title stringlengths 0 221 | text stringlengths 0 375k |
|---|---|
Schengen helps divide Europe as not all members take part. The Schengen Area, adopted by some countries in Europe but not others, will create a difference of interest which will irrevocably divide the EU over time. The fact that not all the EU members are part of the Schengen agreement means that the EU is divided in ... | |
Schengen tightens external borders, creating a ‘wall’ around Europe. The Schengen agreement has opened internal borders within Europe, but externally the opposite is true. Thus, while citizens of the belonging countries enjoy complete freedom of movement, citizens of non-member countries find that it is more difficult... | |
Pan European crime fighting efforts would have occurred anyway. It was the increasing globalization of crime that has forced combined crime fighting efforts not the Schengen agreement. The first moves towards creating Europol came in the 1970s with the setting up of the Trevi group by the then European Communities’ int... | |
Far from being a unifying force the Schengen Area has already led to disagreements between individual countries. Italy and France were involved in a major political dispute after Italy abused the spirit, if not the terms, of the Schengen Agreement to offload thousands of North African migrants onto France. In April 201... | |
The Schengen Area eases the free movement of goods and people that the EU strives for The freedom of movement of goods and people is a fundamental aspect of the European Union [1] , and the Schengen Agreement is a crucial part of making that a reality. This is not just useful in terms of cutting the cost of conducting... | |
Schengen has allowed cooperation in fighting global crime Criminality has become globalized, particularly in areas such as drugs that have long supply chains. The response to these threats has to involve large numbers of countries as well and Schengen has provided the impetus for such cooperation. The Schengen Informa... | |
The Schengen Agreement is both a symbol of and fundamental means of upholding the unity of the European Union The Schengen Agreement has been supported by the majority of EU members since its inception in 1985 (it covers all the continental states of the EU) and has not caused any of the feared divisions in the 20 yea... | |
Losing Schengen would have little impact on the goals of the European Union. The Schengen agreement is not necessary for economic or monetary union as goods will still be able to travel around the EU. Ireland by not being part of Schengen but very much a member of the European Union and Eurozone has shown that not bein... | |
The only precedent for this is the disastrous Iraq war where the reason for the invasion was given as disarming Saddam of Weapons of Mass Destruction he turned out not to have. Most countries would therefore be justified in being skeptical of any country claiming the right to disarm another of WMD. Additionally when th... | |
Disarming illegal weapons A second possible justification for intervention is when the state that is intervening against is itself breaking international law such as the Chemical Weapons Convention or the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The intervention would then be to force compliance of the treaty; this would mea... | |
Current international law does still matter, each time a state takes such action without consent other states object, they are simply not powerful enough to prevent it but this does prevent any norm being created by the aggressor. If however international law does no longer matter then any war is legal, or rather at l... | |
A moral imperative to intervene When a massacre is about to happen it is legal to intervene to prevent that massacre. The ‘Responsibility to Protect’ which was accepted by the UN in 2005. Resolution 60/1 at the 2005 World Summit stated, there was international responsibility “to help to protect populations from genoci... | |
In the case of Syria these conditions have not been met; the evidence has not yet been provided – the weapons inspectors have yet to report, there have been very few peace talks to try to reach a peaceful solution or attempts at peaceful coercion such as sanctions. Will the attacks be proportionate? They will simply ca... | |
Current International law on the use of force no longer matters The international prohibition on the use of force has always been honoured in large part in the breach leading to the question of whether it should really be considered to be binding international law at all. Almost every major country has launched an ill... | |
An international norm is being breached one way or the other the only question is which one is to be breached. Those in favour of intervention consider that lives saved is worthwhile compared to the problems the breach of a norm against humanitarian intervention might create. All of these norms are there with the inten... | |
The problem with relying on the Security Council is that it effectively means that the world is saying that five states can decide what is legal and what is not. Should the five countries who are probably most inclined to interventions, and are usually at loggerheads really be the ones to decide in such situations? | |
Uniting for Peace One interesting possibility that could help short circuit the problems on the Security Council that prevents action either through UN Security Council action or through the Responsibility to Protect would be to take the case to the UN General Assembly. There was a resolution in 1950 that “Resolves th... | |
There is no point in defending some norms at the costs of breaching others Intervention is almost always about upholding ‘international norms’. Thus the attack on Syria is to disarm Syria of its banned chemical weapons because it “risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.” [1] Wi... | |
Military action is only legal with UN Security Council approval Traditionally (by this I mean since 1945!) there are only a couple of ways in which a war is legal. The first is simple; self defence. The UN charter allows “the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a M... | |
Uniting for Peace is well over sixty years old and yet has only been used once, to intervene against a full scale invasion of South Korea. This is hardly a good precedent for using against a state that is not involved in aggression against another state. The intent of Uniting for Peace is to restore “international peac... | |
Stability could have been ensured without a military alliance like NATO. The European Union could have managed to create stability on its own, the EU itself since the Lisbon Treaty has gained the role of the West European Union security organisation. Additionally admission to NATO (and incidentally the EU) require soci... | |
NATO expansion was, and is, necessary for international stability Enlargement was necessary to prevent Europe “reverting to type”. The rise once again of the ethnic and religious causes of war. [1] And this is still a reason for NATO to expand to help stabilise Europe. The Balkans is only the worst area for Ethnic ten... | |
Again NATO need not have been the method why which these were fulfilled; the EU could equally provide collective defence within Europe and create the trust between member state’s militaries. It is also the European Union that has done most to turn Robinson’s ‘insecure and uncertain East’ into being part of ‘a prosperou... | |
NATO expansion would benefit eastern European and post Soviet states The opportunity of NATO membership creates the incentive for the newly independent republics to achieve internal stability. The criteria for NATO membership include stable democracy; civilian control of the armed forces; a sufficient military capacit... | |
The objectives of creating stability in these fledgling democracies could be better achieved under the existing ‘Partnership for Peace’ (PFP) programme. The policy received strong support under the Clinton administration involves regular consultations, exercises and opportunities for education that seek to professional... | |
NATO is a fundamental part of the international architecture used to further peace and prosperity in Europe Peace has many foundations and no one international organisation can create all these foundations itself. NATO is therefore just as necessary to the peace of Europe as the OSCE or EU and all of these organisatio... | |
It ought to be accepted that the NATO alliance is already diluted. It should not be perceived as a standing military force, but a holding company whose individual members can draw upon a collective infrastructure and military support in the event of intervention in and around Europe. The expansion of NATO should be the... | |
The dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the protracted collapse of the Soviet Union into the Commonwealth of Independent States did remove the overwhelming threat of the USSR against Western Europe. However, the threat persists in a different form. The newly independent republics remain vulnerable to the vast political ... | |
Further expansion of NATO will antagonise Russia Russia considers NATO expansion to be very antagonistic towards it. Continued NATO expansion would only serve to manufacture the expansionist demon that NATO fears. The election of the ultranationalist Duma in 1996, the choice of the hardliner Yvegeny Primakov as foreig... | |
The cost of expansion is prohibitive The costs of NATO expansion are prohibitive at a time when the Western European members are scaling back their defence budgets and the reducing the size of their conventional forces. The Clinton administration estimated the costs of the initial expansion to be $27 to $35 to 2010, b... | |
Expanding NATO will overstretch the resources of its core members NATO expansion can in the long term only lead to the overstretching of the organisation and thus the undermining of stability for the entirety of Europe. The credibility of the commitment of article V of the NATO Charter in which every member pledges to... | |
Russia is no longer a threat Russia no longer presents a credible threat to Eastern Europe or the existing NATO States which NATO expansion could counterbalance. Russia can no longer offer the conventional military threat of the Cold War. The acceptance of this reality by the US is evidenced by the fact that troop num... | |
The expense of NATO expansion is marginal when compared to the defence budgets of the major NATO States. The US defence expenditure alone for the fiscal year 2012 is $553 billion. [1] Further, the correct equation is not between the expense of stationing troops in these new States and the current saving from non-deploy... | |
NATO expansion is not the cause of nationalism in Russia, rather the Russian leadership stokes nationalism in order to direct attention away from the government. The Russian people are concerned about hardship and hazard within their own borders rather than without. Yes it is true that the expansion of NATO antagonises... | |
Here the argument presented by the proposition is an attempt to deceive the opposition and the house. The act that the proposition has presented has not been passed by the US government and is highly unlikely to happen in the future as well. The argument is right if the assumption that the deficits are long term. And i... | |
The war is too expensive, so a deal needs to be made to end it. President Obama himself has said, “Ultimately as was true in Iraq, so will be true in Afghanistan; we will have to have a political solution.” At a time when fiscal policy has become a major concern among western legislatures and commentators, the increa... | |
How can the Taliban be included if they absolutely disagree on negotiating, but instead want to overthrow the government? So far the Taliban has always insisted that they will refuse to negotiate until all foreign forces are withdrawn from Afghanistan. [1] This means that we are actually making the problems worse for t... | |
We have successful precedents in Iraq and Africa, proving that a power-sharing approach works. African countries and in Iraq have proved that power-sharing deal works. So, it means that it is possible to find a solution for Afghanistan. For example, Iraq seems to be no need for us to prove that power-sharing has worke... | |
The campaign is unpopular among the majority of NATO countries citizens, so we should solve the Afghan problem in diplomatic way, specifically through a power-sharing deal with the Taliban. The majority of citizens in the USA and the UK oppose the war in Afghanistan and want troops to come back home. As was the case i... | |
The argument here presented by the proposition that the majority of people in US are fed up with the war, true. But that is because they were not the ones facing abuse at the Taliban hands or fighting a civil war which resulted in the killing of 100,000, but the minority will be slaughtered if this is allowed to happen... | |
It should first be pointed out that all conflicts are unique, products of the political and social settings in which they arise. Geopolitics and foreign policy are not as dependent on precedent as most debaters would like to think. The main objective of the USA and the UK behind the power sharing deal in Africa is to ... | |
This is the weakest argument by far. It isn't logical. As all of us who've read about Karl Popper will attest that a historical trend is not an indication of future courses unless causality can be proven. Here it can’t. It’s a different war altogether. Historical parallels make sense in college classrooms, not when a T... | |
The threat of Talibanization is too great under the status quo to continue with current policy. If a diplomatic solution is not reached or even proposed , the security situation in both Afghanistan and Pakistan will deteriorate and this is a matter of serious concern since the latter is a nuclear power. Violence in th... | |
Afghan history shows failings of foreign invasion, so this campaign is also doomed to failure. No state has ever been able to impose alien political institutions on the Afghani people, whether by force or by flattery. The Russians tried and so did the British, but neither was successful. In fact, the greatest massacre... | |
It was not the fault of the Taliban that there were several years of drought in Afghanistan, something which would cause great suffering in any peasant economy. And while some Afghan refugees specifically fled the Taliban’s austere regime, most were displaced during two decades of warfare that preceded it, or left the ... | |
The Taliban were not the only oppressive regime in the world and it was hypocritical to single them out, especially when many of their practices are shared by friendly, pro-western states such as Saudi Arabia. Their views were not an entirely alien imposition upon Afghan society, but were rooted in the traditions of th... | |
The Taliban supports terrorist organizations, so they are not to be trusted. The Times Square attack and the Twin Tower attacks are examples of how the Taliban are actually cultivating terrorists to carry out international terrorist acts. The Taliban sheltered international terrorists, of whom Osama Bin Laden and his ... | |
The Taliban manipulates the drug trade according to its will, so it should not be included into the government. The Taliban are responsible for flooding the world with heroin produced from the opium grown there; over 90% of the heroin on the streets of the UK originated in Afghanistan. In 2000, the Taliban issued a d... | |
The Taliban failed to provide good government for Afghanistan. The Taliban is more concerned with religious purity than the physical welfare of the people. As a result, millions of Afghans still live in refugee camps in Iran and Pakistan, while millions of others are desperately short of food and face starvation. The ... | |
The Taliban is a cruel and undemocratic regime, and so it should not be given any power. The Taliban oppressed their own people, especially women and ethnic or religious minorities. A very strict, distinctive interpretation of Sunni Islam was enforced zealously (with public executions and amputations) as they attempte... | |
Intense international demand for opium has led to poppies becoming a preferred cash crop among Afghan farmers. Although historically known for its fruit and vegetable production, the high prices commanded by opium mean that it is regarded as financially resilient, immune to large price fluctuations and still offering d... | |
The Taliban are not the only regime in the world to have sheltered terrorists – Syria, Iran, Iraq, Cuba and North Korea are all viewed by the USA’s State Department as state sponsors of terrorism. Indeed, although the Taliban provide shelter for terrorist groups to train, the other states could be seen to go further, b... | |
The example of Kosovo is not similar because of the terrible treatment including ethnic cleansing, mass murder and torture that Kosovars suffered within the former Yugoslavia and Serbia. Even if other examples are more similar, they are regrettable themselves, we should be seeking to bring nations together through mean... | |
There is legitimate precedent. Kosovo became formally independent from Serbia in 2008 [1] and Montenegro became independent from Serbia in 2006 [2] as a result of referenda within those territories. If these states and the many, many others which previously achieved independence have a right to self-determination why ... | |
This is just an argument for reforming state structures to reduce dysfunction, perhaps by moving to majority votes instead of each side having a veto. Additionally if the two sides have difficulty cooperating now, why would that cooperation become easier when they no longer share a state? This would at the minimum lead... | |
Increased sense of identity with the state increases social solidarity. Where groups of people do not identify with the state they are less likely to be willing to invest in more generous state services since they do feel that peoples with whom they have no affinity will benefit from them. Conversely, where people fee... | |
Serbs have a right to Self-Determination. The right to self-determination is a basic human right which underpins the legitimacy of the nation-state. Where a large group people do not feel represented or accepted by a state and thus do not consent to its rule, the states control over that people becomes illegitimate. T... | |
Where does self-determination end? Do cities or towns have a right to self-determination, what about individuals within the state? Allowing further secessions will just lead to increasingly smaller and less viable states without producing benefits. Nations are invented human constructs with no inherent value. The right... | |
Some groups of people will always not identify with the state, for class based, political and cultural reasons. State solidarity has to be based on a common humanity as that is the only fundamentally unifying factor. | |
Areas of intermixing do exist, such as the capital, Sarajevo. Steps should be taken instead top encourage communities to live together for example with housing subsidies for mixed developments and with cross communal education. | |
The present state structure does not work. The existing state structure does not work, because it requires agreement between the representatives of RS and the FBH, Given the fundamentally divergent aims and opinions of the two sides compromise is almost impossible leading to perpetual gridlock on basic issues such as ... | |
The people within the state have no desire to live together. The constituents peoples (Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks) live almost entirely in separate segregated areas with very little communal intermixing. They already essentially live in separate states but without the ability to actually direct their own affairs or re... | |
The region is no longer the powder keg of tension it once was. The independence of Kosovo did not lead to widespread fighting, but only to localised rioting for a period of days or weeks and the Montenegrin secession was entirely peaceful. The awareness of the possibility of escalation of tension will only to serve to ... | |
Whether or not Nations are imaginary, they are seen as being important and form a key part of individual’s identity. Nationalism does not have to lead to a sense of superiority, nations can be proud of their identity without being disrespectful of other nation’s culture and history. | |
Secession will hurt minorities in the new state This increased nationalism will hurt minority ethnic groups within the new states, both already existing minorities such as Jews, Roma, and foreign immigrants who will no longer be part of a largely diverse state with strong legal protections for minority rights, where t... | |
Republika Srpska cannot survive economically as an independent state. The RS and FBH have very little industry and few exports, RS for example only exports 720million euros worth compared to imports of 1.25billion euros, [1] the economy is largely based on tourism and foreign aid both of which would likely be adversel... | |
Secession will strengthen Nationalism in neighbouring states. The upsurge in Nationalism would not be limited to just the two parts of Bosnia & Herzegovina, given the ethnic kinship between the Croats and Serbs of Bosnia and those of Croatia and Serbia, but would also in all likelihood lead to renewed nationalism ... | |
Secession will lead to renewed conflict. The combination of an increased nationalism and the plight of minorities trapped within states overwhelmingly composed of the ‘other’ people is likely to lead to low level tension, rioting and even potentially warfare particularly over areas which have large Serbs or Bosniak po... | |
Both Montenegro and Kosovo had similar economic situations and have subsequently prospered after independence. Even if there were economic problems they were also both still allowed to become independent. Independence can also lead to an economic boom with new investment and diaspora emigrants returning to the country ... | |
Secession strengthen Nationalism in the new states Nations and Peoples are invented human constructs that have no intrinsic value. [1] Self-determination merely reinforces the idea that different groups of people are fundamentally different and not part of a shared humanity. Nationalism leads to a belief that some gro... | |
The progress in the other former Yugoslav Republics is now largely irreversible as young people grow up without experience of fighting or significant ethnic division. The processes of education and increased prosperity that have led to this phenomena mean that it will likely be largely unaffected by events in Bosnia-He... | |
The constitutions of the RS and FBH already enshrine the protection of linguistic and religious minorities and the new states will be aware of the international focus on the ‘new’ minority groups and will thus focus resources on protecting them in order to protect the reputation of the new state. | |
While it is undoubtedly true that some foreign aid money will flow into the hands of US firms it is wrong to argue that this is beneficial to the economy. What needs to be considered is not just whether some aid money ends up in the hands of Americans but whether that same money could be spent in such a way where more ... | |
Foreign aid benefits the United States While foreign aid is obviously for the benefit of the recipient country that country is not the only one that benefits; U.S. business is often a major beneficiary. It does this in two ways: First they benefit directly through carrying out the contracts for supplying aid, for exam... | |
Everyone is for transparency when it is taxpayers’ money that is being spent however transparency does not make it a worthwhile investment. Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations Secretary General says that “Last year, corruption prevented 30 per cent of all development assistance from reaching its final destination.” [1] Thi... | |
The aid budget has to increase to meet rising commitments Despite a large national deficit, the Obama administration has stated over [1] and over [2] again that they have no plans to cut Official Development Assistance (ODA), and the 2011 budget reflects that by putting the United States on a path to double foreign as... | |
It is wrong to be expanding the aid budget at a time of economic crisis when the government is dramatically failing to balance its books. The list of things that the Obama administration wants to do with aid are either things that are best left to the military and intelligence services such as combating terrorism and t... | |
Aid does not benefit national security; there are two ways to increase national security. First is to increase spending on those agencies that maintain national security; the Department of Defense and the intelligence agencies. Second is by expanding the economy which provides the necessary wealth to maintain national ... | |
The foreign aid budget can be made more effective and transparent While a second Obama administration is not going to cut back on foreign aid the Obama campaign however, does argue for pragmatic budgetary approaches to foreign aid, [1] creating transparency measures [2] to ensure that “assistance [is] more transparent... | |
Aid benefits National Security In Obama’s 2012 campaign, promoting good governance through foreign aid makes sense for a range of foreign policy and development objectives. Through contributions in healthcare, education, poverty alleviation and infrastructure, investing in foreign aid and increasing the foreign aid bu... | |
The Obama administration accepts the need to maintain these global public goods. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has written “Strategically, maintaining peace and security across the Asia-Pacific is increasingly crucial to global progress, whether through defending freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, count... | |
Foreign aid is a minute part of the US budget as Obama has correctly argued “[it is wrong to] suggest that we can somehow close our entire deficit by eliminating things like foreign aid, even though foreign aid makes up about 1% of our entire budget.” [1] So very little of the money the US is borrowing is being spent o... | |
The focus should be on trade not on aid Governor Romney does not prioritize encouraging good governance and stability abroad through foreign aid, and there have been no mentions of any plans to reduce global poverty, improve healthcare and engage in sustainable development. While foreign aid is not specifically mentio... | |
US spending should focus on defence rather than aid Romney believes that the United States should be focusing more on national security; however this in turn does benefit other nations so could be considered aid. Governor Romney was quoted as saying “foreign aid has several elements. One of those elements is defense, ... | |
We should not be borrowing to fund foreign aid As a fiscal conservative, Governor Mitt Romney believes that Americans and the United States economy will be better off cutting foreign aid expenses. In an October 2011 Republican primary debate, Romney passionately defended the GOP stance of questioning humanitarian assi... | |
Yes trade can help lift people out of poverty. But in order to do so there needs to be the right conditions; there needs to be infrastructure, an educated and healthy population, and of course the country must be able to feed itself. No country is going to be able to trade its way to growth if its goods cannot reach in... | |
Distinguishing between the different levels of elections is not a good thing. It would show that the European Union is different from national government so demonstrating how far away from the voter it is. Moreover European elections need to be held at the same time as, and therefore associated with, national elections... | |
It would help distinguish between levels of elections The number of different elections can be confusing; almost everyone has three, European, National, and local, and some have others added in such as Mayoral, or regional elections. As such there is much to be gained from helping to differentiate elections by not bei... | |
This is in large part because we expect the people we vote for to be experienced rather than strictly representative of the population, simply lowering the voting age is unlikely to lower the age of the members of the parliament. Lowering voting age may have some impact on policy but in practice as Europe ages this gai... | |
Votes by 16-17 year olds would not be protest votes Throughout the European Union in the Parliament elections there is a problem with protest voting. Indeed studies have found that almost 40% of votes in European Parliament elections are protest votes; [1] this is clearly bad for the European Parliament as these are n... | |
The voting age should be the same across the Union It is ridiculous and clearly unfair that some sixteen year olds should get to vote in an election while most are barred from participating. This is the case in European Parliament elections at the moment; young people in Austria are able to vote in elections at 16 whi... | |
By this argument we really should make eighteen the voting age for all countries so as to bring Austria into line with the rest of the European Union. It is unclear why the majority of countries should have to move their voting age to fit with the Austrians rather than the other way around. | |
This would not stop teenagers from using their votes in the same way as a protest vote. Even people who are 16 and 17 will know the policy of their government and will be just as likely to vote on the basis of that policy regardless of whether they can influence it in national elections. Indeed teenagers tend to be reb... | |
While lowering the European Parliament voting age may provide an incentive to link in civic or political studies there is no guarantee that this will actually happen. There is also no reason why it should not happen already; there should not need to be an election to prompt schools into teaching students about their de... | |
Youth are not represented in politics Young people are not well represented in European national parliaments either in terms of the membership of those parliaments or the policies they produce. The average age in the Bundestag is 50 [1] and it is similar in most parliaments. Youth unemployment in Europe for the fourth... | |
An opportunity for civic studies There would be clear advantages in having elections while young people are still in school as school could help prepare them for the elections. Schools would be able to teach their students in advance what the ballot is like, about the process of voting, and most importantly about the ... | |
This at worst going to make a very marginal difference. In practice since the number of first time voters is the same because we all vote for the first time once the errors are simply going to be moved from one election to the election before. Indeed having 16 and 17 year olds have only one ballot on their first attemp... | |
Different levels of government carry out different roles and have different impacts on the electorate. It therefore makes sense that they should have different voting ages to reflect the differences in their roles. While the European Union may not seem to be the most obviously Youth orientated level of government it is... | |
A slippery slope to forcing all countries to allow the vote at sixteen for all votes The European Union should not be interfering with individual member’s electoral systems, it is clear that this is an area where it is up to the members to decide who can vote and when. Even when it comes to elections for the European ... | |
EU elections would put young people off voting Let’s be honest; European Union elections are hardly exciting and certainly not the most obvious elections to start young people off with. The votes are on very broad issues that don’t have a direct impact on the individual such as trade agreements or broad brush environm... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.