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

positive: y political philosophy politics defence government house would impose democracy It is wrong to suggest that the rule of law, or protection of civil rights, is less important in different regions. The fact is that democracy is the only form of government which respects every individual's right to political self determination (as explained in Proposition Argument 1). States may have the right to self-direct, but they do not have the right to deny their citizens basic political freedoms.

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

negative: It is not true that the human rights situation for women is deteriorating. The Social Institutions and Gender Index has found between 2009 and 2012 there has generally been improvement for example “The number of countries with speciﬁc legislation to combat domestic violence  has more than doubled from 21 in 2009 to 53 in 2012”. Women rights can be improved through the United Nations. This has the legitimacy to convince governments to change their policies and liberalize them. Also, the power of the United Nations comes form the number of countries involved, adding besides the EU, the powerful US, China, Russia, and South Africa etc. More than that, the UN has a lot of experience in dealing with these kind of cases. A perfect example is the economic and diplomatic sanctions imposed on the South African government in order to convince them to leave behind the apartheid regime. Moreover one of the reasons for the United Nations is the promotion of universal human rights, and this applies to women as well as anyone else; there are 187 states that are a party to the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.  SIGI, '2012 SIGI', OECD, 2012,   Reddy, Enuga S., ‘The United Nations: Partner in the Struggle against Apartheid’, un.org,   United Nations, ‘Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women’, United Nations Treaty Collection, Status at 9 October 2013,

negative: CIRP would place power in the hands of authoritarian governments  The intention for the creation of CIRP is to give more power to governments, and particularly to authoritarian governments that wish much greater control over the internet. If CIRP is meant to enable “enhanced cooperation to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet” [1] this may result in CIRP becoming an international organisation that would impose censorship on the internet. This is practically an inevitable result as the main tool of government is regulation. In the case of the internet such regulation will mean more controls on what users can and cannot do online.  The result is likely to be similar to the U.N. Human Rights Council where many of the world’s biggest human rights abusers are regularly elected and Israel and the U.S. are constantly investigated while a blind eye is turned to many abuses. [2] At the very least such control will provide an enabler that will allow countries that want to censor the internet to shelter behind the international organisation. India’s Minister of Communications and Information Technology Kapil Sibal has said the solution to this problem of objectionable content online should be permanent "That will only happen when we talk to all the stakeholders and form such a mechanism under which any objectionable content is removed," [3]  [1] ‘Full text: India’s United Nations proposal to control the Internet’, IBNLive, 21 May 2012.  [2] Ayalon, Danny, ‘Theater of the Absurd’, Foreign Policy, 30 March 2012.  [3] Julka, Harsomran, ‘Internet censorship: India to push for internet regulation at United Nations’, The Economic Times, 24 August 2012.

negative: ights punishment philosophy ethics life house believes capital punishment Encourages a culture of respect for human rights  Capital punishment is, in general seen as a significant human rights violation by the international community - not only most liberal democracies, but much of international civil society.  Abolition will help lead to the development of a culture of human rights and the rule of law by acting as a benchmark of progress, and a symbol of a commitment to these principles. It is notable that Guinea Bissau is the only abolitionist nation in the bottom ten countries in Africa for the rule of law – according to the Ibrahim Index of African Governance’s safety and rule of law category, compared to six abolitionist countries in the top ten [1] .  [1] Mo Ibrahim Foundation, “Ibrahim Index of African Governance”, Mo Ibrahim Foundation, 2013,

negative: global house believes united nations has failed The UN has been only one among many organisations which have shaped the modern doctrine of international law. More influential in developing our contemporary understanding of human rights, arguably, was the worldwide horror at the Holocaust, Nuremberg war crimes trials, and the determination of the West to hold developing nations and Communist states to the same standards that they [supposedly] adhere to. When activists in undemocratic regimes fight for better civil rights, it is seldom the UN they cite as their model.  It is fair to ascribe the United Nations its due share of credit for this emerging consensus, then, but it has been remarkably bad at actually encouraging, let alone enforcing, the rules it has helped to create.

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

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

negative: Liberty  Liberty is the foundation stone of society. Every individual must be free to do as they choose and one part of freedom is the freedom to walk away from work when you are asked. Forcing sportspeople to represent their nation in international competition is would be a kind of unfree labour very similar to involuntary servitude, or to take a more recent example conscription. They would be forced to work without their consent and for a considerably less good reason than defence of the nation. By requiring sportspeople to represent their nations we are forcing individuals to take part in actions, which, in their view, don't bring them any benefit. This is clearly the case as they rejected participating in them in the first place.  We are also ignoring that those who do not wish to take part may have legitimate reasons for rejecting a call up. This may be a fear of industry or protesting against the policies of their sport’s governing body. For example, Hilditch is one of three senior national team players who refused to participate in the Nations Cup, to protest Rugby Canada’s pay-to-play system for women in non-World Cup years.(1)  The thing that is certain is that there is no one size fits all policy which would be generally embraced by all the sportsmen. We must let them decide which course of action best suits their interest. As we have embraced the individual freedom as a core principle of our society, we must let these people shape their lives however they want.  (1) Toronto Star, ‘Canada players refuse “pay-to-play”’, Scrum Queens, July 2011,

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

negative: The LGBT community fulfills the basic principles and purposes of asylum  The LGBT community fulfills the most basic principles and purposes of the concept of asylum.  Asylum was created as a direct protection of Article 14 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) 1948 [1] which states that “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” [2] This article was created in order to protect the third article of the declaration “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” [3] This concept of asylum was created to develop a separate category of migration that would allow its applicants to breach normal immigration protocol and application procedures [4] on the basis that these people were in immediate danger and that without creating a specific bypass for them, they would endure great harm or death. The point of asylum as a specific and emergency measure and, indeed a moral necessity, was two-fold:  1) The immediate nature of the threat/danger to their person  2) That this threat was persecutory in nature  What is important to note is that “persecution” is fundamentally different than prosecution. The difference lay in the acceptability and justice of the punishment someone may or will endure. Persecution is a term used for a punishment that is unjust or morally abhorrent. Asylum has emerged as a category of protection we grant to people who we believe that we are morally obligated to help, because if we do not, they will receive a punishment they do not deserve and will severely harmed for something they deserve no harm for.  We, the proposition, believe that both of these criteria are filled by those fleeing persecution for sexual orientation and thus we are morally-obligated to grant them asylum. First, it is clear that they are facing immediate danger. Whether it is death penalties in places like Uganda [5] or vigilante justice against homosexuals such as the murder of David Kato [6] . In places like Uganda, local tabloids often publishes “Gay Lists” of individuals they believe are gay so that the community can track them down and kill them for their sexual orientation, which is how and why David Kato was murdered [7] . It is clear that whether by the state or by their neighbour, there is a clear and immediate danger to many LGBT people across the world.  The second criteria of the unacceptability of this persecution is also clear. We as Western Liberal democracies have in recent years become increasingly accepting of the LGBT community with the granting of gay marriage, application of anti-discrimination laws and even allowing of gay-adoption in many countries. The sexual orientation of an individual is in no indicative of one’s worth as a human being in the eyes of the Western Liberal Democracy and can never possible be a death sentence. It is inconceivable for us to consider sexual orientation a reason to not allow a person to raise a child, never mind view it as an acceptable reason for death.  [1] United Nations. Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.  [2] United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948.  [3] United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948.  [4] United Nations. Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.  [5] Dougherty, Jill. "U.S. State Department condemns 'odious' Ugandan anti-gay bill." CNN International. 12 May 2011.  [6] "Uganda gay activist Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera hailed." BBC News. 04 May 2011, Print.  [7] "Uganda gay activist Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera hailed." BBC News. 04 May 2011, Print.

negative: Our policy provides far more than these existing programmes (which are, we could mention, exclusive to India). By offering parents of females an annual lifelong pension we remove the fear that their female children will not support them in their old age. This will certainly encourage parents whose primary goal in reproducing is to be financially secure in old age to have girls. Giving parents preferential employment and housing benefits would certainly be an effective incentive as 42% of the Indian population lives below the bread line. [1] There are NGOs around the world concerned with women’s rights who will help to fund these initiatives and the UN has existing women’s rights projects in China. [2]  This policy is necessary to ensure that women are born in the first place so that there is a larger united group working towards gender equality within these nations. Furthermore men will not be disgruntled at all because the money that government is supposedly spending on women is in fact going into the pockets of these parents. Whereas tax money might go to roads in parts of the country one might never use or to help people poorer that the taxpayer, this policy places money directly in the pocket of any taxpayer who has a female child. It is very unlikely that men will hate their daughters for bringing in money and for not requiring costly education – if government offers to pay for female education.  [1] “Poverty in India.” Wikipedia.   [2] “United Nations Development Programme.”

negative: Denying the right to return harms Palestinians  Palestinian refugees represent the longest suffering and largest refugee population in the world today. During the creation of Israel in 1948, approximately three quarters of a million Palestinians were forced to become refugees. Together with their descendants, more than 4.3 million of these refugees are today registered with the United Nations while over 1.7 million are not. Approximately 32,000 Palestinians also became internally displaced in the areas occupied in 1948. Today, these refugees number approximately 355,000 persons. Despite the fact that they were issued Israeli citizenship, Israel has also denied these refugees their right to return to their homes or villages. [1] The fact that these refugees are forced by Israel to continue living abroad, mostly in refugee camps, further harms Palestinians by denying them the right to self-determination in their homeland which they were expelled from.  The 1993 Vienna Declaration, which reaffirmed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter (and so sets the standard in current international law), unequivocally gives all peoples the right to self-determination: "All people have the right to self-determination. Owing to this right they freely establish their political status and freely provide their economic, social and cultural development...World Conference on Human Rights considers refusal of the right to self-determination as a violation of human rights and emphasizes the necessity of effective realization of this right". [2] By this measure, the Palestinian people have a right to self-determination in their homeland, allowing them to establish an independent state if they wish, any suppression of that right should be seen as a human rights violation. Therefore Israel's denial of the Palestinian’s right of return harms the Palestinians, and so it should be ended.  [1] Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition. "Factsheet". Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition.   [2] United Nations World Conference on Human Rights. “VIENNA DECLARATION AND PROGRAMME OF ACTION”. United Nations. 14-25 June 1993.

negative: The use of drones creates a precedent that other states may use.  The United States is the first state with a large number of drones and other unmanned military vehicles. It is also the first country to use them. This inevitably means that the US is creating the precedent for how they will be used in future. The United States is aware of this potential and President Obama’s counterterrorism adviser John Brennan has stated “Other nations also possess this technology, and many more nations are seeking it, and more will succeed in acquiring it. President Obama and those of us on his national security team are very mindful that as our nation uses this technology, we are establishing precedents that other nations may follow, and not all of those nations may — and not all of them will be nations that share our interests or the premium we put on protecting human life, including innocent civilians.” [1] This is exactly the problem; do we really want to live in a world where any country can carry out targeted killings of people who are in another nation? Such a world would have the ever present risk of a covert conflict becoming a much more open shooting war.  [1] McNeal, Greg, ‘Is the U.S. Setting Precedents in its Drone Wars’, Forbes, 6 June 2012.

negative: The only way the United Nations Security Council can be reformed is through expansion.  Current UN Security Council members will never give up their seats. As well as Britain and France Russia could equally be considered to be no longer worthy of being a member of the UNSC. Russia’s economy is significantly smaller than either of the other European members. However no one seriously thinks Russia will give up its seat. Instead the United Nations Security Council will have to be expanded to make it more representative. This will mean bringing in Brazil, India and an African representative. There is precedence for expanding the council as Article 23 of the charter was amended in 1963 to enlarge the security council membership from eleven to fifteen. [1]  [1] United Nations, 1945, Introductory Note,

negative: The European Parliament may ‘speak for Europe’ but the Council speaks for the EU’s member states. Privileging the European Parliament at the expense of the Council erodes the intergovernmental nature of EU decision-making. It is important to protect the sovereign powers of the individual member states; this is achieved in the Council, which is comprised of representatives of each national government. This has been particularly the case in the United Kingdom where there have been rows over sovereignty in relatively obscure areas such as prisoners voting rights. [1]  The European Union can only work if national considerations are put above all others. The Council works because the best possible conclusions are reached precisely because compromise between the varying interests is required. Involving the European Parliament would shift the emphasis of the entire EU from being a forum for independent nations to being a decision making body for a large number of states, undermining the sovereignty of domestic parliaments.  [1] Bagehot, ‘Britain’s mounting fury over sovereignty’, The Economist, 10 February 2011,

negative: It was not the fault of the Taliban that there were several years of drought in Afghanistan, something which would cause great suffering in any peasant economy. And while some Afghan refugees specifically fled the Taliban’s austere regime, most were displaced during two decades of warfare that preceded it, or left the country for economic reasons. Nor is it surprising that the Taliban had difficult relations with the representatives of the United Nations, as it is not recognised by the UN, where the Afghanistan seat in the General Assembly was still held by the discredited regime the Taliban overthrew.  The opposition seems to think that negotiations equal to condoning human right's violations and handing over a sort of Carte blanche to the Taliban. Whereas talks pressurize such groups effectively to give up their evil ways.  The point of talks is to give very little power on very definite humanitarian conditions/terms. To trade.  If there are no talks; then the Taliban will proclaim victory (as they do already) once the coalition forces are withdrawn and continue fighting local governments at the cost of civilian lives in the region. (The eventual withdrawal of coalition forces is not being debated).The war is in an economic loss and the people/governments of the democratic nations of the UK and USA frankly care more about their/our failing economies than the state of Afghan civilians who have been suffering with the coalition's knowledge since before 1989. To clarify further for the opposition seems to not be wary of this; in democracies, countries should and in time do; work according to the will of their people.

negative: The head of state should be a position that is separate and distinct from politics  Monarchy is preferable to the alternative; an elected Presidency. It avoids the partisan nature of a Presidency, inevitably associated with one of the political parties, and thus incapable of uniting the nation as monarchy can. For example in the United States there has been a campaign against President Barak Obama with the most extreme views in the ‘birther’ movement who deny he was even born in the United States. It would be impossible for him to unite the nation while one in four Americans think their President was not born in the USA. [1] In all countries public trust of politicians is sinking to new lows, another reason why an elected Presidency fails to provide a focus for national feeling. Constitutional monarchy is also a more effective system of government, vesting real power clearly in the hands of democratically accountable leaders with a mandate to govern, without all the dangers of political gridlock that can result from conflict between two differently elected bodies (e.g. in the USA or France).  [1] Condon, Stephanie, ‘Poll: One in four Americans think Obama was not born in the U.S.’, CBS News, 21 April 2011,  (accessed 9/9/11)

negative: Private schools lack diversity  A private school is an institutionalised, artificial environment where the child will be exposed almost completely to children of their own socioeconomic background. This has two very interlinked problems.  1) One of the most important factors of a child’s education is to be exposed to a variety of races, religions, economies and abilities. This allows children to grow up to be more aware of these differences between people and more accepting of diversity as they get older. Yet private schools admission costs alone mean that students are from wealthy backgrounds, and this means they are largely exposed to other people from wealthy backgrounds. As we know, the majority of the people in the world are not wealthy and therefore these students have an extremely blinkered view of their country. Pakistan can be used as a prime example, where half of its children cannot read a full sentence at primary level and government spending on education has been cut from 2.5% to 1.5%. For those in private education and who usually go to university aboard they will never see or understand the situation of the majority in Pakistan and thus has a dysfunctional view of their country. (Landzettel 2011)  2) It is an inevitable feature of democracies that the rich have particular access to politicians and policy-makers. Furthermore, students from private education are much more likely to go into government or political roles. As mentioned above 66% of British politicians went to private school, and 44% of American politicians (against an 11% national average). While the rich don't have a need for state education because they can pursue education for their children from other sources, they have no motivation to lobby politicians on behalf of the education system and a perverse incentive to remove education from political agendas in favour of their preferred issues and legislation. Only by forcing the rich into the same situation as the poor can we expect to gain meaningful ground in terms of education reform, especially in terms of increased funding relative to national and municipal budgets. We cannot expect education will be a national priority until the entire nation has a vested interest in the good order of the system.

negative: global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression Advancing national interests  A nation’s foreign policy should be primarily concerned with advancing the national interest. By the national interest we mean promoting the interest of the nation as a whole rather than any of its subnational groups; whether this is building up the state's military power to protect its citizens through alliances or military bases, benefiting the nation's economy through trade deals, or encouraging the creation of friendly governments around the globe. [1] Circumventing censorship helps obtain this last objective for democracies by encouraging peoples in autocracies to find their own voice and push for democracy; a system of government that is more compatible to other democracies. Ultimately this will also provide other benefits; friendly governments with similar political systems are more likely to create trade agreements with each other so providing economic benefits, in the 1990s the volume of trade between a democracy and autocracy was on average 40% less than two democracies. [2] Equally importantly democracies do not fight other democracies so helping to create stability. [3]  [1] Realism emphasises the alliances bit, Liberalism the economic self interest, and constructivists spreading values. Walt, Stephen M, “International Relations: One World, Many Theories”, Foreign Policy, Spring 1998,   [2] Mansfield, Edward D., et al., “Free to Trade: Democracies, Autocracies, and International Trade”, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 94, No. 2,  p.318  [3] Rousseau, David L., et al., “Assessing the Dayadic Nature of the Democratic Peace, 1918-88”, The American Political Science Review, Vol.90, No.3,  p.515

negative: Article 98 Agreements are a crucial tool in maintaining American national sovereignty  As a key part of its national sovereignty, the US should not be required to have its citizens subject to the ICC if it does not ratify the treaty itself of its own choice. It is an accepted principle, as enshrined in Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, [1] that a treaty only binds the states that have consented to it. Binding citizens of states who are not parties, who may be acting under the orders of a state arm, such as a military, when in the territory of state parties, violates that state’s sovereignty. There have been attempts to put US soldiers on trial. Italy for example put Mario Lozano on trial for the killing of an Italian agent in Iraq, the US maintained he was doing his job at a checkpoint and provided warnings while the Italians considered it murder. In this case the United States was able to refuse to hand the soldier over but BIA’s ensure that such actions will not be a concern whenever troops are deployed abroad. [2]  Bilateral Immunity Agreements are a legitimate tool to ensure that this key principle is protected in the case of the International Criminal Court – this has no bearing on the nations that desire to be part of the International Criminal Court.  [1] United Nations. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969,   [2] “Controversial Trial Opens in Rome: Italy Tries US Soldier For Iraq Murder”, Spiegel Online, 17 April 2007,

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

negative: global politics society minorities house believes south ossetia should be South Ossetia has a right to self-determination  The 1993 Vienna Declaration, which reaffirmed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter (and so sets the standard in current international law), unequivocally gives all peoples the right to self-determination: "All people have the right to self-determination. Owing to this right they freely establish their political status and freely provide their economic, social and cultural development...World Conference on Human Rights considers refusal of the right to self-determination as a violation of human rights and emphasizes the necessity of effective realization of this right". [1]  By this measure, South Ossetia has the right to self-determination (by democratic processes), and any suppression of that right should be seen as a human rights violation. In 2006, South Ossetia held a referendum that found over 99% of its population of over 100,000 desire independence from Georgia. 95% of the population turned out to vote. The referendum was monitored by a team of 34 international observers. [2] These facts are the core of the case for South Ossetian independence. It demonstrates that South Ossetians are entirely unified and enthusiastic in their desire for independence. The strength and unity of these calls for independence are almost unprecedented and cannot be ignored by the international community. And, certainly, the percentage of a population that desires independence is of relevance to assessing the legitimacy of the call and a country's right to self-determination. By this standard, South Ossetia's right to self-determination is highly legitimate.  [1] United Nations World Conference on Human Rights. “VIENNA DECLARATION AND PROGRAMME OF ACTION”. United Nations. 14-25 June 1993.   [2] BBC News. “S Ossetia votes for independence”. BBC News. 13 November 2006.

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

negative: The United States government cannot afford to fund universal health care. Other universal social welfare policies such as Social Security and Medicare have run into major problems with funding. Costs are rising at the same time that the baby boomer generation are growing old and retiring. Soon tens of millions of boomers will stop contributing much tax and start demanding much more in benefits than before. In such a situation we cannot afford to burden the nation with another huge government spending program. Nations that provide universal health care coverage spend a substantial amount of their national wealth on the service.  With government control of all health care, caps will be placed on costs. As a result many doctors would not be rewarded for their long hours and important roles in our lives. The road to becoming a doctor is long and hard; without the present financial rewards many young people will not choose to study medicine. Current doctors may find that they do not want to continue their careers in a government-controlled market. The American Medical Association does not back a government-controlled, single-payer universal health care system.  The current system of offering group insurance through employers covers many Americans with good quality health insurance. The group plan concept enables insurance companies to insure people who are high risk and low risk by mixing them in the same pool. Issues over losing or leaving a job with health benefits are dealt with by federal laws which require companies to continue to offer workers cover for at least 18 months after they leave employment.

negative: speech debate internet freedom law human rights digital freedoms freedom expression The offer of amnesty allows home governments to discredit bloggers and paint them as foreign agents of disruption  When Western states and democracies offer amnesty to bloggers under threat from their home governments, the blogger’s views and comments immediately become coloured in the eyes of the public. The government is able to point to the Western powers offering this amnesty and can easily claim that their offers are the result of collusion between bloggers and their foreign patrons to spread propaganda, so the blogger is therefore guilty of treason. As unfortunate as it may be in individual cases, the result is that offering amnesty will only weaken the cause of democracy. Being sent to prison for their beliefs will do far more to serve their cause than seeking succour in the arms of another state, one that has demonstrated antagonism toward their homeland. The ability for governments to stoke nationalist fires has been thoroughly demonstrated in recent months by China’s reaction toward territorial disputes with Japan. [1] It is very easy to rile the public against a perceived external aggressor, especially given that these states often control much of the mainstream media outlets, and those who offer amnesty give themselves up on a platter as an adversary to be exploited in the public consciousness. The better plan for democracies in pursuit of their goals is to condemn acts of oppression and to seek diplomatic redress, but direct interference in the course of states’ justice will doing nothing but harm relations with regimes and turn the people against the proponents of reform.  [1] The Economist. “Barren Rocks, Barren Nationalism”. 25 August 2012.

negative: The U.N. Convention would make it harder for states to deport illegal immigrants who broke the law by entering the country.  States have the right to deport people who entered the country illegally, and the U.N. Convention would make that more difficult. The Convention gives extensive rights even to illegal immigrants, especially in the realm of the justice system (Article 17). Indeed, migrant activists often see deportation policies as immoral. Yet, a state has every right to arrest, imprison, and deport illegal immigrants. When an illegal immigrant commits a crime (in addition to unlawful entry into the country), states are often forced to pay to keep the criminal in prison, rather than deport him. The United States loses half-a-billion dollars each year this way. [1] Ultimately it's a matter of enforcing national laws, sovereignty, and the integrity of a nation's welfare-system.  [1] Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform. "Economic costs of legal and illegal immigration." Accessed June 30, 2011.  .

negative: Sanctions are necessary for national security  Sanctions are a better alternative to military action. The most recent set of sanctions were imposed in 1996 in response to two US civilian planes belonging to the group of exiles ‘brothers of peace’ being shot down by the Cuban Air Force near Cuba. [1] The United States would have been justified in reacting proportionally with some military action but instead reinforced sanctions through the Helms-Burton Act. [2] This shows that the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of support for Cuba in 1991 did not mean an end to the threat posed by Cuba. Cuba has remained communist and the Castro regime has shown it is still willing to antagonize the United States. As Cuba is situated in a strategic location close to the United States the US government cannot be precipitate in removing sanctions at least until Cuba proves it is a good neighbour.  [1] University of Minnesota Human Rights Library, ‘Armando Alejandre Jr., Carlos Costa, Mario de la Pena y Pablo Morales v. Republica de Cuba’, 1999.   [2] 104th Congress, ‘H.R.927 -- Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)’, 1996.

negative: A moral imperative to intervene  When a massacre is about to happen it is legal to intervene to prevent that massacre. The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ which was accepted by the UN in 2005. Resolution 60/1 at the 2005 World Summit stated, there was international responsibility “to help to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action in a timely and decisive manner.” Though this will only happen “should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities are manifestly failing to protect their populations”. [1] This is most certainly the case in Syria where the national authorities are the ones doing much of the killing.  It must be proved that the Syrian regime is responsible for the attacks; the US and UK say there is such evidence but so far the link is not crystal clear. Even the UK government accepts that there must be “convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief”. [2] As the doctrine states peaceful means must have been tried – and in Syria after two years of conflict we can safely say a peaceful resolution is not in sight. And the use of force must be proportionate – which since there is no plan for a full scale invasion in Syria it will be. [3]  [1] United Nations General Assembly, ‘Responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity’, Resolution 60/1 2005, p.30   [2] ‘Chemical weapon use by Syrian regime – UK Government legal position’, gov.uk, 29 August 2013,   [3] Cassese, Antonio, ‘Ex iniuria ius oritur: Are We Moving towards International Legitimation of Forcible Humanitarian Countermeasures in the World Community?’, EIJL, Vol.10, 1999,

negative: Allowing women asylum will damage feminist movements  In order to drive social change, these regions need women who are open-minded and want to be part of feminist movements. By giving them the “easy way-out”, social change will be delayed in countries with a legal system that discriminate against women. Females will have two options. First of all, they can leave the country and come in the European Union where the situation is already better. Second, they can choose to remain in their national country and fight for their rights. It is only human to take the easy way out. Movements for women’s rights will therefore lose many of those who want to change something and are willing to take action and as a result a lot of power. Those who migrate will be those who are more independent, more willing to do something to change their situation. Their energies will be directed outwards to leaving their home rather than to improving their situation where they are which would help millions of other women as well as themselves. This is the case with emigration more generally those who leave are those who are more entrepreneurial and are more likely to be leaders – in the United States 18% of small businesses were owned by immigrants, higher than the 13% share of the total population that are immigrants. As such movements for women’s rights will not only be deprived of numbers, but they will lose the leadership of the women who would be most likely to push for change.  Editorial, ‘Immigrants and Small Businesses’, The New York Times, 30 June 2012,

negative: business health addiction house would ban smoking public spaces Smokers have a right to enjoy themselves.  Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood"1. So, smokers have the same rights as non-smokers and should not be targeted because of how they choose to live their lives. Article 24 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay" 1.If some people get their rest and leisure by smoking with friends in a pub, it seems that governments should make it possible, by at least having smoking areas in pubs, restaurants, etc. A ban on smoking in all public places would mean smokers could never enjoy themselves like they want to, at least not legally. There are many groups which feel that the rights of the smoker are being ignored, e.g. "Forest".  1 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, General Assembly of the United Nations,

negative: The response will be to impose more control over the movement of women.  While it is cliché that every action has an equal and opposite reaction in this case the reaction is likely to be bad. If the European Union wants to open up to women from countries that discriminate against women then the clear recourse for those countries is to make sure their women can’t leave. More government and family control will mean more rights will be infringed and leaving the country will be impossible even for tourism. If men are worried about their wives claiming asylum when on holiday why would they give them the opportunity? The state could respond by taking away, or regulating the possibility for women to leave the country. If in the present day, where the EU is not offering asylum, countries in the Middle East and Africa have the certainty that women will come back after their visa expires, this certainty will no longer be in place after we approve the motion. It is in no interest for national governments to lose population and therefore they will act towards infringing this right and many others to keep women at home.

negative: global house believes united nations has failed No-one is suggesting that the test of a successful United Nations should be an end to all armed conflict. But even judged on its own criteria, it has been remarkably ineffectual. The examples of Kuwait and Korea are both situations where defensive wars were fought by the US and allies for their own reasons – the containment of Saddam Hussein and Communism, respectively – not UN ideals. Where the UN did not authorise military action, such as in Vietnam or Iraq in 2003, this made no difference. It is hard to think of an example where imminent conflict was definitely averted due to UN influence.  As for UN peacekeepers, they usually come into conflicts only after they have ended and thousands of civilians been killed. They often do a good job, but they are seldom indispensable. Other regional organisations, such as NATO or the African Union, can equally well perform this function.