title stringlengths 0 221 | text stringlengths 0 375k |
|---|---|
In many cases, an impartial third party can be more effective. If we look at peace negotiations as an analogy and look at, for example, those between FARC guerillas and the Colombian government they began in Oslo, Norway,(1) not in Colombia or any other South American country. This happens as in order for a conflict to... | |
African forces will be trusted by Africans The primary purpose of international organisations is to resolve conflicts between members. In the case of the AU its first stated objective is “achieve greater unity and solidarity between the African countries”. The main threat to this unity as well as peace in the continen... | |
In a world which has been constantly militarizing for the past century it is very hard to believe that Africa will be capable of building, from scratch, such an army capable of impressing the developed world. Any AU army will be small; the US has a military budget about 15 times all the African countries combined(1)(2... | |
The international community cant be relied upon It is clear that Africa cannot rely on the international community to solve its conflicts. In order to be more independent, what the African Union needs is a standing army, which can intervene whenever there is a crisis. First of all, when looking at statistics, having ... | |
On this point, there are two main reasons why the AU will actually do a poorer job as far as security in concerned. First of all, there are no assurances that African countries have the necessary expertize or financial capacity of supporting a well trained and always prepared military force. Only one country has a top... | |
Showing Africa can solve its own problems Countries desire to have influence among the international community. States gain this influence in all sorts of way; economic wealth, high technology, charismatic leaders, or a military power. Having an AU standing army would help provide Africa with influence; it would show ... | |
In such a situation, past war experience counts for little as every conflict is different. First of all, African armies on the other hand are familiar with the territory, conditions and people. It is true that Nigeria never sent troops to Iraq, but by battling Boko Haram every single day, it is fair to assume that the... | |
It would be only beneficial to Africa to take matters into its own hands and not depend on some foreign country to save the day when they are in need. Even though at a diplomatic level, all big western liberal democracies are “committed” to helping Africa, it is clear that this may not always be the case. The West has... | |
Action would require UN approval The AU’s powers will be at odds with those of the UN. While the United Nations accepts and even encourages regional organisations engaging in “pacific settlement of local disputes” the point of an army is to be able to intervene with more than just negotiations. “But no enforcement act... | |
An AU force will be inexperienced An AU force won’t just be keeping the peace but it may also be involved in defeating rebel forces. One of the most important prerequisites for winning and ending such a conflict is experience. When it comes to fighting insurgencies there are many countries that have experience fighti... | |
There is no need for an AU force Western countries have military systems far more efficient than their African counterparts, so it is clear that their involvement would be much more efficient than any AU-lead intervention. UN has already embarked on a mission to end conflict throughout the world and help the continent... | |
The Security Council will be most unlikely to obstruct a recognised regional security organisation from doing its role. Any veto would be extremely costly for the power that did so as they would incur the ire of most of Africa. Most of thesituations which the AU will want to intervene in are not of a high enough prior... | |
That’s what the status is now. If Africa is indeed rising, surely that is a better bet for Cape Verde? Cape Verde is already being integrated into Africa; it is a member of the Economic Community of West African States. There is an intention for these regional African communities to at some point merge into a market st... | |
Its the economy, stupid! Cape Verde doesn’t dislike West Africa – it just has no real economic connection to the region. Cape Verde’s main economic partners are in Europe, with over half of imports coming from Portugal and The Netherlands, and more than three quarters of exports going to Spain and Portugal together [1... | |
Schengen membership is not the same as EU membership – some non-EU states, such as Switzerland are part of Schengen, the UK and Ireland are EU member states but are not. Joining Schengen would involve the politically sensitive issue of undocumented migrants, which could not only be fatal to Cape Verde joining Schengen ... | |
Cultural links Cape Verde is not a good fit with the much of the history of Africa. It has been joined at the hip with Europe, if other things had gone other ways this debate would not be happening as the islands could have remained an integral part of Portugal as with Madeira and the Azores. Not all Cape Verdeans do ... | |
While Cape Verde may have a history and culture that is closer to Europe than all other African states this does not mean it does not have an African culture. There are of course many African states all with their own histories, culture and independence dates – from Ethiopia in time immemorial through Namibia in the 19... | |
EU membership is good for tourism Tourism is a key industry for Cape Verde. The archipelago is a popular destination for many from Europe. While the country is resource poor in terms of natural resources, three quarters of the country’s GDP comes from services [1] . Integration with Europe could see a number of advan... | |
EU member states regularly have territories even further abroad than off the coast of West Africa – including even territory on the mainland of South America, French Guiana, a French overseas region. Cyprus is an EU member state too, in the Eastern Mediterranean sea sandwiched between Turkey and Syria. Cyprus is over 3... | |
Size is not necessarily a problem; it means it is much simpler for the EU to pull Cape Verde up to European standards than it would be with a larger country. It also means there will be few concerns about membership; no one is going to be worried about emigration from a country with a tiny population. The process woul... | |
Cape Verde should be a beacon for Africa Rather than joining the European sphere or even looking towards Europe, Cape Verde could act as a beacon for the rest of Africa. Africa has a need for countries that are setting a good example in governance for others to follow. The country is already at the top of several sect... | |
Geographical stretch too far Cape Verde is just too far from Europe – it is 400 miles off the coast of Senegal compared to almost 1,900 miles from the Portuguese mainland. [1] The European Union has never had a member from Africa, and neither have other European institutions such as the Council of Europe. [2] The Cana... | |
Joining Europe is unrealistic A move towards the European sphere of influence might seem logical, but success is not guaranteed. In terms of population, Cape Verde would be the second smallest EU member state after Malta meaning it would have little influence over the Union when it joins. And there is little reason fo... | |
Cape Verde should determine its own role in the world – not be beholden to the interests of a continental bloc. Paradoxically by moving towards Europe Cape Verde could be a much better model for the African continent – it would show that African states, even small ones, are capable of becoming developed countries. An ... | |
Being leader should not allow you blanket immunity from persecution of crimes. If an agreement was able to be reached for these two men, surely a similar agreement can reached for others. Stability might be undermined more if leaders who are proven to committing war crimes are allowed to remain in power where they may ... | |
Having the president out of the country undermines stability While Kenyatta and his deputy William Ruto have been visiting the ICC, they should have been leading their countries. While the indictment has occurred both have remained the leaders of their countries, but have been absent while major events such as the Wes... | |
In the five years since the violence occurred, very little action has occurred from the domestic forces; there have been only two murder convictions for the 1200 deaths. [1] Furthermore, these forces are working for the people they are meant to be investigating. The case of Kenyatta has seen accusations of witness inti... | |
The ICC indictment undermines democracy Uhuru Kenyatta is a sitting president of a democratic nation. This means that he was elected by the people to serve them. By indicting a sitting leader, you undermine their ability to rule the country as they will be forced to spend long periods outside their country focusing on... | |
It would seem to undermine democracy to allow a president accused of violence during an election to continue to serve. Elections are only one part of a democracy; another is a functioning and respected rule of law. When the president has charges to answer he should stand down, at least temporarily. It is wrong to assum... | |
Far from too much interference that the trial is on the point of collapse shows there has not been enough. The ICC has found itself unable to protect witnesses, with the result that there have been two withdrawals. Both the defence [1] and the prosecutor claim there has been witness intimidation in the trial. [2] [1] ... | |
Kenya can prosecute these crimes itself Kenya has a functioning judiciary and police force. They have successfully prosecuted some individuals for these crimes and it should be left to Kenya to deliver justice for itself. There have been several cases brought before the courts. [1] Kenyans overwhelmingly see the ICC i... | |
A pointless trial that victimizes African leaders While the ICC feels free to interfere with African countries it would never dare to do so in a western country; leaders such as George Bush, Tony Blair, Nicholas Sarkozy and others who have launched various armed interventions have not been put on trial. Not only is it... | |
The Kenyan Parliament decided against creating a special tribunal, the court should not have then gone over the elected representatives’ head to hand the case to the ICC. The Parliament has since shown its displeasure at the ICC’s interference by voting to leave the ICC entirely. [1] [1] AP, ‘Kenya votes to leave ICC ... | |
Justice can still be sought by either local courts or after Kenyatta’s term ends. Justice should be done without ICC interference in the domestic affairs of Kenya. Even so, this does not seem like the pursuit of justice by the ICC, rather a witch hunt by the ICC for African leaders [1] . [1] ‘African Union accuses ICC... | |
Breaks cycles of violence When violence is not punished, it tends to lead to more violence – such as the lack of prosecutions following the violence occurring after the 1992 and 1997 elections, to which people attribute to the air of impunity in the 2007 elections. This is firstly because people never heal from the in... | |
Kenyans wanted the investigation It cannot be unwelcome interference in Kenya’s internal affairs when it was Kenyans who invited the ICC in. It was the Kenyan government that set up the Waki commission under Kenyan Court of Appeals Judge Philip Waki into the violence. It was then this commission that decided to pass t... | |
Justice is important Justice is important in its own right, for the victims of the atrocities and for the development of Kenya. Victims have a right under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1] to have access to justice. Being elected should not be a blanket ban from being prosecuted for your crimes. In fact, t... | |
Justice for violence is not fundamental to peace, as can be seen by the comparatively peaceful 2013 elections. Having now established working relationship between ethnic communities, why stoke the fire by prosecuting community leaders? 60% of Kenyans say they do not believe that the case even if it runs to a conclusion... | |
Israel has a better historical, moral and demographic claim to an undivided Jerusalem as its capitol than the Palestinians have a claim to East Jerusalem. This is both because Israel's historical claim is older, and indeed original, but also because Israel does govern all Jerusalem, including East Jerusalem, both fairl... | |
Palestine has as valid a claim to Jerusalem as Israel does: The Palestinians have as valid a claim to Jerusalem as the capitol of their state as the Israelis has a claim to Jerusalem as the capitol of their state. At the end of 2008, the population of East Jerusalem was 57% Muslim (Palestinian) and only 43% Jewish, so... | |
The 1947 Arab invasion invalidated the "international" status of Jerusalem. The Arab non-acceptance of Resolution 181 and invasion of Israel immediately upon its declaration of statehood essentially reneged the resolution and the creation of an Arab state at the time.(15) Furthermore, self-determination is not an absol... | |
Sharing Jerusalem is necessary for peace The only sustainable solution is to divide and then share Jerusalem, and the Haram-Temple Mount. No final deal will be possible if one side or the other is not willing to embrace this. Sharing Jerusalem would involve acknowledging and respecting each other’s claims which would ... | |
Dividing Jerusalem would simply turn the city into a war zone, with the battle lines being drawn wherever the dividing lines are drawn, as the two mixed-up and opposing communities fight for control over streets, holy sites and neighbourhoods. Moreover, it is simply not true that the inhabitants of East Jerusalem neces... | |
International law supports dividing Jerusalem The Palestinian people since 1967 have demonstrated through resistance to Israeli occupation their desire for an independent state of their own.(7) An undivided Jerusalem forces the Palestinians living in East Jerusalem to live under the control of a state they do not wish... | |
Dividing Jerusalem will not alienate Jews from their heritage. Dennis Ross writes in the book "the Missing Peace", that it is a myth: "that all of Jerusalem, including the exclusively Arab neighbourhoods of Jerusalem, must remain Israeli lest the division of East Jerusalem rob Israel of its link to its Jewish heritage.... | |
The Palestinians will accept a peace deal that gives them East Jerusalem, and so the fears over 'Hamas' are misplaced as the conflict will end. In October 2010 Senior Palestine Liberation Organization official Yasser Abed Rabbo said that the Palestinians will be willing to recognize the State of Israel in any way that ... | |
Jerusalem belongs to Israel Jerusalem became a city in 1010 B.C.E. when King David defeated the Jebusites. King David made that city his seat of government. In fact, King David loved Jerusalem that he brought the sacred Ark of the Covenant into that city and stripped the so-called twelve tribes of Israel of some of th... | |
Dividing Jerusalem would harm Israeli society: Besides the aforementioned security concerns, many other harms would also result to Israeli society if Jerusalem were divided. Jerusalem is simply too important to Israeli society to be divided. Ben Gurion explain in 1937, "for the Jews, the millions of the Jews who do no... | |
Jerusalem cannot be neatly or peacefully divided Dividing Jerusalem would simply draw up battle lines through the city. With layers of neighbourhoods so close, security is a very real concern. Former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed this issue: "We've seen what happens when we leave. It's not an Arab majori... | |
While it is technically true that the first founders of Jerusalem were Jewish, this in no way established a de facto right to that city. While Jerusalem may have technically been founded by a Jewish king, the intervening years saw more rule by non-Jewish peoples than not. Furthermore, the communities living there, part... | |
An apparently strong UN obligation to intervene in order to protect innocents will not necessarily provide a positive, deterrent effect. Rather, it could merely serve as an incentive for dictators and generals to commit their atrocities quicker. For example, when the United Nations first considered intervention in Liby... | |
A strong United Nations commitment to the Right to Protect will create an effective deterrent to future atrocities. Governments and leaders who are considering attacks on their own people, or who are wavering in their commitment to defend them from harm, will be aware that ignoring their own obligations could bring sw... | |
That creates a slippery slope. When does the UN draw the line that a government has revoked its sovereignty? How many people have to die? How can it be justified that only if x number of people die, then we will intervene? Additionally, as soon as the UN gets involved in a civil war or dictatorship and has deemed the g... | |
The United Nations has a responsibility to prevent genocide and mass atrocities. Citizens should be protected by individual governments, however if governments are either partaking in or failing to prevent genocide and mass atrocities, then another global actor needs to take action. The United Nations should take on t... | |
There is a procedural contradiction in the Proposition's position. If there is a universal responsibility to protect, why must this only be exercised through the United Nations, dependent upon Security Council recognition of a crisis and support for action? The United States believes that in some cases it would be righ... | |
Not all crises can be dealt with militarily. Often an invasion only creates more problems. Further is the UN ready to take on the underlying problems in cases of genocide and civil war. Those rifts may take decades to heal and is the UN truly invested because simply providing aid and military support will not solve the... | |
Countries and governments have an obligation to protect human rights and defend their citizens from harm We can no longer argue that sovereignty must be considered absolute. Sovereignty was created as the means by which states justified the control of their territory to prevent foreign aggression. Since the creation o... | |
It is better to save lives than stand idly by. It is immoral to let people die when something can be done about it. It inherently values the lives of victims of genocide and civil war less than other lives. The world and the United Nations have for too long stood by and watched atrocities unfold. Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwa... | |
The United Nations does have a problem raising sufficient money, troops and resources to meet its present needs for peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. This is precisely because all such operations are dealt with on a case-by-case basis - the approach so beloved of the opposition for dealing with any challenge. W... | |
The UN is the organization best equipped to deal with these types of interventions. If individual countries take action there are automatically thoughts of motive, and they can never be seen as a pure unbiased actor. Further, countries don’t want to take action because they do not want to become tied to the countries t... | |
Blanket commitment creates a slippery slope of when to intervene. A blanket commitment could lead the United Nations and the word into great dangers. It must be considered whether intervention with force is always practical. For example, in the past China's government has committed horrific human rights abuses, such a... | |
Actions to intervene in internal situations need to be determined on a case by case basis. We all have a moral duty to protect human rights and prevent atrocities, but we do not need to make a vague and open-ended commitment. In particular there is a big difference between a genocide pursued by a strong, centralized s... | |
The UN does not have the necessary funds or expertise. The United Nations struggles to meet its current needs, in terms of funding for emergency relief, development work, health initiatives, etc. and also in terms of peacekeeping troops, military hardware and transport, etc. It is in no position to make sweeping promi... | |
The UN would be turned into something that it is not. From a group of cooperating but sovereign states, secure from external intervention if they live peaceably with their neighbors, the UN would be turned into some sort of global congress of humanity, where borders played no part. This may seem a utopian vision, but ... | |
Acting on a case-by-case basis does not establish an effective deterrent. If a leader does not know for certain that their action is going to lead to an intervention, they can’t be deterred. In order for them to be deterred, they need to know by which standards their actions will be assessed and acted upon. On a case-b... | |
It is not difficult to set up basic guidelines as to determining when a situation has gone too far. Even proponents of Responsibility to protect agree on certain criteria particularly right authority, just cause, right intention, last resort, proportional means and reasonable Prospects. [1] The last of these criteria ... | |
A referendum would not be a legitimate use of government money, for it would not be practical. Holding a referendum on an issue the country already approved in 1975 would be a waste of time and resources. The expense of referendums is abhorrent to the UK taxpayer; the Alternative Vote referendum held in 2011 was believ... | |
An in or out referendum would be legitimate. Parliamentary and logistic precedents indicate that holding a referendum about an issue of sovereignty is practical and practicable. There have been two successfully-held national referendums, one the direct antecedent of this one (the 1975 EEC vote) and one recently (the 2... | |
Referendums are not a right. Parliament has passed no law governing when referendums must be held. Because Parliament has set itself no guidelines on when to call referendums, the public has no right to one even if similar situations in the past have warranted them. Moreover, a system of representative democracy means ... | |
A referendum will create a better political climate. The general public will be appeased: 75% of voters want the vote held.1 MPs will fulfil their duty to represent constituent interests by calling the referendum. A contented electorate will be more supportive of government and feel included in political life. Not onl... | |
A good political climate is one where government functions properly. In a representative democracy, decision-making is not intended to be majoritarian. Elected officials are in place to make decisions on behalf of constituents, as they continue to do with matters relating to the EU. As such, a referendum is a direct re... | |
A vote will make the government look weak. The government will seem like it's avoiding a difficult issue by shifting responsibility for the Europe question to the public. Europeans will see the British government as an unreliable political partner willing to gamble EU membership at a volatile and dangerous time for the... | |
The public have a right to a referendum. The public deserve to vote in this referendum because it regards a constitutional issue – sovereignty. Beyond constitutionality, referendums maintain democratic society when the public’s views and MPs’ clearly misalign, as they do in this case. This vote will also maintain the ... | |
The referendum is good PR for the UK. A referendum, regardless of the result, will prove an effective public relations boost for the United Kingdom. UK citizens will feel more confident in their government, as some currently see EU membership as an illegitimate breach of the social contract and others argue that the U... | |
The referendum will be legitimate. Referendums have become an important part of the UK's political process. They spark public discussion of important issues and lead to a more educated and engaged public. They also entrench the principle that the state is directed in its actions fundamentally by the wishes of the peopl... | |
Referendums are a positive democratic force. The argument that the UK has always been a representative democracy does not preclude integrating elements of direct democracy into the political process. If referendums reinforce the legitimacy of government, strengthen the social contract and keep the citizenry engaged, to... | |
EU membership is too important to gamble. Membership of the European Union is too valuable to be cast aside. Prime Minister David Cameron refuses to hold a referendum for a good reason: he knows that leaving the EU would inflict great harm on the UK.1Economically, the UK is weaker on trade negotiations, especially wit... | |
The vote will be illegitimate. The public will not be properly informed: the issue is too complex for the average citizen to understand, and 83% of British voters know "little or nothing about the EU."1 A referendum cannot be permitted when the public simply does not know the repercussions of its decision, for it only... | |
The referendum is inconsistent with the UK's tradition of representative democracy EU membersh Referendums are philosophically inconsistent with representative democracy. The public don’t have the time or resources to govern as effectively as Parliament: MPs have access to expert advice and are paid to learn about iss... | |
EU membership is expendable. Being a member of the EU hurts the UK -- taxpayers contribute £8.3 billion a year, much of which goes to programs that don’t help the UK. 1 If it left the EU, the UK could keep that money to invest in its own economy. Furthermore, without the threat of the EU overruling, Parliament could pa... | |
Through the processes of committing to Aid programmes and the UN, the US has incorporated a certain amount of internationalism into its legal system. The power given to Congress by the War Powers Act must be balanced against the fact that the executive retains control over US foreign policy. Secondly, a UN resolution ... | |
US intervention is not consistent with other aspects of US law Firstly, Libya did not attack US soldiers and did not harm US citizens. Given that this is true, then engagement with Libya to begin with goes against the spirit of US law. Given that the situation is not an emergency for the U.S. circumventing congress in... | |
The US has the authorization of NATO, the UN and has acted in concordance with the mandates that these organisations have put up. The US does not harm the powers of the US constitution by helping the UN and NATO in this area because the US committed to these organisations with the knowledge that it might have to compr... | |
The United States engaged in "hostilities" under War Powers There are multiple arguments indicating why the U.S. might be engaged in hostilities under the War Powers Act, enough so that this single argument could make an entire two person case. The U.S. has engaged in sustained hostilities in Libya which have resulte... | |
The president’s office released this statement, justifying the engagement in Libya: "The President is of the view that the current U.S. military operations in Libya are consistent with the War Powers Resolution and do not under that law require further congressional authorization, because U.S. military operations are d... | |
The Libya intervention lacks sufficient international authority Firstly, the UN intervention in Libya wrongly rests on NATO authority. The use of NATO to circumvent congressional approval in this situation violates the initial agreement regarding the participation of the U.S. in NATO that was ratified by congress. As ... | |
Firstly, the Obama regime had plenty of time to get congressional approval. It would have been fairly easy for a bipartisan bill led by Senators John Kerry and John McCain to get through congress in time for the U.S. to successfully intervene in the area. The United States through a joint session of congress declared w... | |
The intervention in Libya has run contrary to the interests of the US by giving the president stronger powers. When Bill Clinton intervened with NATO in Kosovo he had to gain the approval of congress following the 60th day, with the conflict ending on the 78th. In allowing Obama to do this, a fundamental part of the U.... | |
Congress was appropriately and openly consulted Firstly, the Obama administration did not truly have time to gain congressional approval for their actions. Obama’s justification of the Libyan conflict claims: "As his troops continued pushing toward Benghazi, a city of nearly 700,000 people, Qadhafi again defied the in... | |
Humanitarian reasons prompted swift intervention The US intervention in Libya was necessary because Gadaffi had shown and has shown before that he is willing to kill and abuse citizens en mass in order to preserve his power. The U.S. intervention was necessary in order to prevent the indiscriminate bombing of towns by... | |
The intervention was necessary in order to protect US interests in the region If it can be proved that the intervention was incredibly important to the US for both its own interests as well as for its moral imperative then the US bending the War Power Act can be seen as a legitimate exception to constitutional rules t... | |
Firstly, the Obama regime had plenty of time to get congressional approval. It would have been fairly easy for a bipartisan bill led by Senators John Kerry and John McCain to get through congress in time for the U.S. to successfully intervene in the area. The United States through a joint session of congress declared w... | |
Through the SIS the Schengen Area has been able to streamline immigration and asylum policy, thus making it easier to manage immigrants in a consistent manner across Europe [1] . However, countries are not wholly dependent on external borders for security and immigration checks, and so immigrants approaching from exter... | |
The freedom of movement the Schengen area allows increases the difficulties of controlling immigration The borderless nature of the Schengen Area makes it increasingly difficult to track and detain illegal immigrants. It is often easier for illegal immigrants to enter through countries such as Italy or Greece (and, as... | |
While the EU is indeed a union, it is also a union of states with recognized rights to shape their own security and justice affairs. Unlike the continental members of the EU, Britain and Ireland have traditionally looked at borders not as sources of conflict but rather as natural mechanisms of defence, because of their... | |
The Schengen Agreement is an anachronism of a safer age. Since the Schengen Agreement was first designed and implemented the world has moved on and become a much more dangerous place. The war on terror has already brought bombings to a number of European cities, and this changed circumstance makes Schengen a luxury th... | |
As the Schengen area gets bigger, it becomes more difficult to police and this increases the risk of rogue elements being able to move freely between countries As new members are accepted and the Schengen area expands, it becomes more and more difficult to police. For example, once terrorists have gained access to the... | |
The expanding Schengen area does not make it more difficult to police due to the lack of border controls. Anyone attempting to enter the Schengen area will be checked at least once, this is exactly the same as anyone entering an individual country. Americans do not consider themselves less safe because they do not have... | |
Scrapping the Schengen Agreement in the face of terrorism would be to give in to the terrorists. The Agreement is part of the open, free society which the extremists are attacking, with its aim of cooperation between different nationalities and the development of a peaceful European identity. Retreating behind national... | |
While having to get a Europe wide visa can be a problem for the countries that newly border the Schengen there are also benefits. The Schengen agreement often favours those who apply for Schengen visas since once a visa is granted, they can easily travel throughout all the countries that have signed the Agreement. This... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.