BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is a growing demand for mineral resources

The obvious response to ‘growing demand’ being a problem would seem to be to reduce demand. When this has been attempted by states, there have been complaints that this was an unfair burden on business. Once the market adjusted, by increasing price, the same people demanded the right to increase supply. There is not particularly a growing demand for mineral resources; there’s a growing demand for energy and transport, it’s time to get serious about new, cleaner ways of meeting that demand. It has to be remembered that oil and gas from the arctic is not cheap; oil projects in the region cost billions before they even begin extracting. It is also questionable whether there really is 160 billion barrels of oil – it has not been explored so we do not know how much is there. To take an example of just such an uncertainty in a much less extreme environment China claims the South China Sea has up to 200 billion barrels of oil[1]while the US Energy Information Administration thinks it is between 5-22 billion barrels.[2] [1] Rogers, Will, ‘Beijing’s South China Sea Gamble’, The Diplomat, 4 February 2012, http://thediplomat.com/2012/02/04/beijings-south-china-sea-gamble/ [2] ‘South China Sea’, U.S. Energy Information Administration, 7 February 2013, http://www.eia.gov/countries/regions-topics.cfm?fips=SCS
Creating jobs and opportunities

To start with, let’s not believe the line that local communities see this as an unadulterated good – they have very real concerns about the impact on their qualities of life.[1] It’s also untrue that workers elsewhere in the world see this as purely beneficial; many of these workers live with the toxic results of drilling and refining oils and they have expressed their concerns about the health effects.[2] Yes there is increased infrastructure but much of it is not of the sort that benefits communities, like oil pipelines. The one group for whom there is unalloyed joy at this prospect is a small one that comprises the owners and executives of oil companies. If opposition wants to make the case that some people want to keep the money flowing, fine. But at least be honest about who those people are. [1] Macalister, Terry, ‘Arctic resource wealth poses dilemma for indigenous communities’, The Guardian, 4 July 2011. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/04/arctic-resources-indigenous-communities [2] Sturgis, Sue, ‘Pollution from oil refinery accidents on the rise in Louisiana.’, Southernstudies.org, 3 December 2012, http://www.southernstudies.org/2012/12/pollution-from-oil-refinery-accidents-on-the-rise-in-louisiana.html
Relieving areas of conflict such as the Middle East

There is noticeable absence in the list of countries set to replace the Middle East; That absence is Russia. It is hard to see how being subservient to Putin – with nuclear weapons and a massive military – is preferable to going cap in hand to the House of Saud. It is also unclear that this will be a benefit in terms of security and conflict. These countries are so dependent on oil that undermining their economies in this way could lead to more, not less conflict.
The Arctic should be saved for future generations

As we are using the resources of so much of the planet we should think about our legacy to future generations and leave the resources of the arctic to future generations. There are several reasons why we should do so. First of all drilling in the arctic means drilling in some of the harshest conditions on earth; with many of the projects being set up it means drilling in deep areas of the ocean that were inaccessible only a couple of decades ago. It also means drilling in freezing conditions while being potentially vulnerable to icebergs. Disasters like the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico have shown that oil companies are not prepared for oil disasters in deep water and repair would be more difficult a long way from civilization.[1] While the technology for this does not yet exist in future it probably will. It makes sense that we should leave such hard to reach resources until it is possible to extract it easily and safely. In the mean time we should be focusing our efforts on easier to reach resources and on developing alternatives. Such a policy will be beneficial to future generations both through making a greener economy and by leaving an emergency reserve of fossil fuel that can be used if necessary. [1] Lawless, Jill, ‘Tony Hayward: BP Was Unprepared For Gulf Oil Spill, 'We Were Making It Up Day To Day'’, HuffPost, 9 November 2010, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/09/tony-hayward-bp-was-unpre_n_780814.html
A treaty similar to the Antarctic Treaty would prevent competition

The opening up of the arctic Ocean through climate change also opens up territorial claims as where there are resources at stake states are keen to make a claim so as to exploit them. For example in 2008 Russia’s then President Medvedev stated “Our first and fundamental task is to turn the Arctic into a resource base for Russia in the 21st century.”[1] Such competition for resources can lead to conflict as is increasingly being shown in the East and South China Seas. The Antarctic Treaty however freezes these territorial claims, as would our proposed treaty. It also bans military activity so preventing any completion from getting out of hand.[2] The proposal would also ban the exploitation of the Arctic’s resources so reducing the cause of any conflict.   [1] Keating, Joshua, ‘Medvedev makes a play for Arctic riches’, Passport Foreign Policy, 17 September 2008, http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2008/09/17/medvedev_makes_a_play_for_arctic_riches [2] ‘The Antarctic Treaty’, Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty, 2011, http://www.ats.aq/e/ats.htm
There is a growing demand for mineral resources

Improving the lives of its citizens is one of the most important roles of the state. And in terms of improving lives economic growth is usually considered the most important economic goal.[1] And in order to grow cheap fuel is needed. Nuclear energy is still precarious, and expensive, and renewable technologies cannot come close to meeting the existing needs of the west, let alone those of Russia, China, Brazil, India and the rest. We are confronted with a stark reality – either use new sources of oil and gas while investing in replacement technologies or see a collapse in standards of living and life expectancy around the world. There is much to be said for less carbon-based economies but we don’t have one yet. Until that option is available, the lights need to be kept on. The area north of the Arctic Circle is thought to contain as much as 160 billion barrels of oil, more than a quarter of the world's undiscovered reserves.[2] There are costs to exploiting those reserves – some of them environmental – but they pale into insignificance compared with the collapse of the global economy that would result from the projected increases in global oil and gas costs. [1] ‘53% Say Economic Growth More Important Than Economic Fairness’, Rasmussen Reports, 21 January 2013, http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/january_2013/53_say_economic_growth_more_important_than_economic_fairness [2] Nakhle, Carole and Shamsutdinova, Inga. Arctic Oil and Gas Resources: Evaluating Investment Opportunities. Oil, Gas & Energy Law Intelligence, vol.10 issue 2, February 2012, http://www.academia.edu/1461205/Arctic_Oil_and_Gas_Resources_Evaluating_Investment_Opportunities
Creating jobs and opportunities

The areas covered are among the least developed in the world. Standards of education and income for indigenous peoples are very low and, to date, there has been little to motivate any nation to do anything about that. For example Canada is rated the 6th in the world by the UN’s Human Development Index but if the same index was rating Canada’s First Nations it would be 76th.[1] However, oil companies have already invested billions into exploration and the future nor these areas – as well as employees with existing skills in mineral extraction could be protected and enhanced by the opportunities offered by these new areas for development. With those directly created and saved jobs come, literally, millions of others in transportation, distribution, energy supply and manufacturing and other sectors that depend on affordable energy costs. First nations in those areas that have oil booms have considerably better employment prospects; in Canada nationally natives aged 25-54 have an employment rate of 70.1% but in Alberta, the biggest oil producing region, the rate was 77.7%.[2] Proposition rightly notes that pressures are growing on these industry sectors but fails to offer any solution that would ensure the livelihoods of millions of people around the world as well as revitalising some of the most dispossessed communities on the planet. [1] Silversides, Ann, ‘The North “like Darfur”’, CMAJ : Canadian Medical; Association Journal, 177(9): pp.1013-1014, 23 October 2007, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2025628/ [2] The Vancouver Sun, ‘Alberta first nations benefit from oil boom’, Canada.com, 16 December 2008, http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=c37b4765-302e-45a2-a295-f22ed80c243d
Relieving areas of conflict such as the Middle East

Currently the main supplies of oil and gas are from the Middle East with more coming from Africa and in the western hemisphere from Venezuela. These oil producers include many unstable regimes; many of them engaged in appalling human rights abuses against their own citizens. This is because regimes with such natural resources buy off their people meaning there is little accountability.[1] In addition to the obvious ethical issues that are created by continuing to fund brutal regimes that happen to be sitting on billions of barrels of crude, it’s also economically risky to be so much in the pocket of such regimes. Securing energy security has long been an ambition for much of the West.  The Carter Doctrine of 1980 “an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States,” was a direct response to the oil shocks of the previous decade.[2] In Canada, the USDA and the Nordic states, the possibility of secure energy is made a reality by the Arctic. By removing the world’s dependency on regimes such as Saudi Arabia, there is much greater room for manoeuvre when it comes to challenging those regimes records. It would also allow the west in particular to tie themselves to the interests of the peoples of the Middle East rather than to those of their rulers. [1] Chatelus, Michel, and Scehmeil, Yves, ‘Towards a New Political Economy of State Industrialisation in the Arab Middle East’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 16, No. 2 (May, 1984), pp.251-265, pp.261-262 [2] Bacevich, Andrew J., ‘The Carter Doctrine at 30’, World Affairs, 1 April 2010, http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/andrew-j-bacevich/carter-doctrine-30
The Arctic should be saved for future generations

This is oil and gas that we already know about and already have the expertise to exploit. The technology that we don’t yet have will only be developed if there is a demand for them – if the demand is now the technology will be developed. There is little point in us leaving this particular fuel to future generations when we are the first generation that has the technology to exploit such deposits. Future generations may improve on the technology and make it safer but the fundamental capability, the breakthroughs that make it possible have already happened. Future generations on the other hand will have their own breakthroughs in terms of new forms of power and new discoveries of fuels. They are then much less likely to need these resources than we do now.
The Arctic is a diverse but fragile ecosystem

The Arctic covers a huge area, of course there are some parts that should be protected. Just as with any other area in the world, areas of special scientific or environmental significance should be protected. However, just picking a line on the map and saying ‘no drilling north of here’ makes little sense. Why not a degree further south – or north? Protection should be awarded on a site by site basis, just as it would be anywhere else in the world.
A treaty similar to the Antarctic Treaty would prevent competition

There is no reason to believe that a warming arctic will be a more competitive arctic or that the littoral powers will not be able to share the resources the region provides. Norway and Russia managed to fix their maritime borders in the Barents sea in order to exploit the potential resources there.[1] There being resources to exploit can just as often provide a motivation cooperate because if this does not happen then no one can exploit the resources. [1] Brigham, Lawson W., ‘Think Again: The Arctic’, Foreign Policy, Sept/oct 2010, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/16/think_again_the_arctic
What matters are individual democratic rights, not necessarily collective self-determination.

Simply being a minority in a nation should not be enough to claim the right to self-determination. As long as people have democratic rights, such as the right to protest, to lobby and to vote , they enjoy the same rights and protections as those of the majority community in that country; there should be no obligation on the state to go further in granting them self-determination. For example, during the Franco era in Spain, minority nationalities such as Basques and Catalans were for a long time discriminated against and excluded from real political power, and backed political parties that explicitly represented their community. As their position in society has improved, however, so the hold of identity-based politics has loosened, and the pull of secession has weakened1. 1 Macko, Kalyna: "The Effect of Franco in the Basque Nation", Salve Regina University, July 2011. improve this
The rise of universal human rights makes self-determination increasingly irrelevant.

Across the developed world, modern nation states are bound into a complex network of treaties and international organisations which together go a long way to guaranteeing citizens very similar rights wherever they live. These supra-national rules make it less and less important on what side of an international boundary you happen to live. What matters is not so much self-determination as whether or not an individual citizen is able to enjoy the same rights and privileges as those of the majority culture. For example, EU citizens enjoy many common rights, common European citizenship, freedom of movement between member states and so on. Minorities who fifty years ago might have taken up arms to "free" themselves from an oppressive nation state – such as Catholics in Northern Ireland – don’t need to do this now, because they have new rights against discrimination, guaranteed and enforced by international treaty.  improve this
Self-determination can destabilise nation states, sometimes with very destructive consequences.

If we accept self-determination as such an important principle that it trumps all others, this will encourage people to self-identify along nationalistic, racial or religious lines, at a time in human development when we are moving away from racist and nationalist ideologies. Nationalism is about difference, which flies in the face of the idea of the global citizen. Taken to its extremes, it encourages increased conflict, separatist terrorism. For example, the ethnic conflicts that led to the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s were fuelled by nationalist ideologies and the stressing of the differences between ethnic and religious groups that made up that country. improve this
Self-determination is necessary to protect minority cultures.

Forcible assimilation, as in the Australian case cited, is clearly wrong, but that does not mean that we should abandon the goal of integrating minorities into society without forfeiting their cultural, racial or religious differences. Placing undue importance on the right to self-determination may make such situations worse. Furthermore, in some situations, governments manipulate the idea of self-determination to suit their own ends. Many governments have pursued a policy of sending settlers from the majority race or religion into minority-dominated areas and then point at the difficulty of allowing such areas to implement political reforms or secede without massive social upheaval. One example of this is Tibet, where the Chinese government has strongly encouraged ethnic Han Chinese settlers to relocate to that province with the aim of gradually reducing the impact and strength of Tibetan demands for self-government1. 1 Hessler, Peter. "Tibet through Chinese eyes", The Atlantic, February 1999. improve this
Self-determination and independence is recognition of the fact that indigenous peoples were unfairly treated by colonial powers, and their proprietary rights abused.

The wrongs of colonial powers are by now far in the past. The great majority of people living in former colonies, or indigenous peoples in countries like the US or Australia, have no experience of that time and have not been directly affected by the injustices of colonialism. Making sure that everyone in society has equal rights and opportunities is nothing to do with self-determination. improve this Self-determination offers a way to resolve otherwise intractable disputes.
Self-determination embodies the fundamental right of peoples to decide their own futures.

The principle of self-determination might seem a straightforward one but in practice it is rarely that simple.Firstly, in many countries, majority and minority groups live side-by-side, rather than in distinct territories. Upholding the right of such a minority to self-determination may not be possible without affecting the rights of the other inhabitants of that area. This damage might be direct – for example, if the people of Catalonia decide to secede from Spain, what will happen to the Spanish inhabitants of Catalonia? – or it may be indirect, as in the example of Palestine, whose independence has long been resisted by Israel on the grounds that it would constitute a threat to Israeli security. Second, it is often difficult to agree, particularly in disputed areas, who falls under the definition of a “native” whose right to self-determination must be respected. For example, should people in Ireland have a say over the future of Northern Ireland, given that most of them consider it an integral part of their own country? Does the right of self-determination for Israelis extend to Jews who live in other countries, given that they have the right to settle in that nation if they choose to? Does it extend to non-Jewish Israelis, and if not, why not? These questions are hard to answer neutrally; to answer them involves making difficult judgements.      improve this
Self-determination offers a way to resolve otherwise intractable disputes.

It is true that many modern states have somewhat artificial or arbitrary boundaries. However, this applies to some or other extent to all states everywhere in the world; indeed, the nation state as we know it is a relatively modern construct, and no nation state is completely ethnically or culturally homogenous. There are certainly places in the world where minorities are oppressed, but insisting on self-determination as a universal human right often merely encourages separatism, racial tension and conflict. Furthermore, self-determination is often used by states as a casus belli and used to justify interference in neighbour's affairs and even invasion – as in the conflict between Russia and Georgia in 2008, ostensibly over the treatment of ethnic Russians in South Ossetia 1, or Hitler’s invasion of the Sudetenland in 1938 on the pretext that ethnic Germans in that area should belong to the German Reich 2. If we place too much emphasis on the importance of self-determination in all situations it may lead to worse international relations, not better. At any rate, it has not helped us solve problems in places such as Kashmir or the Falklands, which are still disputed. Additionally, self-determination may not help us in cases such as that of the Falklands, where almost all the inhabitants are of British descent, since Argentina argues that they are in effect illegal settlers who have no right to be there in the first place. Finally, the broader international context may mean that other interests or legal agreements must take precedence. For example, Hong Kong was returned to China in 1997 not out of any desire of Hong Kong Chinese to self-determination but simply because Britain’s 99-year lease on the bulk of the territory was due to expire. 1 Cornell, Svante: “War in Georgia, Jitters All Round”, Current History, October 2008.  http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/docs/publications/2007/0810CH.pdf 2 “Sudetenland”, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2011. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/571568/Sudetenland improve this
What matters are individual democratic rights, not necessarily collective self-determination.

Minorities are often economically disadvantaged and politically marginalised; formal guarantees of equal rights, even where they exist, do not necessarily translate into real opportunities for citizens. And respect for individual rights, as important as it is, does not address issues of concern to the entire community, such as the teaching of minority languages in school, provision of facilities for religious worship, and so on. The best way to improve the situation of these minority populations is by respecting and promoting their right to self-determination. If not, they will remain second-class citizens in their own countries. improve this
The rise of universal human rights makes self-determination increasingly irrelevant.

Many minorities live in states where international human rights law is applied inconsistently or indeed not at all. It may not make a life-changing difference to a French-speaking Belgian which side of the France – Belgium border they happen to be born, but to a Palestinian in the West Bank or a Tamil in Sri Lanka, their right to self-determination is absolutely crucial, because other rights may well be denied to them through direct or indirect state discrimination. It is relatively easy for states to explain away individual human rights breaches, since these occur in all nations from time to time. It is much harder for them to justify denying an entire people their right to determine their own futures. improve this
Self-determination can destabilise nation states, sometimes with very destructive consequences.

In many cass, it is not self-determination that causes tensions, but the lack of opportunity for minorities to choose their own future. Conflicts and civil wars generally take place not because people want self-determination but because they are not allowed it. In the Yugoslav example, if the Milosevic government had recognised the right of the country's component ethnic groups to self-determination, rather than seeking forcibly to suppress it, then there would have been no armed conflict. In contrast, by the time Montenegro sought to secede from Serbia, the now-democratic Serb government accepted their right to do so, and the split was carried out without bloodshed1. 1 "Montenegro declares independence", BBC News, 4 June 2006. improve this