would be better off showing the courts to be transparent and just instead of vainly trying to hide everything behind closed doors.  [1]  , accessed 05/08/11  [2]  , accessed 05/08/11  [3]  , accessed 19/08/11.

negative: human rights international law politics government warpeace house would recognise The ICC's ability to prosecute war criminals is both overstated and simplistic. It has no force of its own, and must rely on its member states to hand over criminals wanted for prosecution. This leads to cases like that of Serbia, where wanted war criminals like Ratko Mladic are believed to have been hidden with the complicity of the regime until finally handed over in 2011. The absence of a force or any coercive means to bring suspects to trial also leads to situations like that in Libya, whereby Colonel Gaddafi is wanted by the ICC but the prosecution's case is germane if he manages his grip on power. Furthermore, it relies on external funding to operate, and can only sustain cases so long as financial support exists to see them through.

negative: law general house would place cameras courtrooms televise court cases A stenographer already records every word spoken during the course of the trial, which already serves to help with potential appeals [1] [2] . Furthermore, appeal court judges rarely interfere with the verdicts of lower courts because they were not present at the original trial. Using a video record to overturn the verdict of a previous court would essentially eradicated the role of a jury; which is to reach a decision based on the fact presented, guided by the judge’s knowledge of the law [3] [4] . Far from making court proceedings more democratic and transparent, using cameras in courtrooms would actually be damaging because it undermines the position of normal people to reach a verdict of ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’. In this case, a judge’s choice to hang a new verdict on video information would make the law a very exclusive practice where very few individuals can determine the fates of others, and the role of jury would become irrelevant.  [1] In the UK:  , accessed 18/08/11  [2] In the US:  , accessed 18/08/11  [3] in the UK:  , accessed 18/08/11  [4] In the US:  , accessed 18/08/11

negative: Legal precedent for prosecution of heads of government  The prosecution of high ranking government officials is part of the Nuremberg precedent that international criminal law largely dates back to. Hideki Tojo, the Prime Minister of Imperial Japan in the Second World War, was tried, convicted and executed as part of the Tokyo trials for Japan’s acts of aggression in going to war. Karl Doenitz was prosecuted despite having briefly been Germany’s head of state; that position did not nullify the crimes he carried out as commander of Germany’s unrestricted submarine warfare campaign.  Following that, the ICTY tried Slobodan Milosevic, who died before the trial finished, and the Special Court for Sierra Leone convicted Charles Taylor.  It is nothing new that international criminals can be prosecuted. While leaders have, and often still are, able to prevent themselves from being tied in their own country while they are in charge this should not apply the world over.

negative: human rights international law politics government warpeace house would recognise It may be in the best interests of victims and their state for war criminals not to be brought to trial.  The ICC may well lead to the political prosecution of war criminals, but that is not necessarily the most effective means to peace, or lasting peace for victims. As U.S. policy papers have pointed out, despots like Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein did not consult lawyers over potential legal ramifications before they committed their respective human rights violations1. Furthermore, the impact on an oppressed population of a long, protracted trial of their fallen dictator is not always therapeutic for it can dredge up events of particularly melancholic qualities and grants the dictator a platform to continue his psychological control over his population.  1 Elsea, J. K. (2006). U.S. Policy Regarding the International Criminal Court. Congressional Research Service, p. 22.

negative: rnational africa law human rights international law government leadership voting Just hold the trial by videolink  It has already been agreed that defendants can appear at the court by videolink [1] for parts of the trial. This is not problematic, unless the defendants want to start representing themselves.  Bearing in mind that Ruto and Kenyatta have been continuing to co-operate with the trial throughout the process, there is no reason to think that they would flee the international criminal court. Either way, if they change their mind, they could simply not travel to The Hague for the trial.  [1] Corder, Mike, “International court changes trial attendance rule”, The Wichita Eagle, November 28th 2013,

negative: Dayton worked despite not inviting Karadzic and Mladic. Both of those are currently on trial for the most serious crimes imaginable – Karadzic for, amongst other things, his alleged role in ordering the Srebrenica massacre, and Mladic for Srbrenica and the Siege of Sarajevo.  These prosecutions have not caused problems for peace in the Balkans and Croatia, one of the participants in the conflict, has joined the European Union.  Similarly, despite the ICC indictment, coupled with better results obtained by the Ugandan military, has lead towards the prospect of surrender by the LRA, despite their leaders such as Joseph Kony being indicted [1] .  [1] BBC News, “LRA leader Joseph Kony ‘in surrender talks’ with CAR”, BBC News,

negative: ure media television law international law house opposes televising all criminal Broadcasting provides a public record  Unlike many other criminal trials, since Nuremberg a key principle of International Criminal Law is that it aims to set a historical record. The events that it deals with are important as they are heinous crimes that change regions forever. A trial helps to get to the bottom of events that happened preventing there being multiple conflicting versions of events. This record also can help to act as a deterrent to others considering similar measures.  Broadcasting the trial will bolster this record by providing footage of the trial itself (which may reduce myths about it being unfair, for example) and providing a voice to the victims through their evidence, in their own words, being recorded for posterity and future study.

negative: law general house would place cameras courtrooms televise court cases Cameras encourage efficiency and high standards.  Placing cameras into courtrooms encourages the judiciary and lawyers to increase their efficiency and have high standards of behaviour, because they are aware that it will be carried outside of the courtroom by public viewing. The introductions of cameras to the Houses of Parliament in the UK resulted in significantly improved standards of debate, greater punctuality, and greater attendance of MPs [1] . We can expect this same principle to continue in courtrooms when cameras are put in place.  [1]  , accessed 06/08/11

negative: human rights international law politics government warpeace house would recognise The ICC fails to prevent atrocities.  The ICC will not deter the commission of war crimes or genocide. The Third Reich augmented the crimes of the Holocaust when it became clear that the Allies would defeat them in Europe. The only expectation of the Nazi leadership was immediate execution, rather than trial in a judicial forum. Similarly, Slobodan Milosevic and the Bosnian Serb army conducted a campaign of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo whilst the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was sitting in the Hague. The calculation of whether to commit gross human rights violations is not that of the reasonable and rational individual. The existence of a court, however well intentioned, will have no effect on the commission of these crimes.

negative: eral philosophy political philosophy house would limit right trial jury some It may be necessary to limit trial by jury in cases where there is a real danger of jury tampering or intimidation.  It is very difficult to carry out trial by jury if people involved in the case continuously attempt to tamper with the jury, or unduly influence its decision. For example, the UK home office has stated that trying to protect jurors from tampering can be extremely disruptive to the jurors themselves, who may in extreme cases need police protection 24 hours a day. Cases involving international terrorism, drug smuggling or organized crime are the most likely to present such problems 1. In the infamous trial of Italian anarchists Vanzetti and Sacco, one of the jurors had a bomb thrown at his house, despite a huge number of security measures taken by the Massachusetts government 2. Another example is the 2008 case of a large armed robbery at Heathrow. After three mistrials, which cost £22m and the last of which collapsed after a serious attempt at jury tampering, it was decided that the case would be tried by a judge alone 3. If eliminating the jury is the only way to ensure that a) a trial occurs and b) jurors are safe, particularly when it is the defendants' fault that a fair trial by jury is untenable, it may be necessary to do so.

negative: The prosecution of war criminals is generally very ineffective.  The scale of crimes being prosecuted cause very slow trials, and a high likelihood of technical acquittals. International Courts rarely have police forces of effective methods of enforcing rulings. The ICC has never achieved a successful conviction, the ICTY has been criticised for inadequate sentencing [i] and the current trials in Cambodia have become mired in court and national politics, to the point that it is expected that no further Khmer Rouge officials will be tried. Given the improbability of success, the cost and trauma of these trials is unjustifiable.  [i] "Ten years in prison for Miroslav Deronjic". The Hague: Sense Agency. March 30, 2004. Retrieved 8 May 2011. "Judge Schomburg however thinks that the punishment is not proportional to the crime and is not within mandate and spirit of this Tribunal. According to him, the crime to which Deronjic pleaded guilty "deserves a sentence of no less than twenty years of imprisonment". In a brief summary of his dissenting opinion that he read after pronouncing the sentence imposed by the majority, Judge Schomburg criticized the prosecution for having limited Deronjic's responsibility in the indictment to "one day and to the village of Glogova." Secondly, Judge Schomburg adds that the "heinous and long-planned crimes committed by a high-ranking perpetrator do not allow for a sentence of only ten years", which in light of his possible early release could mean that the accused would spend only six years and eight months in prison. At the end of his dissenting opinion, Judge Schomburg quoted a statement by one of Deronjic's victims. The victim said that his guilty plea "can heal the wounds" that the Bosniak community in eastern Bosnia still feels - "provided that he is punished adequately". According to the victim, "a mild punishment would not serve any purpose.""

negative: Helps avoid political stunt trials  Heads of state and senior politicians are targets for political stunts. This could be seeking to get a political opponent locked up so as to benefit from the removal of an opponent. Alternatively it may be as part of a publicity stunt to highlight their own issue of concern or organisation. In both cases the trial does not need to convict as the figure being in a trial will be enough to damage them and provide publicity.  In 2009, following a request by supporters of Palestine, an arrest warrant was sought at Westminster magistrates’ court for the arrest of Tzipi Livni, who was Foreign Minister of Israel during Israel’s 2008-2009 invasion of the Gaza Strip, also known as Operation Cast Lead. At the time of the attempted arrest Livni was no longer in office but the action was clearly a stunt.  Livni was not arrested in the end, because she cancelled her trip to the UK, and the warrant was dropped by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Kier Starmer [1] . However, a needless diplomatic incident was still caused.  [1] Hastings, Rob, ‘DPP blocks bid to arrest Tzipi Livni for war crimes’, The Independent, 7 October 2011,

negative: eral philosophy political philosophy house would limit right trial jury some Having trial by jury for people accused of very small offences is a waste of resources.  Juries are very expensive and time consuming, and courts may not be capable of using them for all trials. Indeed, in both the UK and the United States, minor or petty offences can be tried without jury (such offenses are defined differently in different places; in the US petty offences are those carrying less than 6 months prison time or a fine of $5000)1. That is because in densely populated areas, the courts are simply not capable of handling all trials with juries 2. But even beyond the limitations already in place, there may be more small-scale trials which could function without juries, and free up resources. According to British government crime advisor Louise Casey, if all of the either-or cases (cases dealing with minor offences which can be tried in either a crown or a magistrates court) were shifted entirely to the latter, Britain would save £30m in the costs of setting up juries. Such money could be used to help out victims of serious crimes, or otherwise improve the justice system 3. For example, if more time and money were freed up in the United States, the courts might not need to pressure so many defendants into plea bargaining, or pleading guilty without a trial in exchange for less harsh sentencing or the dropping of other charges (in 1996, about two thirds of American criminal case dispositions involved guilty pleas) 4. That would allow more trials to take place, and more justice to be done.  1.  )  2.Robert P. Connolly, "The Petty Offence Exception and Right to a Jury Trial"  3.Peter Wozniak, "Trial by Jury Faces the Axe for Petty Crimes"

negative: Denying healthcare to smokers is a restriction on people's liberties  Whether or not you believe it should be, smoking tobacco is legal. At the same time, healthcare is regarded as a fundamental human right, alongside rights to education, food and water. Denying someone healthcare is to impede upon his/her basic liberties and this cannot be justified when, in the eyes of the law, they have done nothing wrong. Criminals have the right to healthcare – it is often that you hear that the trial of a war criminal is being delayed while they receive treatment. Take the cases of Ratko Mladic or Slobodan Milosevic for example 1. If healthcare is given to men who have committed genocide then surely it should be given to smokers. Also, if a Government adopts the line that one's behavior determines the kind of health service one receives then what is to stop that Government applying such a mantra beyond smoking and controlling the practices of those they govern in any number of ways?  1.  and

negative: ure media television law international law house opposes televising all criminal ICC does not have same problems as other legal systems  The ICC as a court does not have many of the things that a domestic criminal trial would have in terms of disadvantages of televising. Like all other international tribunals, there is no jury, only a panel of professional judges. Judges are going to be less intimidated by there being television broadcasts even if broadcasts of trials typically aim to obscure the identity of the jury. Similarly, there is a competent system of witness protection, and other safeguards.

negative: Far from too much interference that the trial is on the point of collapse shows there has not been enough. The ICC has found itself unable to protect witnesses, with the result that there have been two withdrawals. Both the defence [1] and the prosecutor claim there has been witness intimidation in the trial. [2]  [1] ‘Kenyatta lawyers demand trial scrapped, say witnesses intimidated’, reuters, 10 October 2013,   [2] Sterling, Toby, ‘Kenyatta war crimes trial: Prosecutor asks for delay after witnesses withdeaw in case against Kenyan President’, The Independent, 20 December 2013,

negative: The Rome Statute itself does not bind any state to be put on trial – it binds individuals. Individuals violating the criminal law of a state (the Rome Statute also integrating the international criminal law in to the national criminal law) have always been subject to trial and punishment by that state, barring cases of diplomatic immunity or other separate cases. This is nothing new – the Rome Statute respects the sovereignty of a nation within its territory. If anything, it is the use of coercive tactics by a state to give its citizens immunity from the ordinary law that is the violation of national sovereignty.  Even without the BIAs it would only be possible to prosecute Americans if they commit an international crime in the jurisdiction of another state. When this occurs due to the principle of territoriality it has traditionally been the case that the state upon whose territory the act was committed is able to try those who committed the act. It is not a violation of sovereignty to allow the ICC rather than the other state the right to bring the defendant to trial.

negative: Vast improvements in the technology of crime-solving have occurred in recent times to ensure that defendants brought to trial are done so appropriately. DNA testing, voice identification technology, facial mapping techniques that reveal faces beneath masks - all can now solve cases and show guilt in individuals whose escape from punishment occurred only because of a lack of satisfactory evidence. For example, In 1963 when Hanratty stood trial for the A6 murder (a gruesome offence where the abused victim was shot in her car and left to die on the motorway), semen stains on the victim's underwear could not be investigated using the technology of the day1. He was convicted anyway on the facts, but if he hadn't been, and thanks to advances in technology the sperm turns out later to be his (as it has), shouldn't we use that evidence to obtain justice for those concerned? Some evidence couldn't possibly have been used at the time of trial, because the technology doesn't exist. Looked at now, it could demonstrate conclusive guilt. If such evidence exists, isn't there a compulsion to use it?2 How can we ignore it?  1 Foot, P. (2000, July 25). Hanratty was innocent. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Guardian: 2 The Independent. (2002, July 18). The abolition of double jeopardy will undermine confidence in British justice. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from The Independent:

negative: Just because something is difficult does not mean it should not be attempted.  Israel itself was no stranger to war crimes trials between Nuremberg and the ICTY: Adolf Eichmann, the logistical architect of the Holocaust, was tried and put to death by an Israeli court in 1962.  Sharon has been accused of things after the creation of the ICTY came in to force, such as deaths as a result of Israeli operations in Jenin in 2002 [1] .  [1] Human Rights Watch, ‘Jenin’, 2 May 2002,

negative: ure media television law international law house opposes televising all criminal While there is no jury that could be identified, or influenced, by the broadcast, there is still the other problems attached to televised trials – issues of legitimacy, lawyers and defendants acting up etc.

negative: Reforms can always be made to the legal process at Guantanamo, and so this is not a reason to close the facility or to try the detainees in US courts. Moreover, much of the credible and reliable evidence that justifies the continued detention cannot be admitted in US courts for legal reasons, such as the fact that those captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere were not read their Miranda rights on their arrest. Other cases involve evidence that is insufficient for trial but still sufficient to determine that release is an unacceptable security risk. [1] Furthermore, If transferred to U.S. courts, some of the detainees might be freed because of the aggressive interrogation techniques used against them. Mohammed al-Qahtani, the alleged "20th hijacker" in the Sept. 11 plot, was interrogated so severely at Guantanamo Bay that Bush administration officials said he was tortured and did not refer his case for prosecution. [2]  [1] Wall Street Journal. "Obama and Guantanamo". Wall Street Journal. 22 January 2009.   [2] Fox News. "Families Outraged by Obama Call to Suspend Guantanamo War Crimes Trials". Fox News. January 21, 2009.

negative: Individual tribunals are actually better at addressing the specific situation.  The idea of "universal jurisdiction" becomes dangerous when it is regarded as a blanket solution. For example, after the Spanish Civil War, post-Franco Spain decided to avoid trials for the sake of national reconciliation that enabled it to become a peaceful democracy. Setting a precedent of universal jurisdiction for punishment unnecessarily precludes better reactions more tailored to the specific scenario.1 (See opposition argument #3 for elaboration).  1 Kissinger, Henry. "The Pitfalls of Universal Jurisdiction." Foreign Affairs, July/August 2001, Accessed 14 August 2011.

negative: In any conflict, the apportionment of blame for individual crimes committed against civilians to a standard of proof that would be acceptable in a court is extremely difficult, even such a high profile crime as attacks using chemical weapons have been disputed. [1] That is why the ICC typically gets involved after conflicts, rather than during them because it provides the time for thorough investigations, availability of witnesses, and means the investigators will not be at risk.  Whenever the indictment is issued, the conflict would be likely to have finished before the ICC would be able to actually have the defendants in the dock. This therefore would be no help in ending the conflict.  [1] Radia, Krit, ‘Putin Rejects Syria Chemical Weapons Accusations as ‘Utter Nonsense’’, ABC News,

negative: Prosecutions are an impediment to peace negotiations  A prosecution against a prominent military or political figure could jeopardize faith in the international community, which would be harmful to peace negotiations. Prosecuting one side would effectively allocate blame, damaging Israel’s position. Sharon may have been the only man who could have led the Gaza pullout, [1] he would not have had the chance or would not have been able to if he was prosecuted.  This is not a new concern – there were issues following ICTY indictments and the Dayton negotiation, with some parties being unable to attend [2] . Similarly, the Lord’s Resistance Army offered to surrender but refused due to ICC arrest warrants [3] .  [1] Vick, Karl, ‘Ariel Sharon: Israel’s Soldier and Strongman, 1928-2014’, Time, 11 January 2014,   [2] Goldstone, Richard, “Peace versus Justice”, Nevada Law Journal, 2006,  at p421-p322  [3] Otim, Michael, and Wierda, Marieke, ‘Justice at Juba: International Obligations and Local Demands in Northern Uganda’, in Waddell and Clark eds., Courting Conflict? Justice, Peace and the ICC in Africa, pp.21-28

negative: eral philosophy political philosophy house would limit right trial jury some Trial by jury is a fundamental right and should never be abridged.  Trial by jury is an essential check on abuse in the court system for three main reasons. First, it prevents governmental oppression by ensuring that non-state actors determine guilt 1. It is dangerous to allow the government—the same body which makes and enforces the laws—to also decide who is guilty of breaking the laws. Second, it checks against corrupt judges and prosecutors2. Judges are only human, and are susceptible to the same weaknesses, like prejudice and corruption, as the rest of us. Consequently, it is very dangerous to put the future of defendants in their hands. A representative group of jurors, approved by both sides, is far less likely to reach an unjust decision, since they are generally required to reach unanimous decisions to convict, and it is unlikely that an entire jury will be made up of biased, corrupt, or negligent people. Third, trial by jury allows for community input in the justice system (see Opp Argument 4 and response to Prop Argument 3 for more explanation). Thus trial by jury is essential to ensuring that innocent individuals are fairly treated, and is a fundamental right which ought never be denied. As Chairman of the Criminal Bar Association Paul Mendelle QC said, "Some principles of justice are beyond price. Trial by your peers is one of them."3  1.Robert P. Connolly, "The Petty Offence Exception and Right to a Jury Trial"  2.Robert P. Connolly, "The Petty Offence Exception and Right to a Jury Trial"  3.Clive Coleman, “Debating non-jury criminal trial”

negative: rnational africa law human rights international law government leadership voting Criminal defendants don’t get to pick and choose trial dates  Irrespective of who they are, Kenyatta and Ruto are nothing special – they’re just another two criminal defendants.  A person who is on trial murder or any other offence, whoever they are, can’t pick and choose their trial date for their own convenience or for their own business interests – why should these two particular defendants get a special privilege? Silvio Berlusconi was prosecuted by the Italian courts; the slow speed was due to the glacial pace of the Italian legal system rather than him particularly agitating for a special hold-up. The court cases were not done at his convenience.

negative: Potential prosecution by the ICC encourages local authorities to improve their own judicial systems.  As an international court of ‘last resort’, the ICC’s very existence serves as a constant reminder of the failings of national and regional governments to effectively curtail crimes against humanity in all their forms. Therefore, the Court exerts a strong deterrent effect by implicitly challenging the adequacy of those governments whose judicial systems allow such crimes to be committed with impunity. Seeking to avoid such international embarrassment has itself been enough to motivate many countries to both join the ICC Assembly and aim to improve their own domestic judicial systems. A clear example of this direct effect was the Kenyan government’s judicial and electoral reforms that followed from the ICC’s indictments over the post-election violence in 2007 which made the judiciary and election commission constitutionally much more independent. [1]  [1] Kimenyi


query: Because democracy is the best form of government, it is not wrong-- and indeed may even be our obligation-- to bring it to those who do not have it.  Democratic regimes are the best form of government, and it is our obligation to try and provide that to others. Democracy is the only form of government which upholds the value of political self-determination: that each individual has a right to form his/her government, and to vote out governments s/he does not like. To deny this right is to deny the inherent worth and freedom of the individual. Political autonomy also has instrumental value insofar as it allows individuals to check abusive governments which may seek to violate other human rights. Thus it is certainly not wrong -- and may even be our humanitarian obligation -- to bring democracy to those who do not have it, just as we would intervene in other situations in which serious rights were being abused1.  1 Fish, Stanley. "Why Democracy?" The New York Times.

positive: y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy There are two problems: democracy is not necessarily the best form of government, and even if it is that does not mean it is our obligation to impose it.  First, just because we believe that political self-determination is an important value, it does not mean that it is logically more important than other values. If, for example, a society places great value on stability, it may not want a government that changes every few years. If a society is very religious, its people may prefer to be ruled by a government claiming divine authority. Second, even if democracy is objectively better than other governments, that does not mean we must or should intervene in other countries to impose it. Perhaps we should intervene in the case of serious rights abuses-- such as genocide-- but the lack of complete political freedom is not a life-threatening issue.

negative: y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy The imposition of democracy violates national sovereignty  Countries have a right to choose the form of government they want, and we do not have the right to violate this right by imposing the form of government we think is best. Nations may want to be ruled by, for example, religious or tribal law, or a Communist system which aims to remove government altogether. We can encourage nations to adopt democracy if we think it is better, but ultimately nations are self-directing entities which can only be interfered with in extreme situations. The United Nations has states as equals no matter their government and only authorises force in the case of an act of aggression towards another state1.  1 United Nations, Charter of the United Nations, 1945,

negative: Democratic states have an obligation to not bolster repression abroad  It is common for Western democracies to make sweeping statements about the universality of certain rights, and that their system of government is the one that should be most sought after in the world, that democracy is the only legitimate form of government. As when Obama in Cairo proclaimed “These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere.” [1] They claim to work in the United Nations and other organizations toward the improvement of rights in other countries and clamour about the need for building governments accountability around the world, using their liberal-democratic paradigm as the model. Yet at the same time democratic governments and companies sell technologies to non-democratic allies that are used to systematically abuse the rights of citizens and to entrench the power of those avowedly illegitimate regimes. These hypocrisies read as a litany of shame. A telling example is the Blair government in the United Kingdom selling weapons to an oppressive regime in Indonesia for the sake of political expediency even after proclaiming an ‘ethical foreign policy’. [2]  Even if democracies do not feel it is a defensible position to actively seek to subvert all non-democratic states, and that non-democracies should be considered semi-legitimate on the basis of nations’ right to self-determination, they should still feel morally obliged not to abet those regimes by providing the very tools of oppression on which they rely. [3] To continue dealing in these technologies serves only to make democratic countries’ statements hollow, and the rights they claim to uphold seem less absolute, a risk in itself to freedoms within democracies. Respect for rights begins at home, and actively eroding them elsewhere reduces respect for them by home governments.  [1] Obama, Barack, “Remarks by the President on a new beginning”, Office of the Press Secretary, 4 June 2009,   [2] Burrows, G. “No-Nonsense Guide to the Arms Trade”. New Internationalist. 2002,   [3] Elgin, B. “House Bill May Ban US Surveillance Gear Sales”. Bloomberg. 9 December 2012.

negative: That there is a right to freedom of speech does not mean that we have an obligation to make sure that everyone around the world has freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and expression is indeed a human right in the universal declaration of human rights however this is something that it is obligated for governments to uphold for their own people rather than for other countries to enforce. If governments are infringing on the freedoms of their people the correct way to counter this is through international diplomacy rather than seeking to undermine that state.  The responsibility to protect, itself controversial, was only ever meant to apply to the very worst human rights violations - such as the genocide in Rwanda. If there are massacres of civilians and all other options have failed then there may be a need to intervene to prevent more killing. However violations of freedom of speech are not something that is time dependent. Diplomacy may often take a long time but can eventually work, as is being shown in Burma's opening up

negative: y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy Imposing democracy can be a way to support individuals unable to fight for democracy themselves.  If the people within a nation want democracy, it is not wrong -- indeed it may even be morally required -- for us to assist them by imposing democracy against the will of the governing class. Often internal movements lack resources, weapons, or organization, making the fight for democracy very difficult. When individuals seek to defend their rights against an oppressive regime, other nations do them a disservice by allowing evil to win out. Thus NATO's intervention in Libya was in support of rebels often seen as part of the 'Arab spring' wave of democratization but the internal movement even if it had large amounts of support was being suppressed and would have been destroyed without outside intervention1.  1 Traub, James. "Stepping In", Foreign Policy

negative: y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy Promoting democracy promotes peace.  By most accounts, there has not been a war between two democracies in the past 200 years. Immanuel Kant argued in Perpetual Peace (1795) that a) democratic governments are more constrained by their people's opposition to war and b) that a democratic culture of negotiation, as well as the checks and balances inherent in such a system, make war less likely. Thus by promoting democracy through imposing it, we increase the chance of a peaceful world. Furthermore, terrorism may be less likely to arise in democratic countries, where people are allowed to air their views and human rights norms prevent feelings of marginalization. This is good for human rights worldwide, including the rights and safety of individuals in our own country.1  1 "Do Democracies Fight Each Other?" BBC.

negative: It is essential to reach an appropriate balance of rights and freedoms. Everyone recognises the importance of protecting rights and liberties, but this cannot be done at any cost. There is a wider duty on politicians to protect society from harm, and their voters will rightly hold them to account if they fail in this responsibility. As the UK's Home Secretary, David Blunkett has written: "How best to protect ourselves effectively while maintaining the maximum freedoms is one of the biggest issues facing all democratic governments in the aftermath of September 11… I am willing to take whatever critics may throw at me, as long as history does not judge that our Labour government failed to do its best to protect us against those who would destroy our lives and our democracy.1"  1. Blunkett, D. (2001, November 20). This is not internment. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Guardian:

negative: asia global house would re engage myanmar This argument assumes that democracy, and that too a particular kind of democracy, is the only legitimate form of government possible. The kind of democracy that is followed in the West may not be appropriate for Myanmar, in any case not at this stage. There are economic and political inequalities in Myanmar and its democracy is not perfect. However, if everyone was allowed to participate in elections, the country is likely to slip into a situation of civil war, since the elected individuals may not wield real power. Attempts at imposing a particular style of democracy in countries that may not be ready for it can be counter-productive (as in East Timor, for instance). Further, not every country in the world has claimed itself to be a champion of democracy across the world. Such countries have no obligation to denounce a foreign regime, and have a right to decide what their policies should be. An apparently democratic government may not be a good one (for instance, Zimbabwe), and an undemocratic government may not necessarily be a bad one (for instance, China and Venezuela). There is no basis to say that any uniformity has been achieved in accepted international standards for the legitimacy of governments.

negative: society immigration minorities house believes right asylum should not be absolute We must practice what we preach  Democratic nations preach the language of freedom, human rights and justice. They encourage those who live under oppression to oppose their rulers and work towards these goals. This is all rendered hollow, and hypocritical if they then refuse to protect individuals who are persecuted for taking the brave and noble step of working to improve their societies. Not only is this a moral failing but practically very harmful too. It is in the interests of democratic nations to spread democracy and peaceful forms of government. If the people of authoritarian nations don't feel they have the support of other, then the incentive for them to risk everything and stand up in the name of freedom is diminished, and so too the best chance of change in such oppressive regimes.

negative: speech debate internet freedom law human rights digital freedoms freedom expression Liberal democracy is in a clash of ideologies with other competing systems, they promote their own systems through other means such as aid to regimes that are considered to be backsliding by liberal democracies with no strings attached. It is critical that the democratic paradigm not submit to the demands of other systems that would undermine the rights and values that democracy has come to view as universal. While liberal democracy may not be the only legitimate form of governance there are universal right, such as freedom of expression, which must be accepted by all states and should be protected both at home and abroad. China’s vibrant dissident community is example enough that the alternative rights framework that the Communist Party offers is deficient. Rather than let those fresh shoots of democratic advocacy be smothered, the West should nurture them, and give them protection when they face vicious threats from cruel regimes.

negative: Smoking is a choice of lifestyle the government should not intervene with  Freedom of choice is what differentiates democracies from dictatorships, autocracies or any other form of government. It goes by the principle, that the individual is free to do, whatever he or she wants, as long as this choice does not limit the freedom of choice, bodily integrity or any other human right of another individual in society.  This also applies to smoking. While the law steps in to prevent citizens causing harm to others, whether deliberately or accidentally it should not stop those taking risks themselves.  The state allows individuals to make lifestyle choices that endanger their life all the time. Because there is not difference between smoking and the other life endangering activities, banning or severely regulating smoking would be an unmerited intrusion into personal freedom.

negative: y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy Democracy by its very nature cannot be imposed.  Democratic government is not only government for the people, but also government by and of the people. A foreign-imposed government is not a government established by the people which it rules, meaning that it lacks the legitimacy necessary to claim democratic status. It is wrong to force a government upon people, and imposers of 'democracy' do just that. This is exacerbated by the fact that foreign-imposed democracies often have a great deal of trouble governing themselves independently (like the Iraqi and Afghani governments, which are still very much reliant on the United States), thus de- legitimizing the government even further1.  1 Doyle, Michael. "Promoting Democracy is Not Imposing Democracy." The Huffington Post.

negative: Participatory Democracy Preserves our Natural Liberty  Representative democracy is oppressive because it takes more power away from the people than is strictly necessary. Whilst a completely direct democracy is impractical, we should nevertheless recognise that there is no reason not to have as much direct democracy as possible. In the words of Herbert Marcuse, “Free election of masters does not abolish the masters or the slaves”. [1] The key point is that merely holding an election every four years does not fundamentally alter our state of subservience: at election time, we are given a choice of three or four manifesto programmes on an all-or-nothing basis, manifestos which may never be honoured. The only power over our government we as citizens have is the power to punish politicians retrospectively, by voting them out after years of obeying them. It is quite possible to create an authoritarian system that has regular representative elections, even with several competitive candidates and yet still not be giving power to the people, as is shown by Iran. [2] This is wrong. The presumption should always be that the people keep as much power over their own lives and hand as little to their masters as possible because they never get to consent to the powers that rule them. Given that we are born under governments which exist whether we like it or not, it as an offense to our natural liberty and equality that those governments should hold any more power over us than is absolutely necessary. Besides, when the interests of the state are not the interests of the people, we have the government of the few over the rest. [3]  [1] Marcuse, H. (1991). One Dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon Press  [2] Gedmin, J. (1 March 2013) “Not All Elections Are Worthy of the Name” Foreign Policy.   [3] Pocock, J.G.A. (1975). The Machiavellian moment: Florentine political thought and the Atlantic republican tradition. Princeton (N.J.): Princeton University Press

negative: y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy Imposed democracy is better than no democracy. Ideally, every democratic government would be created by the people. However, given that this is often not possible -- corrupt governments are too powerful, populations lack the unity to organize, the lack of democratic tradition precludes effective transition without external guidance-- it is surely better to have imposed democracy than no democracy. Even if theoretically a democratic government is formed by the people, practically speaking that may not be a possibility, and we should not let abstract philosophical ideas prevent us from effecting real positive change.

negative: Governments have the obligation to protect citizens from harmful substances  Alcohol is a mind altering drug, which can cause individuals to take actions they would have not done otherwise. This does not refer to loosened inhibitions, but also extends to harmful acts against themselves and others.  Democracy is based on the principle that the majority of people are to elect leaders and trust them with a term, where their duty is solely to look after the wellbeing of the country and its citizens. The politicians, having the resources and time which they have to use, to get well equipped to make more informed decision on activities dangerous to the individual, others and the society. One of the principles in society therefore is that elected representatives have to make sure their citizens get the best possible protection in society. Even if this infringes on some of their rights. Alcohol for a long time has been kept because the government trusted the people; they would make responsible decisions regarding alcohol. However, each year, the society loses, on a 30 year based average, more than 75,000 individuals to alcohol related diseases or accidents. [1] Thus the citizens proved not to be responsible; even though they had information available they did not make the choice that would keep them alive.  The government has a duty to protect those irresponsible citizens, because otherwise they will not be able to contribute to society to the extent they could without alcohol. And because the government does not know who is the one that will make a stupid decision that will engender their lives in the long run, for the sake of few individuals’, alcohol has to be banned for all.  Therefore, because the government has been trusted with the duty to make informed decisions instead of the individuals and to protect the individual, it is right to allow them to ban alcohol if they believe it is very harmful.  [1] msnbc.com, Alcohol linked to 75,000 U.S. deaths a year, published 06/25/2005,  , accessed 08/13/2011

negative: Representative Democracy Lets People Get On with their Lives  People should be free to get on with their private lives, but they can’t do that if they’re expected to also be their own government. The reason why we delegate powers to politicians is that we want to have a say in government and still be free to get on with our lives. The business of government is tremendously complex and most people just don’t care about having total control over the details of policy – they just want the power to kick out governments that are no good. Think about it: how many people actually have time, on top of all the other things they have to do, to attend weekly meetings and committees, research technical policy details to decide which policy they will support and then go out and vote on a dozen issues every week? You’ll notice that all the ancient direct democracies – like ancient Athens – were societies in which there were more slaves than citizens. It is only because the slaves did all the work that the citizens were free to spend their time playing politics. The key point is, under the status quo, people who deeply care about politics can get involved in politics – they can join a party, write to politicians, canvass for issues etc – and the people who don’t care about politics that much but still have an opinion are free to vote and then get on with their lives. But under a more direct democracy people have to choose between devoting half of their lives to politics or losing all possible influence over the curse of the decision-making. It’s not right that ordinary citizens should be forced to choose between having any say in politics and having a private life. This makes the difference between the "liberty of the ancients" and the "liberty of the moderns". [1]  [1] Constant, B. (1816). The Liberty of Ancients Compared with that of Moderns. See online at:

negative: The value placed upon the right to free expression reflects its ability to enable the articulation of new, compelling and beneficial ideas, alongside damaging forms of speech. In liberal democratic societies, the potential inherent in free speech has always preserved it against limitation by legislation and- to a great extent- by social norms. A natural (as opposed to legal) person who makes statements that are openly offensive, or are inaccurate or misleading may also be able to articulate profound and useful ideas and observations. This is also true for certain groups formed by association – such as political parties.  However, corporations as they are popularly understood- as business entities- are constrained by law only to act in a certain way. In the United States, the individuals responsible for deciding on the actions of a corporation do so on the explicit understanding that they owe a particular duty to the individuals who make up that corporation. This legal duty takes the form of an obligation to run the business to maximise the value of the shares [1] in the business that each of its constituent investors holds. This duty has done a lot to promote investment in new businesses and to keep the reputation of established firms intact. It ensures that confidence in corporations is not undermined by speculation that they might be pursuing the wrong goals and it allows incompetent directors to be removed from their positions before they can harm investors' interests. However, this law also makes it necessary to limit the other rights that corporate persons might have access to.  The Unitarian commentator Tom Stites puts the situation bluntly. “Corporations express the collective investment goals of shareholders... Fiduciary responsibility confines all but closely held corporations to this singular goal. By shutting off other values to focus solely on pursuit of profit... corporations are by their nature immoral...” [2] In other words, the boards of directors of large corporations, in most circumstances will only be able to pursue a profit motive.  The type of personhood that money-making corporations utilise under American law is a personhood that comes complete with a very specific personality and set of goals. A corporate person that is formed by a collective of shareholders, each of whom have invested in the assets held by this individual, will be bound to engage profit motivated behaviour when it acts [3] . Executives and employees of the corporation, will find their jobs at risk if they choose to forgo profit-led behaviour in favour of directing a corporation to take actions informed by different social and economic principles.  An individual's right to free speech cannot not be abrogated in a broad fashion by a liberal government, in part because he is, to borrow an archaic phrase, “the captain of his own soul” – an individual with free will, able to be influenced by argument and to develop new ideas and perspectives upon the subject of his speech. A profit making corporation, however, is obliged to follow a single set of behavioural imperatives. If it is not attempting to maximise its profits, it will seek to protect the value of its interests and the efficiency of its operations. Where it is able to speak freely, a corporation will always use its right to expression for predictable ends. It is easy to envision scenarios in which corporate bodies will use the right to free speech to spread false or inaccurate information or to distort open debate if there was profit to be gained or protected.  Human behaviour is diverse and the ideas that we express can be altered by reason and the influence of argument. Through legal measures that were intended to protect shareholders investment in profit-making corporations, corporate behaviour has become limited, closed minded and immune to persuasive debate.  [1] Mills v Mills (1938) CLR 150  [2] “How corporations became ‘persons’”. uuworld.org, 01 May 2003.   [3] Bakan, J. “The Corporation”, Free Press, 2004

negative: We all have an obligation to help maintain freedom of speech.  Article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights defines freedom of speech as “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” [1] It is something innate in humans to have opinions and to want to express them to others and within a few limits governments have a duty to allow this freedom of expression. Where governments are not allowing this freedom of information this affects not only those whose opinions are being suppressed but those who cannot hear their opinions. The right to the freedom to receive and seek this information is just as important as the right to voice these opinions. Moreover as stated in Article 19 this is “regardless of frontiers”; those outside a country have just as much right to hear these opinions as those inside.  Government aid programs from democracies in Western Europe and America are already concerned with promoting human rights including freedom of speech. Australia’s aid program for example has a Human Rights Fund of $6.5 million per year that provides grants to among other things “educate and/or train human rights victims, workers or defenders”. [2] Enabling victims of human rights abuse to get around their government’s censorship is the obvious next step.  The concept of the ‘responsibility to protect’ introduced by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty in 2001 provided that when governments were unable or unwilling to protect their own citizens then that responsibility devolves to the international community and may ultimately lead to military action for particularly gross violations. This responsibility to react should be “with appropriate measures” [3] and for the breach of the human right of freedom of expression providing a method to enable those whose freedom of expression/speech is being violated to exercise this right is the most appropriate and proportional response.  [1] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ‘Article 19’, 1946.  [2] AusAID, ‘Human rights and Australia’s aid program’, Australian Government, 22 February 2012.  [3] Evans, Garath and Mohamed Sahnoun Chair’s, ‘The Responsibility to Protect’, International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, International Development Research Center, December 2001, p.XI.

negative: y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy The desire for, and fight for, democracy must come from within or else democratic government will not be sustainable.  Unless the people within a country want democracy, they will not respect it. Unlike military dictatorships, democratic governments do not rely solely -- or even mainly-- on force to enforce the law. Rather, most people obey the law at least in part because they believe those laws are legitimate, as the result of free and fair elections. If citizens do not want such an electoral system, then there is no reason for them to obey the law, pay taxes etc. and the government will be unable to maintain order. Indeed, foreign-imposed democracies often slide back into authoritarian regimes because they find that they cannot uphold the law (at least without foreign support). Enterline and Greig found in a 2007 empirical study that half of imposed democracies fail within 30 years, and that this failure reduces the likelihood of democracy being successfully established in the future1/2.  1 Enterline, Andrew J. and Greig, J. Michael. "Against All Odds? Historical Trends in Imposed Democracy & the Future of Iraq &Afghanistan."  2 Doyle, Michael. "Promoting Democracy is Not Imposing Democracy." The Huffington Post.

negative: Freedom from government intrusion  One of the most important pillars on which every single western liberal democracy has been founded is freedom. Allowing the government to be able to track and monitor individuals through mobile or internet connections is against everything we, as a western society, stand for.  First of all, it is undisputable that liberty and freedom are indispensable to our society. Every single individual should and must be the master of his own life, he should have the capacity of controlling how much the government or other individuals know about him, the right to private life being the main argument in this dispute.  Secondly, it is clear that phone and internet tracking potentially allow the government to know almost everything about you. Most phones have a GPS incorporated and a lot can be deduced about ones habits by the photos or updates on his social network profile. One who knows all of another’s travels, can deduce whether he is a weekly church goer, a heavy drinker, a regular at the gym, an unfaithful husband, an outpatient receiving medical treatment, an associate of particular individuals or political groups, basically about every activity you have in your life. Remember this data is extremely precise, as your cell phone sends your location back to cell phone towers every seven seconds—whether you are using your phone or not—potentially giving the authorities a virtual map of where you are 24/7.  Finally, we, as individuals, created this artificial structure, i.e the state, to protect our human rights, but also to protect us from each other. We admitted that some rights can be taken away if there is serious concern about the security of other people. Therefore, it is absolutely normal to allow the government to track and follow certain individuals who are believed to have taken part in criminal activities, but there is no ground on which you can violate the right to privacy of a law-abiding citizen, especially if we are talking about such an intrusive policy. If we did so, it would come as a direct contradiction with the very purpose the state was created.

negative: Religion does not motivate foreign policy  Religion is very rarely a motivation in foreign policy, it is unusual for it even to be a supporting factor and this is true even of countries that are domestically very religious. Instead foreign policy is primarily motivated by realist concerns about what is best for the country’s security (so preventing conflict, trying to make sure you have allies abroad etc), and its power in the form of a healthy economy.  Nations do promote their own values in areas such as human rights but this is because they believe the end point of these values is beneficial – democracies believe that if other states become democracies not only will they not fight but there will be more trade and it will be economically good all round. It is notable that when these kind of issues conflict with security and issues of power then human rights don’t affect policy. This has been particularly notable recently in conflicts in Libya and Syria, there is just as much humanitarian cause for intervention in Syria as there was in Libya [1] yet because Syria is ‘complex’ and other countries like Russia have opposing interests there will not be any intervention almost no matter how much killing by Syria’s Bashar al Assad. [2]  With religion an even more marginal influence in foreign policy than broad human rights concerns for most nations it is difficult to see why a nation should make religious freedom a priority.  [1] Crowley, Michael, ‘The Obama Doctrine: Syria vs. Libya Intervention’, Time, 1 June 2012  [2] Rogin, Josh, ‘NATO chief: Intervention just won’t work in Syria’, The Cable Foreign Policy, 29 February 2012

negative: global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression It is legitimate to undermine illegitimate governments to promote human rights  Autocratic governments that breach their people’s human rights have no legitimacy domestically as they do not represent the people or protect their interests. They also have no international legitimacy, as they are violating their obligations that they have signed up to through various international agreements such as the universal declaration of human rights [1] and the international covenant on civil and political rights [2] which oblige states to respect their citizen’s human rights. Other states therefore are legitimate in acting for the people of the repressed state to undermine their government and take up their cause. By imposing censorship the government is violating its people's freedom of expression which that government has promised to uphold therefore it is right that other governments should endeavour to uphold that standard. It was therefore right for the west to undermine the USSR and the communist governments of Eastern Europe through radio broadcasts such as Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, they gained immense audiences, a third of urban adults in the USSR and almost half of East Europeans with these sources often being considered more credible. [3]  [1] UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A (III),   [2] UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171,   [3] Johnson, A. Ross, and Parta, R. Eugene, “Cold War International Broadcasting: Lessons Learned”, Briefing to the Rancho Mirage Seminar,  p.54

negative: y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy Even if individuals within a nation do not overtly support democracy, that does not mean that democracy does not serve their interests, and that they will not support it once it exists.  There are two reasons this might be true. First, individuals may be too scared to show support for democracy, for fear of repercussion. Second, individuals may not realize that they want democracy, but come to understand and appreciate it once it is there. Power analysis theory helps us understand how individuals are manipulated into supporting systems that work against their interests: for example anti-feminists during the early and mid 20th century, who accepted male dominance as a necessary and desirable fact of life. Thus, it may take some foreign intervention to create support for democracy. And, despite the fact that imposed democracy often does fail, there have been success stories (as well as Germany and Japan, less oft-cited examples, like Sri Lanka), suggesting that democracy can be imposed with the right strategy and under the right conditions.

negative: Autonomy (Please note that this argument cannot be run in conjunction with argument four as they are contradictory)  42% of the Indian population is under the international poverty line and it is they that contribute the most to imbalanced sex ratio due to economic concerns. [1] Offering a financial incentive for people to produce female children will undermine the autonomy of parents. In order for there to be autonomy, the individual needs to be able to make a rational, unforced decision. When someone is extremely impoverished, as many people are in developing economies like those of China and India, financial incentives are an offer that cannot be refused. Proposition would have you believe that we offer the parents an autonomous choice between having a female child and receiving money or not having the child and not receiving money. Of course they will take the money! Poverty removes the possibility of choice. In this way, poor parents are being forced to have female children to ensure their own survival and the survival of their already existing family.  Why is this problematic? Firstly, we believe choice is intrinsically valuable because the freedom to make choices is recognition of our fundamental humanity and individuality. If we cannot determine our own futures we are slaves. We value choice so much that we sometimes allow it when it risks causing wider social problems. For example, we allow people to smoke or eat unhealthily even though this may cost the health system a lot of money.  Secondly, people have the most empirical information about themselves and are therefore able to make the best choices for themselves. For example, a family may know that they do not have the space in their home or the time to raise another child. They may know that a boy will be better able to support the family financially later on because he will be more likely to get a job and in some cases this may even override the financial benefits offered by government. These are all important considerations that only individual families are able to take into account. A government is unable to know each family’s individual situation and therefore is not well suited to make this decision in place of the family.  [1] Poverty in India.” Wikipedia.

negative: We have a duty to launch a humanitarian intervention in Syria.  Widespread indiscriminate killing of human beings is something that everyone in the world has an obligation to end. Mass killing of people is something that affronts the very basic meaning of what it is to be human. It denies the basic empathy and value we afford to each person on the basis of simple personhood and its occurrence is a black mark on all human beings who allow it to occur when they hold the power to end it.  In Syria today, the government forces are making their people live in fear of death and are routinely taking the lives of innocent people in order to control their population through fear. This week alone, 33 people were slaughtered by government forces include 6 children [1] .  The West has the moral obligation to intervene in Syria to protect the lives of the innocent people and end the reign of terror of Bashar al-Assad.  [1] "Syria: UN Human Rights Committee Condemns Crackdown." BBC News 23 Nov 2011.

negative: It is true that a responsible government should draft legislation with a view to its long term benefits. However, many governments do not do this; programmes are often set up, laws changed or taxes cut with a view to short term electoral benefit and narrow party political gain, not the good of the country. Arguably, the electorate are more likely to vote on issues for the “right” reasons than are their elected representatives.  Saying that government should lead public opinion, rather than follow it, is simply another way of saying that the state should ignore the will of the public. It is hard to see how it can be justified for governments to pass laws which they know do not command public support. Clearly there may be exceptions in extreme situations - such as the abolition of slavery in the 19th century – but, broadly speaking, the citizens of a country should have the right to order their society in the way they think is best.

negative: y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy Interventions can be successful given the right conditions.  Certain factors may increase the chance of success: for example imposing democracy on a nation with which there were once colonial relationships increases the expected lifespan of the democracy. Democratic transitions in general also tend to be more successful if economic conditions are better. Obviously we are not advocating imposing democracy on every country which does not have it, but if there are strong enough institutions and conditions, imposition can work and there have been past successes like Germany and Japan post WWII that show the worth of imposing democracy1/2.  1 Enterline, Andrew J. and Greig, J. Michael."Against All Odds? Historical Trends in Imposed Democracy & the Future of Iraq & Afghanistan."  2 Przeworski et al "What Makes Democracies Endure?" Journal of Democracy.

negative: That is exactly right: we cannot know who will be most valuable to the world, and to think otherwise is “playing god.” However, this is a point for side proposition; given that we don’t know who the really valuable people are, we ought to save the greater number because it statistically increases the chances that they will be saved. The only time this would not be true is if the average person had a net negative effect on the world, but if this were the case it would commit us to the implausible position that we ought to act in a manner so that the fewest people survive, which is absurd.

negative: Where does self-determination end? Do cities or towns have a right to self-determination, what about individuals within the state? Allowing further secessions will just lead to increasingly smaller and less viable states without producing benefits. Nations are invented human constructs with no inherent value. The right to self-determination is limited, the Supreme Court of Canada determined that there were only three circumstances in which external self determination to three circumstances (a) those under colonial domination or foreign occupation; (b) peoples subject to "alien subjugation, domination or exploitation outside a colonial context;" and, possibly, (c) a people "blocked from the meaningful exercise of its right to self-determination internally." [1] None of these apply to RS.  In the case of RS there were Bosniaks and Croats who were already in the region and were expelled in the 1990s who in many cases formed a majority in many municipalities in what is now Republika Srpska. Should these smaller groupings have the same right? And if so would individual villages within these municipalities then be able to exercise their own self determination?  [1] Van der Vyver, Johan D., ‘Self-determination of the p[eoples of Quebec under International Law’, J. Transnational Law & Policy, Vol.10 No.1, p.12,

negative: To use such websites governments already need to be committed to democracy. Promoting democracy in already-democratic countries is irrelevant. Countries that are not democratic, and seek to maintain autocratic rule will not be impacted by the availability of those resources and harness the internet only for continued repression 1.  1. Joyce, Digital Activism Decoded, 2010

negative: business economic policy international global house believes dictatorship best Democratic rule of law is the best ground for political stability and growth  In order for a society to develop economically, it needs a stable political framework and dictatorships are often less stable. A dictator will have to prioritize the retention of power. As repression is inevitable, a dictator will not necessarily be entirely popular. There will regularly be a doubt about the future and sustainability of a dictatorship. Bearing in mind the messy collapses of some dictatorships, a democracy may be a more stable form of government over the long term [1] .  Only democracies can create a stable legal framework. The rule of law ensures all of society has access to justice and the government acts within the law. Free and fair elections act as a bulwark against social unrest and violence. Economic freedoms and human rights protection also have positive effects on economies. Private property rights, for example, encourage productivity and innovation so that one has control of the fruits of their labour.  It has been argued by Acemolgu and Robinson in their book Why Nations Fail? The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty that inclusive political institutions and pluralistic systems that protect individual rights are necessary preconditions for economic development [2] . If these political institutions exist then the economic institutions necessary for growth will be created, as a result economic growth will be more likely.  [1] See for example the work of Huntington, S, P., (1991), The third wave: democratization in the late twentieth century, University of Oklahoma Press,   [2] Acemolgu, D., and Robinson, J. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. London: Profile Books.

negative: healthcare philosophy ethics house would allow donations vital organs even expense The right to individual self determination is a fundamental human right, equal to that of life itself  It is a fundamental principle of the human being is that every human is born autonomous. Therefore, we believe that every person has a right to his or her own body and is thus competent to make decisions about it. This is because we recognise that whatever decisions we might make about our bodies, stem from the knowledge that we have about our own preferences. Nobody can tell us how to value different goods and therefore what matters to one person might matter less to another. If we were to undermine this right, nobody would be able to live their life to its fullest as they would be living their life to someone else’s fullest. The extension of this right is that if someone values another person’s life over their own it is their informed decision to sacrifice themselves for that person. It is not for others to decide, and in particular not for the State.

negative: It may be true that we gave the state the burden and the duty to protect us and it is a very high-ranking priority. But this doesn’t justify sacrificing day-to-day freedom just for the state to fulfil its duty a little bit more.  We cannot say that the state can do whatever it wants as long as it does that for the safety of our safety. On that logic, it would be OK for the government to have a bodyguard stand next to us without our consent for every single minute of our lives, as that way, we would be more protected. The Supreme Court ruled on this in 2012 and held that police need a warrant to attach at GPS device to a car.(1) One cannot say specifically what the main purpose of the state is, as it’s rather a combination of protecting us and serving us. As it is the population who controls the government and not vice-versa, it must be up to them to decide where to draw the line between security and privacy.  What we see on this level is that by engaging in these sorts of operations, the government is not fulfilling its purpose as there are a lot of harmful effects that the citizens would feel if large scale tapping will take place. Maybe some people don’t mind being spied on, but there is a significant majority of people who do. This constant feeling that you are followed translates into fear, anxiety, restlessness or stress. In turn, these emotions affect your day to day life prohibiting you from enjoying it. So on this level, the state is failing at its purpose to improve the lives of the mass population.  (1) Trevor Timm , “Law Enforcement Agencies Demanded Cell Phone User Info Far More Than 1.3 Million Times Last Year”, “Electronic Frontier Foundation” July 9, 2012