BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Risk of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands

While nuclear weapons exist, they can fall into the wrong hands. This is particularly prevalent in an environment whereby there are extremist groups actively seeking to cause instant, egregious harm to their ideological and political enemies. Such groups do not lack for funding; therefore the fear of weapons falling into the wrong hands has never been higher. This is particularly true in Russia, which now has control of all of the nuclear weapons which were distributed around the former Soviet Union. In particular during the 1990s the military was disastrously underfunded; technicians and officers who were used to a high standard of living found themselves without pay, sometimes for years. At the same time, other states and extremist groups are willing to pay substantial sums for their services, and to gain access to nuclear weapons. This same danger is now as much, if not more, of a problem in Pakistan (Ambinder, 2011). The danger of a weapon being stolen, or a nuclear base being taken over by disgruntled members of the military or other extremists, can only be ended by destroying the weapons (Allison, 1997).
Both the use and threat of nuclear weapons are illegal

The disproportionate and indiscriminate nature of nuclear weapons use renders their possession illegal under international humanitarian law. The International Court of Justice in 1996, asked to provide an advisory opinion, declared unanimously that any use or threat of nuclear weapons had to be compatible with existing international law relating to armed conflict (International Court of Justice, 1996).  The principles of discrimination and proportionality inherent in the laws of wars are codified in the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and are quite clearly violated by nuclear weapons. As such, a majority of the judges present felt that any such use or threat would ‘generally be contrary’ to those rules of international law and therefore, unanimously, ‘there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control’ (International Court of Justice, 1996).
Nuclear weapons can be abolished through the co-operation of nuclear powers and the establishment of an independent verification system

The co-operation of the United States and Russia, demonstrated in their regularly-renewed START treaties, confer the ability of nuclear powers to work towards a reduction in nuclear stockpiles. A new campaigning body, Global Zero, has laid out the path to nuclear abolishment, concerning first bilateral accords to reduce stockpiles in the manner already occurring. From there, they advocate the ‘universal acceptance of a comprehensive verification and enforcement system accompanied by tighter controls on fissile materials produced by civil-nuclear programmes’ (The Economist, 2011). The process will not be swift, but it is plausible and not a stretch considering the success of previous START treaties and the example of the International Atomic Energy Agency as an independent body charged with verifying nuclear installations.
Nuclear weapons are required for deterrence

The use of nuclear weapons would indeed be a great tragedy; but so, to a greater or lesser extent, is any war. The reason for maintaining an effective nuclear arsenal is in fact to prevent war. By making the results of conflict catastrophic, a strategic deterrent discourages conflict. The Cold War was in fact one of the most peaceful times in history, particularly in Europe, largely because of the two superpowers' nuclear deterrents: ‘the principal function of nuclear weapons was to deter nuclear attack’ (Record, 2004). During the Gulf War, for example, one of the factors which prevented Iraq from launching missiles tipped with chemical weapon warheads against Israel was the threat the USA would retaliate with a nuclear strike. Although there is no longer as formal a threat of retaliation as there was during the Cold War, the very possibility that the use of nuclear weapons by a rogue state could be met a retaliatory strike is too great a threat to ignore. Moreover, although the citizens of the current nuclear powers may be against the use of force against civilians, their opinions would rapidly change if they found weapons of mass destruction being used against them.
Abolishment is an unrealistic goal

The nuclear genie is out of the bottle, and there is no way to go back. Nuclear technology exists, and there is no way to un-invent it (Robinson, 2001). Much as the ideal of global disarmament is fine, the reality is that it is impossible: it takes only one rogue state to maintain a secret nuclear capability to make the abolition of the major powers' deterrents unworkable. Without the threat of a retaliatory strike, this state could attack others at will. Similarly, the process by which nuclear weapons are produced cannot easily be differentiated from the nuclear power process; without constant oversight it would be possible for any state with nuclear power to regain nuclear capability if they felt threatened. This is the same as the nuclear ‘breakout’ capability that many states such as Japan have whereby they can create a nuclear bomb in a matter of weeks or days – if a country has nuclear power and the technology they have this capability even when they have disarmed their nuclear weapons.
National security takes precedence.

In July 2012, The United Nations Human Rights Council endorsed a resolution upholding the principle of freedom of expression and information on the internet. In a special report, it also “called upon all states to ensure that Internet access is maintained at all times, including during times of political unrest”[1]. While access to the internet has not yet had time to establish itself legally as a human right, there are compelling reasons to change its legal status, and the UN is leading the charge. Even before internet access is recognized as a human right the idea that national security should take precedence over ‘lesser rights’ is wrong; states should not survive at the expense of the rights of their citizens. States exist to protect their citizens not harm them. [1] Kravets, David, 2011. “UN Report Declares Internet Access a Human Right”. Wired.com, 6 November 2011.
National security takes precedence.

Internet access is not a fundamental right as recognized by any major human rights convention, if it can be called a right at all.[1] Even if we accept that people should have a right to internet access, in times of war or civil unrest the government should be able to abridge lesser rights for the sake of something that is critical to the survival of the state, like national security. After all, in a war zone few rights survive or can be upheld at all. Preventing such an outcome at the expense of the temporary curtailment of some lesser rights is entirely justified. Under current law, in most states, only the most fundamental of rights, like the right to life, prohibition against torture, slavery, and the right to a fair trial are regarded as inalienable[2]. [1] For more see the debatabase debate on internet access as a human right. [2] Article 15 of the European Convention on Human rights: “In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law.” http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html
Historical precedent.

Historical precedent does not apply to the internet. It is very different to media reporting during times of unrest; the internet is not just a means of disseminating information but also for many people their main form of communication; the U.S. government has never tried to ban people from using telephones. There are severe downsides to the censorship of information during times of war or civil unrest, the most notable one being that it is used to hide the real cost and consequences of war from the population which is expected to support it. Conversely, in a world where every mobile phone is now connected to a global network, people all around the world can have access to an unparalleled amount of information from the field. Curtailing such internet access is to their detriment.
Historical precedent.

Historically, governments have always controlled the access to information and placed restriction on media during times of war. This is an entirely reasonable policy and is done for a number of reasons: to sustain morale and prevent predominantly negative stories from the battlefield reaching the general public, and to intercept propaganda from the enemy, which might endanger the war effort[1]. For example, both Bush administrations imposed media blackouts during wartime over the return of the bodies of dead American soldiers at Dover airport[2]. The internet is simply a new medium of transmitting information, and the same principles can be applied to its regulation, especially when the threat to national security is imminent, like in the case of disseminating information for the organization of a violent protest. [1] Payne, Kenneth. 2005. “The Media as an Instrument of War”. Parameters, Spring 2005, pp. 81-93. [2] BBC, 2009. “US War Dead Media Blackout Lifted”.
The internet as a threat to public safety.

Other means can be employed to ensure the safety of the population without disrupting access to the internet, like deploying security forces to make sure protests don’t get out of hand or turn violent. In fact, being able to monitor online activity through social media like Facebook and Twitter might actually aid, rather than hinder law enforcement in ensuring the safety of the public. London’s police force, the Metropolitan Police, in the wake of the riots has are using software to monitor social media to predict where social disorder may take place.[1] [1] Adams, Lucy, 2012. “Police develop technology to monitor social neworks”. Heraldscotland, 6 August 2012.
The internet as a threat to public safety.

The internet can be used as a tool to create an imminent threat to the public. If public officials had information that a massive protest is being organized, which could spiral into violence and endanger the safety of the public, it would be irresponsible for the government not to try to prevent such a protest.  Governments are entrusted with protecting public safety and security, and not preventing such a treat would constitute a failure in the performance of their duties[1]. An example of this happening was the use first of Facebook and twitter and then of Blackberry messenger to organise and share information on the riots in London in the summer of 2011.[2] [1] Wyatt, Edward, 2012. “FCC Asks for Guidance on Whether, and When to Cut Off Cellphone Service.” New York Times, 2 March 2012. [2] Halliday, Josh, 2011. “London riots: how BlackBerry Messenger played a key role”. Guardian.co.uk, 8 August 2011.
The right to internet access as a fundamental right.

Freedom of expression, assembly, and information are important rights, but restrictions can be placed on all of them if a greater good, like public safety, is at stake. For example, one cannot use her freedom of expression to incite violence towards others and many countries regard hate speech as a crime.[1] Therefore, if the internet is being used for such abuses of ones rights, the disruption of service, even to a large number of people, can be entirely warranted. [1] Waldron, Jeremy, The Harm in Hate Speech, Harvard University Press, 8 June 2012, p.8.
The right to internet access as a fundamental right.

Internet access is a “facilitative right”, in that it facilitates access to the exercise of many other rights: like freedom of expression, information, and assembly. It is a “gateway right”. Possessing a right is only as valuable as your capacity to exercise it. A government cannot claim to protect freedom of speech or expression, and freedom of information, if it is taking away from its citizens the tools to access them. And that is exactly what the disruption of internet service does. Internet access needs to be a protected right so that all other rights which flow from it.[1] The Internet is a tool of communication so it is important not just to individuals but also to communities. The internet becomes an outlet that can help to preserve groups’ culture or language[2] and so as an enabler of this groups’ culture access to the internet may also be seen as a group right – one which would be being infringed when the state cuts off access to large numbers of individuals. [1] BBC, 2010. “Internet Access is ‘a Fundamental Right’".  [2] Jones, Peter, 2008. "Group Rights", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
Disrupting internet service is a form of repression.

Democratic change can come about in a variety of ways. Violent public protests are only one such way, and probably the least desirable one. And now, with access to social media nearly universally available, such protests can be organized faster, on a larger, more dangerous scale than ever before. It encourages opposition movements and leaders in such countries to turn away from incremental, but peaceful changes through political negotiations, and to appeal to mass protests instead, thus endangering the life or their supporters and that of the general public. Governments that respond to violence by cutting off access are not responding with repression but simply trying to reduce the violence. Cutting internet access is a peaceful means of preventing organized violence that potentially saves lives by preventing confrontation between violent groups and riot police.
Disrupting internet service is a form of repression.

The organization of public protests is an invaluable right for citizens living under the rule of oppressive regimes. Like in the case of the Arab Spring, internet access gives them the tools to mobilize, make their message heard, and demand greater freedoms. In such cases, under the guise of concern for public safety, these governments disrupt internet service in an attempt to stamp out legitimate democratic protests and stamp out the dissatisfied voices of their citizens[1] They are concerned not for the safety of the public, but to preserve their own grasp on power. A good example of this are the actions of the government of Myanmar when in 2007 in response to large scale protests the government cut internet access to the whole country in order to prevent reports of the government’s crackdown getting out.[2] Establishing internet access as a fundamental right at international level would make it clear to such governments that they cannot simply cut access as a tactic to prevent legitimate protests against them. [1] The Telegraph. “Egypt. Internet Service Disrupted Before Large Rally”. 28 January 2011.  [2] Tran, Mark, 2007. “Internet access cut off in Burma”. Guardian.co.uk, 28 September 2007.
The prevention of atrocities during war and unrest.

Being able to witness atrocities from the field in real time does not change the international community’s capacity or political willingness to intervene in such situations. If anything, it has had the unfortunate side effect of desensitizing international public opinion to the horrors of war and conflicts, like the one in Syria where there have been thousands of videos showing the actions of the Syrian government but this has not resulted in action from the international community.[1] The onslaught of gruesome, graphic imagery has made people more used to witnessing such scenes from afar and less likely to be outraged and to ask their governments to intervene. [1] Harding, Luke, 2012. “Syria’s video activists give revolution the upper hand in media war”. Guardian.co.uk, 1 August 2012.
The prevention of atrocities during war and unrest.

In the past, horrific crimes could be committed in war zones without anyone ever knowing about it, or with news of it reaching the international community with a significant time lag, when it was too late to intervene. But with the presence of internet connected mobile devices everywhere, capable of uploading live footage within seconds of an event occurring, the entire world can monitor and find out what is happening on the scene, in real time. It lets repressive regimes know the entire world is watching them, that they cannot simply massacre their people with impunity, and it creates evidence for potential prosecutions if they do. It, therefore, puts pressure on them to respect the rights of their citizens during such precarious times. To prevent governments from violently stamping out public political dissent without evidence, internet access must be preserved, especially in times of war or political unrest.[1] [1] Bildt, Carl, 2012. “A Victory for The Internet”. New York Times. 5 July 2012.
It would be easy to assimilate into the EU

Both Switzerland and Norway would be warmly welcomed within the EU family and guaranteed a speedy entry into the Union. As advanced economies with strong legal and political institutions, they would be easy for the EU to assimilate, especially given their close involvement in the Single Market already. Both would be net contributors to the EU budget, and would strengthen the EU at a time when it is still coping with poorer new members and would-be members in Eastern Europe. And by contributing financially to the EU in this way, Switzerland and Norway will benefit from increasing trade as Eastern and Central European states rapidly gain in prosperity with support from EU regional transfers.
Strong traditions of Sovereignty

Both Norway and Switzerland greatly value their sovereignty and do not want to give it up to Brussels. The Swiss have a tradition of proud independence stretching back to the middle ages, while the Norwegians still remember what it was like to be politically dominated by Denmark and Sweden. In both, voters have consistently shown that they have no wish to compromise their sovereignty by joining the European Union. The Swiss particularly fear their tradition of more direct democracy would be threatened with EU membership, as laws from Brussels could not be overturned by referendum as at present. This is already having an effect on EU-Swiss relations with Switzerland unwilling to have automatically adopt evolving EU law. The Swiss would be equally worried about the role of the European Court of Justice which decides if countries infringe European law.[1] [1] Pop, Valentina, ‘EU looking to reset relations with Switzerland’, 2010
Requirement to join the Euro

Replacing their currencies with the Euro would also benefit both Switzerland and Norway. Over the past ten years the Euro has gained in strength and credibility, and is now clearly the world’s second currency after the dollar. The high volatility of sterling shows the danger of trying to maintain your own currency as a national virility symbol, while Iceland shows the risk small countries face when financial trouble strikes. For Switzerland, switching to the Euro would allow it to capitalize on its banking expertise by becoming a true rival to London as Europe’s financial center. For Norway, the Euro would help the country avoid “Dutch disease” – where a strong oil and gas industry pushes up the currency to the point where other businesses are severely hurt.
There is little room for small states in a globalizing world

Being small may well be the best way of avoiding the effects of globalization. Globilization is not only transferring power up from the state level to a more globalized level but also down to the local level. This works to the advantage of small states and as a very decentralized state this is particularly likely to benefit Switzerland. It is notable that most the world’s wealthiest states in per capita terms are small states despite globalization supposedly meaning that countries need to create immense markets to survive.[1] In practice small states are able to rapidly change to the changing economic environment. Iceland itself is a good example, despite the crash it experienced it is recovering and is turning against the idea of EU membership as its finance minister Steingrimur Sigfusson says "You are quicker turning a small boat around than a big ship. And that is, I think, what is being proven: that the small, vibrant Icelandic economy, including having our own currency, makes adapting quicker."[2] [1] Alesina, Alberto, ‘The Size of Countries: Does it matter?’, 2003, p.308 [2] Henley, Paul, ‘Iceland has doubts about the euro as economy recovers’, 2011
Benefits of joining the European Union

Both countries are among the most prosperous economies in the entire world and have nothing to gain from EU membership. Through their EEA and EFTA memberships, as well as bilateral deals with Brussels, both Norway and Switzerland have access to the Single Market and are fully integrated into the European economy. While it may be true that the European Union is generous to Norway and Switzerland it is also in the EU’s interest to add Norway and Switzerland to the European Common Market even if not as full members. The chances of the European Union cancelling such agreements are remote as international agreements and trade rely on trust between partners so other partners of the EU would worry that their treaties might also be cancelled.
Norway and Switzerland already implement many EU policies

While it is true that trading freely with the EU requires acceptance of many of its rules, neither country has given up control over those areas they consider key policy areas. These are the areas that Norway and Switzerland most important such as agriculture, fishing (highly important for Norway) and foreign affairs. The Swiss in particular have done well out of bilateral deals with the EU – would their concerns in areas such as banking and farming be listened to as carefully once they were inside the club? How much are the concerns of smaller states taken seriously in the EU today?
The EU shares the same values as Norway and Switzerland

There is no moral obligation upon either state to join the EU. Both can continue to play a full part in promoting peace and stability outside the organization. As a NATO member with a firmly internationalist outlook, Norway already makes a big contribution to peacekeeping around the world. Indeed its valuable role as an arbiter in bitter disputes such as the Israel-Palestine and Sri Lanka-Tamil conflicts might be lost if it was merely a small part of a big power bloc. Switzerland too already contributes to building stability in the Balkans, in partnership with EU countries. But its long tradition of neutrality would be clearly compromised by EU membership, especially as a Common Foreign and Security Policy, voiced from Brussels by a High Representative on behalf of all member states, is rapidly becoming a reality.
It would be easy to assimilate into the EU

It is clear why the EU would like to welcome the rich Swiss and Norwegians within its embrace, but why would either country want to sign up for a project which would involve their citizens’ taxes being given away to other countries? EU waste and fraud are legendary, so it is easy to understand why voters have consistently rejected giving up their taxes to Brussels. As latecomers they are not in a strong position to bargain over entry terms, and can expect to become major net contributors, especially as their farmers are unlikely to gain much from the Common Agricultural Policy. Estimates of the cost of membership for Switzerland were set between SFr3 billion and SFr8 billion in 2004 – more than its entire defense budget.