BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The ICC interferes with national operations (both military and humanitarian) because of how loosely the Rome Statue can be interpreted.

To date, the ICC has empirically only issued warrants against leaders that nations have almost universally agreed upon committed heinous crimes. The existence of the ICC would only deter actions that are so atrocious, they would be comparable to the ones committed by those the ICC is currently pursuing. Countries that refuse to prosecute its own individuals should submit to the court to ensure that there is a baseline standard for rights protection, even in times of war. Otherwise, these crimes go unexposed and unpunished – for example, there has been very little discussion about certain US actions because certain presidential administrations have been adamant about prioritizing national interest over global standards of rights. US attacks on a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, US invasion of Panama in 1989, US choice of targets in Afghanistan in 2001, and other actions have been left unexamined because of the lack of a third party with the consent to regulate international action; the ICC could solve this.[i] [i] Forsythe, David P. “U.S. Action Empirically Goes Domestically Unchecked.” The United States and International Criminal Justice, Vol. 24 No. 4, November 2002, 985.   improve this
The ICC has no real enforcement mechanism and cannot be a force for good if it has no way of ensuring prosecution.

The ICC has jurisdiction to defy unwilling governments and is still a step towards global enforcement of rights, even if it does not completely solve the problem. The ICC can have jurisdiction over criminals whose states refuse to prosecute them (provided certain conditions are met), meaning that they can issue warrants for those who come from or lead countries that will not comply with the ICC. Moreover, the ICC centralizes prosecution efforts under one court, making possible prosecution much more efficient and likely and increasing whatever original chance there was of prosecuting the leader. Even if the ICC does have trouble fully enforcing its decisions, it is still a step towards the idea of "collective enforcement," which entails states agreeing upon and following international norms by incorporating them into domestic law and promoting their enforcement. Ratification of the Rome Statute represents a commitment by national governments to assist the ICC with prosecution efforts.1 1 Mayerfeld, Jamie. "Who Shall be Judge? The United States, the International Criminal Court, and the Global Enforcement of Human Rights." Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, February 2003, 93-129. improve this
The ICC infringes upon national sovereignty by inherently implying that there is a higher court nations must answer to.

The ICC does not infringe upon national sovereignty because it only has jurisdiction if the national justice system is either ineffective or unable to prosecute the criminal. National courts still have the responsibility and ability to prosecute their own criminals, and the ICC is only meant to be used as a last resort in case these national measures fail; there is no contradiction between the two.1 Sovereignty only exists if the state has internal control, and the ICC will only have jurisdiction in cases where the national justice system has proven that for some reason, it will not prosecute the criminal. 1 Nanda, Ved P. "The Establishment of a Permanent International Criminal Court: Challenges Ahead." Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 2, May 1998, 413-428. improve this
If supported, the ICC will set a precedent and deter leaders from committing crimes against humanity.

The ICC demonstrates that there is an existing legal court that will hold individuals accountable should they decide to commit grave crimes. The mere existence of the court and the possibility of prosecution (even if not 100%) is beneficial in terms of deterring future atrocities. No leader wants to lose power, and an ICC warrant limits the movement and liberties of leaders. This is empirically true – in Uganda, high-ranking officials of the Lord’s Resistance Army specifically cited potential prosecution by the ICC as a reason they put down their arms. LRA officials like Joseph Kony have to spend valuable time on evading the ICC that would otherwise be used to perpetuate crimes, showing that there are still marginal benefits even if leaders themselves are not always apprehended.[i] [i] Scheffer, David and John Hutson. “Strategy for U.S. Engagement with the International Criminal Court.” Century Foundation, 2008. http://tcf.org/events/pdfs/ev244/Scheffer.pdf. Accessed 14 August 2011.
The British tabloid press has proved singularly incapable of regulating – or for that matter restraining – itself.

It is part of the nature of journalism that it tends to say and reveal things that many people would rather remained unsaid and concealed. On the subject of working with police officers, papers have held the feet of police officers to the fire over many investigations including the Stephen Lawrence murder. It is further worth bearing in mind that the collusion of senior members of the Metropolitan police with tabloid journalists was revealed not by a police investigation but by an investigative reporter. Police and politicians may like their incompetence or corruption to take place behind closed doors, but that is the very reason for fostering and protecting a vigorous and interventionist press that is willing to bend the rules to find the truth.
The British tabloid press isn’t so much free as in freefall. Tabloid journalism in the UK has always been reckless and arrogant in pursuit of the trivial, but as advertising revenue dwindles that trend looks set to get worse

There are already laws in place to respond to the fabrication of evidence in support of a news report. Libel laws already prevent newspapers from making attacks based on untruths or even ones that are true but are not in the public interest. There is no doubt that times are tough for the British Press – as they are for newspapers around the world – but the overwhelming majority of journalists and publications have responded to that by diversifying the platforms they use for delivering the news. In addition to which they have embraced a 24-hour approach to delivering the news and, for many, the print platform is now seen as a ‘legacy project’. To constrain and obstruct the hard work and harder principles of the overwhelming majority of journalists because of the actions of a desperate few would really throw the baby out with the bath water.
There have to be limits to the permissible levels of intrusion into people’s lives, in an increasingly connected world people- celebrities or not- have never been more conscious of this simple fact.

t is entirely fair to say that the way we approach and share information has changed beyond recognition in the last thirty years. There have been innumerable efforts made to control high-speed information networks and all have failed. To hobble journalists with constraining regulation is as impractical as it is reckless at a time when they are no longer competing with a handful of their peers, but also a wider network of information exchange between semi-professional bloggers and capricious groups such as Anonymous and 4chan/b, who spread lies and discord disguised as “entertainment”. It is surely better that stories should be put together by trained and acreddited journalists and published through businesses that are bound by libel and other laws than to have them drip out through social media, as was seen with the Ryan Giggs affair over super-injunctions. Introducing regulation would be self-defeating simply because of this fact[i]. [i] Lucy Buckland. “'It went from thrilling to seedy... I was a fool to risk everything': Natasha Giggs confesses her regrets over Ryan affair”. Daily Mail. 23 December 2011,
The overwhelming majority of journalists would not know – and wouldn’t want to know – how to hack a phone and it is unfair to restrict them because a few do

We should remember that the original defence of the NoW was that phone hacking had been carried out by just ‘one rogue reporter’[i] and that defence has crumbled at every stage. It quickly became clear that others at the paper were involved, then that others in the group and now, apparently, that the practice was fairly commonplace at other papers. Had this been just one bad apple then the idea that no new regulation was really needed for the otherwise good and noble folk of medialand might stand. As evidence- and a string of arrests among the News of the World’s senior staff- has demonstrated, flaunting of the law, of basic ethical standards and of simple honesty was rife at the news of the world, and is likely to have been used frequently in the newsrooms of the NoW’s rivals. [i] Huffington Post. “Julian Pike, News Of The World Solicitor, Says He Knew That Phone Hacking Was Widespread In 2009”. 11 January 2012.
Who does the regulating? All of the obvious bodies – police, parliament and so on – haven’t exactly shown themselves to be whiter than white in the last year or so.

It is, of course, a matter for Lord Leveson and his inquiry to make recommendations on what the final regulatory framework should be. However the idea that newspapers are already accountable in an appropriate manner simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. There is, if nothing else, compelling popular support[i] on such a scale that, apparently the readers of the newspapers in question are uncertain as to whether they are up to the job themselves. There has also been an undercurrent in the press which amounts to “well people bought it so it’s their fault really”, which also doesn’t stand up to analysis. Readers of newspapers should surely be allowed to assume that the journalists who gather their news- and style themselves as professionals- act both legally and ethically. It is not the job of readers to double check the facts and activities behind a story. [i] BBC Website. “Poll suggests public want much tighter press controls”. 14 December 2011.
All of those involved in the phone hacking cases broke laws. Existing laws. They can be prosecuted under existing frameworks and cases are already being pursued. There is no need for another set of controls

The idea that stopping journalists rummaging through the bins of private citizens in pursuit of credit card statements on the off-chance they might have done something unusual is hardly likely to bring down the entire edifice of freedom and democracy. Indeed, there is a clear democratic mandate for the robust protection of privacy- informed by the basic equality that underlies rule-of-law- derived from the revulsion that most people feel at the actions of certain parts of the press. As in any profession- including law, medicine and politics- practitioners are allowed discretion on the understanding that they won’t abuse it. In this instance, the discretion leant to the political class has been routinely and systematically abused over a period of decades, to little benefit. All of the examples that Opposition has been able to cite have been the result of old-fashioned, dogged investigation and courageous writing and editorship. If regulation gets journalists away from the addiction to celebrity, away from the easy sells of sex and venality and back into the better traditions of the trade, it may serve to revive the entire newspaper industry.
The British tabloid press has proved singularly incapable of regulating – or for that matter restraining – itself.

The phone hacking scandal is simply a new low in the recent, tawdry life of the tabloid press. As the Leveson Inquiry is discovering, the use of private detectives, bribing police officers, and trailing the children of celebrities all seem to be common tricks not just for the News of the World but for tabloid journalism as an industry. Indeed, the journalist who broke the story for the Guardian admitted to the Levenson inquiry that he had hacked a phone on one occasion. Despite the protestation of the Guardian’s editors[i] that “99 percent” of journalists wouldn’t know how to hack a phone, such practices and a culture that invades privacy seems commonplace. [i] Statement by Alan Rusbridger to the Leveson Inquiry.
The British tabloid press isn’t so much free as in freefall. Tabloid journalism in the UK has always been reckless and arrogant in pursuit of the trivial, but as advertising revenue dwindles that trend looks set to get worse

The media increasingly resembles one of the drug addicts it is usually so keen to condemn. As competition over dwindling advertising revenue becomes increasingly bitter, papers become ever more desperate for the next hit story –normally represented by celebrity gossip or a minor scandal. Such content has nothing to do with bold investigative journalism and everything to do with muck-racking for salacious stories and- when that doesn’t work- simply fabricating them. Creating the impression that Millie Dowler was still alive was simply the most grotesque of a series of activities that put sales way ahead of truth.
There have to be limits to the permissible levels of intrusion into people’s lives, in an increasingly connected world people- celebrities or not- have never been more conscious of this simple fact.

In an age when any fool with a cell phone and a twitter account can snap a topless pop star on the beach, tabloid hacks are under greater pressure than ever to go the extra mile. There is little reason to doubt that they will. Privacy is already one of the dominant legal issues of our age that looks likely to become ever more the case. Against that background, when a flat out lie can be broadcast around the world in seconds, clearly a different legal and regulatory framework is needed from the old days of print where an apology was actually relevant – however begrudgingly given.
The overwhelming majority of journalists would not know – and wouldn’t want to know – how to hack a phone and it is unfair to restrict them because a few do

Introducing regulation on the basis that a handful of journalists have broken laws that already exist – and were caught doing so by other journalists – seems odd, to say the least. There is little doubt that there was something extremely murky going on at the News of the World but it is worth remembering that the paper has since been shut down. To any observer this looks an awful lot like politicians using the excuse of one newspaper’s poor conduct- which, it is worth repeating, has been shuttered- to attempt to regulate the rest. One of the popular suggestions at the moment is that no journalist should be able to print a story about a politician without getting their permission first. Such a rule would strike at the very heart of a free press.
Who does the regulating? All of the obvious bodies – police, parliament and so on – haven’t exactly shown themselves to be whiter than white in the last year or so.

Newspapers are at least accountable to their readers and it is worth noting that exactly the kinds of stories now under the spotlight are the ones that prove the most popular. Further they already work within a legal framework and are accountable to the courts when they break laws governing libel, privacy or theft of information. When we look at the possible candidates for overseeing the media, the line-up is fairly unimpressive and all have an obvious self-interest: MP’s expenses scandal was revealed by journalists, corruption and incompetence (as well as racism previously) at the Metropolitan Police was uncovered by journalists. That would only leave them accountable to the courts, which they already are, or a regulatory body comprising other papers and the public, which they already are.
All of those involved in the phone hacking cases broke laws. Existing laws. They can be prosecuted under existing frameworks and cases are already being pursued. There is no need for another set of controls

We should be very cautious when giving politicians- in particular- the power to control what is said about them. Whatever Lord Leveson suggests, chances are those decisions will need to go before parliament. The actions of the British media may frequently be distasteful and those who read the so-called ‘quality’ press may find the obsession of the tabloid press with matters that mostly seem trivial and tawdry offensive. However, the liberty that- almost incidentally- allows tabloid newspapers to produce populist pablum, enables broadsheets to maintain an excoriating and forensic oversight of the political class as a whole. The recent Parliamentary expenses scandal would be unthinkable in many countries: analysis undertaken by the press as a whole demonstrating a culture of corruption across the entire political class, not only breathtaking in its extent but also a clear mark of just how far politicians had moved from the realities of day-to-day life for people who actually pay for their own house. In this regard, journalistic license is the price of liberty.
Nuclear waste should be reused to create more electricity.

Integral Fast Reactors are not a solution for the short term. There are currently no Integral Fast Reactors in commercial operation and the research reactor that was to be constructed by the United States was cancelled in 1994. Any attempt to use IFRs to recycle all of the world’s nuclear waste would be very expensive and would not be an immediate solution – the waste would need to be stored somewhere while it waits to be used by the new reactors.
Underground Nuclear Storage is Necessary

Even states without nuclear waste programs tend to generate radioactive waste. For example, research and medicine both use nuclear material and nuclear technology. Technologies such as Medical imaging equipment are dependent and the use of radioactive elements. This means that all states produce levels of nuclear waste that need to be dealt with. Moreover, many non-nuclear states are accelerating their programmes of research and investment into nuclear technologies. With the exception of Germany, there is an increasing consensus among developed nations that nuclear power is the only viable method of meeting rising domestic demand for energy in the absence of reliable and efficient renewable forms of power generation.   The alternatives to putting nuclear waste in underground storage tend to be based around the reuse of nuclear waste in nuclear power stations. Whilst this is viable in some areas, in countries which lack the technology to be able to do this and in countries which don’t need to rely on nuclear power, this option becomes irrelevant. Further, even this process results in the creation of some nuclear waste, so in countries with the technology to implement such a solution, the disposal of the remaining nuclear waste is still an issue.   As such, underground nuclear storage is a necessary method that should be used to dispose of nuclear waste.[1]   [1] “The EU’s deep underground storage plan.” 03/11/2010. World Nuclear News. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WE_The_EUs_deep_underground_storage_plan_0311101.html
Underground Nuclear Storage is Safe

Underground nuclear waste storage means that nuclear waste is stored at least 300m underground. [I1] The harm of a leak 300m underground is significantly limited, if the area has been chosen correctly then there should be no water sources nearby to contaminate. If this is the case, then a leak’s harm would be limited to the layers of sediment nearby which would be unaffected by radiation. By comparison a leak outside might lead to animals nearby suffering from contamination. Further nuclear waste might reach water sources should there be a leak above ground, if it is raining heavily when the leak happens for example.   Further, the other options available, such as above ground storage present a potentially greater danger, should something go wrong. This is because it is much easier for nuclear waste to leak radiation into the air. This is problematic because even a hint of radiation may well cause people to panic owing to the damaging and heavily publicised consequences of previous nuclear safety crises. As such, underground storage is safer both directly and indirectly.[1]   As well as this, underground storage also prevents nuclear waste or nuclear radiation from reaching other states and as such, results in greater safety across borders.[2]   Further, storing all nuclear waste underground means that countries can concentrate their research and training efforts on responding to subterranean containment failures. Focus and specialisation of this type is much more likely to avert a serious release of nuclear material from an underground facility than the broad and general approach that will be fostered by diverse and distinct above-ground storage solutions.   [1] “Europe eyes underground nuclear waste repositories.” Infowars Ireland. 20/02/2010 http://info-wars.org/2010/02/20/europe-eyes-underground-nuclear-waste-repositories/ [2] “EU Debates Permanent Storage For Nuclear Waste.” 04/11/2010 AboutMyPlanet. http://www.aboutmyplanet.com/environment/eu-debates-permanent-storage-for-nuclear-waste/  [I1]I am not sure how to replace this section. “Leakage” of radioactive material into the air is a minimal danger. The contributor may be referring to the ejection of irradiated dust and other particulates that has occurred when nuclear power stations have suffered explosive containment failures, but this is not comparable to the types of containment failures that might happen in facilities used to store spent nuclear fuel rods and medical waste.   One of the more substantial risks presented by underground storage is release of nuclear material into a water source.
Underground Nuclear Storage is Expensive.

Underground nuclear storage is expensive. This is because the deep geological repositories needed to deal with such waste are difficult to construct. This is because said repositories need to be 300m underground and also need failsafe systems so that they can be sealed off should there be a leak. For smaller countries, implementing this idea is almost completely impossible.   Further, the maintenance of the facilities also requires a lot of long term investment as the structural integrity of the facilities must consistently be monitored and maintained so that if there is a leak, the relevant authorities can be informed quickly and efficiently.   This is seen with the Yucca mountain waste repository site which has cost billions of dollars since the 1990s and was eventually halted due to public fears about nuclear safety.[1]   [1] ISN Security Watch. “Europe’s Nuclear Waste Storage Problems.” Oilprice.com 01/06/2010 http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Europes-Nuclear-Waste-Storage-Problems.html
There Are Better Alternatives to Underground Nuclear Waste Storage

France is the largest nuclear energy producer in the world. It generates 80% of its electricity from nuclear power.[1] It is very important to note, therefore, that it does not rely on underground nuclear waste storage. Instead, it relies on above ground, on-site storage. This kind of storage combined with heavy reprocessing and recycling of nuclear waste, makes underground storage unnecessary.[2]   As such it seems logical that in most western liberal democracies that are able to reach the same level of technological progress as France, it makes more sense to store nuclear waste above ground. Above ground, checks and balances can be put into place that allow the maintenance of these nuclear storage facilities to be monitored more closely. Furthermore, reprocessing and recycling leads to less wasted Uranium overall. This is important as Uranium, whilst being plentiful in the earth, is often difficult to mine and mill. As such, savings here often significantly benefit things such as the environment and lower the economic cost of the entire operation.   [1] BBC News, ‘France nuclear power funding gets 1bn euro boost’, 27 June 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13924602 [2] Palfreman, Jon. “Why the French Like Nuclear Energy.” PBS. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html