BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
ICC treats Africa differently

Africa and its leaders are treated far more contemptuously by the court. The prospect of prosecuting Barak Obama for the killing of civilians by drones which Amnesty International has suggested amount to war crimes[1] or George W. Bush for war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan is remote – yet Omar Al-Bashir and Uhuru Kenyatta have both been indicted as sitting leaders. The ICC will only prosecute if those who have committed war crimes are not going to be prosecuted locally but this is as much the case for western leaders as African ones. This points clearly to the ICC proselytizing what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to Africans but not to other leaders – treating these leaders less respectfully and blatantly undermining African nations sovereignty in a way they would not, or would dare not, for others.   [1] ‘USA must be held to account for drone killings in Pakistan’, Amnesty International, 22 October 2013
ICC is controlled by the Security Council

The ICC can only investigate situations that are referred to it by either the host country, or the Security Council[1]. A power also exists for the prosecutor to seek investigation, though this has as yet only been used twice. As such, most atrocities that occur across the world are shielded from prosecution because such a prosecution would be against the interests of a member Security Council. Leaders do not seem to be brought for investigation until they offend the west; Charles Taylor was not prosecuted until he had a falling out with the USA, despite their soft support for him in overthrowing the Doe regime[2]. Another case in point is Uganda where the Lord’s Resistance Army has been charged, but not the Pro-US government forces, despite evidence existing they have also committed crimes[3]. It is clear then that the ICC makes decisions by broad external factors, which biases it against Africa which does not have any countries on the UNSC or any patrons sitting on the council. [1] States parties to Rome Statute, ‘Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’, ICC, 2011 [2] ‘Charles Taylor – preacher, warlord, president’, BBC News, 13 July 2009  [3] ‘ICC, A Tool To Recolonise Africa’, African Business
Africa has invited ICC intervention

Far from the ICC being biased against Africa it is Africa’s embrace of the ICC and the opportunity for international justice that has led to so many Africans being tried at the Hague. The reality is that the only nations to refer themselves to the ICC have been African –the DR Congo, Central African Republic, Mali and Uganda were all self-referred[1]. Likewise, the Ivory Coast referred itself to ICC jurisdiction, and referral of Darfur to the ICC from the Security Council was done so with the African Union’s support[2].  The ICC has clearly not as an institution been targeting Africa, rather it has been investigating, and then engaging in trials on situations that have been brought to it by the countries involved. Other regions of the world have not embraced the opportunity for justice in the same way so it is taking longer for investigations into war crimes in those situations by the ICC. [1] Clark, P. “Law, Politics and Pragmatism: The ICC and case selection in the DRC and Uganda” in Justice Peace and the ICC in Africa at 37. [2] Lamony, Stephen A., ‘Is the International Criminal Court really picking on Africa?’, African Arguments, 16 April 2013
Africa has a strong voice in the ICC

The ICC has gone to great lengths to involve all parts of the world in all aspects of its operations. Fatou Bensouda, from Gambia, was recently appointed Chief Prosecutor of the ICC. Moreover, Africans have twice been Vice-President of the court, and have had a fair representation of judges presiding over the court, with five of twenty-one current judges on the panel[1].  Moreover, the Africa Union played a large role in the negotiations over the Rome statute and the creation of the ICC, reflected in the large proportion of countries who are members.[2] As such, Africa’s voice is strongly heard in the ICC. [1] ‘Judge Sang-Hyun Song re-elected President of the International Criminal Court for 2012-2015; Judges Sanji Mmasenono Monageng and Cuno Tarfusser elected First and Second Vice-President respectively’, International Criminal Court, 11 March 2012 [2] Murithi, Tim, ‘The African Union and the international Criminal Court: An Embattled Relationship’, IJR Policy Brief, no.8 March 2013, pp.1-2
African victims deserve ICC intervention to bring justice

At the most fundamental level, many of the world’s atrocities of recent times have occurred in Africa, where weak government and mass war are rampant. Taken per head of population Africa has the most conflicts of any continent and unlike Asia its most brutal conflicts have occurred in the last couple of decades.[1] As such, it is not surprising that a focus has existed in Africa from the ICC. That the ICC has not been as strong in other continents is not evidence of bias against Africa, rather that they have work to do in other areas. But the victims of atrocities in Africa deserve their perpetrators to be brought to justice. As such, Africa is not a ‘victim’ of the ICC, but the greatest beneficiary. Africa had the greatest desire and push for international assistance in obtaining justice, and are now receiving that. This simply shows that Africa is forging a path that other regions should follow in terms of its acceptance of international criminal law.   [1] Straus, Scott, ‘Wars do end! Changing patterns of political violence in sub-Saharan Africa’, African Affairs, 111/143, March 2012, pp.179-201, p.186
The ICC is pursuing the gravest situations within its jurisdiction

The ICC’s jurisdiction is limited to those countries that have ratified the Rome statute. This combined with the likelihood of deadlock in the UNSC, means that many of the worst conflicts are off limits for the ICC. Using data from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program and UNHCR database since the Rome Statute came into effect in July 2002 (up to 2011) Ben Shea of the UCLA Law School finds that there has been little bias against Africa. Not only have most of the gravest conflicts taken place in Africa but the countries that were not investigated are not party to the Rome Statute. This eliminates Algeria, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Palestine, Russia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Turkey, Yemen and Zimbabwe. Others such as Liberia, and the Philippines only signed up after their conflict had ended. Others such as Columbia, Georgia and Mexico can be eliminated due to Complementarity (where the states are willing to investigate themselves). In conclusion “Despite the fact that several very grave conflicts outside of Africa have occurred sometime between 2003 and 2011, once taking into account the jurisdictional obstacles of the ICC, only one country remains: Afghanistan. The fact that Afghanistan has been under preliminary examination by the ICC suggests that the Court is not biased toward Africa.”[1] [1] Shea, Ben, ‘Is the International Criminal Court targeting Africa inappropriately’, ICCForum, 17 March 2013, Ben’s analysis is much more detailed than we have room for here so do read it for yourself.
Africa is overtly prosecuted

While Africa is the only continent to face prosecutions, a number of other regions where atrocities have taken place are being heavily investigated, including Afghanistan, Colombia, Georgia, Honduras and South Korea[1]. These are expected to lead to prosecutions occurring. So while Africa has had the focus during the initial years of the ICC, its focus is expanding not just focused on African atrocities. It is not even solely focused on developing countries; a complaint about British actions in Iraq has been handed to the ICC.[2] [1] ‘Situations and cases’, International Criminal Court, accessed 13/2/2014  [2] Owen, Jonathan, ‘Exclusive: Devastating dossier on ‘abuse’ by UK forces in Iraq goes to International Criminal Court’, The Independent, 12 January 2014
ICC treats Africa differently

The reason western leaders have not been indicted is firstly, because their domestic judiciaries are strong and independent enough to be able to prosecute abuses when they occur. The ICC has a principle of complementarity where the ICC will only prosecute if the state themselves are unwilling or unable to prosecute. This is not the case in western countries where there is no difficulty putting members of government on trial – in the UK for example the environment secretary Chris Huhne was sent to prison for perverting the course of justice.[1] Secondly however, there is no evidence that these leaders were involved or responsible for atrocities in the same way the African leaders were. Western leaders have not authorized individual killings of civilians, or massacres, genocides or other crimes that are prosecuted by the ICC. [1] Mr Justice Sweeney, ‘Chris Huhne and Vicky Price jailed: judge’s sentencing remarks in full’, The Telegraph, 11 March 2013
ICC is controlled by the Security Council

The need in most cases for a referral from the UNSC certainly makes it unlikely that those states will be investigated but this does not make the court biased against Africa. Some of the cases in Africa have involved countries or their judiciaries referring themselves. In the case of Kenya’s election violence in the five years after the violence occurred very little action occurred from the domestic forces; there was a commission lead by Philip Waki that recommended a special tribunal to prosecute those involved.[1] However this never happened as a result the Waki commission handed their report over to the UN and ICC for action[2]. Unsurprisingly the case of Kenyatta has seen accusations of witness intimidation on large scales, showing that a fair trial would have been very difficult to guarantee in Kenya itself[3]. [1] Waki Report, October 2008, (large pdf) [2] Wachira, Muchemi, ‘Annan did not ambush Kenya says Justice minister’, Daily Nation, 13 July 2009 [3] ‘Perceptions and Realities: Kenya and the International Criminal Court’, Human Rights Watch, 14 November 2013
Africa has invited ICC intervention

While these countries referred themselves, they did under enormous pressure from the ICC. The Prosecutors chose to ‘follow closely’ African cases to the exclusion of others and then actively invited these countries to refer themselves, under threat of seeking prosecutions on their own if the country did not comply[1]. Self-referral under pressure does not show that the ICC is not biased against Africa rather it shows either that the ICC has been more interested in Africa than elsewhere, or that it has put more pressure on African states to self-refer. [1] African Business
Africa has a strong voice in the ICC

One of strongest current criticisms of the African Union is that the ICC is ignoring its opinions. In particular, the AU has very strong views on the treatment of the Kenyan President and his deputy by the ICC in the Kenyan investigation, which the ICC has failed to engage with. Tanzanian President, Jakaya Kikwete, said 'The ICC continues to ignore repeated requests and appeals by the African Union' and this 'attitude has become a major handicap that fails to reconcile the court's secondary and complementary role in fighting impunity'[1]. This has led to African Union seriously considering leaving the union – not evidence of them being an important part of the process. Having Africans as a part of the ICC itself does not mean it listens to the African states that are parties to it. [1] Dersso, Solomon, ‘Unplanned obsolescence: The ICC and the African Union’, AlJazeera, 11 October 2013
The ICC is pursuing the gravest situations within its jurisdiction

That the ICC is investigating the conflicts that under some analyses may be the gravest within its jurisdiction does not mean it is not biased. Complementarity in itself shows bias; it allows countries that are considered more developed off the hook ensuring that the ICC will only look at the least developed. African states have signed up to the ICC but the result of their belief in international criminal justice has been that those who attempt to avoid international justice by not signing up to the statute have succeeded while those who accept some form of justice have been targeted.
Expiring the Tax Cuts Would Cause Investor Movement Abroad

There are a number of social ties that the rich have to the U.S.A. with many of them having inherited wealth or having families in the U.S.   Moving to another country is inconvenient as it leads to the removal of all of these social ties, further the actual cost of moving is often enough to prevent them from doing so.   Further, many rich Americans have an attachment to America itself, either as a land where their parents prospered or as a land where they managed to earn their own wealth. As such, there are emotional ties to the country. Many have political influence in the U.S. which they would be unable to take advantage of should they leave the country.[1]   Finally, it should be noted that states which routinely impose extremely low rates of personal income tax, or which refrain from taxing the bonuses paid to businesses’ senior managers obtain the majority of their state funding from natural resources revenues. Saudi Arabia is one of the largest and most active oil extractors and exporters in the world. It can make up for shortfalls in personal tax revenues by controlling the price and supply of the oil that it drills. [1] Confessore, Nicholas, “Taxes Not Seen as Making Rich Flee New York,” New York Times, 18/03/2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/nyregion/19leave.html?_r=1
Removing Tax Cuts Would Reduce the Deficit

Maintaining Bush tax cuts would cost the government $680 billion in revenue over the next ten years according to Paul Krugman.   Given the downgrade in the U.S. credit rating by some credit agencies, it seems prudent to choose to roll back at least some of these cuts in order to please those agencies and convince them that the U.S. is taking serious action to tackle its debt. If this is the case, then they are likely to upgrade or maintain the U.S. credit rating. This is beneficial for the U.S. as it means that in the future it has smaller repayments to make on its current debt and can more readily take on debt in the future.   Further, given that the rich spend a smaller percentage of their money than the poor on consumption, an increase in taxes for the rich will firstly not cause a significant downturn in consumption and secondly, if spent responsibly by the government, will lead to further growth in the future which might cause the government to be able to recoup the money that it spends through higher tax revenue from a growing economy in the future.[1] [1] Krugman, Paul “Now That’s Rich.” New York Times. 22/08/2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/23/opinion/23krugman.html
The Tax Cuts Only Exist Due to An Unjust System

The tax cuts that were created under a Republican government can be strongly linked with the Republican power base. The Republican party relies on a relatively small number of very rich and powerful donors. A tax cut for these people often leads to an increase in funding for the Republican party. Republican representation among the other classes generally comes from other conservative policies as opposed to one fiscal policy.   Further, there is an attitude in the U.S. among many poorer communities that tax regardless of the actual purpose is a bad thing. As such, the Republicans can often reduce taxes for the wealthy without significantly harming their voting base among other communities, despite the fact that these changes often harm poorer communities a great deal.   This means that implementation of the tax cuts was due to a political system that focuses on parties winning elections as opposed to doing what is best for America as a country. As such the system forces the Republicans to pander to the rich for funding and this leads to a worse situation for the country overall. Given that this is true, the tax cuts are unjust and should be removed.[1] [1] Creamer, Robert “Why Congress Must End Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich.” Huffington Post. 28/07/2010/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/why-congress-must-end-bus_b...
Removing Tax Cuts for the Rich Promotes Equality.

The removal of tax cuts for the rich will help create greater equality in the U.S. Firstly it can do this by direct means, taxing the rich to a greater extent than is currently done would mean, obviously that the rich have less money and are thus more equal to the poor in income. However, further to this, money gained from such tax cuts that is not being reserved for deficit reduction can be redistributed to the poor in order to allow them to progress further in society.   Income inequality within the U.S. is significantly worse than in most other Western liberal democracies. It often leads to problems of the poor feeling disenfranchised within a society where they feel that the rich have all the influence. Poverty can lead to crime, motivated either by want and pure physical need, or by a distorted sense of entitlement fostered by consumer culture. A lack of parity in an economic system may be interpreted as justifying participation in crimes with an economic component, such as drug dealing, fraud or involvement with organised crime.[1] [1] Garofalo, Pat, “Stephen Moore Calls for raising taxes on the poor in order to pay for tax cuts for the rich.” Think Progress. 08/07/2010. http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/07/08/106661/moore-taxes/
Expiring Tax Cuts Would Cause a Double Dip Recession

Whilst the rich spend proportionately less of their income than the poor, the rest of their income is often invested in other areas and financial vehicles, boosting the economy in both the short and long term. In the short term this money allows businesses to take more risks owing to a greater pool of money to offset the risk, alongside lower interest rates. In the long term, these risks often lead to innovations that help the economy overall.   In increasing the tax burden on the rich, the spending and investment that wealthy individuals partake in is cut off, preventing these areas of the economy from growing. Recessions and recession prevention are often reliant upon public perception of an economy’s general health and the extent of its exposure to less stable economies. Due to this feedback mechanism, it is possible, therefore, that an unfounded belief that tax rises could obstruct economic growth might cause panic amongst the media and the populace. A recession might come about through the mere expectation that there will be a recession.   In fact, given that the majority of the media is controlled by the rich, it is within their best interest to report that there will be a crisis if there is a tax increase so that they can claim the policy was at fault in the future.[1] [1] Vaughan, Martin and Mckinnon, John, “Democrats Dissent on Bush Cuts,” Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703954804575381...
Expiring the Tax Cut Would Harm Small Business

A number of small businesses are owned by individuals who pay taxes as individuals. However, being small business owners they often earn enough to put them in the highest tax brackets. Given that this is true, the tax rate that these business owners would face following the abolition of the Bush tax cuts would be a rate higher than most big business. It seems unjust that small business owners would pay rates of tax at 36% or 39.6% given that businesses such as Goldman Sachs pay lower tax.   Further, the expiration of a tax cut for these small businesses means that the owners will often project less personal gain from projects that the business might undertake. A simple example (for use in a debate) is of a project that costs $100 to invest in and has a 10% chance of success, returning $1100. A tax rise could theoretically cause the return for the owner to fall from $1100 to $1000. This means that now a project that would have been profitable is no longer so and thus the owner won’t risk taking the project up.   This means that fewer projects are taken up in the thousands of small businesses that exist throughout the economy. As such, excess taxation stifles the innovations that small businesses often provide,costing the economy  a great deal more in lost profits and lost market-share than is returned in tax revenue in the long run.[1] [1] Murdock, Deroy, “Halt Reckless Spending and Extend Bush Tax Cuts,” Deseret News, 26/07/2010 http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700050783/Halt-reckless-spending-and-...
Expiring the Tax Cuts Would Cause Investor Movement Abroad

As mentioned in the previous arguments, the expiration of Bush tax cuts would firstly cause investors and people in the upper brackets to resort to tax avoidance methods, such as placing money in foreign accounts and using legal lacunae to reduce their tax liability.   However in a world where the upper management of most businesses can be handled from other countries, it is prudent for those facing higher taxes in the U.S. to move away to avoid them. Most countries in the U.A.E, for example, have incredibly low tax rates for the entire population.   The reason that many American taxpayers in upper brackets have not moved away to take advantage of this is because the tax cuts and the Republican government have kept them satisfied enough that there is no reason to go through the inconvenience of moving.   The removal of the tax cuts could easily provide this impetus owing to the fact that they might result in further higher taxes for the rich down the line. As such, tax increases of this nature could cause the rich to leave the country and cease paying tax altogether.[1] [1] Bruner, John, “Where America’s Money is Moving,” Forbes, 14/06/2010 http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/14/where-the-rich-are-moving-business-belt...
Removing Tax Cuts Would Reduce the Deficit

Under current economic circumstances, the deficit is bad, and a downgrade of the credit rating has bad effects. However, stimulation of the economy during a recession is needed more.   If the economy is stimulated through lower taxes, it might cause it to recover faster and move into a boom period earlier. If this is the case, then even if the lower credit rating results in higher repayment costs, the economy returning to growth earlier will mean tax revenue is higher earlier. If that is true then it is possible that the government will recoup the cost of the tax cuts later on with higher growth.   Secondly, the extension of Bush tax cuts for a two year period is unlikely to have any lasting impact on such a large deficit. Whilst the rich have a lot of money, it is entirely within their power to use accountants and other means such as offshore bank accounts to ensure that they do not bear the full brunt of the change. Bush tax cuts caused more rich people to keep their money in the U.S. This meant that despite the lower taxes, the greater amount of money kept in the U.S. meant that overall there was a net profit from the change.[1] [1] Twerkel, Amanda “Cantor Admits Extending Bush Tax Cuts Would “Dig The Hole Deeper on the Deficit – But He Doesn’t Care.”” Think Progress. 02/08/2010 http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/08/02/110994/cantor-bush-tax-cuts/
The Tax Cuts Only Exist Due to An Unjust System

The American system is one that can be changed with a popular vote. Further, the competition between the two parties and the bid to be re-elected causes them to make decisions that are good for the country so that they are credited for that by the people.   Whilst the process does have flaws, it is illegitimate to call decisions made by the process unjust when the process is a clear process that can be accessed by everyone and can be changed if results are seen to be consistently unjust.   If the Republican voting base acts in the way that the proposition suggests it might simply be that the Republican voting base dislikes tax increases for reasons the proposition has not considered, such as a slippery slope effect where tax increases for the rich eventually make it more acceptable to increase taxes for the poor.