BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religion is a stronger force than any material incentives. It is far better at directing behaviour ...

Religion is extremely dangerous because it can be used to justify brutal actions. Crusaders not only killed many Muslims in their attempts to win control of the Holy Land, they also massacred many Jews and Eastern Christians in the process. The Inquisition carried out its torture in the name of God. Hitler’s followers, among them the so-called German Christians, were also believers in their Fuhrer. Religion should never be involved in politics because it can be used as an instrument of control or to achieve a ruler’s aims.
The very existence of theocratic states, for example, Iran, proves that religion can be a legitimate...

Theocratic states become totalitarian regimes because they are based on obedience to a ruler who is seen as God’s representative rather than on a democratic constitution. They may be stable (although huge protests against a rigged election in Iraq in 2009 could suggest otherwise) but they are not essentially concerned with their people’s welfare. By prioritising religious imperatives over economic development, and by their intolerance of the questioning entrepreneurial types who drive economic progress, states like Iran have become corrupt, authoritarian and poor.
Biblical commandments are the basis of Western ethical and legal systems. Religion teaches us toler...

Religions like Islam justify “holy” wars against the “unfaithful”, meaning people of other religions. This can also be seen in the violence of the crusades launched by Christians in the medieval period, and by later wars between Protestant and Catholic Christians in Europe, as well as in the more recent violent attacks by extremist Hindu groups against Christians and Muslims in India. Religious convictions like these paved the way for the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001.
In the states where religion develops freely and people have free access to places of worship, churc...

Religion has led to the creation of great art, but it has also caused its destruction. Remember the Taliban’s destruction of the great Buddhas in Afghanistan? Still worse, religion can be a source of extreme nationalism. In Islam, Christianity and Judaism, God is described as “mighty warrior”, “just king” or “righteous judge”. He punishes the unjust, the unrighteous and the disobedient. The idea that a nation is the instrument of God’s will has led to war and the subjugation of people viewed as ungodly.
In the states where religion develops freely and people have free access to places of worship, churc...

In the states where religion develops freely and people have free access to places of worship, churches, mosques, temples and synagogues have always served as a shelter for the poor. Some of the greatest works of art were created in the name of God. Furthermore, Woodrow Wilson suggested that a strong affinity exists between religious commitment and patriotism. Love of country, just like love of God, certainly inspires good deeds.
Western states grew as a result of religion and religious philosophy. Western European and North Am...

North American nations emerged only because of economic factors: the existence of famine and overpopulation in Europe on the one hand, and the free markets of the United States on the other. The realities of capitalism, not the tenets of religious faith, prompt people to be diligent and thrifty. After all, the USA has a much higher proportion of observant Christians than most European states today, but they share similar political, economic and cultural values.
The ICC will lead to political prosecution. American servicemembers and senior military and politica...

The ICC will lead to political prosecution. American servicemembers and senior military and political strategists will be subject to charges for legitimate military action. Any State has the power to refer an issue for investigation to the Prosecutor and the Prosecutor also has the power to commence an investigation ex proprio motu. There is no UN Security Council veto over the discretion of the Prosecutor. Moreover, the phantom of political prosecution has already materialised in the preliminary investigation mounted by the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICTY into the NATO bombing of Kosovo and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the course of ‘Operation Allied Force’. The Prosecutor chose to investigate a campaign that had been undertaken with clinical precision, that had received the ex post facto support of the Security Council, and that had been directed against a military infrastructure effecting a brutal policy of ethnic cleansing. This grim precedent suggests that a Prosecutor will not hesitate to investigate any other good faith and successful military actions across the globe.
The US holds a unique position in the fabric of the protection of international peace and security. ...

The US holds a unique position in the fabric of the protection of international peace and security. Whilst it might be appropriate for other States to consent to the jurisdiction of the ICC, these States do not bear the responsibilities and attendant risks beholden to the US. 200,000 US troops in continuous forward deployment. The armed forces of the US that have responded to three hundred per cent more contingency situations during the previous decade than during the whole of the Cold War. It is clear that the world more than ever looks to the US for its safety. Furthermore, the military dominance of the US increases the likelihood of prosecution. When rogue regimes are incapable of defeating the US by any military means, they are likely to resort to ‘asymmetric challenges’ to their forces. Challenging the authority of the US in the ICC will be more damaging to US interests and willingness to intervene than any conventional military opposition. The indispensable nation must therefore be permitted to dispense with the ICC.
The likelihood of political prosecution is only augmented by the creation of the novel crime of ‘agg...

The likelihood of political prosecution is only augmented by the creation of the novel crime of ‘aggression’ under the Rome Statute. Any intervention in a State for the protection of human rights of some or all of its people might constitute a crime. The US or any NATO State could be prosecuted, at the request of the genocidaires, for successfully preventing genocide. Moreover, by a quirk of the drafting of the Statute, States that refuse to accept the jurisdiction of the ICC can nevertheless request the prosecution of individuals of other States for crimes alleged committed on its territory. Thus Milosevic could have demanded the investigation of NATO forces for the events of Operation Allied Force, but have precluded any investigation of the actions of the Bosnian Serb army on the same territory.
The ICC will not deter the commission of war crimes or genocide. The Third Reich augmented the crime...

The ICC will not deter the commission of war crimes or genocide. The Third Reich augmented the crimes of the Holocaust when it became clear that the Allies would defeat them in Europe. The only expectation of the Nazi leadership was immediate execution, rather than trial in a judicial forum. Similarly, Slobodan Milosevic and the Bosnian Serb army conducted a campaign of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo whilst the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was sitting in the Hague.The calculation of whether to commit gross human rights violations is not that of the reasonable and rational individual. The existence of a court, however well intentioned, will have no effect on the commission of these crimes.
The ICC will generate crippling expenses. Cautious estimates suggest an operating budget of $100 mil...

The ICC will generate crippling expenses. Cautious estimates suggest an operating budget of $100 million per year. The costs of the ICTY and ICTR have already spiralled out of control, and the latter tribunal has a legacy of maladministration and internal corruption. The US contributes 25% of the budget for both the tribunals, which amounted to $58 million in the fiscal year 2000. It is dubious whether the ICC could survive without US financial support. The UN as a whole is obligated only to fund investigations and prosecutions initiated at the request of the Security Council. Every other investigation must be funded by assessed contributions from the States that have ratified the Rome Statute. Although the UN could authorise the transfer of additional funds, the procedure would require a UN Security Council resolution that would of course be subject to the US veto. Alternatively, it is accepted that State Parties to the Statute could directly contribute funds or personnel to the ICC. However, the possibility of partiality or even corruption is manifest where States with their individual political interests are deploying and directing their own staff within the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC.
The ICC will lead to political prosecution. American servicemembers and senior military and politica...

The US should have nothing to fear if it behaves lawfully. Moreover, there should be little ambiguity as to whether the US has violated these norms of international law. The Prosecutor of the ICC is only concerned with the most grave offences and it defies belief that the US would approve a strategy of genocide or systematic mass violations of human rights that could attract the jurisdiction of the ICC. Further, the discretion of the Prosecutor is not unchecked. The Statute requires that the approval of three judges sitting in a pre-trial chamber be obtained before an arrest warrant can be issued or proceedings initiated. Moreover, there is no harm to the interests of the US in being subjected to a mere preliminary investigation. In fact, it is preferable that spurious accusations are briefly examined and shown to be baseless, than that these accusations be allowed to raise doubts about the credibility of a State’s actions and the impartiality of the Tribunal in question. The US acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Prosecutor of the ICTY is evident ; the US troops forming part of the KFOR peacekeeping force in Kosovo could equally be subject to investigation and prosecution by the ICTY. The US is prepared for its forces to operate under the scrutiny of the ICTY since it reasonably does not expect its members to commit the very crimes they are deployed to prevent.
The US holds a unique position in the fabric of the protection of international peace and security. ...

It is the very pre-eminence of the US that demands it adhere to the international rule of law. It is perfectly possible to conduct a campaign for bona fide reasons of saving lives and protecting human rights that involves the commission of war crimes. The ICC can reasonably demand that the US, or any other State, pursue their lawful ends by lawful means.Moreover, it matters not to the victim of a gross human rights violation whether the perpetrator was the regime of a rogue state or the servicemember of a State seeking to protect the population.Further, other States with significant military commitments overseas, such as the UK and France, have ratified the Rome Statute without equivocation. These States accept that intervening in other States to uphold international human rights demands respect for these same norms.
The likelihood of political prosecution is only augmented by the creation of the novel crime of ‘agg...

The crime of aggression is not remarkably novel. Intervening in the domestic affairs of a sovereign State is contrary to norms of conventional and customary law. The UN Charter prohibits both the unauthorised use of force against another State and any intervention in its domestic jurisdiction. Moreover, the fact that the crime of aggression has not yet been defined means that this objection to the ICC is purely hypothetical. The US should in fact be encouraged to ratify the Rome Statute in order to allow its negotiators to play an active role in the Assembly of State Parties. The Assembly is currently responsible for drafting the definition of this crime.
The ICC will not deter the commission of war crimes or genocide. The Third Reich augmented the crime...

It is ludicrous to claim that the ICC will fail to deter atrocities when such an international institution has never before existed. Moreover, the ICC is not designed to be a prophylactic ; for the victims of these terrible crimes it is crucial that these offenders are apprehended, tried and punished. Retribution and protection of society are objectives not only for the domestic criminal justice system but also for the new international version.
The ICC will generate crippling expenses. Cautious estimates suggest an operating budget of $100 mil...

The budget of the ICC is not particularly excessive and can be maintained without US finance. The withholding of US funds from the UN budget is a familiar tactic for expressing disapproval. In 1998, the total US arrears on assessed contributions that had been approved by the Security Council amounted to over $1.3 billion. Whilst the operation of UN institutions and operations, in particular peacekeeping, might have suffered, the UN was still able to function. Likewise, there is no reason to suggest that the refusal of the US, or even Japan, to ratify the Rome Statute, would preclude the operation of the ICC. The Statute allows the donation of additional funds and resources from other State Parties. With regard to the ICTY, the EU has consistently contributed personnel, in addition to the payment of the assessed contribution of each of the 15 States. $100 million might seem a significant expense. However, it is both trite and true that no price should be put on justice. Not least justice for thousands of victims of some of the most heinous crimes imaginable.
Cause of conflicts

Due to the uneven distribution of water, with the Middle East in particular as a region that has very little, water is likely to be a major cause of disputes and conflict. With water supplies scarce securing sufficient water is likely to be seen as a matter of national security.[[Peter H. Gleick, ‘Water and Conflict: Fresh Water Resources and International Security’, International Security, Vol.18, No.1 (Summer, 1993), pp.79-112, p.79.]] Unlike with oil there is little cooperation and no international organisations to provide benefits for all and reduce tensions over water resources. As water cannot be easily transported there can be no single solution throughout the region. Syria and Iraq for example fear that Turkey might use its reservoirs on the Euphrates as a weapon by depriving them enough water; this could also be used as a threat much as oil can be. However there are various factors that make Turkish control over the flow of the Euphrates and Tigris an unreliable weapon; it relies upon the water level in Turkey’s dams being low, preventing the flow of the Euphrates automatically affects both Iraq and Syria, it would not bring a quick result, and would be seen by the international community as targeting the civilian population.[[Greg Shapland, Rivers of Discord International Water Disputes in the Middle East (London, 1997), pp.134-136.]] Nonetheless this did not stop Turkish President Özal from threatening to cut off the flow of the Euphrates if Syria continued supporting the PKK, a Kurdish separatist group. Water resources have become perhaps the most significant foreign policy issue for countries that are reliant upon individual water systems such as the Jordan, Tigris-Euphrates and Nile.[[Michael T. Klare, Resource Wars the new landscape of global conflict (New York, N.Y., 2002), pp.176-9.]] The literature is not particularly positive about the influence water has: “the prospects for cooperation remain limited”, “it is likely to be a source of discord” and “future conflicts over water are increasingly likely”.[[Natasha Beschorner, ‘Water and Instability in the Middle East’, Adelphi Paper, No.273 (Winter, 92/93), p.60, Shapland, Discord, p.167, Gleik, ‘Conflict’, p.111.]]
Allows economic aid

Aid was however used for wars against Israel. Egypt never considered it enough to compensate it for doing most of the fighting against the Zionist enemies. Israel was considered the enemy of all the Arab states so the ‘conflict’ states that took the lead paid the costs of war in terms of manpower but were compensated in terms of the monetary costs by the oil states that could afford the cost. Oil was seen as a resource to be used for the good of all the Arabs rather than the few who lived around the Persian Gulf. However as aid was scaled down considerably in 1976-77 Egypt was forced to look elsewhere.[[Gad G. Gilbar, ‘One Arab state, Many Arab States: The Impact of Population Growth and Oil Revenues’, in Elie Kedourie and Sylvia G. Haim (eds.), Essays on the Economic History of the Middle East (London, 1988), pp.196-211, pp.203-204.]] Sadat’s response was to make an appeal for peace allowing a reduction in military costs and in time a move to being subsidised by the US.[[ Michael Doran, ‘Egypt: Pan-Arabism in Historical Context’, in L. Carl Brown (ed.), Diplomacy in the Middle East The International Relations of Regional and Outside Powers (New York, N.Y., 2004), pp.97-120, p.116.]] Domestic pressure and the fear of a lack of resources forced Sadat into launching the Yom Kippur war against Israel. Sadat needed to launch a war against Israel before aid from the oil rich states ran out, the only way he could increase his legitimacy at home and in the wider Arab world thus gaining more funding was through war.[[Michael N. Barnett and Jack S. Levy, ‘Domestic Sources of Alliances and Alignments: The Case of Egypt 1962-73’, International Organisation, Vol.45, No.3 (Summer, 1991), pp.369-395, pp.392-393.]] Declining revenues from oil, or in aid due to oil, can therefore create domestic pressure for war even if the war itself is not to be fought over oil.
Consumption

Obviously countries that are poor in natural resources still need to consume them. This is particularly true with water, which is needed for life, and in a modern economy oil is similarly essential, needed for fertilizer, food, plastics and chemicals.[[Daniel Yergin, The Prize The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power (New York, N.Y., 1993), p.15.]] Where access to water is denied to a group of people there is likely to be domestic instability with attendant affects on foreign policy. An example of a civilian population forced to accept an unfairly small portion of water supplies is in Palestine. Although the West Bank “is endowed with an abundance of renewable water resources compared with most areas in the Middle East” the “water resources of the occupied Palestinian territory are being diverted and used at an alarming rate by Israel, the occupying Power, at the expense of the Palestinian people.” This means, “a "man-made" water crisis has been brought about which undermines the living conditions and endangers the health situation of the Palestinian people.” Israel has imposed restrictions for example “Israel, the occupying Power, has severely restricted the planting of trees and crops by Palestinian farmers to reduce their water consumption.”[[UNISPAL Division for Palestinian Rights, Water Resources of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (New York, N.Y., 1992), p.55, http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/296ee705038ac9fc852561170067e05f?OpenDocument%5D%5D In relation to foreign policy this inequity of water became part of the Oslo peace process. Oslo II in 1995 created the Joint Water Committee and Joint Supervision and Enforcement Teams as well as providing an extra 23.6 million cubic meters per year for the West Bank of Palestine. However Jan Selby argues the agreements have had little noticeable effect, just creating a new layer of bureaucracy.[[Jan Selby, ‘Dressing up domination as ‘cooperation’: the case of Israeli-Palestinian water relations’, Review of International Studies, Vol.29, No.1 (2003), pp.121-138, pp.124-125.]] Palestine is an unusual case in that its foreign policy is very much constrained. Domestic pressure would likely have a bigger impact on a state with a normal foreign policy creating pressure to go to war if necessary to gain what is perceived as a fair share of water supplies.
Chokepoints

The Middle East has immense strategic value both throughout history and today. It was vital to Britain for its routes to India, and for the US as part of the containment of the USSR.[[L. Carl Brown, ‘Introduction’, in Brown (ed.), Diplomacy, pp.xiii-xxix, p.xviii.]] This importance is because of its position where Asia, Europe and Africa meet. In relation to natural resources and foreign policy making this means that there are many important trade routes passing through the region. As “Oil transported by sea generally follows a fixed set of maritime routes. Along the way, tankers encounter several geographic "chokepoints"” [[EIA, World Oil Transit Chokepoints, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/World_Oil_Transit_Chokepoints/Full.html accessed 20/4/07]] that allow states to control this trade. Four of the six world oil-transit chokepoints that the Department of Energy considers particularly important are within the Middle East: the Strait of Hormuz, Bab el Mandeb, the Suez Canal and the Bosporus. This gives countries that control or are contiguous with these choke points the possibly of threatening to close them. For Iran this provides a kind of deterrence to any US action against them as they could mine the Strait of Hormuz, considered to be “by far the world's most important oil chokepoint”, although this would almost certainly create a US military response.[[Michael T. Klare, Resource Wars the new landscape of global conflict (New York, N.Y., 2002), pp.47-48, 73.]] This deterrence can equally apply to other Persian Gulf countries acting as a threat over them as preventing oil exports would stop the export earnings their economies rely on. An example of these routes being used in foreign policy is the Suez crisis. Prime Minister Eden considered it “an obvious truth that safety of transit through the canal…[is] a matter of survival”[[Sir Anthony Eden, Full Circle: The Memoirs (Cambridge, 1960), p.533.]] however “world opinion seemed to be that Nasser was within his rights in nationalising the Canal Company.” As Nasser promised “freedom of navigation would not be affected by nationalisation” reducing the matter in the view of the US Secretary of Defence to “a ripple”.[[Dwight D. Eisenhower, Waging Peace 1956-1961 (New York, N.Y., 1965), pp.39, 41-3.]] However Britain was still willing to fight for this vital route. Pipelines create a similar situation as world trade routes. This has been shown by the difficulties in transporting Caspian oil to the outside world although sending the oil through Iran or Russia are the shorter and more obvious routes the US did not wish the situation of dependence this would place them in with potentially hostile regimes so creating the much longer Baku-Tiblisi-Ceyhan pipeline.[[Lutz Kleveman, The New Great Game Blood and Oil in Central Asia (London, 2004), p.25.]]