query: Unlike warfare cyber-attacks don’t kill so they don’t need to be restricted in the same way  Warfare needs to be closely regulated because of the numbers of people who can be killed and the devastation that can result. This is not something that is a concern with cyber-attacks. So far cyber-attacks have not been very effective. ‘Stuxnet’ was a computer worm targeted an important control system in the Iranian nuclear program sabotaging gas centrifuges by making them run out of control. It was created by US and Israeli intelligence yet was not particularly effective, and certainly did not kill anyone. [1] Other major attacks have infected a large number of machines, such as ‘Shamoon’ that attacked the Saudi state oil company ARAMCO which affected 30,000 computers, but again this is simply destruction of property. [2] No matter how indiscriminate cyber-attacks may be that they don’t cause large numbers of deaths means there is little need to ban such attacks – it simply does not matter if attackers don’t follow a set of conventions like the Geneva conventions.  [1] Barzashka, Ivanka, ‘Are Cyber-Weapons Effective? Assessing Stuxnet’s Impact on the Iranian Enrichment Programme’, RUSI Journal, Vol.158, Issue 2, 28 April 2013,   [2] Garamone, Jim, ‘Panetta Spells out DOD Roles in Cyberdefense’, American Forces Press Service, 11 October 2012,

positive: global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks Clearly cyber-attacks are not currently deadly but this does not mean they will not become so in the future. Leon Panetta has warned “A cyber-attack perpetrated by nation states or violent extremist groups could be as destructive as the terrorist attack of 9/11”. Such an attack would be indirect – unlike setting a bomb – but could be just as effective “An aggressor nation or extremist group could gain control of critical switches and derail passenger trains, or trains loaded with lethal chemicals. They could contaminate the water supply in major cities, or shut down the power grid across large parts of the country.” [1] At the moment systems are not really connected enough to allow this but it is pretty much certain that technology will become more sophisticated, control more systems, and become more and more connected. This is immensely beneficial economically but does create vulnerability.  [1] Garamone, Jim, ‘Panetta Spells out DOD Roles in Cyberdefense’, American Forces Press Service, 11 October 2012,

negative: warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act war Definition of a large scale cyber attack is extremely vague  Armed acts of aggression are a good method of judging if an action is an act of war because they result in actual destruction, violence and loss of human life. Cyber attacks, on the other hand, do not and thus there is no objective way to tell what scale of a cyber attack is enough to constitute an act of war. While Pentagon claims a cyber attack that is equivalent of damage caused by traditional warfare as a standard, how is it supposed to be applied if pretty much all of the cyber attacks have been bloodless [24]? For instance, stealing large amounts of confidential data from a country is a large scale cyber attack, and could have an immense economic impact, but it is bloodless and so how much damage does there need to be before it can be a casus belli? It is very difficult to measure the impact of even a very evident and intense cyber attack, as NATO found out when assessing a cyber attack on Georgia in 2008 [25]. While the Pentagon might have a nice theoretical framework, in reality there are too many unanswered (and possible impossible to answer) questions. This can lead to abuse of justifications for war and unnecessary violence.

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

negative: global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks A cyber treaty benefits everyone  A treaty that bans, or sharply curtails cyber-attacks would benefit every state. Even those who may currently benefit from cyber espionage would be better off signing up to the treaty.  First most cyber-attacks are not carried out by the state even in countries like China where the state is using the internet as an offensive tool. In its annual report to congress the Department of Defence stated some cyber-attacks “appear to be attributable directly to the Chinese government and military” but this does not sound like a majority. [1]  Secondly no state wants a risk of conflict as a result of an unregulated new field of potential conflict. Or even to risk relations with other nations; cyber-attacks in large part go on because they are cost free.  And finally all nations are the victims of cyber-attacks. The United States has repeatedly condemned cyber-attacks against it but China also claims that it is the victim of cyber-attacks. China’s Minister of National Defense General Chang Wanquan says “China is one of the primary victims of hacker attacks in the world.” [2] Having a treaty against cyber attacks would not only make business easier for all countries but it would build up trust between nations where it is currently being eroded.  [1] Office of the Secretary of Defense, ‘Annual; Report to Congress Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2013’, Department of Defense,  p.36  [2] Brook, Tom Vanden, ‘Cyber attack? What cyber attack?’, USA Today, 19 August 2013,

negative: global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks Everyone would benefit from the potential closure of a zone of possible future conflict. While cyber warfare may give a smaller state a brief advantage due to some low cost methods of attack ultimately the superior resources, both in defence and attack in cyberspace of the richer state would be telling. In the United States the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) alone has a budget of $1.54billion for research into cyber offence from 2013-2017 [1] considering that there are numerous other agencies involved in cyber warfare or defence, or monitoring the internet it is clear that cyber-attacks are not some wonder weapon that can even the odds between states.  [1] Kallberg, Jan and Thuraisingham, Bhavani, ‘Cyber Operations: Bridging from Concept to Cyber Superiority’, Joint Force Quarterly, Vol.68, no.1, January 2013,

negative: global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks States will monitor each other, and an international body could be set up  Once a treaty is set up to limit or eliminate cyber-attacks monitoring is unlikely to be a problem because states will be willing to monitor each other. States in order to defend themselves from cyber-attacks already monitor the cyber-attacks that occur – the United States for example already has several cyber defense forces. [1] If that is not enough then there are numerous private groups that will be monitoring cyber-attacks as most are made against corporate rather than government targets. For example private company Mandiant exposed a unit of the People’s Liberation Army for its cyber-attacks in February 2013. [2] Once a cyber-attack has been traced and evidence gathered if the appropriate domestic authorities won’t deal with the culprit then an independent international institution can decide on the punishment for the government that is not living up to its treaty commitments.  If there is a need for international monitoring rather than simply a dispute settlement mechanism then there are models available through current treaties; a UN organisation similar to the International Atomic Energy Agency or International Criminal Court could be set up that can investigate incidents when asked.  [1] US Department of Defense, ‘The Cyber Domain Security and Operations’   [2] Mandiant, ‘Exposing One of China’s Cyber Espionage Units’, mandiant.com, February 2013,

negative: Cooperation is not a helpful alternative as it really means status quo when we can see that the status quo is not going to reduce cyber-attacks or bring recompense. Rather this is precisely what sanctions are needed for; to encourage states that harbour cyber criminals and hackers to use their law enforcement capabilities to crack down on such attacks.

negative: global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression Aggressive foreign policy is not legitimate foreign policy  Foreign policy is legitimate when it is peaceful and based upon mutual respect. It is no surprise that the most controversial foreign policy actions are those that are aggressive whether this is invading another state such as the Iraq war, attempting humanitarian intervention as in Kosovo, or engaging in clandestine actions such as Iran-Contra. This is because there is a powerful norm against aggressive action in international relations in order to maintain stability.  Undermining states by circumventing censorship is simply a new method of engaging in aggressive actions against another state. NATO has accepted that cyber operations can be considered to constitute an armed conflict, [1] so it is increasingly accepted that actions on the internet can be aggressive action. Indeed “If such cyber operations are intended to coerce the government… the operation may constitute a prohibited ‘intervention’”. [2] While no one would argue that this policy will create a war it is not a very big step from considering cyber attacks to be armed conflict to considering undermining states through circumventing censorship to be an aggressive action.  [1] Bowcott, Owen, “Rules of cyberwar: don't target nuclear plants or hospitals, says Nato manual”, The Guardian, 18 March 2013,   [2] Schmitt, Michael N., ed., “The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare”, Cambridge University Press, 2013, p.17.

negative: Using UAVs prevents soldiers from being killed.  To put it bluntly any military or intelligence service wants to keep its own men safe while carrying out its missions; Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are the ultimate capability with which to manage this. No military or civilian personnel are going to be killed if the delivery vehicle is controlled from the United States. This means that unlike in other methods of attack the UAV can take its time even if it is at risk. In the war in Kosovo NATO air forces had to launch their attacks from 15,000 feet due to worries they would be shot down. [1] Attacking from such a height from a fast moving aeroplane makes missing the target much more likely.  [1] Thomas, Timothy, ‘Kosovo and the Current Myth of Information Superiority’, Parameters, Spring 2000, pp.13-29.

negative: Attacking chemical weapons stores prevents a threat in itself as it runs the risk of blowing up the weapons and therefore dispersing them into the air. [1] This risk would potentially be even higher with any biological weapons as they would not become harmless through dispersal as Chemical weapons would.  Quite apart from the risks of setting off the arsenals when attacking them such attacks would be very unlikely to be successful. While Syria’s chemical weapons may be held in a few large centers this would seem to be unlikely given the history of attacks on unconventional weapons programs. Syria itself has had a nuclear weapons program destroyed as a result of an Israeli air attack in 2007. [2] This would have been a powerful lesson in the need to disperse these weapons to prevent their destruction from the air.  [1] ‘Preventing Syrian Chemical Weapons Threat From Becoming Deadly Reality’, PBS Newshour, 5 December 2012,   [2] Harel, Amos, ‘Five years on, new details emerge about Israeli strike on Syrian reactor’, Haaretz, 10 September 2012,

negative: How do we determine what is proportionate? If some valuable intellectual property, such as part of the designs for the US's latest fighter jet the F35, which were hacked in 2009. [1] Then what can be the response to this? Can it simply be the cost of developing this design? If so then what about the strategic loss the state has suffered, how can that be calculated in? So long as it is excluded state sanctioned cyber-attacks will not be deterred.  [1] Gorman, Siobhan, Cole, August, and Dreazen, Yochi, ‘Computer Spies Breach Fighter-Jen Project’, The Wall Street Journal, 21 April 2009,

negative: Because drones are not on the ground and can’t check the identities of those who are killed there is no way of knowing if they really do cause less civilian casualties; what the proposition calls ‘collateral damage’. We also do not know what damage would be caused by other forms of attack on the same targets. It is however definitely open to question whether these attacks really do cause less civilian casualties. Local activists believe that around 3,000 people have been killed in Waziristan of whom only 185 were named al Qaeda operatives – a very poor ratio of 16 civilians for every al Qaeda man killed. [1] The Brookings institution meanwhile estimates that for every al Qaeda and Taliban militant killed there are ten civilian casualties. [2] If either of these estimates are anywhere near the mark then there are very large number of civilian casualties, much higher than proposition believes, and probably higher than other forms of strikes would cause.  [1] Shackle, Samira, ‘Drones and the “bugsplats” they cause’, New Statesman, 13 June 2012.  [2] Byman, Daniel L., ‘Do Targeted Killings Work?’, ForeignPolicy.com, 14 July 2009.

negative: UAVs allow more care and safeguards before shooting.  When engaging in covert operations it is essential that the right target is identified so that the correct target is eliminated. This is something that using UAVs allows as they are able to track their target, sometimes for days, before attacking. This means there is much more time for scrutiny of targets and possible collateral damage.  This also means that there is plenty of room for the decisions to be made right at the top. Every person on the kill list gets discussed at a weekly meeting of more than 100 members of the US government’s security apparatus. President Obama himself signs off on strikes and can change the decision if the situation on the ground changes. Former National Security Advisor Jones says “Many times… at the 11th hour we waved off a mission simply because the target had people around them and we were able to loiter on station until they didn’t.” [1]  While UAVs may be ‘unmanned’ they are certainly heavily monitored as each drone has 43 military personnel rotating in three shifts. They include seven joystick pilots, seven system operators, and five mission coordinators, there is also from the CIA 66 people, including 34 video crew members, and 18 intelligence analysts. [2] This means that there are a large number of eyeballs to make sure that the right person is being targeted, to check he is with as few others as possible before the strike. None of this would be possible with other forms of attack where the emphasis has to be on the speed of the operation.  [1] Becker, Jo, and Shane, Scott, ‘Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will’, The New York Times, 29 May 2012 .  [2] Kaplan, Fred, ‘Who’s Afraid of the Kill List’, Slate, 15 June 2012.

negative: Cyber Mercenaries  There is a new form of mercenary appearing on the continent which is hired to use technology, rather than a gun, to fight. Cyber mercenaries are a relatively recent phenomenon. In 2013, British intelligence service GCHQ stated that nations were beginning to employ hackers to ‘attack their enemies’28. Kenya experienced attacks by cyber mercenaries in 2013, with 91% of its organisations coming under attack from these hired hackers29. There is potential for this to become a substantial form of mercenary work in the future.  28) The Age ‘Hackers turn into cyber-mercenaries as nations battle a virtual war’ 2013  29) Murule,R. ‘Kenya: Firms Battle Cyber Crime’ 2013

negative: The principle of Mutually Assured Destruction makes war less likely.  States are fundamentally rational, and as such, nuclear proliferation has generally made war less likely, by promulgating the principle of mutually assured destruction (MAD).  States go to war with other states when they think they can win the conflict they will provoke. By making victory impossible, MAD makes wars unprofitable, and thereby prevents them from beginning in the first place. The Cold War never turned hot partially for this reason, and it is possible that the Israeli-Iranian relationship could be stabilized by both states possessing a nuclear deterrent. North Korea may well desire to Nuke the United States and Japan, and may well feel that there would be no moral issues with doing so, but they have refrained from doing so. As they have refrained from invading the South since 1950. There is substantial evidence that even the most irrational regimes can be deterred. No matter how dictatorial and authoritarian a state government, the prospect of complete nuclear annihilation will be effective in restraining its ambitions. [1]  In the case of Iran, the threat to Iranian cities by the Iraqi army moving on to the offensive and using chemical weapons motivated Khomeini to make peace in 1988. [2] It is worth noting that they have not explicitly attacked Israel themselves, preferring to work through proxies. It would seem unlikely that Iran, if it were to become the only nuclear power in the Islamic world, could avoid responsibility if Hamas or Hezbollah were to utilize a weapon.  [1] Kenneth Waltz, “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better,” I, Number 171 (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1981),   [2] Globalsecurity.org, ‘Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988)’,

negative: Chemical weapons are also cheap and highly effective. The use of chemical agents was widespread in the First World War and domestic terrorists groups have been able to manufacture and use Sarin gas in attacks. [1]  These weapons are banned despite being cheap and effective because of the unnecessary suffering they cause and because of their indiscriminate nature. Mines and gas are both ‘area denial’ weapons whose effects can linger long after the conflict in which they were employed has faded into history.  [1] Wikipedia, Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway,

negative: It is indisputable that Hamas has launched violent attacks against civilian targets. Israel, on the other hand, conducts its operations exercising all due care to limit civilian casualties. Hamas terrorists, however, set up their headquarters and store weapons in private homes, schools, colleges and mosques. Both Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Egyptian Foreign Minister Aboul Gheit have blamed Hamas for provoking the Israeli attack on Hamas targets embedded in civilian areas.(28) Israel's air assault has resulted in more Palestinian casualties, but that is in part because Hamas deliberately locates its security forces in residential neighborhoods. This is intended both to deter Israel from attacking in the first place as well as to turn world opinion against the Jewish state when it does attack. By all accounts, however, the Israeli strikes hit their targets precisely enough to do significant damage to Hamas forces.(1)  Israel actually put its own troops in harm’s way to minimize civilian casualties during Operation Cast Lead.(13) This shows Israel's commitment to preventing civilian casualties and thus the justification of Operation Cast Lead. The disparity between Israeli and Palestinian casualties can be explained by the fact that Israel has early warning systems and hospitals. Israel invests significantly more in stable buildings that do not crumble when subjected a blast, systems that can detect incoming rocket fire, and an extensive and modern network of hospitals and emergency response teams. This, and the fact that Israel does not attempt to shield its military installations behind civilian homes and businesses, helps lower the number of civilian casualties as compared to in Gaza.(2)  The claim that Israel violated the principle of proportionality, by killing more Hamas terrorists than the number of Israeli civilians killed by Hamas rockets, is absurd. There is no legal equivalence between the deliberate killing of innocent civilians and the deliberate killings of Hamas combatants. Under the laws of war, any number of combatants can be killed to prevent the killing of even one innocent civilian.(29) Moreover, if Israel were to be 'proportional' and respond to the Hamas attacks in the same way, what would that mean? Would this require that it launch rocket attacks back against Gazan civilians? Obviously not (this would result in even more civilian deaths), and this is where the logic of proportionality against terrorist attacks makes little sense.

negative: national law politics defence warpeace house believes us should ban use cluster Cluster Bombs Cause Unacceptable Harm to Civilians  In a modern warfare scenario, the vast majority of combat takes place in civilian areas, such as cities. Whilst cluster bombs are obviously not used for peacekeeping purposes they are used in initial assaults on these areas, particularly against larger formations of enemy troops. This means that due to the indiscriminate nature of cluster bombs, in the same way as with land mines, often both military and civilian targets are encompassed in the blast radius. This is what happened in Zagreb as Martic was targeting Croat forces but the attack due to the use of cluster weapons also killed civilians.  Further, cluster bombs often have a few bomblets which are duds and do not go on initial impact. The issue with bomblets is that they are often brightly coloured and when used in cities or populous areas they can often attract the attention of children who are very unlikely to know to be careful around them. This can result in significant harm to civilian populations well after the attack has been carried out.  Further, due to the sheer volume of duds that cluster bombs put out, attempts to demine cluster bomb bomblets is an incredibly dangerous process that in of itself costs lives.1,2,3

negative: ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms Transparency can result in normalisation  While something is secret it is clearly not a normal every day part of government, it is deniable and the assumption is that when it comes to light it has probably been wound up long ago. However making something transparent without winding it up can be a bad thing as it makes it normal which ultimately makes a bad policy much harder to end.  The use of drones by the CIA may turn out to be an example of this. At the moment we are told almost nothing about drones, not even how many strikes there are or how many are killed. There have however been recent suggestions that the drone program could be transferred to the Department of Defence. This would then make the targeted killing that is carried out seem a normal part of military conflict, somehting it clearly is not. [1] And the public reacts differently to covert and military action; already more Americans support military drones doing targeted killing (75%) than CIA ones (65%). [2]  [1] Waxman, Matthew, ‘Going Clear’, Foreign Policy, 20 March 2013  [2] Zenko, Micah, ‘U.S. Public Opinion on Drone Strikes’, Council on Foreign Relations, 18 March 2013

negative: The only precedent for this is the disastrous Iraq war where the reason for the invasion was given as disarming Saddam of Weapons of Mass Destruction he turned out not to have. Most countries would therefore be justified in being skeptical of any country claiming the right to disarm another of WMD. Additionally when this is done by the major powers the action is likely to be seen as being hypocritical. In the case of Chemical Weapons the United States does not have a particularly clean record. The United States used less deadly chemical weapons, Agent Orange, in Vietnam in order to clear foliage, and in Iraq it used white phosphorus as an incendiary weapon. The United States has so far failed to decommission its own Chemical Weapons and instead keeps getting extensions. [1] Similarly both Russia and the United States had Biological Weapons programs, and although these have ended still maintain large smallpox supplies.  [1] Monbiot, George, ‘Obama’s Rogue State’, monbiot.com, 9 September 2013,

negative: The bombing was immoral and illegal  The use of the Atomic bomb raised immediate moral questions as to its use.  Albert Einstein argued “The American decision [to use the bomb] may have been a fatal error, for men accustom themselves to thinking a weapon which has been used once can be used again... [on the other hand] Our renunciation of this weapon as too terrible to use would have carried great weight” [1] So far Einstein has been proved wrong and the precedent thus set has not been followed. That the bombs are ‘to terrible to use’ does seem to have sunk in.  The use of the bombs was also illegal as it would have breached the Hague conventions of 1899 and 1907, signed by the US. Of Hague IV The Laws and Customs of War on Land it probably breached articles 23, forbidding the use of weapons that cause ‘unnecessary suffering’, and article 25 forbidding the attack of undefended towns. It would certainly by its indiscriminate nature have breached article 27 “In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes” [2] as well as the attendant declaration forbidding attack from aircraft!  Clearly such sections forbidding attack from aircraft, or balloons in the 1899 version make the Hague convention seem antiquated but the laws of war in general remain even now as they were codified in 1907. [3] The International Court of Justice has referred back to these precedents “In the view of the vast majority of states as well as the writers there can be no doubt as to the applicability of humanitarian law to nuclear weapons. The Court shares that view.” [4] That humanitarian law included the Hague conventions. The court reconfirmed the view that “States must never make civilians the object of attack and must consequently never use weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets” [5] It is noteworthy that dissensions from a position of banning the use of nuclear weapons entirely focus on the possible use with minimal civilian casualties. [6] Since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings did not attempt to minimize civilian casualties the implication is that their use was illegal based upon the Hague conventions that were already in force.  [1] Albert Einstein, quoted by Rudolph A. Winnacker, ‘The Debate About Hiroshima’, Military Affairs, vol.11, no.1, Spring 1947, p.25.  [2] Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907   [3] Malcom H. Shaw, International Law (Cambridge, 1997), p.807.  [4] International Court of Justice advisory opinion of 8 July 1996 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, paragraphs 85-6.   [5] ibid. para. 78.  [6] ibid. para. 91.

negative: We have seen that a proportional response frequently doesn’t work. Suicide bombers continue to blow up victims in the Middle East despite the response. Why should a nation tolerate continued aggression for the sake of proportionality? And if a nation knows it is likely to be attacked, why should it wait to disarm the aggressor? Is not pre-emptive action justified to prevent the loss of innocent life? Finally, what of deterrence: a vigorous response to an aggressive act may not be strictly proportionate, but by making all potential aggressors think twice about future actions, it can be justified as saving more suffering in the long run.

negative: e internet freedom politics government digital freedoms freedom Internet regulation is necessary to ensure a safe internet  Citizens, corporations, and public organizations face several security threats when online: critical infrastructure systems can be hacked, like the energy transport system, [1] citizens can fall victim to identity theft, [2] and phishing, [3] whereby hackers gain access to bank accounts or other sensitive information. Specifically, it seems that the public sector is attacked the most. [4]  In response to cyber-threats like these, many governments have set up Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERTs), Incident Response and Security Teams (IRTs), or Computer Security and Incident Response Teams (CSIRT; the fact that we haven’t settled on a fitting acronym yet shows how much it is still a novel phenomenon): agencies that warn citizens and organizations alike when a new threat emerges and provides a platform for (the exchange of) expertise in methods of preventing cyber-threats and exchanging information on possible perpetrators of such threats. Oftentimes, these (inter)governmental agencies provide a place where private CSIRTs can also cooperate and exchange information. [5]  These agencies provide a similar function online as the regular police provides offline: by sharing information and warnings against threats, they create a safer world.  [1] ‘At Risk: Hacking Critical Infrastructure’. 2012.  [2] ‘Identity theft on the rise’. 2010.  [3] ‘Phishing websites reach all-time high’. 2012.  [4] ‘Public sector most targeted by cyber attacks’. 2012.  [5] see for example the About Us page of the US-CERT or the About the NCSC page of the Dutch CERT

negative: ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms This is clearly not always the case. Often transparency means that the public becomes aware when there is little need for them to know. There had been previous nuclear accidents that had caused no damage, and had not been noticed, such as in Goldsboro, N.C. in 1961. [1] If there had been a media frenzy fuelled by released information there would clearly have been much more of a public relations disaster than there was with no one noticing. Since there’re was no harm done there is little reason why such a media circus should have been encouraged. And even without media attention the incident lead to increase safeguards.  [1] Stiles, David, ‘A Fusion Bomb over Andalucia: U.S. Information Policy and the 1966 Palomares Incident’, Journal of War Studies, Vol.8, No.1, Winter 2006, pp.49-67, p.51

negative: Sanctions are indiscriminate  The problem with sanctions is that they are almost always indiscriminate; Iran’s sanctions today are an example where the international community’s concerns are entirely with the government, over nuclear weapons, not the people yet the result has been a doubling in the price of staple foodstuffs and rapidly rising unemployment. [1]  This will equally be the case here. While sanctioners will try to target the sanctions the fact is there is nothing to target with sanctions that would not affect everyday lives. Hackers are ordinary people so clearly sanctions will affect others like themselves. The most obvious reactions involve the internet but blocking access to internet services, or penalising ISP’s, or cutting off technology transfers, harm everyone else as much as hackers. Often this harm is in the form of simply making the internet less safe for people in that country because they will have to turn to pirated versions of software. IDC and Microsoft estimate the chances of being infected with malware when using pirated software at one in three [2] so it is no surprise that the Chinese government in October 2012 launched a campaign to have government and companies purchase legal software. [3]  [1] The Economist, ‘A red line and a reeling rial’, 6 October 2012,   [2] IDC, ‘White Paper: The Dangerous World of Counterfeit and Pirated Software’, Microsoft, March 2013,  p.3  [3] Xinhua, ‘Chinese gov’t says no to pirated software’, People’s Daily Online, 26 April 2013,

negative: Fears about national security are greatly overblown, and are often simply an attempt to justify protectionist measures. Very few companies pose a national security risk, and those that do are covered by existing regulations – so that, for example, the USA could veto Dubai Port World’s bid to take over American ports. Most SWFs do not seek full control of companies they invest in, so they are not in a position to manipulate their assets for political gain, even if they wished to. [1] In reality, countries set up SWFs for economic reasons and they represent a major national investment, the value of which would be expensively destroyed if they once tried to abuse their position. Nor are there any actual examples of a country trying to exert political influence through its sovereign wealth fund. Overall, tying a wide variety of states into the international economic and financial system is beneficial, as it gives them a stake in the peace which the global economy needs for prosperity and so makes them less likely to pursue aggressive foreign policies. Conversely, alienating the governments of other states by designating them as dangerous predators who cannot be allowed to invest in our companies is a sure way to create enemies.  [1] Rose, Paul, ‘Sovereign Wealth Funds: Active or Passive Investors?’, 2008.

negative: Using drones blurs the distinction between war and peace.  The use of drones further blurs the already worryingly indistinct line between a state of war and a state of peace. The drone attacks are taking place in countries where the United States does not have any legal authority. The United States is not officially at war with Pakistan, Yemen, or Somalia, yet has launched hundreds of attacks on these countries and their citizens. The assumption is that a state can be at war with a non-state actor such as a terrorist group and therefore is free to target them wherever this group may be found. This means that the US is prosecuting a war in which only it thinks it is at war while sovereign countries like Pakistan are targeted despite believing they are at peace. It is the use of drones that makes it easy to circumvent sovereignty and attack targets on another country’s soil so creating the ambiguity.  Equally worryingly is the blurring of the distinction between civilian and combatant. Firstly the U.S. has decided to define any adult male in the target area as a terrorist when many are most likely nothing of the sort. [1] Secondly the Geneva conventions and their 1977 additions at their heart have the assumption that civilians cannot engage in a war – they are innocent bystanders. This however has been changed by the use of drones; it is a civilian agency, the CIA, which controls the drones and pulls the trigger. This makes the CIA combatants so breaking the obligation not to engage as soldiers. This means that U.S. civilians lose their protected status and the U.S. can’t complain if U.S. citizens are targeted in retaliation as the terrorists can no longer distinguish between those who are targeting them and those who are not. [2]  [1] Hammond, Jeremy R., ‘The Immoral Case for Drones’, Foreign Policy Journal, 16 July 2012.  [2] Hallinan, Conn, ‘CIA’s Drone Wars Blurs Distinction Between Military and Civilian Combatants’, Foreign Policy In Focus, 6 October 2011.

negative: defence science science general house supports development missile defence MAD is not an effective means of maintaining world security. It relies upon states being too afraid to ever attack one another with nuclear weapons, but the risk of one doing so remains, irrespective of the doctrine. In terms of deterring conventional warfare, that assumes that the state being attacked would chose mutual destruction over potential, transitory subjugation. MAD has too many inherent risks and raises the very real chance, as weapons amass and proliferate, of their being used (Sagan, 1993). National missile defense systems provide a very real defense against not only full-scale attacks by other states, but against nuclear-capable rogue states, such as North Korea, which is seeking to develop intercontinental ballistic missile technology of its own. Should North Korea ever be able to attack the United States or its allies with nuclear weapons, the world will need the ability to counter it. National missile defense is simply a strategic necessity of the modern world in which nuclear weapons may fall into the hands of unstable, aggressive states who might actually try to use them.

negative: UAVs cause less collateral damage.  There are only two things that really matter when targeting terrorists; is the terrorist eliminated, and is collateral damage kept to a minimum? In Pakistan there have been a total of 334 strikes by UAVs between 2004 and June 2012 with the total reported killed at 2496-3202 of which only 482-832 were civilians according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. [1] Moreover the number of civilians killed in strikes is falling; 28 percent of casualties in 2008 were civilians but by 2011 this had fallen to 16 percent [2] and this is a figure that is likely to continue falling as drones improve technologically making identification easier and making strikes more precise. These figures show that the United States in its use of drones is not only hitting a lot of terrorist targets and eliminating them but is causing very little collateral damage in comparison to the number of strikes made.  [1] Woods, Chris, and Serle, Jack, ‘June Update – US covert actions in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalis’, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 2 July 2012.  [2] Shane, Scott, ‘The Moral Case for Drones’, The New York Times, 14 July 2012.

negative: Landmines are a useful military tool  In the future, landmines may not be needed. However, whilst armies still depend on conventional weapons and movement – moving tanks and large infantry groups – and borders are weak, the defensive tactic of landmines is highly appropriate: it is cheap, affordable, and maintains borders. Their existence can slow or stop an advance by breaking up an attack and forcing attackers to go certain routes, [1] delaying or even halting conflict; they can deter invasion in the first place. [2] By guarding wide areas from swift armed advance  [1] ICRC, Anti-personnel Landmines. Friend of foe? A study of the military use and effectiveness of anti-personnel mines, 1996, pp.14-15   [2] Marin, Albert and Litzelman, Michael, ‘Peacemakers Along the DMZ: Non-Self Destruct Landmines in the Republic of Korea’, Journal of Mine Action, Issue 6.1, April 2002,

negative: MAD is not an effective means of maintaining world security. It relies upon states being too afraid to ever attack one another with nuclear weapons, but the risk of one doing so remains, irrespective of the doctrine. It has too many inherent risks and raises the very real chance, as weapons amass and proliferate, of their being used1. At the same time, should a nuclear weapon be used by a rogue state against another country, that country must have some means of retaliation. The problem is that the weapon likely to be used in such an attack will be crude and incapable of doing the sort of damage that a refined nuclear weapon of the Western nuclear powers could. This makes the question of what constitutes a proportional response difficult to answer. Should North Korea, for example, ever be able to attack the United States or its allies with nuclear weapons, its crude missiles will warrant a response, but quite possibly not a strategic nuclear missile-sized response. For this reason, the development of smaller, more versatile nuclear weapons makes these strategic considerations easier to manage, and allows for a range of responses left unavailable by the current blunt instrument of strategic nuclear missiles. 1 Sagan, Scott D. 1993. The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

negative: ACTA attacks free software and privatises data  ACTA represents a fundamental attack on the right to produce or host free software. It is written in such a way as would protect the rights of corporations such as Microsoft to build systems that require updating while, at the same time undermining freeware software such as Linux. Its provisions that can both punish (art 12:1) and pass enforcement over to ISPs (art 8:1) who therefore have an incentive to restrict free software. Article 27:6 specifically attacks computer programs that are providing a free alternative and those that may affect digital rights management programs. [i] [ii] In doing this it creates a culture of surveillance and represents a fundamental attack on freedom of expression and basic principles of democracy as it would commercialise the right to access and distribute information.  The rights to free expression are recognised in virtually every codification of basic human rights – on which this agreement is mostly silent. It will make impossible the free distribution of programmes and other computer tools and re-asserts, as did GATS, the primacy of corporations through a right to protect things that they didn’t think of but wished they had.  Already they have the advantages of massive budgets and huge legal departments, this agreement simply distorts the playing field still further in their interest.  [i] ‘Speak out against ACTA’, Free Software Foundation, 19 June 2008.  [ii] ‘ACTA: threats to Free Software’, hugo’s blog, 21 April 2010.

negative: Tactical nuclear warheads are more serviceable for use in intimidation and retaliation toward enemies, as they are considerably less catastrophically destructive than those of current nuclear arsenals.  For deterrence to function, rogue states and other international actors with nuclear capabilities, such as North Korea, must believe that their would-be target will retaliate in kind if attacked, tactical nuclear weapons provide a middle option. Given that these rogue states would likely only have access to low-yield nuclear weapons, it is unlikely that they would be able to launch a nuclear attack capable of more than damaging a Western city. Furthermore, the relative difficulty of developing deliverable nuclear weapons means that rogue nations are increasingly looking toward the acquisition and development of alternative weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical, biological, and radiological weapons. Were the United States, or another nuclear power, to be attacked by any of these weapons, it is unlikely that it, or the international community would consider the deployment of a strategic nuclear strike in retaliation to be justified. The response would certainly be disproportionately large, as strategic nuclear missiles can easily level cities, even with the smallest possible payload. This means that in order to maintain effective deterrence, nuclear powers must shift from the paradigm laid out by the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction to a "flexible response" doctrine, in which countries deploy arsenals of much smaller, tactical nuclear weapons that their enemies honestly believe they will use if provoked. By equipping themselves with a range of weapons, so as to be able to scale responses appropriately, nuclear-armed countries are far likelier to deter potential aggressors in future 1. Pakistan's military serves as an example of such tactical nuclear capability ready for action; its army is armed with an arsenal of mini-nukes that can be used to destroy whole tank formations, with little radioactive fallout dispersing beyond the battlefield. These weapons serve to redress the balance between Pakistani and Indian conventional military capacity. As Pakistan is woefully outnumbered and outgunned in conventional weapons, its tactical nuclear arsenal can deliver devastating damage to massed Indian army formations, preventing any potential invasion2. Clearly, tactical nuclear weapons are useful weapons in a country arsenal, preparing it to be more flexible in its application of nuclear force. 1 Reynolds, Paul. 2003. "Mini-Nukes on US Agenda". BBC News. 2 The Economist. 2011. "A Rivalry that Threatens the World". The Economist.


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

positive: 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 Kenya is an advanced state with a functioning system of the rule of law – except for those in power. With modern video technology, Ruto and Kenyatta could oversee the governance of the country from The Hague, or, alternatively, participate in the trial through videolink.  Even so, Al-Shabab are unlikely to be defeatable within the terms of Kenyatta and Ruto. Such a delay would only be useful if there was government reform or fresh elections necessary, rather than anti-terrorist action.

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

negative: 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: ure media television law international law house opposes televising all criminal Witnesses might be identified and placed in danger  Televising criminal trials may cause a number of problems with witnesses. It may make individuals less likely to give evidence, make them more likely to play to the television audience, or make the already intimidating process of giving evidence in court more so. Also, television broadcasts make it more likely that the identities of anonymized witnesses would leak out – something that has already happened at the ICC in the Ruto-Sang case [1] .  The ICC already has problems with witnesses, including allegations of bribing and intimidating prosecution witnesses in the Ruto case [2] , which has led to Walter Barasa, a Kenyan Journalist, being subject to an arrest warrant [3] . Ending the televising of trials may go some way to remedy those problems.  [1] Lattus, Asumpta, ‘Evenson: ‘First time arrest warrant has been issued in Kenya case’, Deutsche Welle, 2 October 2013,   [2] Stewart, Catrina, ‘ICC on trials along with Kenya’s elite amid claims of bribery and intimidation’, The Guardian, 1 October 2013,   [3] ‘ICC seeks Walter Barasa arrest for Kenya ‘witness tampering’, BBC News, 2 October 2013,

negative: ure media television law international law house opposes televising all criminal Open justice – crimes with large numbers of victims  The principle of open justice, including the right to a public trial [1] , is enshrined in many legal systems. The best show of commitment to open justice is to allow everyone to watch it, the best method of doing so is for the trial to be televised. This is all the more the case when the victims can't all be in court, either because of the numbers or because of the distance.  Television coverage will help bring the trial closer to the victims. International criminal trials regularly take place outside the location of the offences, either in The Netherlands such as the ICTY, ICC and Charles Taylor trial, or elsewhere, such as the ICTR sitting in Arusha, Tanzania. It would be helpful in terms of providing closure to the victims, who should be witnessing proceedings.  [1] See the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights

negative: rnational africa law human rights international law government leadership voting Kenya doesn’t need a trial. The Kenyan parliament voted against such a thing – the Kenyan people decided in 2013 that they want to give Kenyatta and Ruto a democratic mandate.  While there is a terror threat – something that Kenyatta and Ruto can deal with in their role as head of state – Kenya did not have post election violence in 2013, and ethnic conflict is not going on at a major level. Even if there is no justice, there is peace, which is more important.

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

negative: Kenyans wanted the investigation  It cannot be unwelcome interference in Kenya’s internal affairs when it was Kenyans who invited the ICC in. It was the Kenyan government that set up the Waki commission under Kenyan Court of Appeals Judge Philip Waki into the violence. It was then this commission that decided to pass the results of its investigation on to the ICC in order to get prosecutions due to the failure to set up a special tribunal. [1] The Kenyan government may have disliked the final outcome of its creation of such a commission but it was undoubtedly asked for by the Kenyan judiciary. Moreover until it became clear that the trial could collapse Kenyans were largely supportive with more than half the country supporting the trial. [2]  [1] Justice Initiative Kenya Monitor  [2] Maliti, Tom, ‘New opinion poll finds rise in support for ICC; many want Kenyatta to attend trial’, Kenya Monitor, 15 November 2013,

negative: Having the president out of the country undermines stability  While Kenyatta and his deputy William Ruto have been visiting the ICC, they should have been leading their countries. While the indictment has occurred both have remained the leaders of their countries, but have been absent while major events such as the Westgate shootings occurred. Despite the need to strong leadership in the midst of a potentially divisive event, Ruto was only granted one week away from trial. [1] Having a clear and stable leadership is important for Kenya to develop, restrict violence and ensure that policy development is able to continue, particularly given the cross-ethnic powering sharing arrangement between Kenyatta and Ruto. Absence of leadership during the fear and uncertainty surrounding this event might lead to a fresh round of violence as supporters take to the streets in protest – this election had put former enemies Kenyatta and Ruto together, easing ethnic tensions in the region [2] .  [1] Ndonga, Wamubi, ‘Kenya: Ruto Can Return to Kenya For A Week Over Westgate – ICC’, allAfrica, 23 September 2013,   [2] ‘Will Africa pull out of the ICC?’, BBC News, 11 October 2013,

negative: Even if the ICC brings proceedings, that does not guarantee that individuals, even if captured by forces that oppose them, will be transferred over to the ICC – the new Libyan government is still holding Saif Gaddafi. [1]  The ICC can also only act when the state is unwilling or unable to provide a trial – this this is the principle of complementarity. However there is not ICC force that can act to arrest a suspect. This means in effect that it will be down to the forces on the ground which may mean summary justice by those who capture the suspect if they think it won’t get a sufficiently stiff sentence at the ICC – there is no death penalty.  At any rate, many in Syria would want to see a fully military conclusion to the conflict, rather than any result through the international courts or a political settlement.  [1] Aliriza, Fadil, ‘Is Libya too scared to put Said Gaddafi on trial?’, The Independent, 16 August 2013,

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

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

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

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: While it is not possible to guarantee the capture of any suspect that has not stopped the ICC attempting to build a case. If any defendants are captured alive, it will not be a waste of time: bearing in mind that the ICC does capture many of the individuals it seeks to put on trial, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that some or all people indicted after a Syria investigation would be captured.

negative: An African Criminal Court would be a waste of money  International trials are expensive – 14% of the AU’s annual budget for an ICC trial [1] .  The ICC is cheaper than the cost of the tribunal system – the cost of the Charles Taylor trial was roughly two and a half times that of the $20M figure for ICC trials. Africa already contributes little to the budget of the ICC. The ICC will be cheaper than standalone tribunals thanks to economies of scale.  The African Union has a track record of failures as well – NEPAD, the New Partnership for African Development tried to have a quasi-judicial element aiming to create rulings against corruption, but failed [2] .  [1] IRIN, “Analysis: How Close is an African Criminal Court?”, IRIN (Integrated Regional Information Networks), 13 June 2012,   [2] Editorial, ‘African Criminal Court Not Viable’, the Star, 17 July 2012,

negative: Tribunals are adequate replacements that maintain respect for detainees' rights.  The denial of normal legal processes does not automatically confer the absence of legal processes altogether. Though a normal public trial is not possible for security reasons, detainees' rights are still respected during the internment process. Safeguards are built into the internment process so that each case can be considered fairly, with the suspect represented before a proper tribunal and given a right to appeal to a higher authority. At Guantanamo Bay, President G. W. Bush introduced military tribunals made up of five U.S. armed force officers and presided over by qualified military judges to handle the legal ambiguities of suspects held in the facility 1 . The accused still have the presumption of innocence and proof of guilt has to be beyond that of a reasonable doubt 2. If such a trial is provided (often to standards of evidence and procedure higher than in normal courts in many countries around the world) and a sentence properly passed, then this is not internment as it has been practised in the past.  1. The Telegraph. (2007, March 16). Q&A: US Military Tribunals at Guantanamo Bay. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from The Telegraph  2.Ibid

negative: ure media television law international law house opposes televising all criminal Few people would actually watch the entirety of the trial proceedings, most would probably just see clips of the footage of news reports; television news coverage of criminal trials can already take place without actual footage.  While televising trials will engage the victims and their families, televising a criminal trial may inflame tensions as well. During the trial of Saddam Hussein, Hussein made a number of calls to violence during his televised trial. Many of those who are on trial have a significant number of followers (see the widespread support for Uhuru Kenyatta) – television broadcasts would give them a means of communication

negative: ure media television law international law house opposes televising all criminal Court proceedings themselves aren’t, in general, entertaining. Live broadcasts would largely involve lawyers discussing intricate details of issues, including complex points of law. If there was a real prospect of an ICC trial becoming a matter of entertainment, it probably would have occurred with the existing trials.  Even high profile court cases will not get large viewing figures – the UK Supreme Court case in to the extradition of Julian Assange only got 14,500 viewers [1] . Existing regulations for the use of Supreme Court footage in the United Kingdom allow excerpts of the footage to be used in news and current affairs programmes, or educational uses, but bars the use of the footage in light entertainment or other programmes.  [1] Ministry of Justice, ‘Proposals to allow the broadcasting, filming, and recording of selected court proceedings’, gov.uk, May 2012,  at p10

negative: The rationale for the BIAs is flawed  The Bilateral Immunity Agreements that these states have entered in to undermine the court that these states have signed up to. BIAs invalidate the intention for the ICC that any person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the court (which only triggers when an individual is a citizen of a state that has ratified the Rome Statute, or in the territory of a Rome Statute state) and commits the horrific acts covered by the Rome Statute should be brought to trial by providing a get out clause for the powerful. A proliferation in BIAs could potentially render the ICC a court that can only try nationals of small states that do not have the leverage to get others to agree to BIAs, already the ICC is accused of bias in putting Africans on trial and ignoring the rest of the world, such agreements make this worse. [1] BIAs by one state, the United States, creates a precedent for other states to use and as they do so the field that is available for international criminal justice will become smaller and smaller.  [1] Kersten, Mark, “African and the ICC: Some Unsolicited Advice”, Africa at LSE, 28 May 2013,

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

negative: ure media television law international law house opposes televising all criminal Televising turns justice into entertainment  Broadcasting trials would be likely to turn the court in to entertainment. The Simpson trial showed how harmful a televised high profile trial can be degenerating into a freak show. The ICC trials are among the most high profile in the world so are likely to be susceptible to this. Much of the interest in the SCSL Charles Taylor trial came along when Naomi Campbell gave evidence so giving the trial celebrity interest that had little to do with the legalities involved [1] .  Jurisdictions where cameras are not permitted in courts still can and do have accurate, informative and timely reports of cases, however high profile, without filming them. Courtroom sketches, written transcripts and other tools allow reportage without the use of original footage in a tawdry manner.  [1] Bowcott, Owen, ‘Charles Taylor and the ‘dirty-looking stones’ given to Naomi Campbell’, theguardian.com, 26 April 2012,

negative: The ICC would prevent show trials  The use of the ICC could work better than domestic show trials in the aftermath of a civil war. Instead of domestic courts, prone to all their biases, an international, unbiased, criminal system could replace the prospect of a Ceausescu-style non-trial followed by summary execution, or some other form of unfair trial which could sow the seeds for problems down the line. Even the trial of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein done while the United States had a lot of influence over the country as a result of its occupation was condemned as having “serious administrative, procedural and substantive legal defects”. [1]  Instead, an ICC trial would allow the full details to be probed, investigated and independently prosecuted without being subject to domestic post-war recriminations.  [1] ‘Judging Dujail The First Trial before the Iraqi High Tribunal’, Human Rights Watch, 20 November 2006,

negative: law general house would place cameras courtrooms televise court cases Juror involvement is made less likely by the proposition line that jurors’ faces will be blanked out during the broadcast. For witnesses, the potential to warp and distort the truth already exists; they could be trying to avoid a sentence, or to make sure that justice is done if they have been wronged. They are already emotionally involved. If anything, video footage of the trial could encourage them to temper their responses and make absolutely sure that they are accurate in order to avoid questioning by the media or incrimination for giving an inaccurate statement.

negative: This argument is made irrelevant by the fact that the UK and other jurisdictions have rules of evidence which prevent the release of sensitive information from intelligence services [1] . There is no reason why playing a few minutes of recorded conversation in a courtroom automatically means that criminals and terrorists know the exact mechanisms used to record that information. Furthermore, if a trial is being held anyway, then the suspects involved already know that they have been monitored by intelligence services – otherwise they would not have been brought to trial. Similarly, high-risk terrorist cells already protect their communication by using things like encrypted messages [2] and disposable mobile phones [3] . Dangerous criminals and terrorists are already one step ahead of our current justice system; implementing this motion is the only way to have a genuine chance at apprehending them.  [1] The Official Secrets Act of 1989:  , accessed 30/08/11  [2]  , accessed 30/08/11  [3]  , accessed 30/08/11

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

negative: The Kenyan Parliament decided against creating a special tribunal, the court should not have then gone over the elected representatives’ head to hand the case to the ICC. The Parliament has since shown its displeasure at the ICC’s interference by voting to leave the ICC entirely. [1]  [1] AP, ‘Kenya votes to leave ICC days before deputy president’s Hague trial’, The Guardian, 5 September 2013,

negative: Double jeopardy ensures defendants are not brought to trial on weak grounds  The implications of this should be looked at carefully. This would grant police and the prosecution the right to prosecute an individual if the evidence against them can be ‘reanalysed.’ Surely almost all cases could see such ‘improvement in investigatory techniques,’ allowing the state to pursue individuals at will. Presumably this ‘generation’ of techniques isn’t the last; why won’t the same logic hold in asking for a third trial? A fourth? A fifth?…Subsequently, if the ‘double jeopardy’ rule is scrapped, police work will be sloppier, because police detectives will know that the insurance of a second trial exists. The ‘one-shot’ rule forces investigations and prosecutions to be of as high a quality as possible. The abolishment of double jeopardy would be ‘merely a shortcut to prosecutors seeking unlimited re-trials until they get the verdict they want’ 1. Courts cannot be permitted to be tied up in such cases, nor can prosecutors be allowed to destroy the lives of defendants by enforcing such constant emotional turmoil.  1. Bosscher, M. (2006, November 10). Danger in abolishing double jeopardy rule. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Online Opinion:

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: This is the truly the argument of rogues. Where a mob seeks to gather to deliver their own brand of very immediate justice would be against the law and should be dealt with as such. For governments to argue such an approach is a complete abdication of responsibility. It is also incredibly naïve to suppose that the niceties of treaties would be observed in the Pashtun Valley or the Gaza strip.