query: Sovereignty and non intervention in internal affairs  It is a clear international rule that nations are sovereign and other states are simply not allowed to be making interventions into another country’s domestic affairs. The UN Charter emphasises “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state”. [1] Within a state only the government is legitimate as the supreme authority within its territory. [2] This is to prevent the bigger and richer powers from doing exactly this sort of thing to obtain the result they want inside another country. This is why Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated "International law does not permit the supply of arms to non-governmental actors and our point of view is that it is a violation of international law," in response to suggestions that the UK would arm the Syrian rebels. [3]  [1] UN General Assembly, Article 2, Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945  [2] Philpott, Dan, "Sovereignty", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)  [3] Abbas, Mohammed, ‘Russia says arming Syrian opposition would be illegal’, Reuters, 13 March 2013

positive: global middle east house would arm syrian rebels This makes the assumption that the Assad government is considered the legitimate authority within Syria, the Russians accept this, but other countries are less sure. Both the US and UK now recognise the Syrian opposition as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people [1] which would mean arming them would be legal in the same way that the Russians consider arming Assad to be internationally legal.  [1] Malas, Nour, and Solomon, Jay, ‘U.S. Formally Recognizes Syria’s Main Rebel Group’, The Wall Street Journal, 12 December 2012

negative: Promoting religious freedom exacerbates conflict  Once a pluralistic religiously free society is created there may be less conflict, but how do we get to that stage? Promoting religious freedom itself creates diplomatic conflict between states because domestic religion is considered to be an area where states are sovereign so dislike interference. [1]  Promoting religious tolerance is not as well received by the people as the promotion of political rights. This is because often the dominant religion is favoured while minorities are those who are not tolerated. Countries trying to promote religious freedom are therefore not likely to find as much support from civil society as would be the case when advocating that citizens be allowed to vote in free and fair elections. The country promoting this freedom is pushing an agenda that is often contrary to centuries of ingrained habits and prejudices. It should not be surprising that even as the Arab spring was occurring there were attacks on Coptic churches, [2] while the communities may have been united by a desire for political change in the form of the overthrow of Mubarak such unity will only come very slowly when it comes to religious divides.  [1] Philpott, Dan, "Sovereignty", in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition)  [2] Abiyzeud, Rania, ‘After the Egyptian Revolution: The Wars of Religion’, Time, 10 March 2011

negative: African organisations should have lead the way  The United Nations charter is quite clear that it should be African Nations leading the way in this conflict. It says “The Security Council shall encourage the development of pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies” [1] and since there are several African Security Organisations there is little reason why these could not have taken the lead. The African Union in particular has undertaken interventions in similar situations before; notably in Somalia. [2] This has been recognised right up until the French intervened and the UN Security Council resolution in December mandated for “the deployment of an African-led mission to support efforts by national authorities to recover the north.” [3]  [1] Article 52,   [2] Jowell, Marco, ‘Kenya: Intervening in Somalia – Risky Business With No End in Sight’, All Africa, 17 January 2012,   [3] Security Council 6898th meeting, ‘Security Council authorizes deployment of African-led international support mission in Mali for initial year-long period’, United Nations, Resolution 2085, 20 December 2012,

negative: global middle east house believes israel should return its pre 1967 borders Israel has no right to the occupied territories.  Because Israel won the land during war, it is considered occupied territory under international law, and it is illegal for Israel to annex it. [1] In July 2004, the International Court of Justice delivered an Advisory Opinion observing that under customary international law as reflected in Article 42 of the Regulations annexed to the Hague IV Convention, territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. Israel raised a number of exceptions and objections, but the Court found them unpersuasive. The Court ruled that territories had been occupied by the Israeli armed forces in 1967, during the conflict between Israel and Jordan, and that subsequent events in those territories, had done nothing to alter the situation. [2] Even the Israeli Supreme court has ruled that “Judea and Samaria [a.k.a. The West Bank] areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation.” [3] Therefore, Israel has no better claim to these lands than that it won them in a war, which is an illegitimate claim under international law, and also illegitimate as a thinly-disguised, morally abhorrent “might makes right” argument. The fact that Arab states initiated the 1967 war does not justify Israel responding by annexing Palestinian territory. [4] A just settlement would have been a return to the previous borders in exchange for security guarantees, etc. Instead, Israel unjustly used the opportunity to take land from an innocent people. One bad act does not justify another bad act in return. Moreover, it is notable that the nations which Israel took Gaza and the West Bank from in 1967 (Egypt and Jordan, respectively) were not representative nations of the areas' majority inhabitants, the Palestinian people. [5] It is thus illegitimate for Israel to claim ownership of Palestinian land because it defeated non-Palestinian nations in a war, and Israel should therefore return to its pre-1967 borders, leaving Gaza and the West Bank to the Palestinian people.  [1] BBC News. “Israeli settlements condemned by Western powers”. BBC News. 2 November 2011.   [2] International Court of Justice. “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. International Court of Justice, United Nations Organisation. July 2004.   [3] The Supreme Court of Israel. “Mara'abe vs The Prime Minister of Israel”. The Supreme Court of Israel. June 2005.   [4] BBC News. “1967: Israel launches attack on Egypt”. BBC News On This Day. 5 June 1967.   [5] BBC News. “Israeli settlements condemned by Western powers”. BBC News. 2 November 2011.

negative: Palestinians have a right to return under international law  Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." [1] This right clearly applies to the Palestinians, as shown by UN General Assembly Resolution 194: “The General Assembly, Having considered further the situation in Palestine ... Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible." [2] This resolution was further clarified by UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 which reaffirms: "the inalienable right of Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return." Israel itself accepted Resolution 194 when it was allowed to join the UN on the condition that it accepted this resolution. [3]  Israel's own laws recognise the importance of the 'right of return' to a people in general through the fact that Jews are allowed to emigrate to Israel under Israel's Law of Return, even if their immediate ancestors have not lived in the area in recent years. [4] The fact that, conversely, Palestinian people who grew up in the area and whose immediate ancestors had lived there for many generations are forbidden from returning is thus a huge injustice even from Israel's own legal perspective. Moreover, this right of return applies not just to Palestinians as a group but also individually to all Palestinian refugees themselves. On March 15, 2000, a group of 100 prominent Palestinians from around the world expressed their opinion that the right of return is individual, rather than collective, and that it cannot therefore be reduced or forfeited by any representation on behalf of the Palestinians in any agreement or treaty. They argued that the right to property 'cannot be extinguished by new sovereignty or occupation and does not have a statute of limitation.' [5] Therefore the Palestinian right of return has a clear basis in international law, including in Israel's own law, and so it should be recognised.  [1] United Nations. "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Wikisource. 10 December 1948.   [2] United Nations. "UN General Assembly Resolution 194". United Nations. 11 December 1948.   [3] Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition. "Factsheet". Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition.   [4] The Economist. "The Palestinian right of return". The Economist. 4 January 2001.   [5] Al-Ahram Weekly. "Affirmation of the Palestinian Right of Return". Al-Ahram Weekly Online. 9 - 15 March 2000.

negative: Catalans clearly want self determination  Every peoples has the right to self determination. This is enshrined in the UN Charter right at the start in Article 1 as a purpose of the United Nations “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples” and is also in other major international agreements. 1 Large numbers of states have been recognised since this principle of self determination was recognised by the world in 1945 a great many of them states that are less natural states in terms of size, economy, ethnicity or geography so it would be wrong to deny a right exercised by so many others from the Catalans. It is clear that the Catalans wish to exercise this right to decide their own destiny democratically through a referendum. When polled by the Catalan Survey Institute 74.1% said they would be in favour of organising a referendum with 19.9% against, the remaining 6% were undecided. 2  1 The United Nations, ‘Charter of the United Nations’, 26 June 1945, Chapter 1, Article 1,   2 Coll, Gaspar Pericay, ‘74% of Catalan citizens are in favour of holding an independence referendum in Catalonia’, Catalan News Agency, 10 October 2012,

negative: global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks It would never work  There are immense challenges to making a treaty seeking to prevent or curtail cyber-attacks work. Even on issues where there are clear security concerns it is unusual for the involved nations to be willing to get along and cooperate. This has proven to be the same with regards to the internet governance with Russia and China wanting greater state control while the US and Western Europe is opposed. [1] Even on issues where lives are being lost there is often no global agreement as can be seen by the deadlock in the UN security council over what to do about the civil war in Syria. [2]  Additionally there is the problem that working out who engaged in a cyber-attack is difficult. Such attacks are often routed through proxy computers to launch their attacks. If attacking a difficult target that may seek to strike back the attack will be through numerous proxies which will be in numerous countries to make tracking back difficult. [3] This means there can be misattribution of attacks creating confusion about which state needs to act domestically to prevent the cyber-attacks – or in the worst case resulting in a response aimed at the wrong country. For example South Korea has blamed its Northern neighbour for an attack on the website of the South Korean Presidency but the hacking is more likely to have been the work of someone in South Korea itself as a South Korean detailed his plans on Twitter before the attack. [4] If it is difficult to attribute who launched the attack then it would clearly be easy to get around any ban.  [1] Nebehay, Stephanie, ‘China, Russia seek greater control of Internet’, Reuters, 7 March 2013,   [2] Black, Ian, ‘UN may struggle to respond to reports of Syrian chemical attacks’, The Guardian, 21 August 2013,   [3] Greenemeier, Larry, ‘Seeking Address: Why Cyber Attacks Are So Difficult to Trace back to Hackers’, Scientific American, 11 June 2011,   [4] Koo, Soo-Kyung, ‘Cyber Security in South Korea: The Threat Within’, The Diplomat, 19 August 2013,

negative: americas middle east house believes us and israel should join international It is accepted that there is now such a thing as international criminal law – from Nuremberg onwards, there are some matters that can be punished by multinational courts. The US also supported the ICTY and ICTR – if the ICC is a breach of national sovereignty, so are all the single use tribunals. The ICC is essentially an intergovernmental institution in the mould of the United Nations or the IAEA – an institution that can sometimes lead to a decision that goes against the wishes of individual members but that does not mean the members sovereignty is undermined.  While the ICC does have jurisdiction over nationals of non-party states, that only applies if referred by the UN Security Council or if the acts in question. The principle of complementarity will allow states to deal with issues themselves if they are willing and able to do so. Therefore the ICC is perfectly compatible with national sovereignty.

negative: global politics society minorities house believes south ossetia should be Georgia has a right to territorial integrity  Georgia has a legitimate sovereign right to maintain its territorial integrity as well as the social contract accompanying it. Georgia has the right to take action to secure the integrity of these things, unless blocked by a higher international authority. Internationally, S. Ossetia's independence is recognised by only five nations (including Russia), demonstrating that the international community is not convinced that S. Ossetia's claim to self-determination trumps Georgia's claim to territorial integrity. [1] In order to obtain independence, it is important that a country be recognized diplomatically by a significant number of the members of the United Nations. This is important in large part because it ensures that a state will have viable diplomatic relations internationally if it becomes independent. It also demonstrates that the international system supports a certain action being taken internationally. Thus Georgia's claim should continue to stand until the international community changes its mind, and at the moment the international community has legitimate concerns regarding the regional instability and conflict that an independent S. Ossetia might foster. Moreover, as shown above the S. Ossetian state is entirely dependent on Russian support, and so it can be accurately stated that the issue of S. Ossetian independence, and its threat to Georgian territorial integrity, has arisen only because of Russian interference within Georgia. Even those who argue that any region has the right to self-determination would probably reject the idea that nations have the right to foster and encourage parts of other nations to secede from their current state and join another. The S. Ossetian independence movement can thus be correctly seen simply as Russian aggression against Georgia for its own advantage, not an issue of self-determination.  [1] RIA Novosti. “Nicaragua recognizes South Ossetia and Abkhazia”. RIA Novosti. 4 September 2008.

negative: onal global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new The New START treaty does not help Russia more than it does the United States. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates argued at the time the Russians are currently “above the treaty limits. So they will have to take down warheads.” [1] If there really is undercounting of missiles on bombers then it affects both sides equally – as Romney says “While we currently have more bombers than the Russians”, so this too should not be a worry. Russia does not currently deploy rail-mobile ICBMs and neither does the United States, explain why the definitions are not there. However the State Department argues that “If a Party develops and deploys rail-mobile ICBMs, such missiles, their warheads, and their launchers would be subject to the Treaty.” As the definitions of ICBM launchers would include them. [2] Finally we should recognize that we do not know that Russia would have reduced its bomber and missile forces without a new treaty, while Russia has more difficulty maintaining its nuclear forces than the United States so has more incentive to reduce them, but without a treaty it might even increase its forces due to a desire to keep parity with the United States while the US has a big lead in conventional weapons. [3]  Furthermore, any agreement made between Russia and the US needs to be one that benefits both parties, it does not matter if someone is getting more than the other. Getting an agreement that meets the needs of both countries is far more important, because it will be upheld more so than one that simple gives both countries the same. Fair and efficent does not mean spilting a pie in half, if one only wanted the crust, and the other only wanted the filling.  [1] Isaacs, John, ‘Rebuttals to Additional Arguments Against “New START”’, The Center For Arms Control And Non-Proliferation,   [2] Bureau of Verification, Compliance, and Implementation, ‘Rail-Mobile Launchers of ICBMs and their Missiles’, U.S. Department of State, 2 August 2010,   [3] Isaacs, John, ‘Rebuttals to Additional Arguments Against “New START”’, The Center For Arms Control And Non-Proliferation,

negative: americas middle east house believes us and israel should join international Ratification of the International Criminal Court would be a violation of national sovereignty  Any state ratifying the Rome Statute, is placing its citizens at the mercy of a court that operates outside of national control. This is an unacceptable ceding of national sovereignty – thus no state other than the US has the power to deal with American criminals, and no one but Israel should deal with Israeli criminals. International criminal law and national sovereignty are inevitably enemies  Not only does the ICC threaten American sovereignty, it threatens the sovereignty of all nations – the ICC can, in some cases, prosecute citizens of nations that are not state parties. Authority for justice within one’s territory is however at the heart of the concept of sovereignty. As a matter of principle the US should not be supporting measures that affect the sovereignty of any nation, let alone the US itself.

negative: Existing international treaties that grant nuclear weapons to the US and other countries no longer reflect the changing global balance of power.  The Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty is inherently unfair, in that it prevents countries that did not have nuclear weapons as of 1964 from developing them, but makes no effort to force those who already possess nuclear devices to disarm.  The result is that the list of countries with such weapons, the United States, Russia, Britain, France, and China, represents the balance of power as it existed at the time that the non-proliferation treaty was drafted. Countries that have entered the club subsequently, like India and Pakistan, did so in violation of the treaty and international law.  Any sort of treaty that seeks to limit access to nuclear arms has to provide opportunities for countries like Brazil to enter the “club” as they gain political or economic power. In the absence of any such mechanism the current treaty system is nothing more than a tool of Western dominance in order to keep the status quo which is favorable to the current nuclear powers something which is bound to build up resentment.  This would in effect offer not only to the pursuit of nuclear weapons by the targeted regimes, but to the rest of their policies. States like South Africa and Brazil already find it difficult to support a strong international line against Iran [1] due to seeing the inequality of allowing some countries nuclear weapons programmes but seeking to punish others, especially when the nuclear weapons states that are signatories to the NPT have not moved towards disarmament as the treaty stipulates. [2] This would in effect alienate them completely.  Second, even if the harm was justifiable by the ends, it would seem that in the long run, invading- or even censuring- every country that attempts to develop Nuclear Weapons in violation of the NPT is impractical as the United States and the rest of the world have de facto admitted by ending sanctions on Pakistan and India in 2001, two years after their nuclear tests. [3] As such, there needs to be a political means that can separate states like Brazil from states like Iran, lest the policy collapse under its own weight.  The West, rather than using force, should attempt to repair the existing non-proliferation treaty framework, such that the standards for possession of nuclear weapons are based on behaviour rather than history.  [1] Charbonneau, Louis, ‘Q+A: How likely are new U.S. sanctions against Iran?’, Reuters, 9 November 2011,   [2] Spektor, Matias, ‘How to Read Brazil’s Stance on iran’, YaleGlobal, 16 March 2010,   [3] BBC News, ‘US lifts India and Pakistan sanctions’, 23 September 2001,

negative: No real 'right of return' exists in international law  Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not guarantee a right of return because the clause "everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country" was meant to guarantee the right to leave.  According to its legislative history, Article 13 was aimed at governments which imprisoned certain subgroups of their own nationals by preventing them from moving beyond their national borders. According to its sponsor, the mention of a "right to return" was included to assure that "the right to leave a country, already sanctioned in the article, would be strengthened by the assurance of the right to return. [1] Moreover, Article 13 only guarantees a specific right to return "to his own country". [2] But, the Palestinians who were displaced were never citizens or legal residents of Israel. Therefore, they can have no right of return to Israel. U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194, furthermore, does not specify a 'right', but rather says refugees "should" be allowed to return. [3] Hence Israel is under no obligation to recognise a 'right', but rather merely to accept that Palestinians have some claim to return or to compensation for not being able to return. This is distinct from a total and inalienable 'right' to do so, regardless of the consequences for Israel. Also, there is no formal mechanism in international law to demand repatriation of refugees and their descendants in general or Palestinians specifically. No international legislation, binding UN resolutions or agreements between Israel and the Palestinians require this. This is demonstrated by international precedent, especially by the case of the 758,000-866,000 Jews who were expelled, fled or emigrated from the Arab Middle East and North Africa between 1945 and 1956, with property losses of $1 billion. [4] Since these refugees were neither compensated nor allowed return—to no objection on the part of Arab leaders or international legal authorities—the international community has accepted this migration of Jews as fait accompli, and thereby set legal precedent in the region against a right of return for Palestinians also.  Finally, most of the inhabitants of the Palestinian refugee camps abroad were not actually alive in either 1948 or 1967, and there is no reason to believe that their descendants automatically inherit any 'right of return' which their ancestors may have held. Therefore Israel should not recognise the Palestinian 'right of return' as no such right really exists under international law.  [1] Dinstein, Yoram. "Israel Yearbook on Human Rights". Volume 16; Volume 1986  [2] United Nations. "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Wikisource. 10 December 1948.   [3] United Nations. "UN General Assembly Resolution 194". United Nations. 11 December 1948.   [4] Schwartz, Adi. "All I wanted was justice". Haaretz/adi-schwartz.com. 4 January 2008.

negative: crime policing international law house believes icc should have its own enforcement An ICC enforcement is a necessity if there is to be international criminal justice  The remit of the ICC is unlike the remit of any national court. It deals exclusively in crimes so unacceptable there is an international consensus behind their illegality and the need for prosecutions. The parties that signed up to the Rome Statute’s reason for the creation of the ICC was “that such grave crimes threaten the peace, security and well-being of the world” the perpetrators of such crimes clearly need to be brought to book, and to do that they need to be apprehended. The same agreement said the signatories were “Resolved to guarantee lasting respect for and the enforcement of international justice” if this is the case then there should be agreement on enabling that enforcement by creating an ICC enforcement arm. Again the Rome statute makes clear that the agreement “shall not be taken as authorizing” intervention by another state. This is why the enforcement needs to be done by a separate international force who could not be considered a threat to any state. [1] Quite simply there is little point in international criminal justice if there is no force to bring the criminals to the court.  [1] ‘Preamble’ Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1 July 2002,

negative: global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new The New START treaty will help against Iran’s nuclear program.  New START will help bolster US-Russian cooperation, which is necessary for solving the problem of Iran’s nuclear proliferation. On Nov. 19, 2010, the Anti-Defamation League released a statement, which came from Robert G. Sugarman, ADL National Chair, and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director: "The severe damage that could be inflicted on that relationship by failing to ratify the treaty would inevitably hamper effective American international leadership to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program. The Iranian nuclear threat is the most serious national security issue facing the United States, Israel, and other allies in the Middle East. While some Senators may have legitimate reservations about the New START treaty or its protocol, we believe the interest of our greater and common goal of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons must take precedence." [1] New START is crucial in getting Russian support against Iran and other rogue nuclear states.  Although the United States needs a strong and reliable nuclear force, the chief nuclear danger today comes not from Russia but from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea and the potential for nuclear material to fall into the hands of terrorists. Given those pressing dangers, some question why an arms control treaty with Russia matters. It matters because it is in both parties' interest that there be transparency and stability in their strategic nuclear relationship. It also matters because Russia's cooperation will be needed if we are to make progress in rolling back the Iranian and North Korean programs. Russian help will be needed to continue our work to secure "loose nukes" in Russia and elsewhere. And Russian assistance is needed to improve the situation in Afghanistan, a breeding ground for international terrorism.  Obviously, the United States does not sign arms control agreements just to make friends. Any treaty must be considered on its merits. But the New START agreement is clearly in the US’ national interest, and the ramifications of not ratifying it could be significantly negative. [2] As US Vice President Joe Biden argued in 2010: "New Start is also a cornerstone of our efforts to reset relations with Russia, which have improved significantly in the last two years. This has led to real benefits for U.S. and global security. Russian cooperation made it possible to secure strong sanctions against Iran over its nuclear ambitions, and Russia canceled a sale to Iran of an advanced anti-aircraft missile system that would have been dangerously destabilizing. Russia has permitted the flow of materiel through its territory for our troops in Afghanistan. And—as the NATO-Russia Council in Lisbon demonstrated—European security has been advanced by the pursuit of a more cooperative relationship with Russia. We should not jeopardize this progress." [3] Therefore, because New START will have significant positive consequences in terms of aiding relations with Russia, and thus in dealing with rogue nuclear states like Iran, it should be supported.  [1] Weingarten, Elizabeth. “How did New START become a Jewish issue?”. The Atlantic. 1 Decemebr 2010.   [2] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010.   [3] Biden, Joseph. "The case for ratifying New START". Wall Street Journal. 25 November 2010.

negative: global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new The New START treaty harms US nuclear capabilities  As David Ganz, the president of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), argues: "This treaty would restrain the development and deployment of new nuclear weapons, missile defense systems, and missile delivery systems." [1] The atrophying U.S. nuclear arsenal and weapons enterprise make reductions in the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal even more dangerous. The new START treaty allows nuclear modernization but while the US capacity to modernize nuclear weapons is limited and either congress or the president is likely to prevent modernization on cost grounds. The Russians have a large, if unknown, advantage over the United States in terms of nonstrategic, particularly tactical, and nuclear weapons. The New START treaty however ignores these weapons entirely as it is focused on strategic arms. This therefore leaves the Russians with an advantage and potentially reduces the potential for deterrence in areas beyond the US. [2]  New START also restricts US missile defence options. The Obama Administration insists the treaty doesn’t affect it, but the Kremlin’s takes a different view: "[START] can operate and be viable only if the United States of America refrains from developing its missile-defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively." [3] New START imposes restrictions on U.S. missile defence options in at least four areas. First the preamble recognizes “the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms” it seeks to make sure defensive arms “do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the parties” so defensive arms must be reduced to allow offensive arms to remain effective. [4] Russia also issued a unilateral statement on April 7, 2010, Russia reinforced this restriction by issuing a unilateral statement asserting that it considers the “extraordinary events” that give “the right to withdraw from this treaty” to include a buildup of missile defense. [5] Second, Article V states “Each Party shall not convert and shall not use ICBM launchers and SLBM launchers for placement of missile defense interceptors” and vice versa. [6] There are also restrictions on some types of missiles and launchers that are used in the testing of missile defense. And Finally, article X established the Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC), the treaty’s implementing body, with oversight over the implementation of the treaty which may impose additional restrictions on the U.S. missile defense program. [7]  [1] Weingarten, Elizabeth. “How did New START become a Jewish issue?”. The Atlantic. 1 Decemebr 2010.   [2] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010.   [3] Brookes, Peter. “Not a new START, but a bad START”. The Hill. 13 September 2010.   [4] Obama, Barak, and Medvedev, Dmitri, ‘Treaty Between The United States of America And The Russian Federation On Measures For The Further Reduction And Limitation Of Strategic Offensive Arms’, U.S. Department of State,   [5] Bureau of Verification, Compliance, and Implementation, ‘New START Treaty Fact Sheet: Unilateral Statements’, U.S. Department of State, 13 May 2010,   [6] Obama, Barak, and Medvedev, Dmitri, ‘Treaty Between The United States of America And The Russian Federation On Measures For The Further Reduction And Limitation Of Strategic Offensive Arms’, U.S. Department of State,   [7] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010.

negative: global politics defence warpeace house would create un standing army A UN standing army is simply impossible to form.  A standing army for the United Nations has an existing legal framework; it has never been attempted in practice because it would be impossible to create. Article 43 of the original UN Charter specifies that all member states are expected, upon the signing of a future UN agreement, to provide ‘forces, assistance and facilities’ for the maintenance of international peace and security 1. That it is has never been attempted is the direct result of its sheer impracticality; who would contribute the troops? How would they be trained, and ensure that troops trained in one state would not be asked to thereafter fire on their own colleagues? Furthermore, where would the U.N. standing army be located, for the United Nations has no land, and the United States would not take kindly to a reprisal attack on the UN Army at the United Nations Headquarters. And who would fund this army? The United States hasn’t paid its bills to the United Nations in years due to their opposition to some of its actions/ What is there in place to prevent that continuing? Lastly, and most importantly, whose will would they be implementing, for the United Nations is not a single voice but the aggregated noise of its member states? The Security Council, which currently dictates the form that U.N. peacekeeping operations take, are not a group to whom impartiality can be attributed. A U.N standing army at the behest of the Security Council would be used sparingly at best and only in regions and conflicts for whom all the P5 had a vested interest in the maintenance of peace. Any impartiality that the U.N. standing army had in theory would be lost in practice.  1. U.N. Charter, (1945)

negative: Uti Possidetis  The borders of states that gain independence are set by the administrative boundaries that the colony had prior to independence. This prevents any gaps in sovereignty, or any attempt by the coloniser to keep a chunk of the territory, and the conflict this would inevitably bring. General Assembly Resolution 1514 made this clear “Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.” [1] This also means that Mauritius should have control of the Chagos Islands which were, up until 1965, a part of Mauritius.  [1] United Nations General Assembly, ‘Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples’, un.org, resolution 1514 (XV), 14 December 1960,

negative: Sanctions are illegal  Sanctions on Cuba are illegal and damage America’s International standing. They violate the UN Charter, laws on the freedom of navigation, and repeated United Nations resolutions since 1992 (passed with only the US and Israel in opposition). [1] Furthermore, some parts of the Helms-Burton Act are extra-territorial in their effects on businessmen from third nations and therefore cause significant protest around the world. This makes a mockery of the US claim to be a guardian of International Law, not only in its dealings with Cuba but also in the negotiations over the future of Iraq. America could achieve its goals internationally more easily if it was not marked with evidence of its lack of respect for International Law.  [1] CNN, ‘U.N. again condemns U.S. embargo against Cuba’, 2009.

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: Shared experience of terrorism  A shared experience of terrorism means both have long term reasons to cooperate against it. Russia already had experience with terrorism with a string of bombings in the summer of 1999 which the Russian government blamed on the Chechans. [1] As a result of this on-going Chechen terrorism the Russian government was keen to cooperate in any counter terrorist effort there may be. Russian officials such as Sergey Ordzhonikidze spoke of the grief they shared with the American people “The hearts of Russians who know first-hand what terrorism is like are also filled with grief for all those who fell victim to terrorism in other parts of the planet.” [2] President Putin himself agreed with this immediately after the 9/11 attacks “[Russia is] deeply shocked by the reports of the tragic events that occurred today in the United States. The barbaric terrorist attacks against innocent people evoked the anger and indignation of the Russian people.” [3] Both the terrorists who had been attacking Russia and the 9/11 attackers were motivated by an extremist version of Islam, this gives both Russia and the United States a mutual interest in combating this terrorism wherever it may be occurring. This continues to give both Russia and the United States an interest in solving the problems that create terrorism such as the Israel-Palestinian conflict and keeping the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan. That both understand the other’s motivations makes this link much stronger.  [1] Mark Kramer, Guerrilla Warfare, Counter Insurgency and Terrorism in the North Caucuses: The Military Dimension of the Russia-Chechen conflict, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol.57, No.2, (March, 2005), pp.209-290, p.212  [2] Statement by Sergey A. Ordzhonikidze, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, on agenda item 166 of the 56 session of the UN General Assembly: Measures to eliminate international terrorism New York, October 1, 2001  [3] Russian President Vladimir Putin telegram of condolence to US President George W. Bush, September 11, 2001,  accessed 20/4/11

negative: disease healthcare philosophy ethics life house believes assisted suicide should If someone is threatening to kill themselves it is your moral duty to try to stop them  Those who commit suicide are not evil, and those who attempt to take their own lives are not prosecuted. However, it is your moral duty to try and prevent people from committing suicide. You would not, for example, simply ignore a man standing on a ledge and threatening to jump simply because it is his choice; and you would definitely not assist in his suicide by pushing him. In the same way, you should try to help a person with a terminal illness, not help them to die. With the exception of the libertarian position that each person has a right against others that they not interfere with her suicidal intentions. Little justification is necessary for actions that aim to prevent another's suicide but are non-coercive. Pleading with a suicidal individual, trying to convince her of the value of continued life, recommending counseling, etc. are morally unproblematic, since they do not interfere with the individual's conduct or plans except by engaging her rational capacities (Cosculluela 1994, 35; Cholbi 2002, 252). [1] The impulse toward suicide is often short-lived, ambivalent, and influenced by mental illnesses such as depression. While these facts together do not appear to justify intervening in others' suicidal intentions, they are indicators that the suicide may be undertaken with less than full rationality. Yet given the added fact that death is irreversible, when these factors are present, they justify intervention in others' suicidal plans on the grounds that suicide is not in the individual's interests as they would rationally conceive those interests. We might call this the ‘no regrets' or ‘err on the side of life’ approach to suicide intervention (Martin 1980; Pabst Battin 1996, 141; Cholbi 2002). [2]  [1] Cholbi, Michael, "Suicide", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),  #DutTowSui (accessed 7/6/2011)  [2] Cholbi, Michael, "Suicide", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),  #DutTowSui (accessed 7/6/2011)

negative: global politics defence warpeace house would create un standing army A U.N. standing army renders the United Nations a de facto state, but without a territory or a population.  Essentially only governments have standing armies, so this plan would inevitably make the UN more like a world government – and one which is not democratic and where, in China, a totalitarian state has veto power over key decision-making. This means a standing army may actually be counter-productive, impairing current perceptions of the UN’s selfless neutrality, undermining its moral authority and its ability to broker peace agreements. If the UN becomes an institution with its own voice, the fears that the UN would lose its role as the honest broker in international affairs would come to fruition 1.  1.Miller, 1992-3, p.787

negative: A Palestinian right of return would destroy the 'Jewish State' in Israel  If all or a large majority of Palestinian refugees and their descendants were to implement a 'right of return', it would make Arabs the majority within Israel and Jews an ethnic minority. This amounts to abolishing the Jewish people's right to self-determination, which they hold under the 1993 Vienna Declaration. [1] It would also mean eradicating Israel as a Jewish state, which was the intention behind its foundation. The majority of Israelis find a literal right of return for Palestinian refugees to be unacceptable, pointing to this worry that as they become a minority Israel as a Jewish state would be undermined. [2]  Re-enforcing the need for the existence of a Jewish state (as a safe haven for persecuted Jews) is the presence in Israel of 758,000-866,000 Jews who were expelled, fled or emigrated from the Arab Middle East and North Africa between 1945 and 1956, to whom the Arab states which expelled them are not willing to offer any 'right of return' of their own. [3] An open letter to the Palestinian leadership published in 2001 by Amos Oz, A.B. Yehoshua and other Israeli intellectuals and peace activists dramatically demonstrated the agreement even among the 'peace camp' in Israel that a total right of return for Palestinians can never be acceptable to the Israeli people: “We shall never be able to agree”, they wrote, “to the return of the refugees to within the borders of Israel. The meaning of such a return would be the elimination of the state of Israel.” Yossi Sarid, chairman of the Meretz Party, stated baldly that “Israel can survive without sovereignty over Temple Mount, but it cannot survive with the right of return. If the Palestinians insist on it, there will be no (peace) agreement.” [4] Thus asking Israel to recognise the Palestinian right of return is tantamount to asking Israel to accept its own destruction as a state, and is thus totally unacceptable.  There are further reasons that recognising the Palestinian right of return would be fundamentally harmful to Israel's welfare, and thus an invalid action. Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that rights can be limited by law solely for securing 'due recognition and respect for the rights of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order, and general welfare in a democratic society.' Article 30 states that nothing in the declaration may be interpreted as permitting any state, group, or person to engage in activity aimed at the destruction of any rights or freedoms guaranteed. The 'rights' and 'general welfare' of Israel's Jewish citizens would be endangered if millions of Palestinians who were openly hostile to Israel's existence became a majority. Article 3 of the declaration further states that "these rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purpose and principles of the United Nations". [5] The Palestinian right of return would result in the loss of Israeli sovereignty and its replacement with an Arab-majority state, and the dismantling of Israeli society in favour of an Arab-Muslim dominated society, resulting in the destruction of a UN member state: a violation of the United Nations Charter. For this reason, a Palestinian right of return is invalidated.  A right of return would also result in a flood of Palestinians stating their 'right of return' as justification for entering Israel at any time and in unlimited numbers and laying claim to old homes. This creates an unworkable legal nightmare, clouded by historical ambiguities. Such an extended legal nightmare would last for decades, and hurt the reconciliation process. [i-[1]  There are many things that Israel can and has offered to Palestinian refugees: compensation, assistance in resettlement, and return for an extremely limited number of refugees based solely on family reunification or humanitarian considerations. But an unlimited right of return for all refugees and their descendants simply goes too far. This is largely because it is purely unworkable to allow millions of Palestinians to return back to a territory that is already overcrowded. [i-[2] [6] For all these reasons, recognising the Palestinian right of return would destroy Israel as a 'Jewish state' and fundamentally harm the welfare of its current legal inhabitants by infringing on their rights, and so Israel should not pursue this recognition.  [1] United Nations World Conference on Human Rights. “VIENNA DECLARATION AND PROGRAMME OF ACTION”. United Nations. 14-25 June 1993.   [2] The Economist. "The Palestinian right of return". The Economist. 4 January 2001.   [3] Schwartz, Adi. "All I wanted was justice". Haaretz/adi-schwartz.com. 4 January 2008.   [4] The Economist. "The Palestinian right of return". The Economist. 4 January 2001.   [5] United Nations. "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Wikisource. 10 December 1948.   [6] The Economist. "The Palestinian right of return". The Economist. 4 January 2001.

negative: The BIAs were only granted following bully tactics from the United States  The United States has been accused of using bullying tactics in the pursuit of gaining Article 98 Agreements by, amongst others, Human Rights Watch [1] .  This has included significant reductions in non-military, development aid, including to countries such as South Africa, the Bahamas [2] and Peru [3] , as well as making threats to accession to NATO in the case of Croatia. [4]  By signing up to Article 98 Agreements, European nations help contribute to a climate where smaller nations can also be strong-armed in to harming the International Criminal Court by signing them, even if they were not subject to blackmailed in to it themselves.  [1] Roth, Kenneth, “Letter to the US Secretary of State Colin Powell on Bully Tactics against the International Criminal Court”, Human Rights Watch, 2003   [2] Roth, Letter to Colin Powell, 2003  [3] Keppler, Elise, “The United States and the International Criminal Court: The Bush Administration’s Approach and a Way Forward Under the Obama Administration”, Berkeley Journal of International Law, 2009, 2, p12,   [4] Roth, Letter to Colin Powell, 2003

negative: The current UNSC Membership is outdated  The composition of the council is outdated and must adapt to a much-changed world in the 21st century.  It is clear that there is growing discontent among African countries regarding the current structure of the UNSC. “We don’t understand why you have three countries out of five countries on the Security Council as permanent members with a veto coming from Europe,” Simbarashe Mumbengegwi, Zimbabwe’s Foreign Affairs minister has said. [1] South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Maite Nkoana-Mashabane appealed for United Nations Security Council (UNSC) reforms and inclusion of Africa with at least two permanent seats, he made it clear that South Africa expects a UNSC seat when reform occurs. [2] The United Nations is meant to present sovereign states equally. The current membership was created in 1945 when there were 51 member states; most of them European, now there are 193 of which almost a third are African. On numbers alone in the current UNSC Africa should have between 4 and 5 members of which 1-2 should be permanent. The current distribution is selfish reflecting an imperialist past.  [1] Phiri, Gift, “African nations push for permanent UNSC seat”, Al Jazeera, 26 September 2013,   [2] Nkoana-Mashaban, Maite, ‘South Africa demands permanent African seats in UNSC’, South African Foreign Policy Initiative, 12 August 2013,

negative: global house believes united nations has failed Despite the proliferation of supranational organisations, the United Nations remains the indispensable global forum for meeting to discuss world affairs. Indeed, in a way this expansion in the number and range of international organisations is a testament to the success of the UN model. Furthermore, many international organisations work very closely with the United Nations, or even partially within its system. For example, when the International Atomic Energy Authority assesses the compliance of nations such as Iraq or Iran with the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it is to the UN Security Council that it reports. [1]  In any case, this debate is about whether or not the United Nations has failed. Even if many decisions are now taken outside the UN framework that does not reflect badly on that body.  [1] “How many times has the IAEA reported cases to the UN Security Council?”. IAEA Infolog. 15th February 2006.

negative: global middle east house would arm syrian rebels The Free Syrian Army is outgunned  The Syrian army is one of the biggest armies in the world; it is nothing like the poorly equipped Libyan army that was beaten by western backed rebels in 2011. The government has aircraft, and helicopters that are used to bomb the rebels, and heavy Russian built tanks that are impervious to most of the small arms the free Syrian army has. Providing arms would quickly even the odds; light anti-tank weapons would be effective against Syrian armoured vehicles repeating the success with which Hezbollah employed them when they knocked out sixty Israeli armoured vehicles in 2006, [1] while man portable air defence systems would quickly make the skies too dangerous for the Syrian airforce so protecting free Syrian controlled areas from the threat of attack from the air. [2]  [1] Cordesman, Anthony H., ‘Preliminary “Lessons” of the Israeli-Hezbollah War’, Center for Strategic and International Studies, 17 August 2006, P.18  [2] Doran, Michael, and Shaikh, Salman, ‘Arm the Syrian Rebels. Now’. Foreign Policy, 8 February 2013

negative: africa politics warpeace house believes african union can meet its pledge No mechanism to prevent crises and war exists  Within countries it is the state that ensures that conflict does not occur: the state has a monopoly on the use of force so ensures law and order. There is no such hierarchy between states. African nations, as with most other states in the world, believe in the sovereign right of states to manage their own affairs. In the same document as there is a pledge to end war “respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of each of its [AU’s] Member States” is reaffirmed. [1] While states are considered sovereign there is no possible way to create a mechanism to ensure that conflicts do not happen. The AU cannot dictate to its members to ensure they avoid internal conflicts even if the AU knows a conflict is coming as those members are the stakeholders. [2] All that the AU can do is react to ongoing conflicts when it is already spilling out of control and encourage good practice.  [1] African Union, 2013, p.1  [2] Williams, 2011, p.9

negative: traditions law human rights international law society family house would require The failure of rule of law  As the anthropologist and lawyer Sally Falk-Moore observed “law is only ever a piecemeal intervention by the state in the life of society.” [i]  Laws are, ultimately, social norms that are taught, enforced and arbitrated on by the state. The value of these norms is such that they are deemed to be a vital part of a society’s identity and the state is entrusted with their protection. However, this ideal can be difficult to achieve. Debate as to which norms the state should be custodian of is constant. Where there is a disconnect between a law and the daily lives, aspirations and struggles of a society, it becomes unlikely that that law will be complied with. Generally, a state will not be able to give a pronouncement the force of law if it does not reflect the values held by a majority of a society.  Compliance with the law can be even harder to obtain in highly plural societies. Even in plural societies ruled peacefully by an effective central government (such as India), communities’ conceptions of children’s rights may be radically different from those set down in law. The Indian child marriage restraint act has been in force since 1929, but the practice remains endemic in southern India to this day [ii] . Governments can attempt to enforce compliance with a law, through education, incentives or deterrence.  What if the state that is intended to mount the “piecemeal intervention” of banning the use of child soldiers is weak, corrupt or non-existent? What if a state cannot carry out structured interventions of the type described above? Norms that state that the conscription of children is acceptable- due to tradition or need- will be dominant.  Situations of this type will be the rule rather than the exception in underdeveloped states and states where conflict is so rife that children have become participants in warfare. The ICC has jurisdiction to prosecute individuals with command over military units who use children as combatants [iii] , but how should the concept of a “commander” be defined in these circumstances?  In order for the juristic principles underlying the authority of the ICC to function properly, it is necessary for there to be a degree of certainty and accessibility underlying laws promulgated by a state. While ignorance of the law is not a defence before the ICC, it impossible to call a system of law fair or just that is not overseen by a stable or accepted government. This is not possible if a state is so corrupt that it does not command the trust of its people; if a state is so poor that it cannot afford to operate an open, reliable and transparent court and advocacy system; if territory with a state’s borders is occupied by an armed aggressor. Western notions of rule-of-law are almost impossible to enforce under such conditions. All of these are scenarios encountered frequently in Africa, and central and southern Asia.  Some regions within developing nations are so isolated from the influence of the state, or so heavily contested in internecine conflicts, that communities living within them cannot be expected to know that the state nominally responsible for them has signed the Convention of the Rights of The Child or the Rome Statute. Nor can the state attempt to inform them of this fact. Laws still exist and are enforced within such communities, but these are not state-made forms of law.  For an individual living within a community of the type described above- an individual living in the DRC, in pre-secession South Sudan [iv] or an ethnic minority enclave on the border of Myanmar [v] - the question is a simple one. Does the most immediate source of authority and protection within his world- his community- condone the role that children play in armed conflict? He should not be made liable for abiding by laws and norms that have sprung up to fill a void created by a weak or corrupt central state. There is little hope that he will ever be able to access the counter-point that state sponsored education and engagement could provide.  Child soldiers and their commanders are simply obeying the strongest, the most effective and the most stable source of law in their immediate environment.  [i] “Comparative Law in a Global Context: The Legal Systems of Asia and Africa”, Werner Menski, Cambridge University Press, 2006  [ii] “State of the World’s Children 2009”, UNICEF, United Nations, 2008  [iii] “Elements of Crimes”, International Criminal Court,   [iv] “Child Soldiers: Global Report 2008”, Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, 2007, p315,   [v] “Child Soldiers: Global Report 2008”, Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, 2007, p240,

negative: The right to internet access as a fundamental right.  Internet access is a “facilitative right”, in that it facilitates access to the exercise of many other rights: like freedom of expression, information, and assembly. It is a “gateway right”. Possessing a right is only as valuable as your capacity to exercise it. A government cannot claim to protect freedom of speech or expression, and freedom of information, if it is taking away from its citizens the tools to access them. And that is exactly what the disruption of internet service does. Internet access needs to be a protected right so that all other rights which flow from it. [1]  The Internet is a tool of communication so it is important not just to individuals but also to communities. The internet becomes an outlet that can help to preserve groups’ culture or language [2] and so as an enabler of this groups’ culture access to the internet may also be seen as a group right – one which would be being infringed when the state cuts off access to large numbers of individuals.  [1] BBC, 2010. “Internet Access is ‘a Fundamental Right’".  [2] Jones, Peter, 2008. "Group Rights", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).

negative: This is ignoring both that African nations are taking a leading role in this intervention and that it is them who have asked for intervention by western states.  First of All Nigeria is going to send 600 troops, Senegal, Burkina Faso, and Togo 500 each, and Benin 300. These numbers far outweigh the 550 being sent by France and logistical support provided by other countries such as the UK and US. [1] It can therefore be said that this is an African mission.  Secondly the resolution in December did call for “coordination with the European Union and other partners”. [2] ECOWAS had already in December called for the United Nations to intervene [3] and “thanks the French Government for its initiatives to support Mali.” [4]  [1] ‘Mali: France pledges ‘short’ campaign against Islamists’, BBC News, 14 January 2013,   [2] Security Council 6898th meeting, ‘Security Council authorizes deployment of African-led international support mission in Mali for initial year-long period’, United Nations, Resolution 2085, 20 December 2012,   [3] AP, ‘ECOWAS calls for UN-backed intervention to reclaim north’, France 24, 7 August 2012,   [4] Ouédraogo, Kadre Desiré, ‘Statement of the President of the ECOWAS Commission on the Situation in Mali’, Reliefweb, 12 January 2013,

negative: global middle east house believes israel should return its pre 1967 borders Failure to withdraw blocks legitimate Palestinian aspirations to statehood.  The Palestinian people since 1967 have demonstrated through resistance to Israeli occupation their desire for an independent state of their own. [1] Throughout the years polls have consistently showed respectable Palestinian majorities in favour of a negotiated two-state settlement, which would offer them an independent state as well as allowing Israel to continue to exist as an independent state alongside the new Palestinian nation. [2] Israel's refusal to withdraw to the 1967 borders means that the majority of Palestinian people are compelled to live under the control of a state they do not wish to be a part of, a violation of their right to self-determination under international law. The 1993 Vienna Declaration, which reaffirmed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter (and so sets the standard in current international law), unequivocally gives all peoples the right to self-determination: “All people have the right to self-determination. Owing to this right they freely establish their political status and freely provide their economic, social and cultural development...World Conference on Human Rights considers refusal of the right to self-determination as a violation of human rights and emphasizes the necessity of effective realization of this right”. [3] Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said in 2006 that the pre-1967 borders uphold the “legitimate aspiration of the Palestinian people for a secure, united, democratic and economically viable state coexisting peacefully with Israel.” [4] By this measure, the Palestinian majority in the occupied territories have the right to self-determination (by democratic processes), and Israel's suppression of that right through its refusal to withdraw to the 1967 borders should be seen as a human rights violation. Consequently, Israel should withdraw to its 1967 borders in order to end its violation of the rights of the Palestinian people.  [1] BBC News. “Israeli settlements condemned by Western powers”. BBC News. 2 November 2011.   [2] Kennedy, Hugh. “The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In”. Da Capo Press. 2007.  [3] United Nations World Conference on Human Rights. “VIENNA DECLARATION AND PROGRAMME OF ACTION”. United Nations. 14-25 June 1993.   [4] Agence France-Presse, NDTV. “Brazil recognises Palestinian state on 1967 borders”. NDTV. 5 December 2010.