BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The internet should be governed in the interests of freedom

The internet is used by everyone and so should be governed in such a way as reflects the desires of the users of the internet; and this is somewhere where internet users are often at odds with their governments. Where the freedom of individuals are concerned it is undoubtedly the bottom up system of ICANN which will be less restrictive than the option of top down control through an international organisation in which governments have the lion’s share of the power. While governments are meant to be protecting the interests of their people and their rights it is rare that this is actually the case. More usually it is states that are violating the rights of their citizens both online and offline as is shown by the human rights records of countries like Iran and China. On the internet government involvement equally regularly means attempts by states to create restrictions and prevent the internet from being a place where citizens have freedom of expression. This can even be the case in democracies, for example in South Korea a critic of the government who called the president names found his twitter account blocked as a result.[1] [1] Sang-Hun, Choe, ‘Korea Policing the Net. Twist? It’s South Korea.”, The New York Times, 12 August 2012.
CIRP would place power in the hands of authoritarian governments

CIRP would give some influence to authoritarian governments; among 50 governments represented some are bound to be from non-democracies. This influence would however be counterbalanced by the democracies that are represented. The United Nations have a good track record of including as many as possible through the tradition of making decisions by consensus[1] which will prevent states that might wish to use CIRP in ways that other states would not agree with from succeeding. [1] Kurup, Deepa, ‘Who controls the World Wide Web’, The Hindu, 27 May 2012.
CIRP would place power in the hands of authoritarian governments

The intention for the creation of CIRP is to give more power to governments, and particularly to authoritarian governments that wish much greater control over the internet. If CIRP is meant to enable “enhanced cooperation to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet”[1] this may result in CIRP becoming an international organisation that would impose censorship on the internet. This is practically an inevitable result as the main tool of government is regulation. In the case of the internet such regulation will mean more controls on what users can and cannot do online. The result is likely to be similar to the U.N. Human Rights Council where many of the world’s biggest human rights abusers are regularly elected and Israel and the U.S. are constantly investigated while a blind eye is turned to many abuses.[2] At the very least such control will provide an enabler that will allow countries that want to censor the internet to shelter behind the international organisation. India’s Minister of Communications and Information Technology Kapil Sibal has said the solution to this problem of objectionable content online should be permanent "That will only happen when we talk to all the stakeholders and form such a mechanism under which any objectionable content is removed,"[3] [1] ‘Full text: India’s United Nations proposal to control the Internet’, IBNLive, 21 May 2012. [2] Ayalon, Danny, ‘Theater of the Absurd’, Foreign Policy, 30 March 2012. [3] Julka, Harsomran, ‘Internet censorship: India to push for internet regulation at United Nations’, The Economic Times, 24 August 2012.
Unruly defendants can play up to the cameras

Televising the trial can create extra incentives for defendants to attempt to disrupt the process.  During his trial, Saddam Hussein regularly made outbursts and went on political rants – based on Iraqi law, he was able to examine witnesses after his lawyer. This was not new – Slobodan Milosevic tried various antics in front of the (televised) ICTY[1], and Ratko Mladic used those tactics post-Hussein[2]. Milosevic’s approval ratings grew, and he even won a seat in the Serbian parliament while on trial. A televised trial creates more of a risk of a political hijacking of the trial – something that has been shown to be a successful tactic by Milosevic. This both potentially damages the successor government by giving those on trial a platform and the court itself. [1] Scharf, Michael P., Chaos in the Courtroom: Controlling disruptive defendants and contumacious counsel in war crimes trials’, University of Galway [2] Biles, Peter, ‘Mladic’s courtroom antics’, BBC News, 4 July 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14016622
ICC does not have same problems as other legal systems

The ICC as a court does not have many of the things that a domestic criminal trial would have in terms of disadvantages of televising. Like all other international tribunals, there is no jury, only a panel of professional judges. Judges are going to be less intimidated by there being television broadcasts even if broadcasts of trials typically aim to obscure the identity of the jury. Similarly, there is a competent system of witness protection, and other safeguards.
Open justice – crimes with large numbers of victims

The principle of open justice, including the right to a public trial[1], is enshrined in many legal systems. The best show of commitment to open justice is to allow everyone to watch it, the best method of doing so is for the trial to be televised. This is all the more the case when the victims can't all be in court, either because of the numbers or because of the distance. Television coverage will help bring the trial closer to the victims. International criminal trials regularly take place outside the location of the offences, either in The Netherlands such as the ICTY, ICC and Charles Taylor trial, or elsewhere, such as the ICTR sitting in Arusha, Tanzania. It would be helpful in terms of providing closure to the victims, who should be witnessing proceedings. [1] See the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights
Broadcasting provides a public record

Unlike many other criminal trials, since Nuremberg a key principle of International Criminal Law is that it aims to set a historical record.  The events that it deals with are important as they are heinous crimes that change regions forever. A trial helps to get to the bottom of events that happened preventing there being multiple conflicting versions of events. This record also can help to act as a deterrent to others considering similar measures. Broadcasting the trial will bolster this record by providing footage of the trial itself (which may reduce myths about it being unfair, for example) and providing a voice to the victims through their evidence, in their own words, being recorded for posterity and future study.
Televising turns justice into entertainment

Court proceedings themselves aren’t, in general, entertaining. Live broadcasts would largely involve lawyers discussing intricate details of issues, including complex points of law. If there was a real prospect of an ICC trial becoming a matter of entertainment, it probably would have occurred with the existing trials. Even high profile court cases will not get large viewing figures – the UK Supreme Court case in to the extradition of Julian Assange only got 14,500 viewers[1]. Existing regulations for the use of Supreme Court footage in the United Kingdom allow excerpts of the footage to be used in news and current affairs programmes, or educational uses, but bars the use of the footage in light entertainment or other programmes. [1] Ministry of Justice, ‘Proposals to allow the broadcasting, filming, and recording of selected court proceedings’, gov.uk, May 2012, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/217307/broadcasting-filming-recording-courts.pdf at p10
Witnesses might be identified and placed in danger

Giving evidence is a traumatic experience, TV coverage or otherwise. TV broadcasts can already have measures brought in to protect witnesses – for instance it could be agreed that they are not directly filmed. Anonymized witnesses at the ICC currently give evidence by video-link, of which the audio is distorted and the image pixelated out, save for those who are permitted to see it, such as the judges and counsel. The ICC already enters in to arrangements with other states for the protection of witnesses in their physical safety.
Unruly defendants can play up to the cameras

The Hussein trial identified the solution to problematic rants disrupting the trial - the TV feed cut to the judge and faded out Hussein’s sound[1]. This is part of the reason why the ICC broadcasts are on a 30 minute delay, on web and TV access – outbursts, material that should be redacted and other things can be redacted before it reaches viewers. These antics have been used in trials before the rolling news era, such as in the Chicago Eight  case in the US, the trial of eight activists (one of whose trials was separated) for conspiracy and incitement to riot for offences regarding demonstrations at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. One of the defendants, Bobby Seale, launched in to a vicious vocal tirade against the judge, and was eventually bound and gagged in the courtroom. During the trial of the other seven, the defendants tried various antics including blowing kisses to the jury, wearing judicial robes which were removed to reveal police uniforms, not standing when the judge entered the court, and draping a North Vietnamese flag over the defence table[2]. The convictions – including those of the defence counsel for contempt of court – were overturned due to improper jury selection. Television is not necessary for such behaviour. [1] Engel, Richard, ‘Saddam trial outbursts, heard but not seen’, NBC News, 5 December 2005, http://onthescene.msnbc.com/baghdad/2005/12/saddam_trial_ou.html [2] Linder, Douglas O., ‘The Chicago Seven Conspiracy Trial’, University of Missouri Kansas City,  http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Chicago7/Account.html
Open justice – crimes with large numbers of victims

Few people would actually watch the entirety of the trial proceedings, most would probably just see clips of the footage of news reports; television news coverage of criminal trials can already take place without actual footage. While televising trials will engage the victims and their families, televising a criminal trial may inflame tensions as well. During the trial of Saddam Hussein, Hussein made a number of calls to violence during his televised trial. Many of those who are on trial have a significant number of followers (see the widespread support for Uhuru Kenyatta) – television broadcasts would give them a means of communication
Televising turns justice into entertainment

Broadcasting trials would be likely to turn the court in to entertainment. The Simpson trial showed how harmful a televised high profile trial can be degenerating into a freak show. The ICC trials are among the most high profile in the world so are likely to be susceptible to this. Much of the interest in the SCSL Charles Taylor trial came along when Naomi Campbell gave evidence so giving the trial celebrity interest that had little to do with the legalities involved[1]. Jurisdictions where cameras are not permitted in courts still can and do have accurate, informative and timely reports of cases, however high profile, without filming them. Courtroom sketches, written transcripts and other tools allow reportage without the use of original footage in a tawdry manner. [1] Bowcott, Owen, ‘Charles Taylor and the ‘dirty-looking stones’ given to Naomi Campbell’, theguardian.com, 26 April 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/26/charles-taylor-trial-naomi-campbell
Witnesses might be identified and placed in danger

Televising criminal trials may cause a number of problems with witnesses. It may make individuals less likely to give evidence, make them more likely to play to the television audience, or make the already intimidating process of giving evidence in court more so. Also, television broadcasts make it more likely that the identities of anonymized witnesses would leak out – something that has already happened at the ICC in the Ruto-Sang case[1]. The ICC already has problems with witnesses, including allegations of bribing and intimidating prosecution witnesses in the Ruto case[2], which has led to Walter Barasa, a Kenyan Journalist, being subject to an arrest warrant[3]. Ending the televising of trials may go some way to remedy those problems. [1] Lattus, Asumpta, ‘Evenson: ‘First time arrest warrant has been issued in Kenya case’, Deutsche Welle, 2 October 2013, http://www.dw.de/evenson-first-time-arrest-warrant-has-been-issued-in-kenya-case/a-17132804 [2] Stewart, Catrina, ‘ICC on trials along with Kenya’s elite amid claims of bribery and intimidation’, The Guardian, 1 October 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/01/icc-trial-kenya-kenyatta-ruto [3] ‘ICC seeks Walter Barasa arrest for Kenya ‘witness tampering’, BBC News, 2 October 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24364778
Regional court is “best of both worlds”

A regional court would be a good way to balance the competing issues between the legitimate concerns of the African states and the International Criminal Court. It would be able to provide an African solution to African problems, with no accusations of external interference or colonialism. Similarly, it would have some of the advantages of the ICC particularly its independence from individual states, meaning those in high places are more likely to be held to account. With this accountability to an African court there would be an impression of being held to account by peers not outsiders.
ICC doesn’t strike right balance between peace and justice for Africa

The balance between peace and justice is a complex issue. The ICC has disregarded peace as a priority in cases, focusing exclusively on justice by indicting individuals, which reduces the diplomatic leeway and drives those indicted towards a bunker mentality. The result then may be the conflict goes on longer and more crimes are committed. Peace and preventing future crimes should come before justice for past crimes. The ICC have focused on prosecuting Omar al Bashir, but it may be a better option to focus on diplomatic alternatives to trials for dealing with the conflict in Darfur.
ACC could deal with pan-African problems that the ICC does not address

It has been suggested that offences such as “unconstitutional change of government”, drug trafficking, piracy and corruption[1] should be added to the jurisdiction of an African Criminal Court. The ICC is limited to only a small number of crimes. However, an African Criminal Court could not only deal with the existing crimes, but create pan-African solutions in terms of dealing with a number of issues where Africa needs particular solutions. An ACC could deal with piracy off the coast of East Africa, where there is no effective court system, due to Somalia amounting to a failed state.  Similarly, “unconstitutional change of government” prosecutions could amount to a deterrent to coups. [1]IRIN, “Analysis: How Close is an African Criminal Court?”, IRIN (Integrated Regional Information Networks), 13 June 2012,  http://www.irinnews.org/report/95633/analysis-how-close-is-an-african-cr...
Just as much of a violation of sovereignty as the ICC

Part of the calls for an African Criminal Court are based on the perception that the national sovereignty of African nations is being attacked in some way before the International Criminal Court. However, an African Criminal Court would be just as much of a violation of the sovereignty of individual African nations as the ICC; it is a system of courts outside the control of the nation of those it is trying. European states object to courts outside their control dictating even when they are regional courts – consider the reactions to the European Court of Human Rights on areas like voting for prisoners or to the European Court of Justice. That these are regional not global courts makes little difference to national opinion. It is no surprise then that not even the EU with its close relations has attempted a supra national criminal court system.
ACC could destabilize Africa

Depending on how the treaty is drawn up, an African Criminal Court could be open to abuse. If it has too broad powers, it could lead to political trials thanks to judges following orders from their domestic governments, and complaints to it by governments in diplomatic spats rather than actually resolving serious international criminal law crimes. The same disputes that exist now within the ICC over issues such as interference with national sovereignty could just be replicated on a smaller scale – but rather than resembling a failure of any international body, it would be a regional body and lead to greater problems. If the ICC indicts a leader there is anger at the international community, if an ACC does the same there is a split in the AU.
Anti-ICC sentiment is a simple desire for impunity

The sole motive for the anti-ICC arguments raised by organizations such as the African Union is a drive towards impunity – particularly for heads of state. The prosecutions of Uhuru Kenyatta and Omar al-Bashir, so viciously opposed by the AU, are a show that heads of state are and should be subject to the international criminal law – a principle that dates back to Nuremberg. An African Criminal Court would simply be granting African leaders’ carte blanche to perform crimes against humanity, as there would be a ready-made court to acquit them.
An African Criminal Court would be a waste of money

International trials are expensive – 14% of the AU’s annual budget for an ICC trial[1]. The ICC is cheaper than the cost of the tribunal system – the cost of the Charles Taylor trial was roughly two and a half times that of the $20M figure for ICC trials. Africa already contributes little to the budget of the ICC. The ICC will be cheaper than standalone tribunals thanks to economies of scale. The African Union has a track record of failures as well – NEPAD, the New Partnership for African Development tried to have a quasi-judicial element aiming to create rulings against corruption, but failed[2]. [1] IRIN, “Analysis: How Close is an African Criminal Court?”, IRIN (Integrated Regional Information Networks), 13 June 2012,  http://www.irinnews.org/report/95633/analysis-how-close-is-an-african-criminal-court [2] Editorial, ‘African Criminal Court Not Viable’, the Star, 17 July 2012, http://allafrica.com/stories/201207180064.html
ICC is biased against Africans

Almost all of the cases where people have been indicted before the ICC – DR Congo, Uganda, Central African Republic and the Ivory Coast – have been referred to the court by African nations themselves. Those that have not were referred to the UN Security Council. The only case where the Office of the Prosecutor started a case leading to incitement was the Kenya case, Kenya having signed and ratified the Rome Statute. The ICC can only act where it has jurisdiction[1] - it is not a kangaroo court for particular cases. The ICC has looked in to cases outside Africa, including in Afghanistan, Honduras, the Mediterranean sea (an Israeli attack on Comorosian, Greek and Cambodian ships), Korea, Colombia, Georgia and Palestine[2]. [1] Rome Statute, Article 22 [2] Office of the Prosecutor, Report in to Preliminary Examination Activities, 2013, http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases...
Regional court is “best of both worlds”

African states have been happy with the ICC in the past – they referred ICC cases to the court themselves. If African states were to set up their own court, it would be unclear how it would work with the existing framework of the ICC as some African states may wish to remain ICC members. Also, a regional body would still lead to allegations of a “foreign court”, while at the same time placing the decisions in the hands of judges who may be less insulated from regional geopolitical pressures.
ACC could deal with pan-African problems that the ICC does not address

Drugs trafficking was considered as a role for the ICC, but rejected as unworkable – an ACC would face the same problems. “Unconstitutonal change of government” would be open to rampant political abuse, allowing existing governments to cling on to power. No other supranational regional body has tried having its own prosecution system or criminal courts – not even the European Union. Regional bodies can – and should – have courts to deal with treaty interpretation or human rights treaties, but regional criminal courts are a major step into the unknown. Criminal cases are best served by one nation, or all of them – not a regional bloc with its own tensions.
Anti-ICC sentiment is a simple desire for impunity

An African Criminal Court instead of African ICC membership would not lead to impunity – just more local courts. The principle of complementarity, allowing national courts to take appropriate action – is already enshrined in the ICC. In a particularly bad case, the UN Security Council could still refer a situation to the ICC. Running an African Criminal Court in tandem with the ICC would allow another layer of regional justice to bring the Nuremberg precedent – leaders held criminally responsible for criminal actions – in to fruition in Africa.
An African Criminal Court would be a waste of money

Peace is cheaper than war – however much a court case costs, in both human lives and money, it is better for there to be a trial. Even if it is more expensive, justice is priceless – it is not something that can be subjected to cost-benefit analyses or bean counting. The reason why Western countries fund the ICC is not some form of imperialism – simply a desire for global peace, justice and security so they would likely be willing to keep paying much of the cost.
ICC is biased against Africans

All of the ongoing ICC prosecutions are based on events in Africa, and all those on trial are Africans. The ICC has not brought actions following the invasion of Iraq, or the conflicts in Sri Lanka and Colombia. The lack of action in any matter outside sub-Saharan Africa shows that the international community are happy to allow the ICC to exclusively prosecute Africans. The UN Security Council, which contains no African permanent members, can veto any possible prosecution[1] and refer a case to the ICC[2].. Replacing the ICC with an African Criminal Court would stop this bias, or perception of bias. This would be done by withdrawing from the Rome statute and the ICC which has been labelled as Western imperialism by people such as Rwandan president Paul Kagame[3]. [1] Rome Statute, Article 16 [2] Rome Statute, Article 13 [3] Du Plessis, footnote 36 (dead links)
Since education is critical to the economic development of a nation, it is the responsibility of the government to oversee the education of its children

Although the economic needs of a nation may be a driving force for federal control, it remains in question that the need is best met through federal control.  In the U.S. federal the policy of No Child Left Behind had extremely controversial results.  Implementation of the policy has led to concerns about test driven curriculum, teachers corrupting test scores due to fears regarding accountability, and rogue states or districts simply withdrawing from accepting federal money for compliance with standards.  Again, a nation must naturally concern itself with the economic needs of a nation, but the local community may be better situated to work with businesses within their region to educate students appropriately for the future work force.  Local educational institutions work regularly with businesses as they see their common futures as intertwined.[1]  Local control does not mean lack of sensitivity or concern for the economic needs of a nation.  [1] Chait, Jonathan. “The Paradox of Local Control.” The New Republic. 12 April 2011. http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/87152/the-paradox-local-control