query: Giving politicians’ immunity from prosecution allows them to focus on performing their duties  The premier reason that most states, even those that allow for the prosecution of politicians, abstain from prosecuting them while they hold office is that being a politician is a job that requires one’s undivided attention. Especially for the holders of prominent national-level offices, writing legislation, responding to crises under one’s purview, consulting one’s constituents, and engaging in campaign work often lead to politicians working an upwards of 12 hour day, every day. To expect politicians cope with all of these concerns will simultaneously constructing a defense against pending charges would be to abandon all hope of them serving their constituents effectively. We are rightly aggravated when politicians take extensive vacations or other extracurricular forays. [1] Being under indictment not only consumes even more of a politician’s time; the stress it causes will inevitably seep into what remaining time they do allocating to fulfilling their duties, further hindering their performance. The impeachment proceedings for Bill Clinton on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice were so intensive that they took tremendous resources away from not only the president himself, but all branches of the federal government for several months [2] , amidst serious domestic and foreign policy concerns such as the ongoing war in Kosovo.  [1] Condon, George E. Jr., ‘The Long History of Criticizing Presidential Vacations’ The Atlantic, 18 August 2011,  [Accessed September 9, 2011]  [2] Linder, Douglas O., ‘The Impeachment Trial of President William Clinton’, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-KANSAS CITY (UMKC) SCHOOL OF LAW, 2005,  [Accessed September 19, 2011]

positive: eneral punishment politics government house would grant politicians immunity Politicians have to divide their focus anyway. As the examples above concede, being a politician means being pulled in several different directions. Elections are particularly distracting, and in jurisdictions with fixed election cycles like the United States can make periods of up to a year prior to the election a write-off for getting real work done. Thus, personal liability is nothing special among the many concerns a politician has. In fact, accountability, of this direct type, and for serious offences, is probably more important than most of the things a politician is forced to consider, and at the very least deserves inclusion among them.

negative: The job of the reporter is to report the news not to decide what is news and what isn’t.  Any political reporter has a duty, first and foremost, to report on the issues being discussed by political leaders on all sides. The whole point of a democracy is that the people get to chose what and who they believe. The electorate in many countries have proven themselves remarkably willing to turn a blind eye to the peccadilloes of politicians as long as unemployment is low, wages are on the rise and housing is affordable. So for example the electorate ignored Tony Blair’s daliances with the property market and famously Bill Clinton was reelected despite already being plagued by scandals and reached his highest approval ratings after the Lewinski scandal. [i]  However, others will make decisions on the basis of the perceived character of the candidate or elected official [ii] . Many politicians are keen for the virtuous aspects of their private lives – families, personal achievements, sportsmanlike activities – to be shared with a usually uninterested public, it seems only reasonable that their inner demons should enjoy the same publicity has the angels on their shoulders.  Aristegui was doing her job to the letter – reporting the issues exercising the political class of the day and leaving it to the voters to decide what mattered to them and what did not.  [i] ‘Poll: Clinton’s approval rating up in wake of impeachment’, CNN.com, 20 December 1998  [ii] Matthew D’Ancona. Politics in this age of austerity will be a contest of character. The Daily Telegraph. 12 May 2012.

negative: Heavy scrutiny forces politicians to dedicate themselves fully to their public service  When politicians see themselves constantly under the lens of public scrutiny, they are essentially forced to dedicate themselves wholesale to their duties as representatives. They are disincentivized in the extreme to pursue any transgressive or hypocritical activities behind closed doors, resulting in more energy dedicated to legislating, and less to lining their pockets or chasing interns, since the added risk of being discovered increases the cost of trying to conceal their foibles. [1] Having a culture of scrutiny of politicians private lives will mean those who most see their work as a public service and so will be dedicated to it will be the ones who seek to become politicians. Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s lurid sex life has thrown light on the sexual misconduct rife in French politics and has actually sparked a major effort to reform the system and a change to a more demanding culture towards politicians. [2] Politicians are human, after all, and susceptible to the base human urges that power unchecked is wont to accommodate. A powerful probe into politicians’ private lives can only serve the cause of better governance.  [1] Hughs, J. “Does the Public Really Have the Right to Know About Politicians’ Private Lives”. University of Phoenix Online. 27 June 2011,   [2] Clifford, C. and Vandoorne, S. “Scandals Put a Spotlight on France’s Hidden Sexism, Privacy Laws”. CNN. 3 June 2011,

negative: Citizens have a right to know who is being elected to represent them  Beyond the discussion of the balancing of the right to privacy, it is important to understand the nature of representatives as stand-ins for the citizens who elect them. In other words, politicians are surrogates. Their duty is to represent the people in public life across all issues and policies. [1] Yet it is impossible to ascertain the desires of the citizens on all issues in the course of an election campaign. Even harder is to understand political decision-making in a context that had not existed at the time of the election. For example, if a war was to begin suddenly in a country that had not expected any conflict and had not elected representatives on the basis of how they stood on fighting this war. But that is exactly why politicians are elected as much for who they are as what their avowed policy aims are. We elect politicians who we believe will act best under such changing conditions; the ‘3 am phone call’, how a candidate will react in a crisis, is often a major issue in U.S. Presidential elections and temperament is often the only way to judge this. [2] Mitt Romney as candidate in the 2012 election was widely considered to have lost out to Obama on this measure. [3] Understanding the personal lives of politicians allows voters to elect one who best represents them in the sense of being able to act in their place in a changing world. Thus it is critical for the good electoral decision-making that the right to privacy of politicians be infringed.  [1] Hughs, J. “Does the Public Really Have the Right to Know About Politicians’ Private Lives”. University of Phoenix Online. 27 June 2011,   [2] Fallows, James, “Mitt Romney Drops His 3 a.m. Phone Call”, the Atlantic, 12 September 2012,   [3] Drum, Kevin, “Obama Wins the 3 a.m. Phone Call Test”, Mother Jones, 14 October 2012,

negative: Even accusations affects reputations and therefore ability to do the job  Even if this were only gossip, the fact that the perception existed that the president was an alcoholic would affect how other politicians interacted with him – it is, therefore, a matter for public concern. [i] National leaders are left politically weakened by plenty of things that aren’t true. They are further undermined by things that are true but apparently trivial if they are kept secret. If that is actually what members of congress believe then it will affect their interaction with the president. By contrast, if that is not what they truly believe, then it speaks a great deal to their character that they are willing to resort to the politics of the gutter. Either way Mexicans have a reasonable right to know that the argument is going on.  Aristegui did just that. It is far more worrying that a news organization would even consider dismissing her for doing her job – presumably because it inconvenienced or embarrassed someone powerful [ii] .  [i] Seymour-Ure, Colin, ‘Rumour and politics’, Politics, Vol.17, No.2, 1982, pp.1-9  [ii] Kate Katharine Ferguson. Column: Politicians’ private lives make a difference. We should pay attention. Thejournal.ie. 1 August 2012.

negative: Those who satisfy these demands by citizens are more likely to be voted back into office. It is in their absolute interest to keep their focus on relevant emails or phone talks, as if they don’t do that, there is another person qualified for the job who will.  Secondly, it is clear that in this quest for protecting society, it is in the government’s interest to obey the law. As recent events have proven, the population is allergic to any state agency’s violation of law, especially when it comes to warrantless tapping. They won’t risk breaking the law in the hope they will catch more criminals as they know there would be a society and media backlash. If anything, it is in any politician’s interest to search and investigate if any government agency is conducting such abuses and to reveal it with the resulting plaudits and votes it will bring. A politician will gain much more if it takes a public stance against that agency by imposing tighter controls and inspections rather than secretly supporting it. Let us not forget that it is the people who keep politicians in office.  Thirdly, we must remember that there is a lot of pressure from different NGOs and even whistleblowers that is put on these officials not to make any wrong steps. They know that if the population finds out that they focused on anything else but catching wrong doers, their career is over and there is no coming back.  As a result, we have every reason to believe that the government will maximize its efforts of protecting us, but abusing its powers won’t benefit it on any level.

negative: There is political capital to be gained from adopting a hard line stance on law and order issues, but there is also political capital to be gained from showing that a particular policy has had a positive effect on reoffending. The Pew Foundation report cited above has also determined that some 90% of US voters were in favour of reducing the length of prison sentences and "strengthening" probation and parole systems1.  The opposition assumes that politicians are interested only in cheap, hollow, short term solutions to problem. However, a large number of policy makers are genuinely public spirited, with a sincere interest in solving long-standing social problems. The adversarial nature of politics tends to prevent politicians from seeking elaborate or novel solutions to such issues. Spending money on intangible rehabilitation programmes will always provoke more criticism than spending money on training more police officers.  The resolution allows politicians to engage with the novel solution to criminality offered by rehabilitation while at the same time meeting a general demand for criminals to be visibly and strictly punished for their actions.  There will be a cynical minority of politicians who will see the dramatic nature of flogging as an opportunity to disguise cuts to reform programmes. Equally, there will be others who will use corporal sentences as an opportunity to address and resolve the politically intractable problem of criminal deviance.  1 "Tackling Recidivism: They All Come Home", The Economist, 20 April 2011,

negative: Individuals have a right to privacy, including to their own financial records  Privacy is a fundamental human right, one that should be defended for all citizens, including those who govern us. [1] What people do with their own finances is their own business. People generally speaking have a basic respect for privacy. Politicians don’t owe the electorate any special privileges like their financial history. A politician is effectively an employee of his constituents and the citizens of the polity. His or her duty is not so special as to demand the handing over of all information on one of the most critical aspects of their private life. Financial affairs like income and taxes are a private matter, and should be treated as such by voters and governments. This is even more the case when it comes to financial history, much of which may have happened long before the individual decided to become a politician. Making politicians’ financial affairs fair game for reporters and others who would exploit the information only serves to undermine the rights that all citizens rightly enjoy.  [1] Privacy International. 2010. “Privacy as a Political Right”. Index on Censorship 39(1): 58-68.

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

negative: It is fashionable to exaggerate the pervasiveness of the “negative campaign environment”, but democracy still functions perfectly well in almost all liberal states. People still vote when their vote will matter the most. Voter turnout in the 2008 [i] American presidential election and in the 2010 UK general election [ii] was significantly higher than in previous years. Both of these elections took place against the backdrop of a rapidly evolving financial crisis. Both elections focussed on candidates promoting a wide range of new and radical ideas. Both elections produced a preponderance of attack adverts that focussed on the content of policies, ideologies and the reliability of evidence showing the candidates’ previous policy success. With one or two over-reported exceptions, the politics of the personal was largely absent in both the US and the UK.  Moreover, liberal-democratic ideals promote openness and transparency within both the government and the political class. Voters are entitled to information on a candidate’s “down-side”; the opponents of a candidate are obviously well placed to voice such concerns. Journalists risk accusations of bias if they attempt to publish details of an individual politician’s failings in office. However, when these issues are raised by an opponent of that politician, the press is placed in a position that allows it to act as a disinterested assessor of that claim. Far from simply reproducing negative messages, as side proposition claim that they do, the mass media frequently conduct detailed investigations into the content of attack adverts. “Ad watch” reports of this type are now a common feature of US election coverage [iii] . The interrelationship of politicians and the press enhances the transparency of the campaigning process.  Proposition have unrealistic expectations when it comes to assessing the efficacy of campaign adverts. It is true that an attack advert will not be able to convert a supporter of its target into a supporter of the attacking politician. However, this is equally true of positive campaign adverts. The transfer of political loyalties will always be a long, drawn out process that on-spec campaigning cannot hope to influence [iv] .  The resolution would compromise the efficiency of political campaigning by obliging candidates to over emphasise the role of ideology and policy in campaign literature, rather than their qualities as a decision maker.  Moreover, the resolution would encourage politicians to “over-promise” in manifestos and campaign literature. If the only means by which contenders in an election can distinguish themselves is by pledging to initiate more new policies, taxes, tax cuts, projects or consultations than their opponents, the workloads of successful candidates will become artificially inflated and unmanageable.  In short, politicians running for office will be incentivised to create ever more outlandish manifesto pledges and policy initiatives. Due to term-limits, organisational inefficiencies and unpredictable, emergent problems, very few of these promises will be realised. The consequence of this situation is obvious. When politicians fail to keep their promises, citizens will lose confidence in the effectiveness of the state.  There is greater utility in encouraging politicians to be cautious and conservative when campaigning. If an election is dominated by fantastical and elaborate schemes that are left unfulfilled, the likely result will be chronic apathy and disengagement among the electorate – precisely the outcome that proposition wish to avoid.  [i] Voter turnout in presidential elections: 1828-2008, The American Presidency Project,   [ii] The Electoral Commission,   [iii] Winning, but losing. How negative campaigns shrink electorate, manipulate news media. Ansolabhere, S. Iyengar, S. Stamford University.   [iv] Effectiveness of negative political advertising. Won Ho Chang and others. 1998. Ohio University, Scripps School of Journalism.

negative: Financial dealings can indicate candidates’ willingness to circumvent the system/play by the rules  A lot of politicians come from positions of prestige and power before seeking public office. Many politicians have wealth in their own right, or a base of wealthy supporters. Understanding where that wealth came from and how they used their privileged position is very important to citizens when choosing their leaders. Access to candidates’ financial information allows good candidates to show their honesty and financial uprightness, and sometimes even to display their talent and acumen that allowed them to succeed. More importantly, it allows people to scrutinize the dealings of politicians who used their often privileged position to avoid paying high taxes and to shield their wealth from the public taking its legal due. What these insights provide is a valuable snapshot of what candidates are willing to do to promote their own interests versus those of the state and society. It shows if there is a propensity to engage in morally dubious practices, and such behavior could well be extrapolated to be a potential incentive to corrupt practice. While tax avoidance is not illegal, it can well be considered unjust when rigorously applied, especially considered that the special knowledge necessary to profit from it belongs only to those of wealth and privilege. The value of this knowledge was made particularly clear in the case of Mitt Romney’s presidential bid. When Romney released his tax returns it became painfully clear that he was using the system to his advantage, at the expense of the taxpayer. [1] Citizens deserve to know to what lengths, if any, those who wish to represent them are willing to game the system they would be elected to lead.  [1] Drucker, J. “Romney Avoids Taxes Via Loophole Cutting Mormon Donations”. Bloomberg. 29 October 2012,

negative: The need to constantly fight elections compromises a politician's ability to make the difficult and unpopular decisions that may be needed at a given time:  A major focus of a legislator hoping to serve another term is on the next election and on vote getting. It is often the case that hard decisions need to be made by legislators, but it is difficult for them to do so when they are fixated on being reelected. Legislators have an incentive to put tough decisions off if they can retain power by doing so. An example of such seemingly perpetual procrastination is observable in the United States Congress's attitude toward social security. The fund is set to become insolvent, by some estimates, in less than two decades, yet congressmen and senators have chosen time and again to put off enacting painful, but necessary reform to the system. They find it easier to delay a decision until the next Congress, preferring their own reelection to the good of the nation. When constrained by term limits, legislators must make the most of their limited time in office, resulting in greater prioritization of difficult decisions and reform1. Furthermore, the need to constantly fight elections places politicians in the pocket of lobby-groups and election supporters to a greater degree, as they will always need to go back to them for support, and thus cannot make decisions that are in the national interest alone. While there will always be some of this behavior, it is curtailed by term limits, as legislators will, in their final term at the very least, not be beholden to as many special interests as they cannot run again. Bolder legislative action is observed from retiring legislators in the United States Congress, for example. When a congressman or senator does not intend to seek reelection, his tendency to vote along strict party lines diminishes substantially. Term limits, just like voluntary retirement, leads legislators to vote more on the basis of principle than on party stance2. The result of this is a more independent legislature, with a greater interest in actually serving the people.  1 Chan, Sewell. 2008. "Debating the Pros and Cons of Term Limits". New York Times. 2 Scherer, Michael. 2010. "Washington's Time for Bipartisanship: Retirement". Time.

negative: Negative campaigning leads to negative governance.  Information on demographics, on taxation rates, on the state’s finances are made publically available precisely so that voters can arrive at reasoned, rational and nuanced decisions as to whom they should vote for. Governments are judged by evidence of the efficacy of their policies.  Analysis conducted by political scientists William Riker, Michael Davis and Michael Ferrantino [i] show that where negative campaigning is permitted, even politicians with no history of running attack campaigns will adopt aggressive electoral tactics. If a politician wins on a positive platform- by promising to implement new policies and reform existing ones- then his chances of re-election will be affected by his success or failure in bringing about those changes. The electorate are able to test and assess a politician’s positive claims. However, if a politician campaigns on a negative platform, portraying his opponent as incompetent or his policies as damaging, an electoral victory will make such claims unassailable. The attacking politician will be free to state that his election has prevented the dire consequences he warned from coming about. Non one will be able to prove otherwise, notwithstanding the spluttering of his defeated opponent.  By portraying opponents as reckless or dangerously radical, an attacking politician immediately sets himself up as the lesser of two evils. This may do little to convert undecided voters, but it still allows the successful candidate to take credit for “protecting” the electorate. Although this strategy may be the easiest to implement, it does not fit with the ideal of critical and ideological transparency that characterises contemporary liberal states.  The increasing amount of information produced by governments, think tanks, universities and political parties is intended to make the state- and the electorate- more responsive to the success and failure of particular policies. By closing the gap between the proposal of a policy, its implementation and the indicators of its success, information-led democracy supposedly makes governance and democratic choice more efficient. Negative campaigning circumvents this feedback system. It distorts ideas, by misrepresenting them and rendering them unacceptable, before any objective assessment of their merits has taken place.  Moreover, negative portrayals of candidates and policies, as noted above, are more likely to dominate media coverage, than the sober, balanced information produced by academics and analysts. This line of argument also leads to equally damaging distortion of the attacking candidate’s platform and proposals. By diverting resources to negative campaigning and attack adverts, candidates have less time and money to expend on the creation of positive policies. Indeed, the fewer testable claims that a candidate makes about his own policies, the less likely he is to be subject to effective criticism by opponents or the electorate if he takes up office.  Negative campaigning incentivises a distant, evasive, conservative approach to government. It creates an adversarial relationship between politicians and those wishing to gather and disseminate information about the effects of policies – academics, political analysts and engaged citizens.  [i] The Rational Attacker in Russia? Negative Campaigning in Russian Presidential Elections. Sigelman, L and Shiraev, E. New York University, April 2001.

negative: Open primaries will distract and confuse the majority of the electorate  Primary Elections do little more than provide a distraction to the political process. Instead of focusing on the political process for the maximum time possible between elections, politicians are constantly distracted by electioneering, not just to be re-elected but also to seek selection as their party’s candidate.  This may create a dangerous precedent of politics being little more than one constant election cycle, with decision being made to please constituents in order to win two elections. We see this the most in the US House of Representatives, where decisions influencing ‘pork-barrel’ spending are made with the main aim of keeping constituents happy in order to avoid primary defeat, to the detriment of government being more disposed to dysfunction. [1]  The constant election cycle can cause disillusionment with voters who fail to see tangible effects of what the politicians the elect do yet face constant electioneering. By only hosting general elections, a clear focus is provided for candidates and electorate alike, allowing for scrutiny to be based upon the actions of politicians and the party they represent against the opposition who seek to replace them.  [1] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, NationalJournal, 14 March 2009,

negative: Negative campaigning creates voter apathy and prevents accurate reporting of candidates’ policies and ideologies.  The contemporary political environment throughout much of the democratic world- and especially the USA- is mired in negative and aggressive campaigning. Tactics of this type breed apathy and anomie among groups within society who have previously been politically engaged. Politicians are increasingly portrayed as uniformly corrupt, incompetent or both.  Research published by Stamford University in the late nineties has linked an overall decline in voter turnout (approximately 10% between 1960 and 1992) [i] and a further decline in voter roll-off (the likelihood that an individual will vote for a high office, but neglect to vote for state or federal legislative positions) to increased reliance on attack ads and negative campaigning among American politicians. The authors of the Stamford report identify several causative factors underlying this connection.  Firstly, the study acknowledges that adverts attacking an individual’s credentials, policies or background are likely to reduce the number of voters who back a particular candidate. However, campaigns of this type do nothing to increase support for alternative candidates. The supporters of a politician undermined by negative campaigning are unlikely to switch to his or her opponent, preferring instead to abstain from the vote. Although party- or candidate- loyalty can be quickly disrupted, it takes a considerable amount of time for a party or politician to gain a voter’s trust [ii] .  As proposition will show, negative campaigning tends to engender further negative campaigning, leading to the main contenders in an election forgoing the use of positive campaign media. In short, aggressive campaigning is effective in reducing the popularity of opponents of a particular candidate, but this advantage comes at the expense of preventing that candidate from broadening his support-base or contributing meaningfully to democratic discourse.  Secondly, building on the previous point, voters have become increasingly aware negative campaigns’ ability to sterilise political debate. Voter apathy rises in response to aggressive campaigning that highlights flaws in the policies of political opponents, but does nothing to explain the contributions that another candidate may make.  Declining turnout figures are also a response to the knock-on effect that negative campaigning has on independent media [iii] . The press tends to use more airtime and page-space covering attack campaigns, due to their sensationalist and lurid nature. Especially in the US, newspapers and television stations function as commercial entities, and controversy and fear mongering will always draw in more readers or viewers than cool, balanced argumentation [iv] . This tendency, in turn, closes off an important forum for public debate on the merits of candidate’s policies and on issues that voters may want to see addressed.  Reporting on the shock tactics and partisan comments of politicians sells newspapers, but reporting on the statistics, proposals, claims and counter-claims of formal political debate does more to convince voters that their political system is representative and responsive to their needs.  Banning overtly negative campaigning will remove the perverse incentives that distort press coverage of the meaningful, practical details of election campaigns. Consequently, voters will be able to draw on a wider range of information when making their choice at the ballot box. A ban will prevent politicians from engaging in attrition based campaigns designed purely to breed apathy among their opponent’s supporters. Participants in the political process should be encouraged to test and investigate each other’s policies, premises and ideals. The evolutionary, dialectical pressures that debate of this type exerts will ultimately lead to more refined policy making. In attempting to do more and offer more to voters, politicians will be forced to survey and interact with a wider range of potential supporters than they normally would.  [i] Winning, but losing. How negative campaigns shrink electorate, manipulate news media. Ansolabhere, S. Iyengar, S. Stamford University.   [ii] Winning, but losing. How negative campaigns shrink electorate, manipulate news media. Ansolabhere, S. Iyengar, S. Stamford University.   [iii] Winning, but losing. How negative campaigns shrink electorate, manipulate news media. Ansolabhere, S. Iyengar, S. Stamford University.   [iv] Political attack ads can be effective but risky. Rotman Business School, 10 May 2004.

negative: Politicians are not true stand-ins. They represent the interests of the people on a policy basis not on the basis of their personal lives. Trying to divine personalities in politicians inevitably results in misallocation of the limited resources of time and energy people can generally spend informing themselves about candidates. Rather, the focus of voters should be drawn to the issues, which is where true policy comes from. Of course temperament and actions in one’s private life may be an indicator to how the politician will react but their ideology and policy positions are likely to be a much more certain indicator. Focus on private lives only obscures the truth of policies and reduces the quality of representation as a result.

negative: Even if one concedes that such rights are not entirely sacrosanct, it is important to recognise that rights should apply universally and should still be defended. The right to privacy is also important, and must include politicians who, while fulfilling an important societal role, are not so special as to merit significant curtailment of rights. So long as politicians do their duty by representing the interests of those that elected them in a legislative framework, they are fulfilling their end of the covenant with the people, leaving no room for any nebulous additional right of citizens over politicians. They are elected to do a job not for their life.

negative: Experienced legislators who understand the workings of the legislative system are needed for their expertise and wisdom:  The process of drafting legislation and shepherding it through the legislature often requires a delicate and practiced hand, especially when the issue under discussion is of a controversial nature. By forcing politicians out of the legislature on the basis of term limits, the depth of knowledge and experience available to the assembly is reduced, often to its serious detriment [1] . Seasoned politicians are also needed to help newcomers acclimate to the environment of the legislature; something first-time elected individuals are completely unused to. Naiveté on the part of new policymakers who are unused to the system will leave them vulnerable and exploitable. Lobbyists and special interest groups will seek to influence politicians while they develop their first impressions of life in the legislature, and will immediately capitalize upon any perceived vulnerability. Luann Ridgeway a Republican senator in the Missouri senate argues that term limits mean “we rely more on the trustworthiness of those established -- government relations individuals and staff persons -- because we have to”, [2] this would include more taking advice from the long standing lobbyists. Furthermore, legislation often requires lengthy periods of negotiation, that require not only the experienced hand of long-standing legislators, but also the continuity they offer. If legislators are constrained by term limits their time horizons are narrowed causing them to put too much emphasis on near-term, rather than long-term legislation. Clearly, term limits undermine the effective operation of government and deny the legislature an invaluable source of experience and ability.  [1] Kouser, Thad. 2004. Term Limits and the Dismantling of State LegislativeProfessionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  [2] Coleman, Emily and Bushnel, Michael, (2009). “Legislators attribute heightened partisanship to term limits”, Missourian, 16th May 2009

negative: Term limits restore a concept of rotation in public office, and reestablish the concept of the citizen legislature:  It is gravely unfortunate that politics has become an accepted career path for citizens of democratic states. It is far better that participation in government be brief. To end politics as a lifetime sinecure, thereby making legislative service a leave of absence, rather than a means of permanently absconding from a productive career in the private sector, requires that there be term limits 1. Without term limits, the temptation to remain in office for life will keep people seeking reelection long after they have accomplished all the legislative good of which they are capable. It does not take long for legislators to become more occupied with their relationships with each other and with lobbyists, than with their constituents. Representative assemblies work best when they function as citizen legislatures, in which people who pursue careers other than politics enter the legislative forum for a brief time to do their country service, and then leave again to reenter society as private citizens2. Such citizen legislators who enter politics to make their mark and then leave are far more desirable than the career politicians of today who focus only on building their own power influence, rather than considering the people they were elected to represent. US states with 'citizen legislatures', where the state legislature is part time with short sessions so allowing its members to hold other jobs, were at the top of freedom indexes. New Hampshire was both the most minimal parliament and the state with most fiscal freedom according to the Ruger-Sorens Index.3 1 Will, George. 1993. Restoration: Congress, Term Limits, and the Restoration of Deliberative Democracy. New York: Free Press. 2 Bandow, Doug. 1995. "Real Term Limits: Now More Than Ever". Cato Institute Policy Analysis. 3 Rugar, William and Sorens, Jason. 2011. "The Citizen Legislature: How Reasonable Limits on State Legislative Salaries, Staff and Session Lengths Keep Liberty Alive" Policy Brief, Goldwater Institute,

negative: Fixating on personal lives results in infringing the rights of more than just the politicians themselves  Politicians, like all people, are not islands. They have loved ones and families. When a citizen chooses to offer him or herself up as a candidate for office he or she takes on many responsibilities. However, the politician’s family can never be considered to have wholly consented to the arrangement, even if they support them in the election. They are in many ways innocent bystanders, yet when politicians are treated as having no freedom of privacy, their families too are stripped of that right unjustly. [1] Thus, the right to privacy is worth protecting for politicians even if it could be shown that they had no real personal right to such respect. Rights exist in part to protect innocent parties, and the families of politicians are innocent, and would undoubtedly be prime victims of limitless media intervention. The recent ads produced by the National Rifle Association that target President Obama’s daughters and their security detail has dragged girls who did not choose to be the president’s daughters into the spotlight. [2] Additionally, the fear of scrutiny of family might well have a serious chilling effect on anyone who might seek public office, resulting in a worse candidate pool, harming everyone.  [1] Privacy International. “Privacy as a Political Right”. Index on Censorship 2010 39(1): 58-68.   [2] AFP, “White House slams NRA ad targeting Obama daughters”, Google News, 16 January 2013,

negative: eneral punishment politics government house would grant politicians immunity With regard to this issue, elections are unquestionably an effective alternative mechanism. The act of a politician in a liberal democracy holding on to office for another term, by definition, requires public assent. The citizenry has an out: don’t continue electing politicians who aren’t serving the public interest. Regardless, politicians already have a plethora of motives, both legitimate and self-serving, to hold on to public office; this doesn’t move the barometer on incentives to run. Most elections are at least modestly well contested precisely because many qualified candidates really want the position.

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: The incentive for corruption and self-enrichment in office is increased by term limits.  With term limits, a leader will, after he enters his final permitted term of office, not have to face the electorate again, meaning he can do whatever wants, to an extent. This encourages corruption and self-enrichment on the part of leaders in their final term of office when they do not need to face the people to answer for poor management. There is likewise less incentive to follow through on election promises to supporters, since their withdrawing support can have little tangible impact on a lame duck. Furthermore, lame duck leaders can devote time to buddying up to businesses and organizations in order to get appointments to lucrative board seats after they leave office. This has often been the case in Western democracies, where former heads of state and government find themselves being offered highly profitable positions upon their retirement. [1] Imposing term limits necessarily increases this sort of behaviour, as leaders look more toward their retirement during their final years of office, rather than to the interests of the people.  [1] Wynne, Michael. 2004. “Politics, Markets, Health and Democracy”. University of Wolongong. Available:

negative: Politicians are not merely elected to enact policies as stated but to act as a surrogate for the views and values of the voters who elect them. That is why politicians are expected, and are considered legitimate in doing so, to legislate on issues not necessarily discussed on the campaign trail. It is the scrutiny of private lives that allows the public to know how a politician will represent their views with regards to questions that are not asked in the election. That is why it is essential to understand the private life and character of the representative. With regard to political attacks, voters are trusted to select leaders, and can reasonably be expected to make decisions in their genuine interests. Thus they can be expected to discern policy from the campaigns effectively only in the case of access to the candidates’ private lives will they now have additional information to make an even better decision.

negative: Of course people need to be held to account and in some cases the publication of the private affairs of public figures can be justified. However, on the whole, most reporting into the private lives of public figures is simply gossip which the public has no need to know and is holding no-one to account. Instead it is often simply being used to sell media products. There are hundreds of examples which could be cited of such intrusion, often involving actors/actresses and models which offer no real justification at all as to why they were printed. Printing stories about celebrities on holiday for example is not holding them to account or benefiting society in an actively positive way.  This can also extend to those in more traditional power roles. Is it in the public interest to know all the details about the private lives of politicians and CEOs if what is being reported does not have a direct effect on their role? For example Max Mosley, the now ex-president of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), a group which not only represents the interests of motoring organizations but is also the governing body for Formula One, was exposed in 2008 by the now defunct News of the World newspaper as being involved in a sadomasochistic sex act which involved several female prostitutes. The reporting of this was unnecessary as the event did not have a direct effect on his running of the FIA and was therefore not in the public interest. Mosley took the case to the UK High Court claiming infringement of his private life and the court found in his favor. [1]  [1] BBC (2008) Mosley Wins Court Case Over Orgy. [online] [accessed 14th July 2011]

negative: All individuals have a legitimate right to privacy  Privacy is a fundamental human right that is universal, a right that should be defended for all citizens, including those who govern us. [1] What people get up to in their private lives is by and large their own business. People generally speaking have a basic respect for privacy. While some people may think their politicians owe them a special duty and thus have to give up certain privileges like privacy, the covenant between citizen and representative cannot be justified on such stringent grounds. A politician is effectively an employee of his constituents and the citizens of the polity. If this was justification for scrutiny into the private lives of elected officials then why should it not also be justification for intrusion into the private lives of unelected civil servants? Both these groups are doing a job for the public, but undertraining this job does not give the public the authority to intrude into their privacy beyond questions about whether they are qualified for the job. The duty of an elected politician is not so special as to demand an abrogation of his or her ability to enjoy a private life. If a right is to have meaning, it must apply to everyone with a semblance of equality. Making politicians fair game for reporters only serves to undermine the rights all citizens enjoy.  [1] Privacy International. “Privacy as a Political Right”. Index on Censorship 2010 39(1): 58-68.

negative: All of those involved in the phone hacking cases broke laws. Existing laws. They can be prosecuted under existing frameworks and cases are already being pursued. There is no need for another set of controls  We should be very cautious when giving politicians- in particular- the power to control what is said about them. Whatever Lord Leveson suggests, chances are those decisions will need to go before parliament.  The actions of the British media may frequently be distasteful and those who read the so-called ‘quality’ press may find the obsession of the tabloid press with matters that mostly seem trivial and tawdry offensive. However, the liberty that- almost incidentally- allows tabloid newspapers to produce populist pablum, enables broadsheets to maintain an excoriating and forensic oversight of the political class as a whole. The recent Parliamentary expenses scandal would be unthinkable in many countries: analysis undertaken by the press as a whole demonstrating a culture of corruption across the entire political class, not only breathtaking in its extent but also a clear mark of just how far politicians had moved from the realities of day-to-day life for people who actually pay for their own house.  In this regard, journalistic license is the price of liberty.

negative: The state owes a duty of protection to victims, victims’ families, and those accused of committing crimes  Victims of violent crimes and their families face an emotional and vulnerable time in the wake of such crimes. People need time to recover, or mourn. The media’s fixation on violent crimes subjects these vulnerable people to the assault of reporters. In fact, there exists a perverse incentive for the media to badger families until they break down, as tears sell. Such exploitation must be stopped, and the best way to do that is to deny the media the ability to report on such things. The media does not care about hurting feelings, and bad behavior on the part of reporters never hurts readership of media outlets, as is indicative of such tabloids as the National Enquirer. Outlets can always deflect any backlash that might occur for their excesses by cutting loose “rogue reporters”.  Furthermore, families and victims usually do not want the media's, and the nation’s eyes upon them. Rather they tend to seek support from family and community, not the faceless masses. [1] People generally want to mourn in their own way. They may not want to become part of a media-driven narrative, and certainly not to become symbols for a new social crusade to reform communities. Removing violent reporting removes these perverse incentives to irritate victims and families, and instead leads to more respectful and considerate treatment.  As for those accused of crimes, it can be hard for someone acquitted after a trial or accusation to get on with life. Some people may find themselves roundly accused by the media and public, even portrayed as monster, making it very hard to move on, even when their names are officially cleared. This is completely contrary to how the legal system should function, where acquittal is meant to deliver absolution. Allowing the media to construct narratives of guilt in the absence of evidence undermines the very fabric of justice. The media’s incessant coverage of violent crimes and its alacrity to make accusations and jump to conclusions can destroy someone’s life, more than even having to stand trial does. Justice must prevail and be fair to those to whom it judges in court, and this can only be done by not allowing the media to turn the mob against people even after their names are cleared.  [1] Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime. “Victims and the Media”. 2011,

negative: That’s equally an argument against international criminal law as head of state immunity. While there may be instances where the head of state or government has to take decisions that might be criminal for the greater good – for example ordering the abduction or assassination of a terrorist – these instances are rare and most of the time the courts will take into account the good as well as the bad. However there are equally times where it is good that someone fears prosecution, if they do it is a sign that what they are doing is wrong. Bombing of Germany could have ended when all military targets had been hit, it need not have involved incendiary bombing of civilian targets. In Japan there was a third option of accepting a conditional surrender – one that guaranteed the position of the Emperor, since the Allies ultimately agreed this anyway there would have been little loss.

negative: edia politics voting house believes film stars music stars and other popular The accusation of ‘dumbing down’ is misguided: politicians will increasingly be able to reach a wider voter base if they are willing to repackage their ideas and policies, but this does not require ‘dumbing down’, simply a change in focus of the explanation. So not only is dumbing down not necessary, but politicians’ ideas are reaching more voters!  For example, the ‘war on women,’ has gained considerable attention in the media, and this has given a platform for female celebrities like Eva Longoria, to participate in events like the Democratic National Convention [1] . Eva Longoria and politicians who feel that women are being unfair attacked in regards to their body are now having these issues highlighted. Having celebrities involved in political campaigns like Eva Longoria does not mean the campaign was ‘dumbed down’ it means that it was accessible to a larger audience because they understood what she was talking about. Surely, that cannot be a bad thing.  It should be remembered that those who consume this soft news will be much better informed and be consistent in voting than those who consume no news at all. [2] As a result they will be more likely to vote and soft news will give them some awareness of why they are voting even if a celebrity endorsement has some baring on that vote.  [1] ‘Eva Longoria Speech Draws Cheers At Democratic National Convention’, Huffington Post, 6 September 2012,   [2] Baum, Matthew A., and Jamison, Angela, ‘ The Oprah Effect: How soft news helps inattentive citizens to vote consistently’, The Journal of Politics, Vol.68, No.4, November 2006, pp.946-959, p.955,

negative: Head of State immunity reduces the deterrent effect of international criminal law  International criminal law, like any other form of criminal law, is supposed to be a deterrent. By giving a class of individuals impunity, these people cannot be deterred by International Criminal Law from committing some of the worst crimes known to humanity, including genocide. It is plain that many people who reach the heights of political power will use any method to remain in power – thus the resort to intimidation where it can be used to affect the vote, or in the case of Silvio Berlusconi the attempt to put in place an immunity law to prevent himself from being prosecuted for corruption. [1] Immunity will enable both large and small criminal acts, neither of which should be allowed.  [1] Kennedy, Duncan, ‘Berlusconi immunity law overruled’, BBC News, 8 October 2009,

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: A directly elected upper house discourages patronage  Politicians who elect or appoint the members of the upper house have an incentive to put their friends an allies there, because this will make their decision making easier. This is patronage pure and simple: the public will have a hard time sending them away when, if ever, a scandal breaks because the members of the upper house don't depend on public opinion to remain in their seats. An example is the case of a senator in the Netherlands, Sam Pormes. After an opinion magazine revealed he once had partaken in terrorist activities, it took almost a year and several mediation attempts to get him removed from parliament. [1]  [1] Expatica, ‘Senator told to resign over 'guerrilla training''. 22 November 2005.  last consulted August 15, 2011.


query: The Ban is Unfeasible  The problem with the ban on cluster bombs is that it is unfeasible in the prevention of the use of cluster bombs on the battlefield. Many countries aside from the U.S. will continue to use the weapons and will likely do so less responsibly. There is no way to persuade these countries to abandon the weapons. Countries such as China and the US are unconcerned by threats that their use can be a crime against humanity and might result in international criminal prosecutions as they are not signed up to the ICC and as Security Council members can prevent investigations of themselves or their clients.  The U.S. and Western powers continuing to manufacture cluster bombs allows them to engage with the other users of cluster bombs on the battlefield. Many countries import weapons from Western powers and as such, continuing the manufacture of cluster bombs allows Western powers to keep a check on their use by other countries.  Further, the ability for Western powers to use cluster bombs allows Western powers to discourage their use on the battlefield through the threat of retaliation with the same weaponry. As such, banning the weapons could cost the lives of soldiers on the battlefield.8

positive: national law politics defence warpeace house believes us should ban use cluster Whilst the ban prevents engagement with countries that use cluster bombs, it also limits the supply of cluster bombs to these countries significantly. The West ceasing the manufacture of cluster bombs means that many countries will cease being able to get their through second or third hand sources. Whilst the Chinese might be able to fill the gap, their cluster bomb technology is not on the same level as that of the West and as such the lack of reliability with the Chinese weaponry will cause fewer countries to employ the use of cluster bombs on the battlefield.  Further, the ban on cluster bombs by Western countries sends out a strong moral message that many other smaller countries are likely to obey and follow. With the US accepting the ban international prosecution, or potentially even sanctions is considerably more likely. The U.S. holding out however, shows the West to be divided on the topic and as such prevents other countries that might be better off from banning them owing to their fear of indecision in the West.6

negative: national law politics defence warpeace house believes us should ban use cluster The U.S. is currently developing cluster bomb technology that will prevent cluster bombs from remaining armed over a long period of time. Given that the U.S. is a pioneer in this area, it knows more about the development of the technology than other countries that might have signed up to the treaty. If the efforts of the U.S. prove to be fruitful then their decision to avoid the ban will prove them as being the more politically shrewd of other liberal democracies.  Further, political status with other countries is unlikely to be entirely determined by treaties regarding cluster bombs. In fact these treaties are relatively minor and have almost no political affect by comparison to more pressing issues such as economics or other parts of international policy.7

negative: national law politics defence warpeace house believes us should ban use cluster Cluster Bombs Have Significant Strategic Value  As mentioned earlier in the opposition counter arguments, cluster bombs are incredibly effective at dealing with large formations of troops and armoured vehicles and can cause a significant amount of damage to an opposing force in a relatively small amount of time. This niche is not filled as cheaply or as easily by other weapons that can be released from a bombing aircraft. As such cluster bombs have a significant level of military and strategic value when used in conflict.  In the case where cluster bombs were banned, it would simply fall to the military to find an effective replacement weapon for these scenarios and it is likely that these would be as problematic if not more so.8

negative: national law politics defence warpeace house believes us should ban use cluster This House Believes That the U.S. Should Ban The Use of Cluster Bombs  Currently the U.S. is working on improving the reliability of cluster bombs. The weakness of cluster bombs, being that the bomblets often do not explode is something that U.S. military has understood for a long time. It is inefficient for the military to allow this problem to continue. As such a large amount of military funding goes into improving cluster bombs.  The U.S. is hoping to improve cluster bombs in two ways, the first is ensuring that when the cluster bombs are deployed that all bomblets explode on impact or explode very quickly after the initial barrage. However, the U.S. is also working on technology that would allow bomblets to disarm themselves after a short period of time, hence preventing accidental discharges in the future.  If these improvements work, then cluster bombs cease to cause civilian damage and will likely be an incredibly effective tool in warfare. Hence a ban on them when this technology is being deployed is premature.10

negative: national law politics defence warpeace house believes us should ban use cluster The international legal system already has many grey areas and often things that should be banned are not because of objections by certain countries despite their similarities to other items that are banned. A change regarding cluster bombs is not realistically going to make more people accept the international legal system.  Further, according to the exact wording of the 1997 ban on land mines, the ban exists for those items that exist to “Primarily” act as land mines. Cluster bombs act as landmines as a secondary effect and are not intended to do so. As such, it would be more inconsistent under the law to accept cluster bombs as landmines than it would be to ban them.5

negative: national law politics defence warpeace house believes us should ban use cluster Cluster bombs are an ineffective weapon that often deal more damage to the side deploying the weapons than their opponents. Given modern warfare scenarios, the need for cluster bombs is not great given that in asymmetric warfare the conflict will be over relatively quickly, owing to the massive level of firepower that the West and its allies can bring against the targets that they attack, often dictators only in control of militarily weak countries. Dud cluster bombs harm any occupation following invasion and warm by harming troops that happen to stumble across them as well as harming demining personnel. This prevents effective occupation in the long run and costs lives through preventing the armed forces from achieving stability in the region as quickly.9

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: Making the destruction of cultural property a crime against humanity is mainly targeted at the wanton destruction of sites of immense value or the systematic destruction on a gross scale, such as that witnessed in the 1960s in China. For the majority of cases, the current UNESCO conventions regarding the protection of cultural property in times of conflict would apply. It is not as though insurgents would be able to hide inside any mosque or museum or ancient site and be totally untouchable.  It is true, however, that situations are conceivable where military necessity would normally dictate an attack on a high value site or object of cultural heritage, but the proposed legislation would not allow. This is not as peculiar as the opposition suggest. International law has created a vast number of limits on warfare that could potentially be used to gain a vital strategic advantage. There are existing limits on what constitute legitimate military targets (civilian populations are not, for example), and with respect to the kind of weapons that can be used (chemical weapons, cluster bombs etc. are banned). Given the immense cultural value of certain sites and objects, they deserve to receive special protection, even in times of war.

negative: Abolishment is an unrealistic goal  The nuclear genie is out of the bottle, and there is no way to go back. Nuclear technology exists, and there is no way to un-invent it (Robinson, 2001). Much as the ideal of global disarmament is fine, the reality is that it is impossible: it takes only one rogue state to maintain a secret nuclear capability to make the abolition of the major powers' deterrents unworkable. Without the threat of a retaliatory strike, this state could attack others at will.  Similarly, the process by which nuclear weapons are produced cannot easily be differentiated from the nuclear power process; without constant oversight it would be possible for any state with nuclear power to regain nuclear capability if they felt threatened. This is the same as the nuclear ‘breakout’ capability that many states such as Japan have whereby they can create a nuclear bomb in a matter of weeks or days – if a country has nuclear power and the technology they have this capability even when they have disarmed their nuclear weapons.

negative: national law politics defence warpeace house believes us should ban use cluster Cluster bombs, when used sensibly are used in uninhabited areas to take down military personnel. They are only intended for military targets and collateral damage when attacking military targets is something that is accepted as a regrettable problem in war.  Further, cluster bombs are simply a very effective weapon in battles between standing armies in most war. Given that cluster bombs help sides achieve victory quicker and with less resistance, they justify their use in the prevention of strife in the future by causing wars to end quickly as well as enabling assaults on well-defended sites to be performed more smoothly.  Due to their niche, cluster bombs will simply be replaced by the military with substitutes that are just as harmful.4

negative: This would be an argument in favour of preventing countries from developing any deterrent at any time, because it would make them easier to invade. It presumes, firstly, that it would be a good thing for the United States to be able to invade countries that do things it does not like at will, and secondly that it assumes that deterrence will not deter the initial invasion in the first place.  The main reason why great powers involve themselves in wars, is because many smaller countries are not able to fight off larger ones using their own resources and so the great power expects an easy victory assuming it can avoid intervention by other great powers. Jammu and Kashmir could not stand up to the Indian army in 1947 and Kuwait could not stand up to Iraq; Georgian was unable to mount armed resistance against a Russian incursion and neither was Chechnya.  Nuclear Weapons are a great equalizer, and if one consequence of Iran developing Nuclear weapons is that all of her neighbours do so as well, then war will become far less likely, and US intervention will become unnecessary. As a consequence, in the long-run, Nuclear proliferation is a self-correcting problem.

negative: national law politics defence warpeace house believes us should ban use cluster The improvement of cluster bombs in the way that opposition describes has not happened yet and these bombs have not been deployed. It would be fairly easy to class these new cluster bombs differently to older models should they come into effect.  However, the potential for new types of cluster bombs does not mean that the older types are any less inhumane. A ban on cluster bombs could easily exist to simply encompass older models whilst leaving newer ones alone.11

negative: The process is implausible, primarily because whilst the actual weapons can be dismantled, the technology remains and the only effective means to deter the development of a nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon. Even if this were not the case, such a gradual and incremental process of disarmament does not account for the weapons held by states who have not officially declared their presence, like Israel. Furthermore, though a verification agency may have universal access to nuclear stockpiles, it has little power to enforce states to adhere to treaties, precipitating the scenario whereby one state refuses to give up its final weapon and stalling the process indefinitely. Finally, this process assumes that states wish to see nuclear weapons abolished, rather than the more common assumption that states view nuclear weapons as necessary, not merely to deter other nuclear powers but for traditional deterrence and nuclear blackmail. Would all states willingly give that up?

negative: All killing is abhorrent and one life is worth as much as any other. But while the lives lost are the same it is not true that the use of chemical weapons to kill is the same as conventional weapons; the difference is that one is banned and the other is not, their use makes intervention possible in a way it is not during a conventional conflict. The threat from chemical weapons is also of an order of magnitude greater than that of conventional weapons. They can kill immense numbers quickly and indiscriminately. The use of chemical weapons is an escalation that must not be allowed to happen.

negative: The threat of investigation could deter future war crimes, including the use of chemical weapons  The ICC has a high level of soft power in this case. It has the resources to investigate and prosecute, backed up by widespread support from large swathes of the international community. The ICC is part of a growing international norm against war and crimes against humanity. The willingness to prosecute for these crimes – particularly if it is done consistently – will build norms where even ruthless leaders realise they can’t get away with such crimes. Pursuing war crimes from the Syrian conflict alone will not be enough but when combined with similar measures elsewhere and the arrests of other leaders such as Charles Taylor, Slobodan Milosevic and Laurent Gbagbo show that even leaders are no longer out of reach of international law. [1]  The ICC could act as an effective deterrent to the use of chemical weapons and other war crimes by threatening to prosecute individuals who commit them.  [1] Grono, Nick, ‘The deterrent effect of ICC on the commission of international crimes by government leaders’, International Crisis Group, 5 October 2012,

negative: Deterrence only works if the court actually prosecutes people; however, its crippling inefficiency renders its deterrent effect nonexistent.  To date, the ICC has yet to actually punish anyone. The lack of hard power and enforcement mechanisms makes it impossible for the ICC to be effective. Tribunals like the ICTY were effective because of US support, military backing, and financial power; the ICC lacks this type of sway and is destined to fail. (See more in the opposition point #2). If the court does not actually punish people, there is little to no deterrent effect, since it poses no credible threat to criminals.1  1 Goldsmith, Jack. "The Self-Defeating International Criminal Court." The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 70 No. 1, Winter 2003, 89-104.

negative: As the ICC intentionally limits its prosecutions to group leaders, many of those who actually commit atrocities need have no fear of prosecution  By prosecuting only those leaders deemed ‘most responsible’ for the crimes in question, the ICC is effectively allowing lower-ranked perpetrators to commit crimes with impunity. These rank and file troops generally have little awareness or understanding of international criminal laws. Furthermore, just as local domestic laws fail to deter offenders who often commit crimes with little thought of being punished, distant ICC threats are even less likely to deter those whose actions are easily manipulated and controlled by militia leaders. Child soldiers, in particular, have often been drugged before going into combat. [1]  [1] Mullins & Rothe, pp.782-4

negative: No fly zones and bombing could eliminate the threat of chemical weapons  One of the reasons why there has not been an intervention in Syria already is the difficulty of doing so. Preventing or limiting the use of chemical weapons however does represent a defined objective that is smaller, and therefore easier, than bringing peace to Syria. It however has to be accepted that if Assad’s regime is determined to use chemical weapons then some are likely to get through and how much is prevented is largely dependent on intelligence.  Interdicting chemical weapons during transport and bombing the storage facilities to make it much more difficult to move the weapons would be easiest to accomplish. [1] But if chemical weapons are about to be used then attacking the delivery vehicles would be necessary; any intervention would have overwhelming air superiority so would prevent the option of aircraft and helicopters being used to deliver the weapons.  More difficult to destroy are ballistic missiles, and particularly artillery [2] but even these are much easier to hit than infantry would be. In the conflict against Gaddafi successfully used precision guided weapons to destroy tanks and artillery. [3] Moreover an intervening force would not need to destroy every missile and artillery brigade only find those that are being issued with chemical weapons.  [1] Eisenstadt, Michael, ‘Chemical Reaction’, Foreign Policy, 18 January 2013,   [2] Fargo, Matthew, ‘Targeting Syria’s Chemical Weapons – A Dangerous Proposition’, Center for Strategic & International Studies, 25 July 2012,   [3] Hebert, Adam J., ‘Libya: Victory Through Airpower’, Airforce-Magazine.com, December 2011,

negative: The Opposition correctly identifies the threat, which is nuclear war. However, hegemonic US military power is not the solution to this threat. The first nuclear arms race began during the Cold War; because neither the US nor the USSR wanted the other to have the upper hand in nuclear capacity, each produced enough weapons to destroy the entire world. In the 1970s, Pakistan developed nuclear weapons; Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto argued that “the Christians have the bomb, the Jews have the bomb, the Hindus have the bomb, why not Islam?” [1] As the US continues to increase its military strength, other nations that are not sure they can rely on the US as an ally feel compelled to increase their strength in response. This leads to a perpetual armaments race. Armaments races are a waste of resources that would be better spent on civil services, and create widespread paranoia that the other country may attack at any time. Furthermore, continuously increasing military capacity is not an effective way of combating non-state actors. Terrorist groups operate underground; because they are difficult to detect, they are most effectively addressed through community engagement with government security. Thus excessive military development puts the US and other nations at risk without effectively addressing security threats.  [1] Sijo Joseph Ponnatt, “The Normative Approach to Nuclear Proliferation,” International Journal on World Peace, March 1, 2006. [

negative: Just because a reference to the ICC is possible does not mean it would be effective. It would still require individuals to be captured, and enough evidence to be ascertained in order for a conviction.  Also, Russia has a track record of opposing the reference of the Syria case to the ICC, or any other involvement in the Syria issue. Negotiating with Russia could amount to a fruitless exercise  Also, such a reference could cause problems if a Western military intervention were to take place later, possibly exposing foreign peacekeepers to liability if any incident were to occur.

negative: Countries need to design nuclear devices to adapt with changing defensive technology.  There are a number of technological developments that have made the use of conventional weapons ineffective in combating certain threats. For example, some bunkers are buried so deeply underground that conventional bombs cannot penetrate them. Weapons such as the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), currently in development in the United States, would be able to penetrate such bunkers, while leaving no more surface damage than a conventional bomb1. Deployment of a weapon such as the RNEP might prove necessary in order to stop proliferation of nuclear weapons in rogue states, as for example, Iran has built extremely tough bunkers for the purpose of nuclear testing and storage of weapons of mass destruction. Blocking the development of necessary tactical nuclear technologies actually raises the chances of these dangerous states obtaining nuclear weapons. Another instance of tactical nuclear devices proving useful is in the destruction of clandestine biological and chemical weapons factories. Were such facilities destroyed by conventional bombing, some of the materials being manufactured could easily leak into neighbouring population areas, leading to increased casualties. Clearly, in light of these defense innovations, tactical nuclear weapons are an essential addition to a nuclear power's arsenal. 1 Reynolds, Paul. 2003. "Mini-Nukes on US Agenda". BBC News.

negative: This deters future human rights abuses.  The use of force sends a strong message to oppressive regimes that their behaviour will not be tolerated.  Human rights abuses happen around the world because there is no mechanism to stop it. Oppressive regimes thrive simply because there is no real, coherent deterrent to their abuses. Sanctions target their populations not their personal enrichment they gain through siphoning off money from domestic industry, diplomatic sanctions have no tangible impact on states and peacekeepers are useless when there is no peace to keep. The only true deterrent to regimes around the world is the danger that a strong military rival from outside will intervene and stop them and remove them from power.  Sending a strong message that the international community can and will intervene in the cases of human rights abuses seriously increases the costs in regimes' cost-benefit-analysis of state behaviour and deters them from committing human rights abuses for fear of military defeat from abroad.

negative: Independent nations are capable of trying war crimes themselves.  The ICC is an unnecessary intrusion on national sovereignty. It should be up to each state to determine its own legal system as to how criminal matters should be prosecuted.  The principle of complementarity is no guarantee as it is up to the ICC itself to determine if the state is unable or unwilling, meaning it could take over a case for its own ends.

negative: Encouraging the further adoption of nuclear power is against our security interests. The scientific understanding and technology needed to generate nuclear power is the same as that needed to create nuclear weapons, and it is all too easy for rogue states to pretend they are only interested in peaceful uses while secretly pursuing military applications. This is the route India and Israel have followed, and that Iran may well be following at present. The process of enriching uranium to make it into fuel for nuclear power stations can be a step towards further enriching it to make nuclear weapons. Used fuel from nuclear power stations can be separated out to recover any usable elements such as uranium and plutonium through a method called reprocessing. Plutonium is a by-product of the nuclear fuel cycle and can also be used to make nuclear weapons1.  Even if the intentions of foreign governments are good, widespread nuclear power plants are at risk of terrorism, in both the developed and developing world. If a 9/11-style bomb was flown into a nuclear power plant, the potential disaster would be catastrophic. And the more nuclear material is transported around the world, the easier it will be for terrorists to get hold of some in order to make their own nuclear weapons. An atomic bomb might one day be within the reach of some international terrorist groups, but even today a simple "dirty bomb" (in which highly-radioactive materials is blasted over an urban area using conventional explosives) could be deadly to many thousands of people. Encouraging the spread of nuclear technology enables the spread of nuclear weapons.  1 'Reactor-grade and Weapons-grade plutonium in nuclear explosives', US Department of Energy Publication, January 1997,

negative: Article 98 Agreements are unlikely to be needed  The prospect of an Article 98 Agreement actually being relied on is slim. It would require the International Criminal Court to prosecute an American for a crime against humanity, or genocide, that takes place in ICC member state. There is next to no chance of the UN Security Council referring a case against America to the ICC as the US has a veto as a permanent member.  The ICC already makes only a highly limited number of prosecutions per year, in obvious cases, and so far all of these have been focused on the developing world. While Article 98 agreements may be unsavoury, the chance of them actually being used to grant someone impunity is low.

negative: The cost of intervention is lower than the cost of inactivity. Sometimes, as in Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia, the situation will become so bad that US military intervention is necessary - this is hugely costly compared to funding preventative action through the United Nations. The role of failed states as reservoirs from which refugees, narcotics, terrorism, illegal diamonds, etc. are exported means that the USA already spends many billions of dollars a year in dealing with the mess they create. Finally, there is an opportunity cost of lost trade and investment which applies to the developing world and developed economies alike (e.g. the benefits to the US of trade with oil-rich Angola, Sudan and Congo).

negative: Before Hiroshima and Nagasaki the use of the Atomic Bomb did not raise profound moral questions with allied policymakers. Civilians had been intentionally targeted from the air since the start of the war and both Japanese and German cities had been already subjected to relentless bombardment. There was no compelling reason for politicians to view the Atomic bomb any differently from the London blitz or the Dresden raid. [1]  The Hague conventions had been systemically honoured only in the breach for the previous six years and so would not have given Truman or his advisors any particular heartache. The radiation effects were as yet unknown and so there was no reason to treat atomic bombs as anything more sinister than a mighty conventional bomb would be. Had the radiation been known about then it might have moved them into a category akin to chemical or biological weapons, which were already frowned upon. Chemical weapons were banned by the Hague convention in 1899. [2] This did not of course prevent their widespread use in WWI but the horrified reaction to the use of mustard gas and other agents lead to the Geneva Protocol [3] which came into force in 1928 although the US was not a signatory. In practice Atomic weapons have not been since treated as equivalent to poison gas or other ‘analogous devices’ and thus the International Court of Justice has said that they do not breach the Hague conventions or the Geneva Protocol. [4] Therefore as these were the only international laws in force at the time of the action the dropping the bombs were not illegal acts.  [1] Barton J. Bernstein, ‘The Atomic Bombings Reconsidered’, Foreign Affairs, vol.74, no.1, Jan.- Feb., 1995. p.135.  [2] Declaration on the Use of Projectiles the Object of Which is the Diffusion of Asphyxiating or Deleterious Gases; July 29, 1899;   [3] Geneva Protocol to Hague Convention   [4] International Court of Justice advisory opinion of 8 July 1996 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, paragraphs 54-6.

negative: One country disarming is not going to persuade others, particularly those like China and Russia that still consider themselves great powers, to do so. At the same time the United Kingdom’s situation can never be compared to other countries; Israel would argue it is surrounded by enemies, China that it needs them if the US has them etc. These countries would only consider whether to disarm based upon their own national interests not what other states have done. We should do the same and renew trident as being necessary for the defence of the realm.

negative: Is a minor ban really a good signal? The chances are the government will ignore it and those who it is meant to encourage will never hear about it. In the event that the regimes it is aimed at do take not far from weakening them, this policy serves only to alienate them. The lack of respect the policy is clearly aimed to show will galvanize the leaderships in undemocratic regimes to cut off various ties with democratic states, limiting the flow of ideas and democratic principles that natural adhere to activities like international trade. The result is non-democracies will be less willing to talk about reform in the international community because they see their very form of government as under threat by foreign agents seeking to discredit them. Ultimately, a boost in Western moral does little to promote democracy and human rights while a negative signal will result in regimes being more suspicious and obstinate.

negative: While states should of course have the right to defend themselves, this does not extend to the possession and use of tactical nuclear weapons. Just as biological and chemical weapons are banned by international treaty, so too has the international community generally acknowledged that nuclear proliferation is negative, which is why so many treaties are dedicated to non-proliferation [1]. It is a tragedy that nuclear weapons exist, even more so that a few countries are still seeking to develop them. It is better to fight this movement, to keep nuclear weapons in as few hands as possible so as to prevent their development, testing, and use by rogue states, terrorists, and other dangers to international security. This is all the more true of tactical nuclear weapons, whose smaller size and destructive capacity make them not only easier for terrorists to acquire, but also to be used, and thus to instigate a rapid escalation to full-scale nuclear war.  [1] Shah, Anup. 2009. “Nuclear Weapons”. Global Issues. Available:

negative: Intervention in fragile states is simply a new form of imperialism  It is not for either the USA or the UN to impose a government upon individual countries. Doing so would deny the people of the failed state the right to chart their own future and be absent of the authorisation of the UN Charter, which states the organization is not allowed to intervene ‘in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state’. [1] Furthermore, if the USA, or any one country, regularly intervened it would create more hostility towards that country, with accusations that it is acting out of a self-interested desire to exploit peoples economically. The personnel of that country could rapidly become a target for attacks. Nor is it desirable to encourage the UN to increase the level of its intervention in the domestic affairs of member states. This might start with weak countries but could rapidly become a habit and encourage the organisation in its ambitions to become a world government.  [1] Ratner, S. R., & Helman, G. B. (2010, June 21). Saving Failed States. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from Foreign Policy:

negative: There is a limit to what can be done in internal conflicts such as the Syrian civil war. There is a chemical weapons convention that almost every nation has signed so there is an international norm against their use and agreement on their disarmament. This is not the case with conventional internal conflict. The Syrian regime will agree to disarm its chemical weapons to prevent bombing by NATO but removing conventional weapons or ending the conflict would be completely different; a much bigger operation which the Syrian regime could not agree too as it would mean signing their death warrant.

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.