query: Profiling is simply institutionalizing racism an reduces minorities to the status of second class citizens  Profiling is, in the end, simply wrong. Britain suffered for decades from the ‘innocent until proven Irish’ attitude of their security forces, which did nothing but engender resentment among Irish individuals who were trying to live and work in the United Kingdom. For western nations to make the same mistake in their approach to Muslims would be the gravest folly.  Aviation authorities are, ultimately, under the control of the state, and if a government announces that they consider all members of a group to be potential criminals, it sends out a very provocative message.

positive: terrorism society minorities inequality house would use racial profiling part The use of the term “racism” suggests that assumptions made by screeners are based on prejudice, not fact. Profiling, which takes far more than race into account, has a solid basis in fact. It is entirely sensible to attempt to prevent criminal acts by being particularly cautious in the investigation of those groups and individuals that are most likely to pose a risk to other passengers.  Risking the lives of innocent passengers in the name of political correctness is simply absurd. These are measures that protect the security of thousands of passengers at the cost of minor inconvenience to a few.  Any reasonable traveller- Arab or not- would accept that there is a reason for these actions in the same way that passengers realise that delays caused by security controls and passport checks are an unavoidable nuisance in an era of routine international travel.

negative: terrorism society minorities inequality house would use racial profiling part The experience of Israel proves that profiling works  Israel has been using profiling for decades to identify those individuals at airports that should be stopped, questioned and have their luggage thoroughly checked [i] .  Despite the massive threats that Israel faces, the Israeli state does not feel the need to invade the privacy of most passengers because they simply know what and who they are looking for. This approach has meant that, despite high odds, hijackings and bombings are not the routine affairs on El Al flights that one might expect it to be.  As the focus for terrorist atrocities has now become the US and the UK, it simply makes sense to follow the example of a nation that has been such a target since its creation.  [i] “Exposing hostile intent”. SecuritySolutions.com.

negative: terrorism society minorities inequality house would use racial profiling part It is incredibly unlikely that any randomly selected member of a particular group would be attempting to commit a crime. Racial, ethnic and identity groups are extremely large. Terrorist organisations, even al Qaeda, rarely contain more than a few hundred members. The relative proportion of individuals belonging to any particular identity group who also belongs to a terrorist organisation is likely to be impossibly small.  The impact of the perceptions of the communities involved, however, would be significant, allowing for accusations of racism and persecution.  Statistically, profiling would have very little impact: in 2005, US Airlines carried 745.7 million passengers. [i] Faced with figures like that random stoppages make far more sense.  Although exact figures are not available even if just two or three million fell within the profile group, it would be impossible to search all of them. The use of profiling, however, as a result of the PATRIOT Act, led to, among others, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy being stopped; it does not and cannot work. [ii]  [i] ‘2005 Total Airline System Passenger Traffic Up 4.6 Percent From 2004’, Research and Innovative Transport Administration, 2006,   [ii] ‘Senetor? Terrorist? A Watch List Stops Kennedy at Airport’, Swarns, Rachel L., The New York Times, 20 August 2004,

negative: This motion represents an unacceptable intrusion into individual liberty  Introducing identity cards, and particularly biometric identity cards, would create a ‘Big Brother’ state where each individual is constantly being watched and monitored by the government. An identity card could potentially monitor the movements of each citizen, particularly if it had to be swiped to gain entry to buildings. Moreover, requiring the biometric information of each individual defies the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Under the status quo in the UK, biometric information is only taken during the process of creating a criminal record [1] - in short, we only take biometric data after somebody has been convicted of a crime. This motion presumes that everybody is or will become a criminal. This is obviously a huge injustice to the millions of innocent, honest and law-abiding citizens who would have their data pre-emptively taken. The need to carry this card at all times will only agitate the current problems of prejudicial stop-and-search programmes which already demonstrate bias against racial and ethnic minority groups [2] . Using such an extreme measure without due cause – as most nations are currently in peacetime – is an enormous overreaction and infringes upon individual rights.  [1] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [2] Accessed from  on 10/09/11

negative: It is these western governments themselves who define what groups are terrorist groups. They both make the definitions of terrorism and decide what groups fall into these definitions. For example the United Kingdom regarded the IRA (Irish Republican Army) as being a terrorist group while the United States did not consider them a terrorist organisation. [1] Therefore if these countries wished to deal with and provide financial aid to a new Palestinian government, even if it was the political arm of a terrorist organisation they could simply redefine it, as would almost certainly be the case if the terrorist organisation was perceived as doing something that is in the interests of these western nations.  [1]

negative: The status quo involves sending women back to the threat of persecution  Sometimes, women who are persecuted by their government end up running from their country just to be sent back from the EU when their asylum application is rejected. Under the current legal system, the problems of women from countries that implement Sharia Law and other forms of discrimination are often not considered sufficient grounds for asylum. This is because refugees are only considered to be refugees ‘owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion’, so it does not include persecution for gender. The consequences can be of two kinds. The first and the worst is sending them back home where to face harsh punishment for trying to leave. This was the case with two women who applied for asylum in Great Britain in 1997 and were denied this right even though they faced death by stoning upon return.  Even if the women are not sent home immediately due to a prolonged appeals process they are left in detention centers, in uncomfortable conditions and unable to get a job or do anything while they wait. Those who are denied entry are left with nothing only a long depressing wait to be returned to the horrible conditions from which they thought they had escaped.  Cleaver, Olivia F., ‘Women Who Defy Social Norms: Female Refugees Who Flee Islamic States and Their Fight to Fit into American Immigration Law’, Rutgers Journal of Law & Religion,   Women for Refugee Women, ‘Refused: the experiences of women denied asylum in the UK’, refugeewomen.com, 2012,   The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, ‘Convention and Protocol relating to the status of refugees’, unhcr.org, 1951,  p.14

negative: terrorism society minorities inequality house would use racial profiling part The scale of flights in Israel- both domestic and international- is tiny. Compared with the North American and European aviation markets, screening passengers entering and leaving Israeli territory requires an entirely different approach. Equally the racial diversity of Tel Aviv is quite different to New York and London.  The Pew Research Centre estimates that there are 2.6 million Muslims living in the US [i] , a number equal to twice the population of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv combined. The pressures on airports between a small state in the Middle East and the transportation hubs of the US and Europe are totally different. The very account cited by Proposition talks about some passengers being interviewed for up to half an hour, that is a rather different prospect when dealing with JFK or Heathrow. It is just not a practical solution.  [i] “The future of the global muslim population”. Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, January 2011.

negative: terrorism society minorities inequality house would use racial profiling part Profiling would have caught many of the perpetrators of terrorism in recent years.  Profiling takes account of many more characteristics than an individual’s ethnicity. Targeted checks would have caught, for example, the so called Christmas Day Bomber. Individuals who pay in cash for a one way flight while carrying no luggage, as Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab [i] did, are a fairly small group and it makes sense to target them.  Profiling is a great deal more subtle than a decision to target a single ethnic group. It is entirely possible to identify patterns in the behaviour of terrorists, drug mules and smugglers, and to respond to that accordingly.  Obviously, the more refined the profile can be, the better. It is incredibly unlikely that an affluent, Caucasian businessman with a return ticket for the following day is either a suicide bomber or a drug smuggler. Both common sense and statistics show this to be the case.  [i] “Obama vows to repair intelligence gaps behind Detroit airplane incident”. The Washington post, 30 December 2009.

negative: It is hypocritical for democratic governments to utilize surveillance technology to watch their own people while denying that technology to others  It is a fatal conceit to consider democracies somehow above the influence of using their surveillance technology to curtail the freedoms of their own citizens. The biggest customers of Western surveillance technology companies are wealthy democracies. The United Kingdom, for example, has one of the most-watched populations in the world, with a saturation of CCTV cameras far in excess of any dictatorship. [1] The PATRIOT Act in America, also, has given the federal government enormous scope for domestic spying. These powers are no less simply because the government is composed in part of elected officials. The security establishment is appointed, not elected, and their servicemen are promoted from within. It is base hypocrisy to pretend that the security systems are inherently more just when employed in democratic states than in undemocratic ones. They are used for the same purpose, to ensure that the state is protected and the status quo maintained. Democracies have no moral basis on which to base this policy.  [1] BBC News. “Britain is ‘Surveillance Society’”. 2 November 2006,

negative: Profiling is ineffective at increasing security:  Terrorists simply do not conform to a neat profile. Many suspects linked to past terrorist attacks that have been apprehended or identified come from within the United States and European Union countries. Profiling does not help against individuals with names and ethnic backgrounds like Richard Reid, Jose Padilla, David Headley and Michael Finton. [1] Many terrorists have been European, Asian, African, Hispanic, and Middle Eastern, male and female, young and old. A significant number of domestic and aspiring terrorists have been found to be “clean skins” – individuals with no prior link to known fundamentalists, who have radicalised themselves by seeking out terror related materials on the internet.  Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab was Nigerian. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, was British with a Jamaican father. Germaine Lindsay, one of the 7/7 London bombers, was Afro-Caribbean. Dirty bomb suspect Jose Padilla was Hispanic-American. The 2002 Bali terrorists were Indonesian. Timothy McVeigh was a white American, as was the Unabomber. The Chechen terrorists who blew up two Russian planes in 2004 were female. Palestinian terrorists routinely recruit 'clean' suicide bombers, and have used unsuspecting Westerners as bomb carriers. [2]  Racial profiling is a shortcut based on bias rather than evidence. Unfortunately there is no such thing as a “terrorist profile.” There was in 2005a Belgian woman who became a suicide bomber in Iraq, would profiling have picked her up? [3] It is sometimes suggested to target Muslims, reasoning that some are bound to be “radicalized.” But Islam is a global religion. Which characteristics should the security services look at to determine whether someone is a Muslim? Name? Appearance? In 2000 63% of Arab Americans were Christian and only just under a quarter were Muslim. [4]  Inevitably only certain groups will be profiled, this then leaves open the possibility that terrorist organisations will simply recruit from other ones, as Michael German (a former FBI agent) argues: “Racial profiling is also unworkable. Once aware of national profiling, terrorists will simply use people from “non-profiled” countries or origins, like FBI most-wanted Qaeda suspect Adam Gadahn, an American. What will we do? Keep adding more countries to the list of 14 until we’ve covered the whole globe?" [5]  Terrorists can easily out manoeuvre profiling systems. Profiling creates two paths through airport security: one with less scrutiny and one with more. Terrorists will then want to take the path with less scrutiny. Once a terrorist group works out the profile they will be able to get through airport security with the minimum level of screening every time. [6] Massoud Shadjareh (the chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission,) argues: " What's to stop them dressing up as orthodox Jews in order to evade profiling-based searches?" [7] Moreover, the model of security practices, including profiling, in Israel is not applicable to other Western nations, such as the United States. Terrorists that threaten Israel are from well organised local groups, and from a particular group. America on the other hand faces groups from around the world. [8] This makes profiling far more efficacious in Israel and much less so in the United States, for example.  [1] Al-Marayati, Salam. "Get the Intelligence Right". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [2] Schneier, Bruce. "Profiling Makes Us Less Safe". New York Times, Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [3] German, Michael. "Wrong and Unworkable". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [4] World Directory of Minorities, ‘Arab and other Middle Eastern Americans’,   [5] German, Michael. "Wrong and Unworkable". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [6] Schneier, Bruce. "Profiling Makes Us Less Safe". New York Times, Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [7] Sawer, Patrick. “Muslim MP: security profiling at airports is ‘price we have to pay’”. The Telegraph. 2 January 2010.   [8] Thompson, Mark. "Profiling, Political Correctness, and Airport Security." The League of Ordinary Gentleman. 29 November 2010.

negative: Broad screening at airports does make travellers safer. As Bruce Schneier, a security technologist, argues: "As counterintuitive as it may seem, we’re all more secure when we randomly select people for secondary screening — even if it means occasionally screening wheelchair-bound grandmothers and innocent looking children." [1] This is because otherwise terrorists can observe what profiles our security forces are using, by seeing who is stopped and checked more closely, and thus adapt themselves to not be caught by them. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that al-Qaeda could recruit children or the elderly to be its suicide bombers, and hence random checks are essential in order to allow us to have some chance of catching these terrorists,. If we simply resort to profiling, we will always be one step behind the terrorists and will have no chance of catching any of their operatives who fall outside the profiles.  [1] Schneier, Bruce. "Profiling Makes Us Less Safe". New York Times, Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.

negative: Causes divisions in society.  One of the most fundamental things in any democracy is equality between those in that society. Many minorities have been struggling for this equality for decades. This includes religious minorities for example between the reformation in the 16th Century and 1829 Catholics were second class citizens. [1] This demand that religious beliefs should override government laws switches things around and once again means that not everyone is equal before the law.  Moreover making it law that certain groups of people are allowed to behave in a way that other groups of people are not inevitably leads to social divisions. This means people who are unaffected by this legislation will see religious people as getting special treatment, feel side-lined by the government and see religious people as their enemy in this.  This will promote tension between religious and non-religious communities and will thus create divisions in society as well as deepening pre-existing ones.  [1] Living Heritage, ‘Religion and Belief’, parliament.uk.

negative: Profiling is effective and necessary:  It is an unavoidable fact that most terrorists today fit into certain demographics and categories, and so it is worth creating profiles of these categories and investigating more thoroughly anyone who fits into these profiles, as they are far more likely to be potential terrorists. As Asra Q. Nomani argued in 2010: "As an American Muslim, I’ve come to recognize, sadly, that there is one common denominator defining those who’ve got their eyes trained on U.S. targets: MANY of them are Muslim—like the Somali-born teenager arrested Friday night for a reported plot to detonate a car bomb at a packed Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in downtown Portland, Oregon. We have to talk about the taboo topic of profiling because terrorism experts are increasingly recognizing that religious ideology makes terrorist organizations and terrorists more likely to commit heinous crimes against civilians, such as blowing an airliner out of the sky. Certainly, it’s not an easy or comfortable conversation but it’s one, I believe, we must have." [1]  This resolution would not require the targeting of all Muslims, but rather those who meet further profile characteristics. As Dr Shaaz Mahboob, of British Muslims for Secular Democracy, said in 2010: "We have seen that certain types of people who fit a certain profile – young men of a particular ethnic background – have been engaged in terror activities, and targeting this sort of passenger would give people a greater sense of security. Profiling has to be backed by this type of statistical and intelligence-based evidence. There would be no point in stopping Muslim grandmothers." [2] Profiles would be compiled and acted on using a range of information, not just details of passengers’ ethic and racial backgrounds. Information about passengers is already voluntarily provided so this information can be used to eliminate the 60-70% of passengers who are of negligible risk.. State-of-the art screening technologies could then be applied to the remaining pool of passengers, for which less information is known. As a consequence, these individuals may be subjected to the highest level of security screening, and in some cases, prevented from flying. [3]  Philip Baum, editor of Aviation Security International, argues: "I have been an ardent supporter of passenger profiling for many years. It is the only solution that addresses the problems of the past as well as those of the future. The problem is the word “profiling” itself, as it conjures up negative connotations. A traveler’s appearance, behavior, itinerary and passport are factors to consider in effective profiling. Effective profiling is based on the analysis of the appearance and behavior of a passenger and an inspection of the traveler’s itinerary and passport; it does not and should not be based on race, religion, nationality or color of skin. We need an intelligent approach to aviation security that deploys common sense to the security checkpoint. We require highly trained, streetwise, individuals who can make risk assessments of passengers as they arrive at the airport and determine which technology should be used for screening." [4]  Intelligent, well designed and responsive profiling systems study passenger’s behavior in-situ in addition to their background and appearance. Police officers and security camera operators can be trained to recognize signs of nervous or apprehensive behavior that passengers might exhibit. Brigitte Gabriel, founder and president of ACT! for America, said in December of 2009: "We're not talking only about profiling Muslims. We need to take a lesson from the Israelis. When you go through security checkpoints in Tel Aviv airport, you have very highly trained screeners. Someone who is about to carry on a terrorist attack acts nervous, acts suspicious [under such scrutiny]." [5] Profiling would probably have picked up on would-be Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who notably paid for his ticket in cash, did not have any checked luggage, had booked a one-way ticket to the United States, and claimed he was coming to a religious ceremony. [6] Together, these actions are extremely suspicious and it would have been correct, justified and indeed prudent for airport security to have investigated him on the basis that he met the profile of a possible terrorist. It was only later luck which meant that he was caught instead of succeeding in his attack, all on the basis of the absence of security profiling – fully eight years after the 9/11 attacks.  Passenger profiling has a record of success in Israel. As Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, argues: "No country has better airport security than Israel – and no country needs it more, since Israel is the most hated target of Islamic extremist terrorists. Yet, somehow, Israeli airport security people don't have to strip passengers naked electronically or have strangers feeling their private parts. Does anyone seriously believe that we have better airport security than Israel? Is our security record better than theirs? 'Security' may be the excuse being offered for the outrageous things being done to American air travelers, but the heavy-handed arrogance and contempt for ordinary people that is the hallmark of this [G. W. Bush] administration in other areas is all too apparent in these new and invasive airport procedures. [...] What do the Israeli airport security people do that American airport security does not do? They profile. They question some individuals for more than half an hour, open up all their luggage and spread the contents on the counter - and they let others go through with scarcely a word. And it works.” [7] Therefore until such security resources are used appropriately, we will never achieve a secure air transportation system, and terrorism and its awful human consequences will remain a constant threat and fear.  [1] Nomani, Asra Q. "Airport Security: Let's Profile Muslims". The Daily Beast. 29 November 2010.   [2] Sawer, Patrick. “Muslim MP: security profiling at airports is ‘price we have to pay’”. The Telegraph. 2 January 2010.   [3] Jacobson, Sheldon H. "The Right Kind of Profiling". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [4] Baum, Philip . "Common Sense Profiling Works." New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [5] Groening, Chad. “U.S. airport security - 'profiling' a must”. OneNewsNow. 31 December 2009.   [6] Groening, Chad. “U.S. airport security - 'profiling' a must”. OneNewsNow. 31 December 2009.   [7] Sowell, Thomas. "Profiling at airports works for Israel". The Columbus Dispatch. 24 November 2010.

negative: Profiling will increase terrorism not combat it:  Profiling alienates groups needed in the fight against terrorism. Treating all Muslims as suspects, or being perceived as such, undermines efforts to gain intelligence on terrorists. Profiling the very communities we need information from to catch terrorists would be counter-productive as they would be less inclined to come forward. Umar Abdul-Muttallab’s father for example gave us such information to prevent the Dec. 25 terror plot. [1] Even if security profiling did make airport security more effective as supporters claim (although it would not) without personal intelligence and assistance the security situation will be far worse than it is now.. Normal security screening does not alienate these groups in the same way, as it is applied to everyone (and so they do not feel singled out) and it can be applied in culturally sensitive ways (for example, ensuring that pat-downs of Muslim women are always carried out only by female security officers). [2]  Profiling also gives terrorists a justification for their acts. As Michael German argues: "when we abandon our principles, we not only betray our values, we also run the risk of undermining international and community support for counterterrorism efforts by providing an injustice for terrorists to exploit as a way of justifying further acts of terrorism." [3] In general profiling contributes to an environment of fear and insecurity, in which some communities feel victimized and others feel under constant threat, leading to even more tensions and an increased risk of violence on either side. Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said in December of 2009 after the Christmas Day Bomber incident: "While everyone supports robust airline security measures, racial and religious profiling are in fact counterproductive and can lead to a climate of insecurity and fear." [4] True success in preventing terrorism will require the active co-operation of Muslim communities, both at home and abroad, in identifying and isolating terrorist suspects and training groups. This cannot be achieved if it is perceived that the West regards all Muslims as terrorist suspects. The distinction which almost all Muslims currently see between themselves and the violent jihadis of the terrorist networks should be fostered, rather than sending the opposite message by implying we cannot tell the difference, or even that we believe there is no difference between them. For this reason, instituting security profiling at airports would be counter-productive, and thus should not be done.  [1] Al-Marayati, Salam. "Get the Intelligence Right". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [2] Schneier, Bruce. "Profiling Makes Us Less Safe". New York Times, Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [3] German, Michael. "Wrong and Unworkable". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [4] Groening, Chad. “U.S. airport security - 'profiling' a must”. OneNewsNow. 31 December 2009.

negative: Profiling is preferable to the alternatives:  Expanding the use of profiling will help to restrict the use of invasive security monitoring strategies such as body scanners and intimate, full contact pat-downs. Body-scanning and patting-down all travelers, including older disabled men and women, is an excessive, expensive and humiliating approach to passenger safety.  Many civil rights groups in addition to consumer’s rights organizations and air-travel business analysts feel very strongly that invasive security procedures violates passengers’ privacy. Profiling those individuals that are a real potential threat is a good way to avoid these problems. As Thomas Sowell argues, proponents of invasive pat-downs and body scanners “would rather have scanners look under the clothes of nuns than to detain a Jihadist imam for questioning." [1]  Alternatives to profiling are far more invasive and likely to be more offensive to Muslims than profiling would be. With broad screening of all travelers for example there is likely to be less security as security resources are directs onto people who are not a threat so offending everybody rather than just a tiny minority. For each search of a passenger who a profiler would regard as highly unlikely to engage in violent activity in plane or an airport , there is a near-negligible impact on security attention and resources. However, when this impact is accumulated over the millions of passengers who fly each year, the effect does indeed become measurable. In essence, by spending billions of dollars on scrutinizing the wrong people, security forces are depleting a reserve of resources that could be spent in screening passengers who are materially more likely to constitute a threat. [2]  Broad screening also creates long lines of people awaiting security at airports. Not only does blanket screening reduce the efficiency of airport operations, impacting on the profits of airlines and the businesses that contract with them, security queues themselves could become targets for terrorists, for example through suicide bombings designed to kill an airplane’s worth of passengers before they even get through security. By definition, pat-downs and body scanners cannot prevent such a threat (indeed they add to them by creating long lines), but profiling can, by picking up on suspicious individuals from the moment they enter the airport, or even from when they book their tickets. [3] Profiling also rightly shifts the security focus from cargo to people. Better knowing who is flying allows security forces to know which cargo (luggage) they do need to or do not need to investigate for explosives or drugs, instead of having to search all or do (ineffective) random checks. [4] Therefore security profiling is preferable to the alternatives of body scans and invasive pat-downs, both in terms of security efficacy and also in terms of sensitivity to travelers.  [1] Sowell, Thomas. "Profiling at airports works for Israel". The Columbus Dispatch. 24 November 2010.   [2] Jacobson, Sheldon H. "The Right Kind of Profiling". New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [3] Baum, Philip . "Common Sense Profiling Works." New York Times Room for Debate. 4 January 2010.   [4] Sela, Rafi. "Multilayered Security". New York Times, Room for Debate. 4 January 4 2010.

negative: Profiling is consistent with individual rights:  Profiling is not about demonizing people or violating their rights. As Mark Farmer argues: "It still amazes me how words can be so quickly demonized, so the very mention of the word causes irrational outrage. “Profile” doesn’t mean baseless discrimination against a certain nationality or race — in this case, it means judging people at airports by set of criteria which raise a red flag." [1]  Profiling, by making security more effective, would in fact better safeguard everyone’s rights. Khalid Mahmood, a Muslim Labour MP for Birmingham, argues: "I think most people would rather be profiled than blown up. It wouldn't be victimisation of an entire community. I think people will understand that it is only through something like profiling that there will be some kind of safety. If people want to fly safely we have to take measures to stop things like the Christmas Day plot. Profiling may have to be the price we have to pay. The fact is the majority of people who have carried out or planned these terror attacks have been Muslims.” [2]  The state has a duty to protect its citizens by ensuring that its security apparatus is effective and adaptable, even if this means running afoul of political correctness and the rights of those individuals affected. According to Michael Reagan, president of The Reagan Legacy Foundation: "Political correctness killed innocent people at Fort Hood, an Army base in Texas, when Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan gunned down 13 people and wounded many others despite the fact that his fellow officers were aware of his attachment to radical Islamism and all that it implied. It is the same political correctness that is stopping us today from doing what we truly need to be doing at airports and other public places: profiling all passengers." [3] As long as there is a net benefit to everyone of increased security, then individual rights are actually better protected, as everyone who travels has a greater chance of not being blown up.  The state should accord a higher priority- when balancing the competing rights claims of citizens- to policies and powers that protect individuals from terrorist attacks than to protecting citizens from the transient feelings of victimisation and isolation that result from profiling. The harm that results from failing to uphold the former is much, much greater than the harm that would attach to the later.  Therefore the state should protect the individual rights of its citizens by ensuring that they are protected first –by instituting security profiling at airports.  [1] Reagan, Michael. "Profiling is answer for U.S. airport security." Athens Banner-Herald. 27 November 2010.   [2] Sawer, Patrick. “Muslim MP: security profiling at airports is ‘price we have to pay’”. The Telegraph. 2 January 2010.   [3] Reagan, Michael. "Profiling is answer for U.S. airport security." Athens Banner-Herald. 27 November 2010.

negative: If terrorists were really unintelligent and unimaginative enough to be beaten by such a blunt tool as security profiling, we would have been able to stop them long ago and would not have the difficult security situation we do now. Rather, if we introduce invasive security profiling similar to the procedures used in Israeli airports, terrorists will simply adapt their methods in order to circumvent it. Terrorists will recruit from different, non-profiled groups. They will alter their dress and train their operatives to act differently.  With respect to American air transportation, al-Qaeda already appears to be changing its tactics in response to the stricter screening and checking processes introduced by the Department for Homeland Security: since 9/11, two attempted attacks on US aviation involved a non-Arab Nigerian and a Briton with the last name of “Reid.” [1]  Terrorists can adapt in countless ways which will render security profiling not only useless but also counter-productive. Innocent men and women who fit the profiles designed by the security services are subjected to further scrutiny when passing through airports. In American airports, they are frequently removed from queues by TSA officials, segregated from other passengers and exposed to close contact body searches. Prima facie, these individuals will understand that they have been singled out because of their race or religion. This does nothing to address or rebut religious radicals’ attempts to portray America as inherently racist and imperialist, and its foreign policy as arbitrary and cynical. The resolution may serve to alienate migrant communities that could otherwise provide valuable intelligence to the security services. Members of these communities will be less likely to voice their concerns if they feel that the authorities will use the information they provide to justify further summary searches and interrogations of air passengers.  Moreover, an Israeli-style profiling system would simply not be scalable to the volume of passengers passing through major airports in America or other countries larger than Israel. As Mark Thompson argues: "I think it’s pretty clear that the reason a “profiling” system would not work and indeed has not been attempted in the US is that it’s not scalable. Israel has one major airport, which by US standards would only be “mid-sized.” Yet look at the security line at that airport, which is more befitting of Newark or Atlanta than it is of Pittsburgh or St. Louis. A good profiling system is labour-intensive in a way that our system simply does not have the capacity to implement, and would unacceptably undermine the numerous sectors of our economy that rely heavily on air transportation. And this says nothing of the direct economic costs of appropriately training and paying security officers charged with conducting the profiling. Nor, as the article above suggests, does it say anything about eliminating the bureaucratic infighting and secrecy amongst American intelligence agencies in a manner that would allow tens of thousands of airport security personnel access to the intelligence necessary to adequately do their jobs." [2]  [1] Thompson, Mark. "Profiling, Political Correctness, and Airport Security." The League of Ordinary Gentleman. 29 November 2010.   [2] Thompson, Mark. "Profiling, Political Correctness, and Airport Security." The League of Ordinary Gentleman. 29 November 2010.

negative: The first problem with this argument is that it assumes that illegal immigrants are easily identifiable without a driver’s license. It is not like illegal immigrants walk around with a giant red sign that says “Potential Security Threat” at present, and that when we give them licenses they will finally get to put down their signs.  On this basis, the security risk presented by this policy is minimal. Moreover, for what security risk might exist, it is very easily mitigated or gotten rid of all together. For example, if identification is needed for access to something that is vulnerable to security threat, it is very easy for the government or relevant officials to say that the only sufficient form of ID is a passport instead of a license, due to the risk people may pose.  The additional harms identified by side opposition are the result of service providers’ discriminatory practices. Federal and state race equality laws prevent businesses and government employees from refusing service to individuals based on their physical characteristics or ethnicity. Therefore, official discrimination cannot exist. At best, this will simply be soft discrimination.

negative: The state should never allow mob mentality to govern its policies and specifically should never let prejudice of its people allow the state to let exploitation and abuse of human beings go unaddressed. This resentment and assumption that all Hispanics are illegal immigrants leeching from the state is something that is already a perception that permeates US thought. This policy will at worst marginally increase that sentiment, and even if it does, the state has a duty to ignore blind hate and not let it drive state policy.

negative: Internment without trial fails to make society safer.  Giving the government the power to detain suspects without due process of law will not in fact make society any safer. The proposition's arguments rely upon the accuracy of secret intelligence, which supposedly identifies individuals planning terrorist acts, but which cannot be revealed in open court. Past examples suggest that such intelligence is often deeply flawed. For example, when internment was introduced in Northern Ireland in 1971 over 100 of the 340 original detainees were released within two days when it was realised much of the Special Branch intelligence that had been used to identify them was incorrect 1. Recent intelligence failures in the campaign against Al-Qaeda point to the difficulties western intelligence services have in penetrating and understanding non-white groups, while intelligence on Iraq's weapons programmes was also clearly flawed. So not only will many of the wrong people be unjustly locked up, many dangerous ones will be left at liberty.  1 West, C. (2002, January 2). Internment: methods of interrogation. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from BBC News:

negative: An ethnic or religious difference from the rulers of one’s country is not a sufficient condition to necessitate independence. It is perfectly possible for example to be a Muslim in a predominantly Christian country, or someone of Irish heritage living in England, without calling for a separate "state within a state". Not just any minority group deserves to have its call for sovereign independence recognised. There have to be additional and better reasons, other than a simple difference in ethnicity or cultural heritage if a people are to ground a valid claim for sovereign independence.

negative: europe politics government local government house believes northern ireland Unification would reignite civil disorder and violent factionalism among Irish communities  As shown above, the Northern Irish don’t want to unite with the Republic. The Irish in the Republic will also resent the new drain on their economy. Either the Republican parties in Ireland will resent having to concede some power to new political entities or the Unionists will resent being marginalized. The recent reoccurrence of violence in Belfast is being attributed to the breakdown of protestant communities and low job prospects for young protestants. Both of these problems will be exacerbated in a majority Catholic Ireland. All of these examples illustrate how unrest is likely to breakout again in a united Ireland.

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: americas europe global middle east politics politics general house would Turkey would be an unstable Muslim state in a traditionally Christian union  Turkey’s citizens may be Muslims, but the state is as firmly secular as France in terms of its constitution and government. The new Justice and Development Party (AK) which is currently in government is not seeking to overturn the secular constitution, although it does want to amend some laws that positively discriminate against devout Muslims. These include rules such as the ban on women wearing headscarves in government buildings; restrictions on expressing religious belief which would break human rights laws within the EU.  Regardless of one's beliefs surrounding Turkey's possible ascension to the European Union, the fact that the nation's predominant religion is Islam is surely not one of the issues to be considered. Millions of Muslims already live within the EU; excluding Turkey from membership on the grounds of religion would suggest these European Muslims were second-class citizens in a Christian club. It would also presumably rule out future EU entry for Albania, Bosnia and Kosovo. If the EU is to be regarded as an institution that promotes freedom for the citizens of its member states then surely this also means that it promotes freedom of religion. If EU member states are fearful of building closer relations with Islam, which they will inevitably have to, proceeding with the world's most moderate and 'western' Islamic country is the most logical first step. The EU should welcome a state which could provide a positive example of how Islam is completely compatible with democracy, progress and human rights.

negative: If anything, this is a reason to introduce better police training, not to abandon the concept of identity cards altogether. An unfortunate fact is that immigrants, who often come from poor backgrounds or have low levels of education, are more statistically likely to be involved in crime [1] . This ‘disproportionate’ [2] level of crime among immigrants provides a reason for the seemingly disproportionate targeting of minority groups by police authorities.  [1] Accessed from  on 10/09/11.  [2] Accessed from  on 10/09/11.

negative: Hate crime enhancements can help emphasize tolerance and inter-community relations  Hate crime laws can teach society that hatred is highly condemnable and mould society into a streak away from racism, sexism, etc. Most governments have already taken this turn with the advent of segregation laws, discrimination laws, etc. To simply leave these issues unaddressed would be to make many communities, especially minority communities, feel that their grievances were ignored and that the state allowed discrimination and violence against them. Such feelings would further polarize communities against each other and make racial tensions and further hate crimes more likely.  Therefore hate crime enhancements should be maintained as a way for the state to send a message that it desires tolerance and will not allow crimes based on prejudice to stand un-addressed.

negative: The islanders are the only ones who can decide.  It is the Falkland Islanders themselves who have to decide whose sovereignty they should fall under; British, Argentine or even potentially their own. The Falkland Islands are a democracy with a democratically elected Legislative Assembly and Executive Council (made from members of the Legislative Assembly). Similarly it has its own courts. The self-determination of the islanders is prominent in their constitution. [1] The Falklands have therefore been recognised by the British government as a nation just like the Scots, Welsh and Irish. This means that the decision on any change of sovereignty in the future will be up to the islanders alone to make. [2]  It is no longer up to Britain to simply cede the islands even if they wanted to.  [1] The Falkland Islands Constitution Order 2008, Statutory Instruments, 2008 no. 0000,   [2] Ivanov, Lyubomir, ‘The Future Of The Falkland Islands And Its People’, February 2003,

negative: Protecting sovereignty  The international community should respect the sovereignty of developing nations. Side proposition has attempted to mischaracterise states in receipt of aid as undemocratic, authoritarian, kleptocratic or Hobbesian wastelands. Side proposition has done precious little to acknowledge that many states that are reliant on ODA are functioning or emerging democracies. Kenya, despite its growing wealth and increasing trade with Asian states still makes extensive use of aid donations. In 2012 Kenya will hold elections for seats in its national legislature – its first since a presidential election degenerated into political violence in 2007. However, even this extended period of civil disorder was brought to an end when the main contenders in the presidential ballot agreed a power sharing deal – a peaceful compromise that has now been maintained for almost five years [i] .  Reducing government aid to developing democracies prevents these states from allocating aid in accordance with their citizens’ wishes. In the world created by the resolution, aid distribution will be carried out by foreign charities that may have objectives and normative motives at odds with the aspirations of a government and its citizens. There is a risk that governments will abandon heterodox or non-liberal approaches to democracy in an effort to obtain tools and support from NGOs that they would otherwise be unable to afford. State actors will be placed in a position where any action they take will entail a significant sacrifice of political authority. A state that capitulates readily to the demands of a foreign NGO will not be seen as a robust representative of the national political will; it will be considered weak. Similarly, a state that refuses to accepting funding or the donations of new infrastructure materials will be forced to deal with the consequences of prolonged fiscal and economic deprivation within its borders.  NGOs are, as a general rule undemocratic, unaccountable interest groups. Like any other private organisation, they are not bound by the transparency and freedom of information regimes that western governments have submitted to. In many states, especially India, NGOs are subject to less regulation and less stringent accounting requirements than for-profit businesses. The American or European origins of the wealthiest NGOs, along with the large numbers of western professionals that they employee make auditing and judicial supervision of their activities difficult for poorer states. It can be complicated and expensive to challenge international conflicts in private law regimes; it can be equally complicated for new governments to renege on agreements that their predecessors may have concluded with NGOs.  Popular concern about the safety of western citizens working for NGOs in foreign states can lead to unbearable diplomatic pressure being applied to governments that attempt to discipline organisations that exceed the authority they have been granted or adopt a lax attitude to national laws or social taboos. An attempt by a French charity to evacuate one hundred and three children from Chad to Europe was subject to wide spread criticism [ii] when it emerged that the charity had produced fake visas for the children and had attempt to conceal the operation from Chadian authorities. The charity had previously published press material that contained open admissions that it was acting without the support of any national government or international organisation. Nonetheless, the French government attempted to influence the outcome of the criminal investigation that was mounted against the Charity’s workers [iii] .  The resolution would remove control over development policy from emergent representative institutions created at great financial and political cost. The resources and political capital normally bound up in ODA would then be transferred to NGOs that may be less accountable than national governments, that may sow conflict within divided communities, and may act unilaterally and without respect for the laws of aid receiving states. The message that the resolution would communicate is directly contradictory to the ethos of responsible, accountable and democratic intervention in marginalised or failing states that has underlain the last twenty years of development policy.  [i] “Deal to end Kenyan crisis agreed.” BBC News Online. 12 April 2008.   [ii] “Profile: Zoe’s Ark.” BBC News Online. 29 October 2007.   [iii] “’Families weren’t duped’, Zoe’s Ark duo tell court.” Sydney Morning Herald. 24 December 2007.

negative: Governments already have the majority of this information through passport applications [1] , social security numbers [2] and so on, without enormous objections by the public. Moreover, many have called for increased security since the rise of terrorist attacks [3] and comply with increased security at places like airports. This isn’t pre-emptively condemning people for criminal activity; it is, like all other security checks, a routine check to enhance the safety of the general population. There is not reason not to identify with that as a common aim.  [1] Accessed from  on 10/09/11  [2] Accessed from  on 10/09/11.  [3] Accessed from  on 10/09/11.

negative: Minimum mandatory sentences are unjust.  In the United States, federal minimum sentences for narcotics-related offences have forced judges on countless occasions to deliver sentences of 20 year, 30 years, or even life imprisonment to offenders that were tangentially connected to the offense. Often, such offenders are low-income young adults that turn to drug sales for a month or two out of desperation. [1] Sometimes defendants find themselves entangled in drug busts because they are living with family members that are involved in the drug trade. [2] In a well-publicized case, Weldon Angelos was sentenced to 55 years in prison for selling marijuana because he was also in possession of a firearm. [3] All criminals are not the same; there are significant differences in the level of threat that individuals pose to society, as well as the likelihood of rehabilitation. Rigid mandatory sentences are unjust because they inevitably lead to numerous cases of disproportionate punishment. These harsh punishments consequently have disastrous impacts on the individuals, as well as their family and community.  [1] “DeJarion Echols,” Profiles of Injustice, Families Against Mandatory Minimums.  [2] “Hamedah Hasan,” Profiles of Injustice, Families Against Mandatory Minimums.  [3] “Weldon Angelos,” Profiles of Injustice, Families Against Mandatory Minimums.

negative: Intelligence agencies inflate threats.  Having domestic intelligence agencies creates suspicion and fear, and ultimately resentment. Domestic intelligence agencies are created in response to war and external threats, for example MI5 was created in the build up to world war one, and Australia’s intelligence service was created in response to the discovery of a soviet spy ring within the Australian government. [1] Having any such service involved in more than simply counter-intelligence against foreign services shows that the government does not trust its own people. The United States has until very recently not had a domestic intelligence exactly because it was considered that the FBI could do everything that was required without creating undue suspicion. Bureaucracies inflate threats so as to gain more resources, MI5 is a good example, it was given more resources than it needed to engage in counterintelligence against Germany so expanded its role to surveillance of elements such as pacifists and organised labour. [2] More recently the head of MI5 announced there were 1600 Britons plotting terror, which may simply be threat inflation, something which not only makes everyone fearful for no reason. [3] An agency which is equally focused on criminal investigation would have much less reason to inflate dangers in order to maintain or increase funding.  [1] Jackson, Brian a. ed., ‘Considering the Creation of a Domestic Intelligence Agency in the United States’, Rand, 2009,  p.15  [2] Wikipedia, ‘MI5’,   [3] Kayyem, Juliette, and Posner, Richard A., ‘Does the United States Need a Domestic Intelligence Agency?’ CFR, 17 November 2006,

negative: This ‘climate of fear’ would only apply to those who know that what they are looking for is wrong. For these people if it does create a climate of fear then this is beneficial as it helps to create deterrence. Government would only be monitoring those it already suspects of extremism so ordinarily law abiding citizens need not be worried about surveillance as it will not affect them.

negative: global politics defence warpeace house would create un standing army A U.N. standing army does not render the United Nations a de facto state, for the army would still be under the authority of the Security Council and therefore subject to the will and control of its sitting members. As such, a standing army does not qualitatively alter the decision-making process which is the foundation for the moral authority of the United Nations and its ability to broker peace agreements. The decision to deploy troops will still have to be ultimately authorized by the UN Security Council; the only development being that the force will be both quicker to deploy, averting humanitarian catastrophes, and more effective, due to group cohesion, in its actions 1. The institutional restraints of the General Assembly vote and Security Council veto would remain as a leash on the use of any standing army, with the proviso that once unleashed, the UN would be both quicker and more effective in its use of force to implement security council mandates.  1. Johansen, R. C. (2006). A United Nations Emergency Peace Service to Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity.p.26


query: An ICC enforcement arm would be highly detrimental to the relations between the ICC and state parties  Currently the ICC functions based on a relationship of trust and understanding with the state parties to the ICC – a bottom-up rather than a top-down approach. This is backed up by the court’s respect for the for the principle of complementarity – it is hoped that national courts are capable of prosecuting the crimes, and the ICC only takes a role if the state is unwilling or unable to do so. Being willing to use an international force to catch criminals would make a mockery of this determination to leave power and responsibilities at the national level wherever possible.  Having ICC forces on a country’s territory would be humiliating, showing that the international community does not trust that nation to catch war criminals itself. While this model did not provide for attempting to snatch government officials who have been indicted it does leave open the possibility of an international force intruding on states sovereignty without consent. This would diplomatically backfire and could even lead to an ICC force being involved in fighting with government forces protecting their national sovereignty.

positive: crime policing international law house believes icc should have its own enforcement Those arguments are similar ones to those used against the ICC. An ICC police force, comprised of officers from individual state and supervised by an independent authority appointed by a similar mechanism to the judges, would use the existing frameworks in place for the use of the ICC. If states are happy to have their nationals indicted for international crimes then it stands to reason that these nations should welcome a force that can enforce such indictments and bring these war criminals to trial.

negative: traditions law human rights international law society family house would require The proposition understates the extent to which the needs of child soldiers are catered to by international justice bodies. The Paris Principles [i] , which are used to guide the formation and functions of national human rights organisations, state that  “3.6 Children who are accused of crimes under international law allegedly committed while they were associated with armed forces or armed groups should be considered primarily as victims of offences against international law; not only as perpetrators...  3.7 Wherever possible, alternatives to judicial proceedings must be sought, in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international standards for juvenile justice.”  Although not strictly binding, an onus is placed on bodies such as the ICC to seek alternatives to the trial process when dealing with children. (The Principles define a child as anyone less than 18 years of age).  Even where children are placed in the role of officers or recruiters, they are unlikely to be tried in the same fashion as an adult.  This leaves only the issue of social exclusion following the process of demobilisation and treatment. Many of the problems of reintegration highlighted by the proposition do not seem to be uniquely linked to ICC prosecutions. Columbian child soldiers are as likely to be perceived as threatening whether or not they have come to the attention of the ICC. The ICC does not create negative stereotypes of former child soldiers.  As noted above, it seems perverse to give military commanders an opportunity to use cultural relativism to excuse their culpability for what would otherwise be a war crime. Ranking officers are much more likely than Yemeni tribesmen or orphaned Sudanese boys to understand the intricacies of such a defence, and much more likely to abuse it. Realistically, the commanders of child solders, and the politicians who sanctioned their use are the only class of individuals pursued by the ICC.  Where the boundaries between community leader, military officer and political leader become blurred, the court will always be able to fall back on its discretion. Practically, however, this mixing of roles is only likely to be observed in marginal communities a few major conflict zones. This does not favour stepping away from established judicial practice in order to create an entirely new form of defence.  [i] “Principles and Guidelines On Children Associated With Armed Forces or Armed Groups”, International Workshop on National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, 2007,

negative: traditions law human rights international law society family house would require The ICC is not likely to target children or the leaders of marginalised communities when prosecuting the use of child soldiers. Officials of states parties who play a role in commanding and deploying military units can be held liable for failing to prevent the use of child soldiers at a local level.  If the agony of their circumstances forces a community to recruit ever younger boys into its militia, then officers, ministers or heads of state, along with the commanders of non-state actors, can be brought to trial for allowing children to be used as soldiers. This will be the case whether these individuals do so negligently or by omission. A guilty party need not engage in a positive act.  ICC prosecutors and judges exercise their discretion in order to avoid the types of injustice that the proposition describes. The lack of prosecutions relating to the ad-hoc use of child soldiers by pro-independence groups in South Sudan underlies this fact [i] .  Moreover, the ICC is bound by the principle of complementarity, an obligation to work alongside the domestic courts and legislators of the states that refer potential war crimes to the international community. If a state’s corpus of law allows for a margin of appreciation in judging the actions of isolated and endangered communities, these principles must also be reflect in the investigation and inquiries conduct by the ICC.  Complementarity enables the ICC to function with the flexibility and insight that proposition assume it lacks.  [i] “Raised by war: Child Soldiers of the Southern Sudanese Second Civil War”, Christine Emily Ryan, PhD Thesis, University of London, 2009

negative: europe politics defence leadership house favours common eu foreign policy The very creation of a common military framework has been fraught with disagreement. The UK and France have only been willing to cooperate bilaterally and outside the EU framework, within a set of nationally-framed security interests. Both states are also very traditional military powers. While some states pretend to support the creation of a credible EU military capacity, they are unwilling to contribute seriously to its construction and when faced with a crisis almost always turn to the United States for military solutions. While the EU does like to see itself as the diplomat of the world and flaunt its achievements with the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), it still ponders the possibility of a middle-of-the-road strategy of militarization and securitization. In the meanwhile, it continues to reside comfortably within the US sphere of military protection while acting as an enfant terrible who rebels against and yet continues to accept US protection. It is a contradiction to argue that the EU is both attempting to build up its military force as well as providing an alternative sense of security that does not rely on military power.

negative: Should be tried at home  The ICC recognises that a case is inadmissible where “The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a state which has jurisdiction over it”. [1] The state of which Yanukovych is a national, and where the crimes took place has precedence. Ukraine therefore has first right to try Yanukovych, indeed the ICC will only act if Ukraine is unwilling or unable to do so itself. As the crimes he is alleged to have committed took place entirely in Ukraine, over Ukrainian issues he should be tried in Ukraine. This would allow the Ukrainian people to see justice done themselves rather than relying on others to do it for them.  [1] States Parties, ‘Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’, icc-cpi.int, A/CONF.183/9 17 July 1998,  , Article 17

negative: The ICC’s widely endorsed authority extends its deterrent effects.  The ICC’s investigative and prosecutorial powers are endorsed by 122 States Parties to the Rome Statute. This broad reach and agreement not only provides a strong disincentive for individuals and groups who would attempt to evade prosecution, but also has the effect of deterring states that might otherwise ignore the Court’s authority. Furthermore, even non-member states have recognised the importance of co-operating with the Court’s investigations. In 2013, one of the most wanted war criminals, Bosco Ntaganda was forced to surrender to the ICC while hiding in Rwanda. Though a non-member state, “Rwanda's aid-dependent economy was damaged by the allegations of links to Mr Ntaganda's rebels.” [1]  [1] The Economist

negative: human rights international law politics government warpeace house would recognise The deterrent effect of the Court ensures wide-spread and equal adherence to international law.  Upon signing the Rome Statute in 1996, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan stated that 'the establishment of the Court is still a gift of hope to future generations, and a giant step forward in the march towards universal human rights and the rule of law'1. Such statements demonstrate the impact the Court could potentially have, as a body that simultaneously cherishes sovereignty and protects national courts whilst offering a means by which criminals in states unable or unwilling to prosecute will still be brought to justice. As the natural and permanent heir to the process started at Nuremberg in the wake of World War II2, the ICC ensures that the reach of law is now universal; war criminals, either in national or international courts, will be forced to trial as a result of the principle of universal jurisdiction1. The deterrent effect of such a court is obvious and a warning to those who felt they were operating in anarchic legal environments.  1 Amnesty International. (2007, September). Fact Sheet: International Criminal Court. Retrieved May 11, 2011  2 Crossland, D. (2005, November 23). Nuremberg Trials a Tough Act to Follow. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from Spiegel International

negative: crime policing international law house believes icc should have its own enforcement States are capable of their own enforcement, even in the difficult cases – for example, Radovan Karadzic was arrested by the Serbian authorities for his trial by the ICTY, and would not necessarily have been arrested faster by an outside force rather than the Serbian police. A large number of states have been pouring resources in to capturing the Lord’s Resistance Army fugitives such as Joseph Kony – if they cannot do capture him, there is no reason to believe that an ICC Police would be able to. Recently the Ugandan Army has been willing to cross borders to chase Kony, so far with little to show for it. [1]  [1] Van Woudenberg, Anneke, ‘How to Catch Joseph Kony’, Human Rights Watch, 9 March 2012,

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: ICC is controlled by the Security Council  The ICC can only investigate situations that are referred to it by either the host country, or the Security Council [1] . A power also exists for the prosecutor to seek investigation, though this has as yet only been used twice. As such, most atrocities that occur across the world are shielded from prosecution because such a prosecution would be against the interests of a member Security Council. Leaders do not seem to be brought for investigation until they offend the west; Charles Taylor was not prosecuted until he had a falling out with the USA, despite their soft support for him in overthrowing the Doe regime [2] . Another case in point is Uganda where the Lord’s Resistance Army has been charged, but not the Pro-US government forces, despite evidence existing they have also committed crimes [3] . It is clear then that the ICC makes decisions by broad external factors, which biases it against Africa which does not have any countries on the UNSC or any patrons sitting on the council.  [1] States parties to Rome Statute, ‘Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’, ICC, 2011  [2] ‘Charles Taylor – preacher, warlord, president’, BBC News, 13 July 2009  [3] ‘ICC, A Tool To Recolonise Africa’, African Business

negative: Does Yanukovych really qualify for the ICC?  It is questionable whether Yanukovych’s crimes, as abhorrent as they may be, really qualify for the ICC. It is clear that he does not qualify for three of the four crimes the ICC charges; genocide, war crimes, and the crime of aggression (this is for attacking other states not your own people). This leaves crimes against humanity. Crimes against humanity can include murder when “committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population” [1] so the ICC will need to decide whether less than 100 dead is widespread and grave enough to justify the charge – and this is something that is up to the prosecutor. [2] Moreover as yet we don’t know if Yanukovych himself was directly responsible for ordering attacks on the protesters in the last couple of days before the fall of his government.  [1] States Parties, ‘Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’, icc-cpi.int, A/CONF.183/9 17 July 1998,  , Article 7  [2] Kersten, 2014,

negative: Africa has invited ICC intervention  Far from the ICC being biased against Africa it is Africa’s embrace of the ICC and the opportunity for international justice that has led to so many Africans being tried at the Hague. The reality is that the only nations to refer themselves to the ICC have been African –the DR Congo, Central African Republic, Mali and Uganda were all self-referred [1] . Likewise, the Ivory Coast referred itself to ICC jurisdiction, and referral of Darfur to the ICC from the Security Council was done so with the African Union’s support [2] . The ICC has clearly not as an institution been targeting Africa, rather it has been investigating, and then engaging in trials on situations that have been brought to it by the countries involved. Other regions of the world have not embraced the opportunity for justice in the same way so it is taking longer for investigations into war crimes in those situations by the ICC.  [1] Clark, P. “Law, Politics and Pragmatism: The ICC and case selection in the DRC and Uganda” in Justice Peace and the ICC in Africa at 37.  [2] Lamony, Stephen A., ‘Is the International Criminal Court really picking on Africa?’, African Arguments, 16 April 2013

negative: americas middle east house believes us and israel should join international It took nearly two years for the ICC to launch an investigation into atrocities in the Central African Republic. This has helped defeat the argument that it would be faster than the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and International Tribunal for Rwanda were. So far being indicted by the ICC has had little impact; for example it failed to prevent the election of Uhuru Kenyatta, who is currently facing trial by the ICC for crimes against humanity, as President of Kenya.  The ICC is also hamstrung by its inability to capture defendants itself. It can only do so with the co-operation of its member states.  The US and Israel have nothing to gain from membership, and everything to lose in terms of being on the receiving end of politically motivated and abusive prosecutions.

negative: ICC treats Africa differently  Africa and its leaders are treated far more contemptuously by the court. The prospect of prosecuting Barak Obama for the killing of civilians by drones which Amnesty International has suggested amount to war crimes [1] or George W. Bush for war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan is remote – yet Omar Al-Bashir and Uhuru Kenyatta have both been indicted as sitting leaders. The ICC will only prosecute if those who have committed war crimes are not going to be prosecuted locally but this is as much the case for western leaders as African ones. This points clearly to the ICC proselytizing what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to Africans but not to other leaders – treating these leaders less respectfully and blatantly undermining African nations sovereignty in a way they would not, or would dare not, for others.  [1] ‘USA must be held to account for drone killings in Pakistan’, Amnesty International, 22 October 2013

negative: Justice is more than just a road to peace; it is a goal of its own. [1]  For most African states this should not be a cause to leave the ICC as they are unaffected by ICC indictments affecting a peace process. Even for those whom it does affect it is only transitory until a solution is reached. Such concerns moreover could be better dealt with by ensuring that the ICC puts in place a mechanism that recognises that in some instances peace can come first.  [1] Human Rights Watch, “Perceptions and realities: Kenya and the International Criminal Court”, hrw.org, 14 November 2011,

negative: There are numerous checks that limit the power of the prosecutor and regulate the ICC's operations.  There are numerous checks outlined in the Rome Statute that limit the power of the prosecutor, eliminating any concerns of abuse. For example, Article 7 clearly defines what a crime against humanity is, and other types of crimes are extensively defined in the statute. Second, the ICC is allowed to step in only if the national government fails to prosecute criminals, meaning that it will never have to step in and exercise its power as long as countries are doing their jobs domestically, checking its jurisdiction. Third, there are multiple chambers that check each other; for example, the pre-trial chamber makes sure that the prosecutor has enough evidence before proceeding. Fourth, there are 18 judges from differing impartial backgrounds, ultimately making the ICC objective. Other checks can be found upon closer examination of the Rome Statute.1 Moreover, empirically, the prosecutor has not excessively punished any leader, so claims of abuse have yet to show true in the real world. Trials have been dismissed on the grounds of not having sufficient evidence, etc., so the ICC does not have unlimited power.  1 United Nations. "Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court." 2002. Accessed 14 August 2011.

negative: Detriment to peace process  The ICC has not been particularly effective in dealing with the situation in Uganda, the ICC prosecutions having been a distraction to local community reconciliation and leading to further violence [1] .  Similarly, the situation in Darfur has not been helped by ICC involvement, with mass destruction of villages by people already indicted by the International Criminal Court [2] . Due to his indictment, a diplomatic solution has become harder as Rome Statute signatories are under a legal duty to arrest Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir, although many have just ignored this. [3]  [1] Sinclair, Jessical, “The International Criminal Court in Uganda”, Undergraduate Transitional Justice Review, 2010,   [2] Human Rights Watch, “Sudan: Satellite images confirm villages destroyed”, hrw.org, June 18 2013,   [3] Cooper, Belinda, “The ICC: The Politics of Criticism”, World Policy Journal, 4 December 2013,

negative: The ICC indictment undermines democracy  Uhuru Kenyatta is a sitting president of a democratic nation. This means that he was elected by the people to serve them. By indicting a sitting leader, you undermine their ability to rule the country as they will be forced to spend long periods outside their country focusing on something that is irrelevant to the governance of their country. The ICC has demanded that Kenyatta and Ruto attend the trial in person. [1] By forcing the President and Deputy President to spend long hours away from the country involved in a trial the ICC is effectively disenfranchising the people who voted from him to be their leader. Further, Kenyatta is first and foremost accountable to the Kenyan people, who have chosen him as leader despite these claims. It is clearly unwelcome interference by the ICC for the court to take the President away from his duties.  [1] Statement by ICC, ‘Kenyatta case: ICC Trial Chamber V(b) reviews decision on presence of accused at trial’, whereiskenya.com, 27 November 2013,

negative: The reason western leaders have not been indicted is firstly, because their domestic judiciaries are strong and independent enough to be able to prosecute abuses when they occur. The ICC has a principle of complementarity where the ICC will only prosecute if the state themselves are unwilling or unable to prosecute. This is not the case in western countries where there is no difficulty putting members of government on trial – in the UK for example the environment secretary Chris Huhne was sent to prison for perverting the course of justice. [1] Secondly however, there is no evidence that these leaders were involved or responsible for atrocities in the same way the African leaders were. Western leaders have not authorized individual killings of civilians, or massacres, genocides or other crimes that are prosecuted by the ICC.  [1] Mr Justice Sweeney, ‘Chris Huhne and Vicky Price jailed: judge’s sentencing remarks in full’, The Telegraph, 11 March 2013

negative: human rights international law politics government warpeace house would recognise The ICC does not offer lasting peace to victims, but can instead re-open old wounds. 'It is by no means clear that 'justice' as defined by the Court and Prosecutor is always consistent with the attainable political resolution of serious political and military disputes' argues John Bolton. The ICC deals with individual criminals and specific crimes in a vacuum, it is unable to appreciate the, albeit paradoxical, notion that it may be in the best interests of the resolution of conflict for the perpetrators to go unpunished and victims to forego reparations. 'Circumstances differ, and circumstances matter'1 the ICC in offering lasting peace to victims of war crimes is unable to weigh the circumstances in the manner of an ad hoc tribunal tailored to the specific conflict.  1 Bolton, J. (2002, November 12). The United States and the International Criminal Court. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from

negative: The protection of cultural property is not within the scope of the ICC.  Though it is true the international Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutes and investigates crimes against humanity, the destruction and desecration of cultural property cannot be categorised as a crime against humanity. This is quite simply because human beings are not directly harmed when cultural property like ancient monuments or old scripts are destroyed. According to the ICC, the following would consist of crimes against humanity: ‘Murder, extermination; enslavement; deportation or forcible transfer of population; imprisonment; torture; rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity; persecution against an identifiable group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious or gender grounds; enforced disappearance of persons; the crime of apartheid; other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering or serious bodily or mental injury’ [1]. The common factor with all these crimes is that they are committed as part of a ‘widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population’. [2] Thus, it is evident that crimes against humanity possess a very real human element to them. This is simply because the ICC and the international community recognise that the most serious crimes that fall under the category of crimes against humanity are crimes of this nature that violently and systematically attack the wellbeing of civilians on a gross scale. The destruction or damage to any property, be it homes, government buildings, or sites of cultural heritage may well be a crime and a heinous act, but cannot come under the category of crimes against humanity.  [1] ICC website: “What are crimes against humanity?”, accessed 20/9/12,   [2] ibid

negative: While Africa is the only continent to face prosecutions, a number of other regions where atrocities have taken place are being heavily investigated, including Afghanistan, Colombia, Georgia, Honduras and South Korea [1] . These are expected to lead to prosecutions occurring. So while Africa has had the focus during the initial years of the ICC, its focus is expanding not just focused on African atrocities. It is not even solely focused on developing countries; a complaint about British actions in Iraq has been handed to the ICC. [2]  [1] ‘Situations and cases’, International Criminal Court, accessed 13/2/2014  [2] Owen, Jonathan, ‘Exclusive: Devastating dossier on ‘abuse’ by UK forces in Iraq goes to International Criminal Court’, The Independent, 12 January 2014

negative: The ICC is pursuing the gravest situations within its jurisdiction  The ICC’s jurisdiction is limited to those countries that have ratified the Rome statute. This combined with the likelihood of deadlock in the UNSC, means that many of the worst conflicts are off limits for the ICC. Using data from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program and UNHCR database since the Rome Statute came into effect in July 2002 (up to 2011) Ben Shea of the UCLA Law School finds that there has been little bias against Africa.  Not only have most of the gravest conflicts taken place in Africa but the countries that were not investigated are not party to the Rome Statute. This eliminates Algeria, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Palestine, Russia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Turkey, Yemen and Zimbabwe. Others such as Liberia, and the Philippines only signed up after their conflict had ended. Others such as Columbia, Georgia and Mexico can be eliminated due to Complementarity (where the states are willing to investigate themselves).  In conclusion “Despite the fact that several very grave conflicts outside of Africa have occurred sometime between 2003 and 2011, once taking into account the jurisdictional obstacles of the ICC, only one country remains: Afghanistan. The fact that Afghanistan has been under preliminary examination by the ICC suggests that the Court is not biased toward Africa.” [1]  [1] Shea, Ben, ‘Is the International Criminal Court targeting Africa inappropriately’, ICCForum, 17 March 2013 , Ben’s analysis is much more detailed than we have room for here so do read it for yourself.

negative: Africa has a strong voice in the ICC  The ICC has gone to great lengths to involve all parts of the world in all aspects of its operations. Fatou Bensouda, from Gambia, was recently appointed Chief Prosecutor of the ICC. Moreover, Africans have twice been Vice-President of the court, and have had a fair representation of judges presiding over the court, with five of twenty-one current judges on the panel [1] . Moreover, the Africa Union played a large role in the negotiations over the Rome statute and the creation of the ICC, reflected in the large proportion of countries who are members. [2] As such, Africa’s voice is strongly heard in the ICC.  [1] ‘Judge Sang-Hyun Song re-elected President of the International Criminal Court for 2012-2015; Judges Sanji Mmasenono Monageng and Cuno Tarfusser elected First and Second Vice-President respectively’, International Criminal Court, 11 March 2012  [2] M urithi, Tim, ‘The African Union and the international Criminal Court: An Embattled Relationship’, IJR Policy Brief, no.8 March 2013, pp.1-2

negative: Almost all the cases involve self-reference – the only ones that did not are UN Security Council references, done in the same way as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda were set up. The other case, Kenya, was set up when the ICC prosecutor used its power in the Rome Statute. This only occurred after the Kenyan parliament failed to implement the recommendations of the Waki Commission, which it set up.  While horrible events occurred in Sri Lanka, the ICC does not have the ability to prosecute unless the case is referred to the court by the UN Security Council, or the Sri Lankan government, which is unlikely – it is not a kangaroo court that can make up jurisdiction to hear a case for political reasons [1] . Colombia is still being investigated [2] .  [1] Rome Statute, Article 22  [2] Office of the Prosecutor, Report in to Preliminary Examination Activities, 2013,

negative: An African Criminal Court would be better  Instead of the ICC structure, the African Union has proposed an African Criminal Court. An ACC could not only bring justice home to Africa, by creating a court which will not appear to African nations as being imposed by outsiders, but also be able to have additional remits to address other issues in Africa that the ICC does not have powers to deal with, such as coups, corruption and drug trafficking [1] . An African Criminal Court may also have a chance of being seen as more legitimate than the ICC, which had only 39% support in Kenya in July 2013 [2] .  [1] IRIN, “Analysis: How Close is an African Criminal Court?”, IRIN (Integrated Regional Information Networks), 13 June 2012,   [2] Ipsos Synovate, “The ICC Issue and Raila’s Political Future”, Ipsos Synovate

negative: ICC is biased against Africans  All of the ongoing ICC prosecutions are based on events in Africa, and all those on trial are Africans.  The ICC has not brought actions following the invasion of Iraq, or the conflicts in Sri Lanka and Colombia. The lack of action in any matter outside sub-Saharan Africa shows that the international community are happy to allow the ICC to exclusively prosecute Africans. The UN Security Council, which contains no African permanent members, can veto any possible prosecution [1] and refer a case to the ICC [2] ..  Replacing the ICC with an African Criminal Court would stop this bias, or perception of bias. This would be done by withdrawing from the Rome statute and the ICC which has been labelled as Western imperialism by people such as Rwandan president Paul Kagame [3] .  [1] Rome Statute, Article 16  [2] Rome Statute, Article 13  [3] Du Plessis, footnote 36 (dead links)

negative: One of strongest current criticisms of the African Union is that the ICC is ignoring its opinions. In particular, the AU has very strong views on the treatment of the Kenyan President and his deputy by the ICC in the Kenyan investigation, which the ICC has failed to engage with. Tanzanian President, Jakaya Kikwete, said 'The ICC continues to ignore repeated requests and appeals by the African Union' and this 'attitude has become a major handicap that fails to reconcile the court's secondary and complementary role in fighting impunity' [1] . This has led to African Union seriously considering leaving the union – not evidence of them being an important part of the process. Having Africans as a part of the ICC itself does not mean it listens to the African states that are parties to it.  [1] Dersso, Solomon, ‘Unplanned obsolescence: The ICC and the African Union’, AlJazeera, 11 October 2013

negative: The need in most cases for a referral from the UNSC certainly makes it unlikely that those states will be investigated but this does not make the court biased against Africa. Some of the cases in Africa have involved countries or their judiciaries referring themselves. In the case of Kenya’s election violence in the five years after the violence occurred very little action occurred from the domestic forces; there was a commission lead by Philip Waki that recommended a special tribunal to prosecute those involved. [1] However this never happened as a result the Waki commission handed their report over to the UN and ICC for action [2] . Unsurprisingly the case of Kenyatta has seen accusations of witness intimidation on large scales, showing that a fair trial would have been very difficult to guarantee in Kenya itself [3] .  [1] Waki Report, October 2008, (large pdf)  [2] Wachira, Muchemi, ‘Annan did not ambush Kenya says Justice minister’, Daily Nation, 13 July 2009  [3] ‘Perceptions and Realities: Kenya and the International Criminal Court’, Human Rights Watch, 14 November 2013

negative: traditions law human rights international law society family house would require Opposition agree that the culture and law of a nation has a prodigious impact on the conscience of its civilians. However, according to Alcinda Honwana, an anthropologist and authority on the topic of child soldiers, the problem does not "have its roots in African traditional culture." [i] Although culture has an impact on society, the issue of child soldiers is not affiliated with it.  Side proposition implied that conscripting children should be excusable if it is permitted by an authoritative body of local law. However, are laws based on value-sets that do not aspire to an accessible law making process more valid than the abiding law of that nation? No. Side opposition believe that the "rule of law is a legal maxim according to which no one is immune to the law.” The fundamental purpose of government is the maintenance and promotion of basic security and public order. Without it the nation will deteriorate.  The proposition mentioned the Democratic Republic of Congo as an example. The DRC signed the “Convention on the Rights of the Child” on 21 September 1990. During this time era, Congo was not a declared democracy. However they have hitherto developed a more democratic and stable government. Additionally, DRC has not withdrawn from the Convention on the Rights of the Child, thus accentuating the fact that they are strongly against conscription of children.  Being oblivious of the fact that conscripting child soldiers is illegal is no defence. As side opposition’s substantive material will show, both national and international systems of law are expected to take account of the fact that cultural, environmental and social plurality will lead to variable rates of compliance with particular laws. While it may be difficult to make community leaders liable for the creation of child soldiers, the ICC frequently seeks to make officials linked to state actors liable for failing to protect children from military recruitment [ii] .  Moreover, cultural relativism originally assumed some degree of parity and open exchange between communities with diverging cultural values. There is no parity between the value-sets of stable liberal democratic states and the adaptations that vulnerable cultures undergo in order to survive amongst prolonged military conflict.  Finally, it would damage the reputation and reduce the efficiency of the ICC if states were permitted to argue that regions in which child soldiers were active had an established tradition of military activity among the young.  [i] “Children’s Involvement in War: Historical and Social Contexts”, Alcinda Honwana, The Journal of the history of Childhood and Youth, Vol 1 2007  [ii] The Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dylio, The International Criminal Court,

negative: rnational africa law human rights international law government leadership voting Even though all parties agree to this, it is not appropriate for the ICC to be trying a sitting head of state anyway. The ICC is accepting this by holding the trial by videolink – no other court would do such a thing.  While it sounds tempting to allow Kenyatta and Ruto to participate in their trial by Skype, they may not continue to participate and simply refuse to leave Kenya if they are convicted.

negative: rnational africa law human rights international law government leadership voting Interferes with a democratic mandate  Unlike many of the other ICC defendants, Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto have a democratic mandate from elections that “represented the will of the voters” [1] – electoral mandates given to them after their indictment by the International Criminal Court.  This must be respected by the ICC and the international community as a whole: even though they are suspected of crimes against humanity by a foreign court.  [1] European Union Election Observation Mission To Kenya, General Elections 2013 :Final Report,

negative: human rights international law politics government warpeace house would recognise The ICC offers justice to victims of war crimes.  The ICC offers a multilateral means by which international law can be brought to bear on the perpetrators of war crimes. As Amnesty International argues, 'the ICC ensures that those who commit serious human rights violations are held accountable. Justice helps promote lasting peace, enables victims to rebuild their lives and sends a strong message that perpetrators of serious international crimes will not go unpunished'. Furthermore, and for the first time, the ICC has the power to order a criminal to pay reparations to a victim who has suffered as a result of their crimes. Such reparations may include restitution, indemnification and rehabilitation. Judges are able to order such reparations whether the victims have been able to apply for them or not. Though reparations will often not be sufficient on their own for lasting peace, they are a step in the right direction and only made possible by the establishment of the ICC.