DDO Tournament - Top Tier: Intervention to Stop Rights Abuses

Thanks to TN05 for this debate! In this round, I shall defend my case.FRAMEWORKPro never rebuts my interpretation of the BOP for this round. Extend it.Pro only rebuts one of my two criteria; he drops utility, and only discusses sovereignty. Extend my utility criterion. I will now address Pro's arguments re: sovereignty. Firstly, it is erroneous to conflate international law with sovereignty. Sovereignty implies supreme authority within a territory, while, even under international law, nations have far greater self-rule than do citizens of a sovereign state. Consider, that nation X in the UN may operate under UN law, but yet invoke its right to sovereignty when it does not wish to conform to that law. "International law has developed through increased co-operation among sovereign States in recent years as, for example, in the European Union, but it allows the State to assert sovereignty in a variety of ways: persistent objection to the formation of a customary rule of international law; nuclear threat in a world of general prohibition of the use of force; and above all, the unchanged concept of territorial sovereignty...This is evidenced in the actual state of the international community: sovereign States generally refrain from interfering in the domestic affairs of the others." [1] What this shows is that sovereignty is an important check on supranational institutions' or on other nations' ability to interfere in another states affairs. In other words, there is a strong presumption in international law against violations of a nations right to sovereignty, just as there are strong presumptions against a government infringing on its citizens' rights, even in pursuit of the greater good. Pro must show that the pressing nature of intervention is sufficient to overcome this presumption in favor of non-intervention.But, at the end of the day, I only need to link into ONE of my criteria to show that intervention is not morally permissible.ARGUMENTSC1: An Endless PretextPro is engaging in reductio ad absurdum here. My argument is that nations may usie violations of human rights as a pretext for intervention. Consider the situation in Crimea, where Russia declared it was deploying troops to ensure the safety of ethno-linguistic Russians. [2] Another example can be found in Kosovo, where intervention could be attributed to a desire to boost NATO's credibility and influence, vice a genuine concern for human rights. [3] Britain has also been accused of meddling in China's internal affairs for its own interest, using China's human rights record as a pretext for that intervention. [4]Ultimately, what Pro fails to understand is that my argument is not that nations will "attack" or intervene in other nations at the slightest drop of a hat, but rather that when Nation X has a strategic interest in intervening in Nation Y, Nation X will justify otherwise impermissible interventionist acts with human rights dogma. In a sense, it becomes far too easy for nations to justify violations of sovereignty whenever it suits them. "[I]t is highly undesirable to have a new rule allowing humanitarian intervention, for that could provide a pretext for abusive intervention [and] would open a wide gap in the barrier against unilateral use of force." [5]C2: StabilityFirstly, Pro fails to address the underlying claim I'm making here, which is not one about international law, but rather international stability. If interventions become too easily justified, then global stability is undermined. Sovereignty forms an important basis for international stability in terms of preventing war, ensuring ordered governance of territories, and promoting tolerance re: each others' "existence and the diversity of behavior that transpires within them." By creating a system that undermines the a priori power of sovereignty, global stability is placed under threat.As for the claims about the UN Charter, my argument is that the UN Charter presupposes that sovereignty trumps human rights when the two are placed in conflict. "'[A]nyone who considers with some measure of objectivity the Charter's normative logic, its allocation of coercive jurisdiction, its omissions, as well as the preferences manifested by most participants in the drafting process and their immediately subsequent behaviour, cannot help concluding that the promotion of human rights ranked far below the protection of national sovereignty and the maintenance of peace as organizational goals.' This apparent hierarchy within the purposes of the UN Charter, combined with the absence of an explicit authorization to use force for the purpose of enforcing human rights provisions, leads Antonio Cassese to rightly conclude that '[u]nder the UN Charter system, respect for human rights, however important and crucial it may be, is never allowed to put peace in jeopardy. One may like or dislike this state of affairs, but so it is under lex lata.'" [5]As to Pro's claims re: Chapter VII, we can say that under prevailing judicial norms, interventionism is still largely disallowed. "The ICJ's finding in the Nicaragua case, when the Court affirmed that under international law in force today--whether customary international law or that of the United Nations system--States do not have a right of...armed response to acts which do not constitute an armed attack.' Looking at NATO's intervention against Serbia in 1999...[it] did not equate to an armed attack against a neighbouring State." [5]C3: EmpiricsLong-term FailingsAllow me to provide a fuller quote from my source: "Reports show a lack of security for ethnic groups in areas of return, an absence of planning for those who do not wish to return, inadequate compensation for destroyed homes and property. Moreover, thousands still live in camps and temporary settlements. Yet we don’t hear any more about R2P in Kenya. Nor do we hear about the promotion of compliance with the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement with regard to rebuilding...The national human rights commission in Kenya considers its government to be violating these [World Summit] Principles in its treatment of IDPs after the violence. The Guiding Principles should be used by R2P advocates as a guide for governmental and international responsibilities toward IDPs, but there was no mention of them or other steps for the protection of IDPs in the January report of the Secretary-General." [6] The report concludes by noting that the international community has been "unable to robustly protect people from atrocity crimes." [6] Pro notes that the report seemed to endorse R2P, but this takes the quote out of context. The report suggests that if the intnerational community was able to engage in adequate follow-through, R2P may be useful; but since there is no evidence that the international community could or would engage in this follow through, the utility of R2P is severely questionable. Ultimately, this evidence shows that R2P fails to ensure long-term peace. Even if intervention stops violence in the short-term, if it fails in the long-term, it can still be said to be producing net harms. Consider the example of Libya, where, on the basis of humanitarian concerns, airstrikes were used. Violence was temporarily halted, but then re-erupted shortly thereafter. [7] Similarly, the current crisis in Iraq underscores how peace cannot be maintained once security forces depart.DeterrencePro basically concedes that my evidence shows that "intervention in regional wars fails to deter violence." While this may only apply to a portion of Pro's ground in this debate, it does still mitigate his potential offense.BackfiringThe bombing of Cambodia by the U.S. did boost recruitment for the Khmer Rouge and heightened their support among the peasants, who were a crucial part of their communist power bases during the ascendant years of the regime. [8] In fact, broader statistical analyses show that intervention actually intensifies hostility and conflict. [9, 10] Consider also that "many regional conflicts are so deeply rooted that no outside party, from within or outside the region, will succeed in ending the fighting.” [11] We can evidence this later assertion with examples such as the conflicts in Sudan or the Congo, or the on-going derogation of Tamil's rights in Sri Lanka.C4 + C5These contentions are not actually linked, insofar as having an aversion to putting "boots on the ground" is not necessarily related with escalations of violence after intervention. Pro 100% agrees that it is the case that nations wish to avoid deploying troops or personnel in a given area, and that they go to unnecessarily extreme and deadly lengths to avoid doing so. His only argument is that it's impossible to avoid having zero casualties; I concur. My point is that nations could effectively minimize conditions if they were willing or able to make distasteful decisions. So, in Pro's world, intervention is likely going to be done in a more lethal and bloody fashion than need be. Pro flat out drops my C5, focusing solely on the "boots on the ground" analogy.SOURCES1 - https://www.dur.ac.uk...2 - http://voiceofrussia.com...3 - http://www.ask.com...4 - http://uk.reuters.com...5 - http://amsterdamlawforum.org...6 - R2, Source 57 - http://hotair.com...8 - http://www.ask.com...9 - http://www-wds.worldbank.org...10 - http://www.saramitchell.org...11 - R2, Source 6Thanks! Over to Pro...