BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Would prevent division

Justice is about the past. But when prosecuting someone there also needs to be a thought for the present and the future of the country. In the case of prosecuting Yanukovych there could be serious consequences as he had support in one half of the country. Ukraine is a divided country with many in the East considering themselves to not be Ukrainian, and certainly look to Moscow not the EU.[1] The new administration has already abolish a law that made Russian a second language in the country so infringing the rights of many in the East.[2] Trying a former leader in Kiev would be similarly provocative to those who believe Yanukovych is still the legitimate president, or even those who may not agree with Yanukovych but dislike the westward movement even more. While it would be unlikely to cause conflict on its own the action would certainly be an aggravating factor if other actions against the east of the country are being taken. [1] Jamison, Alastair, ‘Can Ukraine Avoid an East-West Split and Bloody Civil War?’, NBCnews, 26 February 2014, http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/can-ukraine-avoid-east-west-split-bloody-civil-war-n38911 [2] RT, ‘Canceled language law in Ukraine sparks concern among Russian and EU diplomats’, RT.com, 27 February 2014, http://rt.com/news/minority-language-law-ukraine-035/
The Ukrainian justice system is broken

Justice for Yanukovych should be international simply because it would be a much better guarantor of a fair trial. The Ukrainian justice system is unfortunately corrupt, and at the behest of prosecutors; it has an amazing conviction rate of 99.8%. This is because judges are they are only appointed for five years then the government confirms tenure if it believes they have been voting the right way. Yulia Tymoshenko, an opponent of Yanukovych, was imprisoned for making a deal with President Putin to ensure gas supplies – something that was a humanitarian necessity to ensure Russia did not freeze Ukraine into submission.[1] [1] Robertson, Geoffrey, ‘Yulia Tymoshenko's trial was a travesty of justice’, The Guardian, 23 February 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/23/ukraine-yulia-tymoshenko-travesty-justice-trail
Could not be tried for all his crimes

The International Criminal Court only tries a few international crimes. This means that other crimes that Yanukovych has committed that are not covered by ‘international criminal law’ cannot be prosecuted at the ICC. It is possible that not all the charges of violence against protesters may count as the crimes against humanity that the court can charge. Equally Yanukovych’s financial crimes cannot be prosecuted at the ICC. It was already known that Yanukovych became very rich as a result of corruption during his time as president but it is only now beginning to become clear how much corruption there was. Yatsenyuk the new Prime Minister “Over $20bn of gold reserve were embezzled. They took $37bn of loans that disappeared. Around $70bn was moved to offshore accounts from Ukraine's financial system in the last three years” with much of that money finding likely finding its way to Yanukovych or his friends.[1] Considering the hole in Ukraine’s finances it would be far better to pursue these crimes. [1] Walker, Shaun, and Grytsenko, Oksana, ‘Ukraine’s new leaders begin search for missing billions’, The Guardian, 27 February 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/ukraine-search-missing-billions-yanukovych-russia
Should be tried at home

The ICC recognises that a case is inadmissible where “The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a state which has jurisdiction over it”.[1] The state of which Yanukovych is a national, and where the crimes took place has precedence. Ukraine therefore has first right to try Yanukovych, indeed the ICC will only act if Ukraine is unwilling or unable to do so itself. As the crimes he is alleged to have committed took place entirely in Ukraine, over Ukrainian issues he should be tried in Ukraine. This would allow the Ukrainian people to see justice done themselves rather than relying on others to do it for them. [1] States Parties, ‘Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’, icc-cpi.int, A/CONF.183/9 17 July 1998, http://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/ea9aeff7-5752-4f84-be94-0a655eb30e16/0/rome_statute_english.pdf, Article 17
The ICC is slow

has resulted in a conviction is against Thomas Lubanga – the trial took eight years from arrest to conviction.[1] The option of trying Yanukovych in the Ukraine with outside help in the process is therefore a better idea. The Council of Europe’s Secretary General has already offered “legal… expertise… by the International Advisory Panel (IAP), which will oversee investigations into recent acts of violence. I expect the IAP to start its work in Ukraine as early as next week.”[2] The OSCE too will help “efforts to establish facts on acts of violence and human rights violations.”[3] Clearly the Ukraine would be in a good position to provide a free and fair trial for its former president that could bring justice much faster than the ICC while also showing justice being done in the right place. [1] Open Society Foundations Justice Initiative, ‘background’, lubangatrial.org, http://www.lubangatrial.org/background/ [2] Jagland, Thorbjørn, ‘Secretary General Jagland welcomes the Agreement on the Settlement of the Crisis in Ukraine’, coe.int, 21 February 2014, http://www.coe.int/web/secretary-general/-/le-secretaire-general-jagland-salue-l%E2%80%99accord-sur-le-reglement-de-la-crise-en-ukraine [3] Burkhalter, 2014, http://www.osce.org/cio/115559
Yanukovych committed crimes against humanity

Simply committing murder, or imprisonment, or persecution is not enough to make a crime a crime against humanity. It must be “widespread or systematic”. A great many states are involved in individual killings or unjust imprisonments so there has to be a threshold for ICC intervention. Unfortunately this is undefined so it will be up to the prosecutor to decide whether these crimes meet that threshold.[1] [1] Kersten, 2014, http://opencanada.org/features/the-think-tank/comments/could-yanukovych-be-tried-at-the-icc/
Would mean Ukraine signing up to the ICC

The ICC has itself said that “No country in the world has a right to ask the ICC to prosecute certain people” and highlighted that even after ratification “only the court’s prosecutor can decide whether there is sufficient ground for conducting an investigation”. Once ratified Ukraine may ask, but the ICC is not bound to prosecute him because of the request.[1] [1] ITAR-TASS, ‘Ukraine not able to prosecute Yanukovych through International Criminal Court’, en.itar-tass.com, 26 February 2014, http://en.itar-tass.com/world/720981
Would prevent division

There is little evidence that Yanukovych still has much support anywhere in Ukraine. However an ICC trial could simply inflame the other side; those who have overthrown Yanukovych are likely to want a trial to take place as soon as possible (which may be a long time off considering he is in Russia) and want it to take place in the Ukraine. The ICC would almost certainly be willing to give in to popular opinion; previously in Libya the prosecutor did not act when it was clear that public opinion did not want an international trial of Saif Gadaffi.[1] [1] Kersten, 2014, http://opencanada.org/features/the-think-tank/comments/could-yanukovych-be-tried-at-the-icc/
The Ukrainian justice system is broken

International help would be available to ensure an impartial trial in the Ukraine. The OSCE has offered “an OSCE role as impartial witness and guarantor to the implementation of concrete steps agreed between the parties” which could also extend to any trial.[1] With other international organisations involved in gathering evidence and providing legal assistance there could be certainty of an impartial trial without having to go to the ICC. [1] Burkhalter, Didier, ‘OSCE Chair-in-Office welcomes Ukraine agreement’, osce.org, 21 February 2014, http://www.osce.org/cio/115559
Could not be tried for all his crimes

Even if the former President cannot be prosecuted at the ICC for his corruption there can still be investigations into his wealth, his assets can be frozen and the money found repatriated to Ukraine without specifically indicting him for corruption. Switzerland has already said that it is freezing any of Yanukovych’s assets in the country while the EU is considering an inquiry into his embezzlement.[1] Clearly there will be action taken against corruption even as Yanukovych is being tried for other more serious crimes. [1] Fraher, John, ‘Yanukovych to Appear in Russia Tomorrow as Swiss Freeze Assets’, Bloomberg, 27 February 2014, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-27/yanukovych-to-appear-in-russia-tomorrow-as-swiss-freeze-assets.html
Not All Skills are Best Learnt in a Classroom Environment

Practical skills can be taught in school. Many school systems have practical skills schools. For example, in Germany, ‘vocational schools’ (schools which teach practical skills) have been around since the 19th century. In these schools students spend part of their time in practical training and part of their time ‘on the job’. These schools are attended until the age of 18[10], and have been lauded for training highly skilled workers for German manufacturing[11]. It is therefore possible to create a system which is flexible and gives students the option to train in different ways while still staying in school until 18.
There Are Cases Where Leaving School Early is Necessary

Leaving school early is not necessary. Instead, what is needed is government help to ensure that if young people remain in school then they can afford to do so. If children are unqualified at 16 then there is a real need to use the extra years to teach them the basics. There could also be certain people who have special circumstances which mean they do not need to stay in school. For example, in Britain, under 18’s that are caring for parents, relatives are exempt from extra schooling. [13]
More Education Brings More Opportunities

More education allows young people to develop greater skills so provides more options when they do leave education. It has been shown many times that those people who have more education find jobs easier and are more likely to find work that is satisfying. Extra education for young people also has a positive effect for the economy of a country. The impact of longer education is higher levels of productivity and earnings in later years. This is because longer in education helps workers to become more specialized, in todays ‘knowledge economy’ analytical thinking is highly valued and this is something that is increasingly taught from 16 to 18. Raising the leaving age has in the past had a significant impact on grades. The previous increase in the school leaving age in England, by a year to 16 in 1972, resulted in an improvement worth one grade higher in two subjects. The result is many fewer people leaving with no qualifications. [3]
Raising the school-leaving age is a crucial investment in society’s future

Increasing the school leaving age means that society will produce a workforce that is higher skilled, attracts more investment to the country, and earns more money. A study for the UK government estimated the economic benefit was £2.4billion for each year group that has 18 as the leaving age rather than 16[4]. When there is more money in the economy more taxes are paid, this means the extra cost of keeping people in school will be covered by these taxes. In some countries the cost of keeping young people in school will, at first, be difficult to manage. However, in many countries a large majority of people voluntarily choose to remain in education longer than they have to. In the UK for example 84% of pupils in year 10 stated that they would remain in education after the age of 16 [5].
Raising the school leaving age promotes equal opportunities

Making sure that everyone gets the same amount of time at school promotes equality. At the moment leaving school early is linked to economic and social disadvantage: those from poorer areas and families are more likely to leave school early than those from wealthier families. Parents who left school at a young age are also more likely to have children who leave school early (only 60% of those children stay in education past 16) [6]. Forcing all children to stay in school longer will help break this cycle of disadvantage.[7]
Forced Education Achieves Little

Being in school does not guarantee that a student is actually learning. If the student lacks interest or ability then the extra time spent in school is unlikely to benefit them, especially if they would not have chosen to be there. This applies even more to the problem of how to deal with those who are disruptive. If they are excluded from school then they are disadvantaged for a longer period of their life. However, if they are included then they continue to disrupt the learning of other students. As Henry Phibbs argues: “Increasing the school leaving age will not result in more being learned – just more broken windows in the locality of the school. Children fed up with school need an escape route, not an extension of their sentence." [8]
Not All Skills are Best Learnt in a Classroom Environment

Practical skills (for example, carpentry, cookery, gardening etc.), are often best learnt ‘on the job’ or through an apprenticeship. Both of these routes place young people into contact with professionals in these areas and give them access to a wider range of tools, materials, and experiences than they would have access to in school. For many young people who want to work in these areas there is no need for them to stay in school for extra time. Forcing those who would rather learn on the job to remain in school is simply wasting their time by depriving them of taking that route for a few more years. This means that it will take much longer to produce highly skilled workers in these practical areas. This is why the UK along with raising its school leaving age allowed the option of taking an apprenticeship as an alternative to continuing in school.
There Are Cases Where Leaving School Early is Necessary

Working at an early age can be an advantage in certain circumstances. Many families, particularly in countries with little welfare, need their children to bring income into the household. Working at an earlier age can help these families to survive. Furthermore, anyone who is having difficulties getting educational qualifications can gain an advantage by leaving school and gaining work experience. If they are forced to stay in school then they will simply lose two years. The British government recognized this and introduced 21 000 extra apprenticeships in 2009. This was an attempt to make sure that those who are not suited to school learning do not fall behind when it comes to finding a job and a sustainable income. [12]
More Education Brings More Opportunities

If schools are failing to teach children basic skills by the time they are 16 it makes no sense to make them stay at school for an extra two years. If the children are forced to sit in the classroom for longer it does not necessarily mean that the results of education will change. Forcing young people to remain in school against their wishes is a reinforcement of the failure of the educational system. If climbing a mountain on your hands and knees is not working then simply doing it for longer makes no difference. The same is true of education: there is no point in keeping students who are failing in schools for longer periods when there is no evidence to show that they will succeed, instead something new needs to be tried.
Raising the school-leaving age is a crucial investment in society’s future

The cost of extending the period of compulsory education is just too high. The increase in numbers would require a huge investment in teachers, books, new school buildings, computers, etc. As well as these direct costs there is also a huge amount of losses that a country would face. Young people who leave school and enter the workforce contribute to the economy through taxes and contributions to pensions which the country would no longer receive if people remained in school. It is impossible to spend more while also earning less. This means that raising the school leaving age is not something that countries can afford to do because they won’t have the money to cover the short term cost even if there are some long term gains.
Britain is the country of Euroscepticism, and its official language is English. For English to be the medium, the mouthpiece for the EU communications is wholly wrong.

English, the language which would likely be selected as the single European language, is also the language of Euroscepticism, as perfectly demonstrated by the British press. Anderson and Weymouth explain in Insulting the public?: The British Press and the European Union, ”Even those aspects of Euroscepticism which are perceived to be founded on less mythical stuff, such as the economic arguments against the single currency, get a better coverage than any arguments in favour.”[1] Right-wing tabloids publish very anti-Europe articles, scapegoating the German Parliament, the Bundestag, for what they see as the depletion of Britain’s say in her own politics, and using vocabulary with WW2 undertones. Even The Times, the UK paper of record, has voiced highly anti-Europe sentiments. It is through such articles and press coverage as this that the derogatory term Europrat has been coined. For English, the language of Euroscepticism, to be the official and single working language of the EU is unthinkable; it is ironic at best and ridiculous at worst. [1] Anderson, P.J, and Antony Weymouth. Insulting the Public? The British Press and the European Union. London: Longman, 1999.
There is no need to translate absolutely everything, but prioritising translation is favourable.

EU citizens do not have to translate everything; to keep the costs of interpreters and translators down, we can just interpret and translate the most important information. This policy of ‘prioritising translation’ has been adopted by the Welsh Assembly. The Assembly translates into Welsh only the information and literature that is most relevant and will actually be read. Translation IS a realistic solution and should be considered over the EU working through one single language.
The status quo is impractical, because we expect MEPs to be multilingual in order to be effective.

Language politics exist, and this is a consideration for any politician, not to be ignored. States may find it politically wise to encourage multilingualism. For example, Nicolas Sarkozy wants France to be a bilingual country. This is indeed a tall order, but we must not dismiss and avoid challenges simply because of the effort they entail. Sarkozy’s desire to make such efforts is commendable and other EU Member States should follow suit by becoming multilingual.
One working language understood by all Member States is a more practical way of communicating often untranslatable yet vital EU-specific vocabulary.

Politics touches on emotional issues. Emotional issues specific to a country are best expressed by that country in their native language. If the EU Member States must communicate through a foreign language, this means there is a barrier between a) what is said and the emotion contained therein and b) the act of actually communicating it. When forced to express one’s true opinions through a foreign tongue, its true meaning or the level of its importance may become diluted, misinterpreted or otherwise compromised. It is better for EU Member States to communicate using their native languages, for this way there is a much closer emotional proximity between a) what is said and b) the emotion contained in saying it. Thus, the emotions and desires of the people are more faithfully expressed.
Working through many languages in the European Union costs money that could be spent on EU’s projects rather than unnecessary conversation.

It is favourable that the EU employs people and one large way it does so is by hiring linguists and translators. Unemployment needs to be kept down and is an issue the EU claims to take seriously. The EU has the largest translation unit in the world. It employs some 1, 650 permanent onsite linguists and 550 support staff, as well as freelance translators all over the world.[1] A Connect Euranet debate took place in France in which the EU representatives and ministers spoke of the urgent need to address the pressing issues of employment and unemployment. It is unjustifiable for the EU to fight unemployment and also render a large proportion of its staff- the linguists- out of work. [1] Nitobe Centre for language democracy, ‘FAQ – Translation/interpretation’.
Translation is an intercultural activity that the EU must embrace if it continues to hold “United in diversity” as its motto.

The use of English does not mean Anglo-snobbery; that is a prejudice against Anglophones. The two EU official languages are English and French. If the EU were to adopt a single WORKING language, in all likelihood it would be English, but this is not to be seen as Westminster snobbery. English is not directly synonymous with Britain. It is also the official language of the former British colonies such as America, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and is, to a large extent, a global language. Britain itself is a very Eurosceptic nation, and so the use of its official language cannot logically be taken as British rule over the EU. However, all the more Europhile countries should not feel unfairly treated in using this language to communicate; if all these pro-EU countries communicate through English i.e. a global language that is not their own, they are less likely to show any extreme bias toward their own country and culture. Embracing English, a foreign method of communication, means that in the EU debating chamber, a Member State’s arguments will not be contaminated by the connotations held within their mother tongue, and the ideas cemented within that culture. As explained by Laurence Venuti in The Translation Studies Reader, “deficiency of the receiving code has to do with…such things as individuality…and geographical origin of the speakers”.[1] Eradicating individuality reduces bias and deficiency of expression. [1] Venuti, L. (ed) The Translation Studies Reader, 2000, p.344
If the EU ‘elects’ a single working language, it will be deliberately contributing to the narrow-minded, anglicising of the entire world, despite being a union of diverse cultures with the power to fight it.

To work through one single global language that is understood by all cultures makes perfect sense; it is a medium through which they can all communicate within the context of EU operations. The EU is not asking the MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) to address their own people nor their parliament at home through the medium of English. The use of a single working language is just to ensure effectiveness when discussing and debating EU matters between Member States.
The status quo is impractical, because we expect MEPs to be multilingual in order to be effective.

It is highly demanding to request all MEPs to be multilingual and translation and interpreting time takes time out of the meetings when vital issues could and should be discussed and addressed and in which problems should be solved. They have been elected on the strength of their political abilities, not their language skills. If we require all MEPs to be multilingual, we are actually excluding many politicians who could be very skilled, but don’t speak enough languages for the EU.