title stringlengths 0 221 | text stringlengths 0 375k |
|---|---|
Although it might be true that immigrants might be harmed by repatriation in some cases, the majority of illegal immigration takes place because of economic reasons, and those people can return safely. The United High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) sets the conditions for voluntary repatriation on the grounds of leg... | |
Repatriation is a more direct solution to the problem, and it is not sure whether these alternatives would work. Tougher border controls will only result in immigrants finding better ways to avoid them; improving economical conditions in poor countries is a slow and insecure progress, and the situation in many developi... | |
Repatriation is expensive and unrealistic The repatriation of all illegal immigrants is impossible to realize, and this large-scale project would cost large sums of money. The Center for American Progress study released in March of 2010 concluded that a strategy aimed at deporting the US population of illegal immigran... | |
Repatriation is immoral The repatriation of illegal immigrants, even if it is not completely under coercion, is immoral. Even if the repatriation is 'voluntary', immigrants know they have no alternatives, and might agree to go back voluntary because the next step would be involuntary repatriation. This means that ille... | |
Repatriation poses a danger for illegal immigrants The system of repatriating illegal immigrants can be proven harmful for these immigrants on several levels. Some illegal immigrants, although they might not fall under the official category of refugees, have fled dangerous situations such as persecution, violation of ... | |
Alternatives are better There are alternatives to the repatriation of illegal immigrants that are much more attainable. First of all, there has to be more attention to the root causes of migration, rather than attacking the results. The money that would be spent on repatriation could be used for prevention of immigrat... | |
The repatriation of illegal immigrants is not immoral because they do not have the right to be in that country in the first place. Laws are put in place to prevent people to live certain countries without a legitimate reason, and if these laws are wilfully breached, people must face the consequences. It is true that pe... | |
It might be true that repatriation is a costly option, but so are other alternatives. Illegal immigrants are already putting a costly burden on the state by using its resources without giving much back. If this situation is left on its own, the long-term costs of keeping illegal immigrants might be higher than the rela... | |
The reason western leaders have not been indicted is firstly, because their domestic judiciaries are strong and independent enough to be able to prosecute abuses when they occur. The ICC has a principle of complementarity where the ICC will only prosecute if the state themselves are unwilling or unable to prosecute. Th... | |
ICC treats Africa differently Africa and its leaders are treated far more contemptuously by the court. The prospect of prosecuting Barak Obama for the killing of civilians by drones which Amnesty International has suggested amount to war crimes [1] or George W. Bush for war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan is remote – y... | |
The need in most cases for a referral from the UNSC certainly makes it unlikely that those states will be investigated but this does not make the court biased against Africa. Some of the cases in Africa have involved countries or their judiciaries referring themselves. In the case of Kenya’s election violence in the fi... | |
Africa is overtly prosecuted All of the twenty-four people currently indicted are African. Of the fifteen cases currently sitting before the court, all are African [1] . This in and of itself points to a large disparity between Africa and the rest of the world. It is also not at all true that Africa is the only place ... | |
While Africa is the only continent to face prosecutions, a number of other regions where atrocities have taken place are being heavily investigated, including Afghanistan, Colombia, Georgia, Honduras and South Korea [1] . These are expected to lead to prosecutions occurring. So while Africa has had the focus during the... | |
ICC is controlled by the Security Council The ICC can only investigate situations that are referred to it by either the host country, or the Security Council [1] . A power also exists for the prosecutor to seek investigation, though this has as yet only been used twice. As such, most atrocities that occur across the w... | |
The point isn’t that the ICC has prosecuted in Africa; it’s that they have focused exclusively on Africa. This presents the rhetoric that Africa and Africans are somehow more violent and less moral then the rest of the world – or that Africans require more intervention than other places. This biases Africa again the re... | |
While these countries referred themselves, they did under enormous pressure from the ICC. The Prosecutors chose to ‘follow closely’ African cases to the exclusion of others and then actively invited these countries to refer themselves, under threat of seeking prosecutions on their own if the country did not comply [1] ... | |
Africa has a strong voice in the ICC The ICC has gone to great lengths to involve all parts of the world in all aspects of its operations. Fatou Bensouda, from Gambia, was recently appointed Chief Prosecutor of the ICC. Moreover, Africans have twice been Vice-President of the court, and have had a fair representation ... | |
The ICC is pursuing the gravest situations within its jurisdiction The ICC’s jurisdiction is limited to those countries that have ratified the Rome statute. This combined with the likelihood of deadlock in the UNSC, means that many of the worst conflicts are off limits for the ICC. Using data from the Uppsala Conflict... | |
African victims deserve ICC intervention to bring justice At the most fundamental level, many of the world’s atrocities of recent times have occurred in Africa, where weak government and mass war are rampant. Taken per head of population Africa has the most conflicts of any continent and unlike Asia its most brutal co... | |
Africa has invited ICC intervention Far from the ICC being biased against Africa it is Africa’s embrace of the ICC and the opportunity for international justice that has led to so many Africans being tried at the Hague. The reality is that the only nations to refer themselves to the ICC have been African –the DR Congo... | |
That the ICC is investigating the conflicts that under some analyses may be the gravest within its jurisdiction does not mean it is not biased. Complementarity in itself shows bias; it allows countries that are considered more developed off the hook ensuring that the ICC will only look at the least developed. African s... | |
One of strongest current criticisms of the African Union is that the ICC is ignoring its opinions. In particular, the AU has very strong views on the treatment of the Kenyan President and his deputy by the ICC in the Kenyan investigation, which the ICC has failed to engage with. Tanzanian President, Jakaya Kikwete, sai... | |
Britain should not feel sorry for the new EU members and give up its rebate out of pity for them. They chose to enter the EU and accepted the terms of membership - including the rebate arrangements. Indeed, it could be argued that membership was not necessarily good for the former communist states - having escaped one ... | |
New member states are much poorer than the UK Britain should give up the rebate in solidarity with the new member states. Most of the ten recent entrants to the EU are still struggling to overcome the legacy of communist rule and are much poorer than the previous 15 member states. In 2009 Bulgaria and Romania had less... | |
It might be worth giving up the British rebate for serious CAP reform, but it is unnecessary. If the CAP were abolished, Britain’s net payments to the EU would automatically be much smaller anyway, so the rebate (66% of the difference between the UK’s contributions to the EU and its receipts from it) would also shrink ... | |
Enlargement could mean a new start Britain should not alienate its natural allies among the new member states by insisting on the rebate. Like Britain, the new member states are largely economically liberal, anti-federalist regarding the future of the EU, and are pro-American in terms of foreign policy. As a result Br... | |
The Rebate is not justified The British rebate is an undeserved anomaly - no other country has a similar arrangement to pay back part of its contribution to the EU budget. Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden all make a bigger net contribution to the EU than Britain does (in proportion to the size of their pop... | |
While the UK is the only country to have so far received a rebate the Commission pointed out that the Fontainbleu agreement was based on the principle that ‘….any Member State sustaining a budgetary burden which is excessive in relation to its relative prosperity may benefit from a correction at the appropriate time.’ ... | |
Britain can be on good terms with the East European states without dropping the rebate. Tony Blair in his deal on the rebate in 2005 gave a good deal to the new members of the EU which gave much more in structural funds to these members and at the same time reduced the British rebate. [1] [1] White, Michael, and Watt,... | |
Britain does not want to be at the heart of Europe - it wants to be in the EU, but not run by the EU. Even if the rebate went, the UK would remain outside any EU “core group” of countries, as it has chosen not to join the Schengen agreement on passport free movement, and to stay outside the Euro. Both these decisions h... | |
The rebate should go in exchange for CAP reform It is worth giving the rebate up in exchange for serious reform of the EU budget, particularly of the Common Agricultural Policy which spends 40% of the EU’s budget [1] on 3% of its population. [2] The CAP not only wastes taxpayers’ money, it also raises the cost of food... | |
Giving up the rebate would mean better relations with the Europe Union It is worth giving up the rebate to remove a constant source of tension and ill-feeling between Britain and its European partners. Until the rebate is abandoned, Britain will never be at the heart of Europe. This limits our ability to promote our o... | |
When the rebate was agreed over twenty years ago, Britain was poor after decades of decline. In fact it was the third poorest state in the then European Economic Community (after Ireland and Greece) [1] , so the size of its net contribution to the budget was clearly unfair. Now the UK is one of the EU member countries ... | |
With the expansion of the European Union it is no longer justified that Britain should not be paying more towards the European Union, and in particular the much poorer Eastern European states which have joined. Britain cannot expect to get as much back from the European Union as it puts in. Britain should accept being ... | |
The Rebate makes membership acceptable to the British people The EU is a vast wasteful bureaucracy, for example creating a ‘House of European History’ for €14 million, [1] and is beyond reform. Anything to limit Britain’s contribution to this monster with pretensions to becoming a super-state is desirable. Many in the... | |
Europe needs to tackle much bigger problems Those EU leaders who are most critical of the rebate are ignoring the EU’s real and serious problems by spending large amounts of time in rows with Britain over the rebate. Europe has immense problems such as persistent 10% unemployment, which has gone up as a result of the ... | |
The rebate could never be regained Margaret Thatcher fought for four years to win the rebate for Britain, famously wielding her handbag at EU summits until it was agreed. Giving it up is a clear betrayal of Thatcher’s legacy and shows the present government’s unwillingness to stand up for Britain’s interests in Brusse... | |
Britain should not pay more than other countries Britain’s rebate is completely justified. Without it Britain would pay far more into the EU than it ever received back. The UK government argues “Without the rebate, the UK's net contribution as a percentage of national income would be twice as big as France's, and 1.5 ... | |
There may be bigger problems but the rebate is symptomatic of many of them. The reason for many of Europe’s problems is the determination for member states to take from the EU but not give and to haggle over everything rather than working together. The rebate is a prime example of one state believing that it deserves a... | |
The rebate is bad for Britain and the EU as it leads to a complacency in the UK about the way the EU is run. Knowing that two-thirds of Britain’s net contribution will be returned anyway, British politicians and civil servants have not had to be serious about tackling waste and corruption at Brussels. Giving the rebate... | |
This is all supposition; we have no way of knowing if Syria will test any set red lines, or that they will use chemical weapons if there is no response. Instead it may be the response that causes the use of chemical weapons. The Syrian Foreign Ministry has said in the past that chemical and biological weapons “will nev... | |
No reaction will embolden the regime Not responding to Syrian moves to use chemical weapons will be enabling the Syrian government to use chemical weapons. It has already been reported that some chemical weapons are being made ready for use such as the combining of the two chemical precursors, isopropanol and methylph... | |
Attacking chemical weapons stores prevents a threat in itself as it runs the risk of blowing up the weapons and therefore dispersing them into the air. [1] This risk would potentially be even higher with any biological weapons as they would not become harmless through dispersal as Chemical weapons would. Quite apart f... | |
Intervention would be legitimate If Syria uses, or looks as if it is about to use, chemical weapons then this would be a clear escalation that would require action. Syria has never signed the Chemical Weapons Convention [1] but it should be considered to be a part of customary international law so binding even on thos... | |
Intervention would only be legitimate if it was sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council or another country came directly under attack. What is being suggested while abhorrent does not meet either of these conditions. The Security Council is unlikely to agree to an intervention now and Syria would be very fool... | |
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 bri... | |
According to Russia Syria has centralised its chemical weapons into just one or two locations which makes it possible to attack and destroy the weapons comparatively easily. [1] This might not destroy all Syria’s chemical weapons but would still severely restrict their access to these weapons. [1] ‘Syria ‘secures chem... | |
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 duri... | |
The use of weapons may not change the diplomatic situation Russia and China have been vetoing U.N. action on Syria throughout the crisis. [1] It is precisely the intervention to prevent a massacre that the Russians and Chinese are trying to avoid, for fear that this would simply be a pretext for regime change as happe... | |
Cannot prevent the use of chemical weapons No intervention could prevent the use of chemical weapons of the Assad regime had decided to use them. No outside force could ever be certain they know where all Syria’s weapons are [1] and destroy them in time if they were distributed for use; even full scale air strikes mig... | |
Do chemical weapons really make a difference? Chemical and biological weapons are among the most horrifying weapons ever created by man; it is with good cause that they are banned. However if there have already been 60,000 [1] people killed by the conflict in Syria then would the use of chemical weapons, unless it was... | |
The use of chemical weapons would change the Chinese and Russian positions. Syrian officials have been reported as saying they would not use chemical weapons because “We would not commit suicide” as the support from Russia and China would be lost. [1] While China and Russia do have interests in Syria these interests ar... | |
Just because the Scots are less Europhobic than the English does not mean they are actually natural Europhiles. There is still a fair amount of euroscepticism in Scotland [quote=Prof. John Curtice] The rise of UKIP is also evident here albeit at a lower level [1] [/quote]. When Scots were asked 'Which institution do yo... | |
Scotland is more pro-EU than the rest of the UK According to a February 2013 Ipsos-mori poll Scots want an EU referendum but 53% would vote to stay in the EU and only 34% would vote to leave. Indeed if Scotland became independent those who wanted it to be in the EU rose to 61% and the number who wanted out fell to 33%... | |
On the vast majority of issues rUK and Scotland have the same interests. Scotland wants to retain the UK’s opt outs on issues such as the free movement of people and the Euro. Scotland also has the same interests on the main issue for the EU; trade. Nicola Sturgeon has highlighted the benefit to Scotland of the Transat... | |
An independent Scotland would avoid having a referendum on EU membership The Scottish National Party (SNP) has said that they would not hold an EU referendum in an independent Scotland. Scotland is [quote=Nicola Sturgeon] regardless of the direction of UK policy - Scotland is strongly committed to continuing within th... | |
The SNP's strongest argument, repeatedly made, is that independence would allow Scots to make their own decisions. It would therefore be only right that Scots whether independent or not should be allowed their own referendum on EU membership. The principle of a referendum on EU membership is supported by 58% of Scots w... | |
Scotland has different interests to rUK States are often seen as having one single unitary interest, however this is not the case the interests of different regions can be very different. It should therefore not be surprising that Scotland and rUK have different interests with relation to the EU. For example on climat... | |
The Scottish Government claims that an independent Scotland would be able to join the EU with all the UK's various opt outs intact. Scotland indeed could not be forced to join the Euro because in order to do so it would have to demonstrate currency convergence for at least two years which the newly independent state ob... | |
The SNP argues that the transition from being a constituent part of the UK inside the EU and being an independent state within the EU would be seamless. [1] While 'the Scottish government does not take the process of EU membership for granted' they hope to notify the EU of their intent to join the EU before the referen... | |
The UK or rUK is not going to leave the EU. Despite the legislative activity an EU referendum is still not an immediate prospect. Legislation as it stands only calls for a referendum in the event of treaty change, which would itself take years to negotiate. The private members bill currently progressing through the Co... | |
The Scottish relationship with the EU is likely to change after independence. The UK's various opt outs exist because of the strong negotiating position that the whole of the UK had at the time of the signing of the various relevant treaties. Had Scotland been independent then it would not have been in the same positi... | |
Scottish independence might be a faster route out of the EU than a referendum. Before 2012 the SNP argued that Independence could be achieved and Scotland remain within the EU while retaining all UK opt outs with a minimal amount of trouble. However this position has since changed largely due to European commission pr... | |
Polls consistently point to a vote to leave the EU in a prospective referendum. [1] Whether this actually happens is a moot point, such a referendum would still bring about instability in the relationship with the European Union. Scotland if independent could avoid this turbulence. At the same time a renegotiation does... | |
The Opposition acknowledges that the US government’s obligation to act in its own nation’s best interest reflects a flaw in the US’s international role. However, this flaw is outweighed by the benefits of US protection. First, other countries can use soft power to prevent the US from abusing its military power. In 2010... | |
The US government’s obligation to its own people is mutually exclusive to acting on behalf of the international community. A government derives its sovereignty from a social contract with its citizens. Citizens surrender some of their freedoms in exchange for government protection; if a government does not serve its p... | |
The Pro only identifies US military failures; there are also many occasions of US military success. The Opposition case details examples of military success in Panama, Kuwait, and Bosnia. The recent success of Libyan rebel attempts to overthrow Gaddafi is partially attributable to US military assistance. [1] Furthermor... | |
As long as the United States works unilaterally to quell violent conflict, progress is not being made towards a better, internationally coordinated system. The United States spends approximately $700 trillion annually on its military; China, the world’s second largest military spender, spends $114 trillion. [1] The US... | |
The United States is not an appropriate agent for monitoring international security because it is only representative of one nation. The U.S. is an independent nation, not an international entity. Thus 96% of the world population has no voice in its’ government’s decisions. [1] The US government has authority over its... | |
All conflicts are a threat to the entire international community. As is discussed in the Opposition’s arguments, conflicts have the ability to spill over into other regions and to destabilize governments. Such conflicts endanger the international community because they increase the risk of irrational/non-state actors ... | |
The Pro’s perspective is backwards; as long as other nations do not move towards providing viable alternatives to US military dominance, the US cannot afford to reduce its own defenses. The US should not have to provide an incentive for other nations to improve their defense systems; their own self-preservation should ... | |
There are currently no viable alternatives to US military dominance. All would simply lead to more strife; dominance by another, probably less peaceful power, no dominance at all leading to anarchy or a balance of power, which usually leads to war as in the 18th Century. All of these options would create considerably m... | |
Failure after failure has made it clear that the US military is not an effective actor for maintaining international stability. The US military makes problems worse just as often as it makes them better. The US intervened in Vietnam on the grounds of protecting the free world from communism; over 58,000 American soldi... | |
US unilateral intervention is a form of the Western imperialism that has caused so much of the strife that exists in the modern world. Western domination is not the answer to political conflict; it is the cause of many predicaments that result in the violation of human rights in countries in Asia, Africa, and the Midd... | |
Brute force is not sufficient to maintain global security. Just as one cannot simply strike a stone repeatedly and expect to replicate Michelangelo’s David, one cannot simply produce more tanks and train more soldiers and expect to resolve the complex problems that create modern global threats. The US has failed to est... | |
The variety of checks upon the US military may prevent it from total global domination, but these checks are not sufficient to make the US a genuinely altruistic actor. The US justifies intervention on the grounds of promoting democracy, but selectively intervenes. The US has supported non-democratic regimes in Chile a... | |
The United States is entitled to take measures to protect its citizens. In a nuclear world, it is impossible to dismiss another nation’s instability as “their problem.” If a government with nuclear weapons collapses, irrational actors (such as ideological terrorist groups) may attain control of such weapons. Nuclear w... | |
There are currently no viable alternatives to US military dominance. The 2011 Libyan revolution demonstrates the world’s dependence on US military support. Although NATO unanimously agreed to intervene in the revolution, less than half participated, and even fewer actually conducted airstrikes. In August 2011, NATO Se... | |
The United States has greater military capacity than any other entity in the world. The US accounts for 43% of global expenditures on military. [1] The US has greater capacity to prevent global security threats than any other entity. Furthermore, the US has used limited military intervention successfully in the recent... | |
The United States has several qualities that allow it to act honorably on behalf of the international community. It is essential that there is some agent in the international community that is able to step into situations that threaten global security, such as a collapsed government in a state with nuclear capacity. T... | |
US unilateral intervention is a form of the Western imperialism that has caused so much of the strife that exists in the modern world. There are alternatives –while some may contend they will be worse we do not know that this is the case. The United States would remain dominant but it would not need to use its military... | |
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 weap... | |
Expansion is not the right way to increase transparency, as the number of informal consultations of smaller groups (such as permanent members or only industrialised permanent members) in order to try and push though resolutions would probably rise. Reforms to enhance transparency and improve working methods are already... | |
The Security council needs to be more democratic. At the moment many countries are not heard in the council and some states may never gain a chance of being elected to the Security Council. This leaves billions of the world's population without representation in the world's highest body. How can India with over a sixt... | |
Non-permanent members are selected to represent voices of entire regions already. Increasing the size of the Council would only make it more unwieldy as it would be extremely difficult to negotiate in such an expanded forum. The nature of the Council's work requires swift action and expansion could negatively impact on... | |
The EU is one of the world's largest trade blocs, has the world's largest GDP, and represents almost half a billion people. The EU is one of the world’s largest trade blocs, has the world’s largest GDP, and represents almost half a billion people. A permanent seat for the EU would reflect those new power dimensions. T... | |
The current Security Council doesn't reflect the economic reality of the 21st century. The current Security Council doesn’t reflect the economic reality of the 21st century. France and Great Britain have clearly lost their position among the most powerful nations and their role was long ago taken over by Germany and J... | |
Giving Germany a permanent seat would hardly be a step forward in an endeavour for a more equitable distribution of seats in the Council. The UK and France hold a veto power over any amendments and aren’t willing to give up their seats, so adding Germany would mean that the EU would have three permanent seats in the Co... | |
In any case, France and the UK are still amongst the world's foremost military powers, with the world's largest nuclear arsenals after the USA and Russia, and the world's highest military expenditure after the USA and China. By contrast, the EU has no significant military to speak of, and is thus unable to project powe... | |
There is a lack of consensus among developing countries themselves on who should get permanent seats. Nigeria, Egypt and South Africa all claim their right to an African one. The most logical candidate for an Asian seat – India – is opposed by Muslim countries, who want a permanent seat for themselves – “Pakistan’s For... | |
A rise in UN membership should be reflected also in an increase in Security Council members. In 1945 there were only 51 UN members, so eleven Council members were adequately representing all voices. Today the UN membership has risen to almost four times the number of the original one, yet there are only fifteen voices... | |
There is a growing imbalance between developing and developed countries representation in the Council. There is a growing imbalance between developing and developed countries representation in the Council. Four out of five permanent members are industrialized and four out of five are “European”. The four-fifths of hum... | |
By including more developing countries in the Security Council, more issues of their concern would get on the Security Council's agenda. As we all know the major issues in the status quo nowadays occur mainly in developing countries. For example the consequences from global warming are worse in the developing regions. ... | |
There should be no differentiation between old and new permanent members and the new ones should get the veto power in order to preserve the interests of the regions they represent. Veto power is not as problematic with potential permanent members as it is with the current ones, as all the candidates are known for thei... | |
A UNSC reform is very hard to achieve due to the many different interests and demands. Reforming the UN Security Council is very difficult as no one can agree which new powers deserve representation, whether they should have a veto, and even whether permanent membership should continue to exist in any form. Japan and ... | |
In regards to an eventual separate place on the UNSC for the European Union – the EU might be an economic powerhouse and might want to coordinate foreign relations in regards to external economic policy, but at heart it is intended to be an economic union In regards to an eventual separate place on the UNSC for the Eu... | |
The bulk of operations approved by the Security Council are financed by industrialised nations. As the bulk of operations approved by the Security Council are financed by industrialised nations, both because they are the main contributors to the budget1 and because the Security Council members pay more towards peaceke... | |
By giving five more countries veto power, the Council could come to a stalemate. This could mean that the council ends up deadlocked more often than not as was the case during the Cold war when the two blocs almost always opposed each other. Up until 1991 (from the UN founding in 1946) there were only 700 security cou... | |
The EU might function as an economic union, but its original goal was to prevent war from ever happening again on the European continent. Economic integration is a means to this goal, by making member states economically too dependent on each other for them to want to declare war on each other. Given this history, the ... | |
It is widely recognised that the current Security Council set-up lacks legitimacy and requires reform. Major states such as Japan, and rising powers such as Brazil, South Africa and India deserve recognition and giving them permanent status would provide representation for a much broader cross-section of humanity. It m... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.