BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Withdrawal from Article 98 agreements would hamper relations with the US

The US is not focusing on encouraging existing NATO members to withdraw from the ICC. Existing NATO members are not subject to the aid-cutting provisions of US law (before and after the Presidential waiver was created), neither are major non-NATO allies – indeed, all EU member states in NATO are ICC members, with the exception of Romania none have signed an Article 98 agreement. Much of the US antagonism to the ICC came during the Bush administration, when the ICC was an unproven organization in its infancy. Since then, US Policy towards the ICC has softened, as can be evidenced by the US voting in favour of referring the situation in Libya to the ICC (compared to abstaining in the referral of Darfur), so it would be unlikely to do much harm to bilateral relations if other states were to expand their co-operation. No EU member state other than Romania has entered in to an Article 98 Agreement with the US.[1] [1] Barbour, The International Criminal Court, 2010
The BIAs are at best bad faith compliance, and worst a blatant violation of the Rome Statute

The European states have signed and ratified the ICC Statute and should honour it, to do otherwise makes a mockery of the ICC which those states supported throughout its genesis and at least claim to continue to support. Article 98(2) was only intended to be a factor where there are other agreements such as status of forces agreements (an agreement entered in to between two states, one having military forces in the other voluntarily, such as British troops in Germany). It was not meant as a broad-brush way for states being able to grant selective immunity to citizens of non-member states who have committed genocide or crimes against humanity inside the jurisdiction of an ICC member state. Signing an Article 98 Agreement is at best accepting foreign instigation of the abuse of process of a treaty. At worst it is accepting an illegal attempt at circumventing the treaty.
The rationale for the BIAs is flawed

The Bilateral Immunity Agreements that these states have entered in to undermine the court that these states have signed up to. BIAs invalidate the intention for the ICC that any person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the court (which only triggers when an individual is a citizen of a state that has ratified the Rome Statute, or in the territory of a Rome Statute state) and commits the horrific acts covered by the Rome Statute should be brought to trial by providing a get out clause for the powerful. A proliferation in BIAs could potentially render the ICC a court that can only try nationals of small states that do not have the leverage to get others to agree to BIAs, already the ICC is accused of bias in putting Africans on trial and ignoring the rest of the world, such agreements make this worse.[1] BIAs by one state, the United States, creates a precedent for other states to use and as they do so the field that is available for international criminal justice will become smaller and smaller. [1] Kersten, Mark, “African and the ICC: Some Unsolicited Advice”, Africa at LSE, 28 May 2013, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2013/05/28/africa-and-the-icc-some-unsolicited-advice/
The BIAs were only granted following bully tactics from the United States

The United States has been accused of using bullying tactics in the pursuit of gaining Article 98 Agreements by, amongst others, Human Rights Watch[1]. This has included significant reductions in non-military, development aid, including to countries such as South Africa, the Bahamas[2] and Peru[3], as well as making threats to accession to NATO in the case of Croatia.[4] By signing up to Article 98 Agreements, European nations help contribute to a climate where smaller nations can also be strong-armed in to harming the International Criminal Court by signing them, even if they were not subject to blackmailed in to it themselves. [1] Roth, Kenneth, “Letter to the US Secretary of State Colin Powell on Bully Tactics against the International Criminal Court”, Human Rights Watch, 2003 http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2003/06/29/letter-colin-powell-us-bully-tactics-against-international-criminal-court [2] Roth, Letter to Colin Powell, 2003 [3] Keppler, Elise, “The United States and the International Criminal Court: The Bush Administration’s Approach and a Way Forward Under the Obama Administration”, Berkeley Journal of International Law, 2009, 2, p12, http://bjil.typepad.com/Keppler_forPDF_[RC][1].pdf [4] Roth, Letter to Colin Powell, 2003
Article 98 Agreements are a crucial tool in maintaining American national sovereignty

As a key part of its national sovereignty, the US should not be required to have its citizens subject to the ICC if it does not ratify the treaty itself of its own choice. It is an accepted principle, as enshrined in Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,[1] that a treaty only binds the states that have consented to it. Binding citizens of states who are not parties, who may be acting under the orders of a state arm, such as a military, when in the territory of state parties, violates that state’s sovereignty. There have been attempts to put US soldiers on trial. Italy for example put Mario Lozano on trial for the killing of an Italian agent in Iraq, the US maintained he was doing his job at a checkpoint and provided warnings while the Italians considered it murder. In this case the United States was able to refuse to hand the soldier over but BIA’s ensure that such actions will not be a concern whenever troops are deployed abroad.[2] Bilateral Immunity Agreements are a legitimate tool to ensure that this key principle is protected in the case of the International Criminal Court – this has no bearing on the nations that desire to be part of the International Criminal Court. [1] United Nations. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf [2] “Controversial Trial Opens in Rome: Italy Tries US Soldier For Iraq Murder”, Spiegel Online, 17 April 2007, http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/controversial-trial-opens-in-rome-italy-tries-us-soldier-for-iraq-murder-a-477738.html
Withdrawal from Article 98 agreements would hamper relations with the US

Many of the states in Europe that have signed up to BIA’s are applicant to NATO which leaves them in a difficult position when it comes to withdrawing from such a treaty. While NATO members are exempt from the punitive provisions aimed at states who do not have Article 98 agreements, in order to join NATO the state will need the support of the United States. Such support will be less forthcoming if that country has abandoned an agreement with the United States such as a BIA. Linking issues is not unusual in international relations whether it is linking multiple issues in a single larger negotiation or blocking progress in joining an organisation as a result of a single issue. Perhaps the best example of this occurring is Turkey and the EU where Turkey’s membership has been held up by its dispute with Cyprus over the northern half of the island.[1] Even if the United States were to allow an application to NATO to proceed despite the abandonment of their bilateral treaty relations will surely be damaged. No state is going to welcome another state unilaterally withdrawing from a treaty they have signed. The Eastern European states value their relationship with the United States due to that country’s commitment to their independence and support during the early 1990s as the soviet bloc broke up. It would not make sense for these small independent countries to risk relations with the world’s most powerful statements over an agreement which is unlikely to ever have a practical relevance. [1] Rinke, Andreas, and Solaker, Gulsen, “Cyprus remains stumbling block in Turkey’s EU ambition: Merkel”, Reuters, 25 February 2013, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/25/us-germany-turkey-eu-idUSBRE91O10L20130225
Article 98 Agreements are unlikely to be needed

The prospect of an Article 98 Agreement actually being relied on is slim. It would require the International Criminal Court to prosecute an American for a crime against humanity, or genocide, that takes place in ICC member state. There is next to no chance of the UN Security Council referring a case against America to the ICC as the US has a veto as a permanent member. The ICC already makes only a highly limited number of prosecutions per year, in obvious cases, and so far all of these have been focused on the developing world. While Article 98 agreements may be unsavoury, the chance of them actually being used to grant someone impunity is low.
A new perspective, raising topical issues

Fundamentally, the topics raised by Nollywood are commercialising accepted views. The industry is building a business founded on distributing images of witchcraft, abuse, and domestic violence. First, a majority of the films are politically incorrect and provide negative portrayals of women and sexuality. Gender roles are reinforced as women become sexualised objects, male possession, and the source of trouble - required to be put in their ‘place’. In the case of LGBT representations, homosexuality has been represented as Satanic in films such as 2010’s ‘Men in Love’[1]. Second, in the case of witchcraft, dramas have made society more accepting of, and open to, sorcery. The films show how it remains prevalent in society and can provide a tool to access riches. With the audience interested in watching stories on witchcraft the industry is feeding such demands. Witchcraft sells; and continues to remain a prominent theme justifying why people make their decisions and action. This is not the kind of perception change Africa needs. [1] In Nigeria homosexuality is illegal and continues to be criminalised.
Encouraging film entrepreneurs

Although the industry has encouraged entrepreneurialism we need to recognise it is also promoting risky businesses. Firstly, the individuals working in the industry are required to produce a quick turnover. The fact that no security and support is provided by the government or state means the risk of failed entrepreneurial strategies falls on the individual. The producers and directors may be forced to borrow money from loan sharks and at high interest-rates to get capital quickly; and need to be able to ensure profits are generated rapidly. Such a tenuous industry is clearly not in a position to change opinions of Africa and may instead be creating a negative perception of risk-taking and cutthroat capitalism.
Epitomising rising Africa

First, the narrative of whether Africa is 'rising' has been debated, and requires reflection. Second, if Africa were rising will Nollywood push Nigeria to rise in the wrong direction? Nollywood is a private-sector organisation, with concentrated profits. Inequality in Nigeria has continued to rise since 1985 as shown by the GINI coefficient (Aigbokhan, 2008); and with lavish lifestyles being created for famous actresses and directors who hit ‘big money’ will Nollywood only act to benefit elites and create a new elite class? Economic growth and revenue production cannot solve the issue of poverty without tackling inequality.
The problem of piracy

The issue of piracy is being tackled. Recognising the potential benefits Nollywood can bring to Nigeria and the scale of the piracy problem, investments are being made to stop piracy in the growing industry. Investments have been proposed by the World Bank to tackle piracy, and ensure profits are not lost. Further, Nollywood UP, the Nollywood Upgrade Project, is providing funding to control piracy. Nollywood UP is improving the capacity of the innovative industry - by providing solutions for distribution and vital training in high-quality film making.
Small audience viewings

Nollywood films are viewed globally. Channels are dedicated to the films - such as South Africa’s MultiChoice and BSkyB’s Nollywood Movies. BSkyB distributes programmes and films directly to airlines, instantly broadening the audience. Furthermore, YouTube subscribers have sought to enhance the global viewing popularity; and recently developed iROKO Partners is ensuring internet users can access Nollywood films. iROKO Partners shows the biggest markets are based in the US, UK, Canada, Italy and Germany (Kermeliotis, 2012). New partnerships are being formed with Hollywood and global film festivals[1], which show the future shift of broadcasting Nollywood films in cinemas. A recent film produced by Pat Nebo - ‘Dead broke’ - is set to be premiered in Lagos, Accra, and London. [1] Cannes (2013) recently showcased ‘La Pirogue’; and in the summer of 2013 France hosted its first Nollywood Week in Paris, showcasing seven of the best Nollywood films.
Development from within

Nollywood is showcasing Nigeria’s capability to sustain, build, and finance its own economy. Recent estimates suggest around 50 films are produced weekly, selling between 20,000 to 200,000 units, and creating jobs for around one million individuals (Moudio, 2013). The industry is initiating vital development, enabling Nigeria to have capital to change perceptions. Nollywood is following previous cultural industry paths. Hollywood developed from low-budget films, and in 2013 the entertainment industry generated around $522bn in revenue, and is continuing to be one of America’s biggest sources of tourism (Statista, 2013). In Nollywood’s case, the industry is already proving to be of vital importance for regional and domestic tourism.
A new perspective, raising topical issues

The first film created in Nollywood - ‘Living in Bondage’ - raised fundamental issues concerning marriage, wealth and spirituality. The film indicates the need to be aware of cults and what they can drive individuals to do. Furthermore films such ‘Street Girls’ and ‘Mama’s Girls’ provide insight into the lives of prostitutes and the sex industry. ‘Street Girls’ is enabling awareness of why girls are forced into prostitution and why they may be forced to commit criminal offences. Poverty is identified as a key driving factor. The range of topics covered - from immigration, women, witchcraft, corruption, terrorism, and infrastructure deficits - counteract historic silences in the public sphere. The films are raising awareness to viewers by presenting the stories in a new light - understandable, humorous, and relatable; and will encourage citizens to demand change. Nollywood is showing the limits of believing in a single perspective, the Western perspective, to stories on Africa.
Encouraging film entrepreneurs

The Nollywood industry is providing solutions to pressing issues - including high rates of unemployment. The dynamic industry provides an opportunity for youths to explore interests and invest in their talents and creativity. The recognition gained for Nollywood has shown how Nigeria's youths can initiate, and develop, a sustainable industry. Rather than seeing the rising young population as a potential threat[1], the rise of Nollywood showcases the talent of the young population and helps overthrow perceptions of Africa just being about natural resources. Additionally, the growth of Nollywood is continuing to encourage individuals to enter the creative industry – whether to work in production, acting or distribution, the rise of Nollywood is creating an entrepreneurial spirit, drive, and motivation to create change. Individuals are no longer relying on the government or international community to provide funds, support and infrastructure, but moulding their own futures. [1] See further readings: Urdal, 2006.
Epitomising rising Africa

Nollywood epitomises Africa, and life in African spaces. The fast-pace nature of production shows how quickly things changes and everything is on the move. The structure of production shows the dynamic nature of everyday life, action, and flow of ideas. As Rem Koolhaas’ (2002) film documentary - Lagos - showed the congestion, informality, and buzz of the city needs to be viewed positively and a sign of entrepreneurialism. The documentary suggested African cities were setting a new trend to be followed by the West, and developing a rising economy. Africa is not simply in need of assistance, but rather a fast-pace environment that needs greater understanding. Africa is rising[1] and Nollywood acts to reinforce this reality. With more films being produced, bigger revenues made, and new investors emerging, Nollywood shows Africa's economies are changing, growing, and emerging. Interest and collaborative investments being made by the World Bank shows the industry will continue to rise. Nollywood’s growth provides an alternative to the dominant Afro-pessimism. [1] See further readings: The Economist, 2013.
The problem of piracy

Pirated copies of Nollywood films are a key issue. Piracy emerges as an issue for two key reasons. First, the lack of the lack of legal structure - the lack of formal regulation. Legal systems and strict copyright controls are needed to ensure piracy is stopped. Second, the production system is slow - therefore alternative means of production are used to meet the growing demand for films released. New methods for distribution are required. Calls have been made for the government to take action against piracy. However, with corruption prevalent little action has been made. Half of the film profits are lost through piracy (CNN, 2009), and piracy acts to reinforce the image of bad governance, and inadequate structures, within African states. The industry is being undermined and undervalued, through the piracy market, with high costs to the entrepreneurs.
Small audience viewings

In reality, Nollywood’s audience is constrained - questioning the extent to which stereotypes can be changed. First, language acts as a barrier. 56% of Nollywood films are produced in local languages - such as Yoruba, Igbo, and Hausa (UNESCO, 2009). Although English accounts for 44% of films produced, the linguistic diversity may limit who sees which film and what issues are therefore discussed. Second, a majority of the films are sold in hardcopy - whether on cassette or pirate DVDs. Finally, the industry is characterised by fast and cheap production. Quantity over quality limits popularity and audience viewings. Further, the limited attention to quality means Nollywood remains at the bottom of the global value chain for film production. It is difficult to change perceptions with poor quality films.
Short term hype

Despite the boom in Nollywood’s industry it remains hard to get investment. With funding issues prevalent the hype surrounding Nollywood is temporary. The difficulties in getting funding, mean films produced are often safe and politically popular - aware that funds can be gained for backing. For example, the controversial film – Boko Haram – aimed to provide an alternative perspective into the Islamist extremist group. The core subject matter was to explore terrorism; however, following the controversial story and topic, marketers dropped out, fearing a political backlash. Titles had to be changed and the film adapted to be more sensitive. The ideas behind the films, and the stories told, are being altered due to funding constraints[1]. Perspectives, on and in Africa, cannot be changed if the topics raised are altered to meet sensitivity regulations. Hegemony will persist. [1] See further readings: Hirsch, 2013.
Development from within

Opportunities for development are limited as the industry continues to function informally. The informal structure means there is no legal institution controlling transactions, there is no governing body ensuring taxation is paid and revenues collected, and finally, there is little security to the workers within the industry. Financial records are limited in the industry, which makes it hard to predict the developmental scope of Nollywood and the real revenues produced. Informality prevents legitimacy; capability to assist national development; and fundamental capital losses. It also prevents it becoming a force for changing perceptions of those outside Africa. Formalisation is required for the industry to assist developmental potential[1]. [1] See further readings: McCall, 2012.
Federal states are better able to protect their citizens.

States should not be overly concerned with size as a measure of strength since this is merely increasing the area that needs defending. Instead they should be concerned with having common sense of identity that encourages cooperation. Russia, Nigeria and India are examples of large federated states which suffer from internal insurgencies caused by political grievances.1 The Democratic Republic of the Congo is an excellent example of a large federated state which has proven incapable of defending its borders.2 It may be the case a common identity is better formed in independent nation states. Smaller states like Monaco and Singapore continue to exist with relative security in contrast. 1 AlertNet, 2011, 'Bin Laden death weakens Russia insurgency- official,'The Washington Post, 2006, 'Grievances Fuel Insurgency, Says Nigeria Media'Inside the Maoist insurgency in India's Jharkand state', BBC News 2BBC, 2010, 'Inside the Maoist insurgency in India's Jharkand State
Nationally homogenous states are rare and most states have local differences

It is true that there are few states which include homogenous national groups. However, there are some (Iceland and Japan for example) but there are many states which are predominantly a single "nation." And given that proposition has accepted that nations are constructed, it is possible for people to opt-into nationhood. Thus autonomous nation states can exist where groups of people agree to live with common cultural and political values. Therefore, it is not futile to attempt to accommodate a common set of political values within a state. Indeed, it is necessary to have some kind of common history, culture, practices or ethnicity often to bind groups together.1 1Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010, 'Federalism,'
Being a federal state helps large states deal with divergent economic performance

In most cases parts of federated states remain in similar economic positions relative to other sections. California and Texas are regularly the most economically successful US states. Rather than receive economic benefit, they have federal taxes transferred to the weakest performing states in the Union. A similar argument is apparent with the German bailouts in the 2010-11 Eurozone financial crisis.1 1The Economist, 2011, 'America's Fiscal Union: Greek Americans,' The Economist, 2011, 'German business and politics: Goodbye to Berlin,' improve this
It is harder to deal with internal repression than the invasion of another sovereign state.

The comparative situation is that of a resource rich region being surrounded by aggressive neighbours which desire its resources. Weak states are usually incapable of defending their borders and thus fall victim to invasion and occupation (such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo).1 Long term control by a federal state is preferable to repeated violence and conflict as outside forces move in and out of the region. Moreover, being part of a federal state ensures that there is only one party attempting to control the region rather than multiple competing governments which are likely to bring long term violence. Finally, there is the other side to the opposition's case. By being part of a federal state, there is international pressure for members of that resource rich federal unit to have something in return and for their state to adequately look after them. 1 Consultancy Africa Intelligence, 2010, 'Security Situation in the DRC: A case of a weak state leaning on the UN,' improve this