BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The ICC has an anti-African bias

Almost all the cases involve self-reference – the only ones that did not are UN Security Council references, done in the same way as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda were set up. The other case, Kenya, was set up when the ICC prosecutor used its power in the Rome Statute. This only occurred after the Kenyan parliament failed to implement the recommendations of the Waki Commission, which it set up. While horrible events occurred in Sri Lanka, the ICC does not have the ability to prosecute unless the case is referred to the court by the UN Security Council, or the Sri Lankan government, which is unlikely – it is not a kangaroo court that can make up jurisdiction to hear a case for political reasons[1]. Colombia is still being investigated[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/Documents/OTP%20Preliminary%20Examinations/OTP%20-%20Report%20%20Preliminary%20Examination%20Activities%202013.PDF
An African Criminal Court would be better

Additional crimes in the remit of an African Criminal Court could cause more problems than they solve. Drug trafficking was rejected from the remit of the ICC[1] because it would overburden the court, which is intended to deal with international crimes. While the idea of prosecuting coups sounds good, in practice it would raise the same persecution complexes amongst leaders as the ICC does. An AU court will also be subject to more local fractious politics and power struggles, rather than the bulk of the membership being from outside the region. [1]              See , Kiefer, Heather, “Just Say No: The Case against Expanding the International Criminal Court’s Jurisdiction to Include Drug Trafficking”, Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, 2009, http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1646&context=ilr at p164
Tool for external interference.

The principle of complementarity means that the ICC is only a backstop court – it only takes on a case when a state is unwilling or unable to have it dealt with in its own national courts[1]. If the ICC were a tool for external interference, it is solicited by the states in that most situations follow on from referrals by the domestic governments. Referrals by the UN Security Council can happen irrespective of if a state is a party (hence the Libya and Sudan situations) – just like the ad hoc tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda were created in 1994. Regardless this will only happen with the assent of Russia and China so ensuring that referrals are not following a ‘western imperialist’ agenda. [1]              Rome Statute, Article 17
Detriment to peace process

Justice is more than just a road to peace; it is a goal of its own.[1] For most African states this should not be a cause to leave the ICC as they are unaffected by ICC indictments affecting a peace process. Even for those whom it does affect it is only transitory until a solution is reached. Such concerns moreover could be better dealt with by ensuring that the ICC puts in place a mechanism that recognises that in some instances peace can come first. [1]              Human Rights Watch, “Perceptions and realities: Kenya and the International Criminal Court”, hrw.org, 14 November 2011, http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/11/14/perceptions-and-realities-kenya-and-i...
Israel has no right to the occupied territories.

Israel won the 1967 war, even though this tiny nation was up against numerous Arab nations that aggressively initiated the conflict.[1] It had and has a right, therefore, to govern territory it rightfully fought and died for. All land held by any nation was gained through conflict at one time or another; the Palestinian people came to be in possession of their land in the West Bank through the Arab Conquests of the 7th Century.[2] Why  are Israel's conquests any less legitimate, especially seeing as Israel took this land in self-defence and has kept only the land it needs for its continuing security? Moreover, hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens now live in settlements beyond the 1967 borders, and Israel has both the right and responsibility to protect their lives and homes by continuing to hold this territory. [1] BBC News. “1967: Israel launches attack on Egypt”. BBC News On This Day. 5 June 1967. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/5/newsid_2654000/2... [2] Kennedy, Hugh. “The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In”. Da Capo Press. 2007
Failure to withdraw blocks legitimate Palestinian aspirations to statehood.

Self-determination is not an absolute right. Not every territory and region in the world that seeks independence has the right to it. This is due in no small part to the fact that such a system would be unworkable. Certain criteria must be met for a territory and people to obtain a legitimate right to self-determination, including not compromising the fundamental security or territorial integrity of the original state, which a Palestinian state created through Israel withdrawing to its 1967 borders arguably, would do. Moreover, it is possible for Israel to withdraw from most of the West Bank, as it has offered to do in the past, while keeping some strategically essential land. This would allow for Palestinian self-determination whilst falling short of falling back totally to the 1967 borders.
Returning to the 1967 borders would bring peace to Israel.

Simply withdrawing to its 1967 borders would not end the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Violence between Israelis and Palestinians long pre-dates the 1967 war. The 1967 war itself was caused by the fact that even an Israel within its 1967 borders was hated by neighbouring states for existing.[1] Palestinian support for two-state solution, even one where Israel withdrew to its 1967 borders declined around 2008, and is waning even among the 'moderate' Palestinian camp, as well as among additional Arab elements.[2] Regarding Hamas, the reason it speaks only of “long term truces” with Israel and not peace is because it only wishes to make a deal allowing it to grow strong enough to eventually destroy the Israeli state, not to make permanent peace.[3] It is also naïve to think that an Israeli state existing within its 1967 borders would gain the favour or even support of Iran. Iran wants to be the dominant power in the Middle East, and any form of Israeli state is a threat to this. Iran has a history of supporting violent Islamist terrorist groups dedicated to Israel's destruction, such as Hamas and Hezbollah.[4] The political futures of Syria and Egypt are also uncertain, due to the unrest of the 2011 'Arab Spring', and it is not beyond the realm of possibility that both could come under the sway of Islamist groups seek Israel's total destruction. [1] BBC News. “1967: Israel launches attack on Egypt”. BBC News On This Day. 5 June 1967. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/5/newsid_2654000/2... [2] The Reut Institute. “The Trend of Palestinian and Arab Inversion towards the Two State Solution”. The Reut Institute.1 May 2008. http://www.reut-institute.org/en/Publication.aspx?PublicationId=3209 [3] El-Khodary, Taghreed and Bronner, Ethan. “Hamas Fights Over Gaza’s Islamist Identity”. New York Times. 5 September 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/world/middleeast/06gaza.html [4] Los Angeles Times. "Two States? Many Problems". Los Angeles Times, Letter to the Editor. 7 May 2009
Israel has the right to claim minimal territory to ensure security

Israel won the 1967 war, demonstrating that despite a major coordinated Arab attack on Israel, it could defend its pre-1967 borders adequately.[1] This puts the lie to the central argument that the pre-1967 borders are indefensible. They defended them before under extremely hostile conditions; they can defend them again now under less conventionally threatening conditions, with a greater conventional military capacity to wage a defence, and with the unwavering support of the United States. [1] Johnson, Paul. “A History of the Jews”. Weidenfeld and Nicolson. 1987.
Returning to the 1967 borders would make war more likely.

The Middle East, and the world more generally, is a far different place than it was in 1967. There is a significantly smaller risk that Arab states will gang up in a conventional war against Israel. This owes significantly to the fact that Israel is much more powerful militarily, Arab states are less powerful relatively, and the military alliances and dynamics in the region tend to favour Israel more. All of this means that maintaining a buffer in Israel, with the post-1967 borders, for the sake of defending against a collective Arab assault is highly unreasonable. Israel does not need this buffer. It can return to its pre-1967 borders.
Israel has no right to the occupied territories.

Because Israel won the land during war, it is considered occupied territory under international law, and it is illegal for Israel to annex it.[1] In July 2004, the International Court of Justice delivered an Advisory Opinion observing that under customary international law as reflected in Article 42 of the Regulations annexed to the Hague IV Convention, territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. Israel raised a number of exceptions and objections, but the Court found them unpersuasive. The Court ruled that territories had been occupied by the Israeli armed forces in 1967, during the conflict between Israel and Jordan, and that subsequent events in those territories, had done nothing to alter the situation.[2] Even the Israeli Supreme court has ruled that “Judea and Samaria [a.k.a. The West Bank] areas are held by the State of Israel in belligerent occupation.”[3] Therefore, Israel has no better claim to these lands than that it won them in a war, which is an illegitimate claim under international law, and also illegitimate as a thinly-disguised, morally abhorrent “might makes right” argument. The fact that Arab states initiated the 1967 war does not justify Israel responding by annexing Palestinian territory.[4] A just settlement would have been a return to the previous borders in exchange for security guarantees, etc. Instead, Israel unjustly used the opportunity to take land from an innocent people. One bad act does not justify another bad act in return. Moreover, it is notable that the nations which Israel took Gaza and the West Bank from in 1967 (Egypt and Jordan, respectively) were not representative nations of the areas' majority inhabitants, the Palestinian people.[5] It is thus illegitimate for Israel to claim ownership of Palestinian land because it defeated non-Palestinian nations in a war, and Israel should therefore return to its pre-1967 borders, leaving Gaza and the West Bank to the Palestinian people. [1] BBC News. “Israeli settlements condemned by Western powers”. BBC News. 2 November 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15556801 [2] International Court of Justice. “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. International Court of Justice, United Nations Organisation. July 2004. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&k=5a&PHPSESSID=60e2f3e... [3] The Supreme Court of Israel. “Mara'abe vs The Prime Minister of Israel”. The Supreme Court of Israel. June 2005. http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files_eng/04/570/079/a14/04079570.a14.pdf [4] BBC News. “1967: Israel launches attack on Egypt”. BBC News On This Day. 5 June 1967. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/5/newsid_2654000/2... [5] BBC News. “Israeli settlements condemned by Western powers”. BBC News. 2 November 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15556801
Failure to withdraw blocks legitimate Palestinian aspirations to statehood.

The Palestinian people since 1967 have demonstrated through resistance to Israeli occupation their desire for an independent state of their own.[1] Throughout the years polls have consistently showed respectable Palestinian majorities in favour of a negotiated two-state settlement, which would offer them an independent state as well as allowing Israel to continue to exist as an independent state alongside the new Palestinian nation.[2] Israel's refusal to withdraw to the 1967 borders means that the majority of Palestinian people are compelled to live under the control of a state they do not wish to be a part of, a violation of their right to self-determination under international law. The 1993 Vienna Declaration, which reaffirmed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter (and so sets the standard in current international law), unequivocally gives all peoples the right to self-determination: “All people have the right to self-determination. Owing to this right they freely establish their political status and freely provide their economic, social and cultural development...World Conference on Human Rights considers refusal of the right to self-determination as a violation of human rights and emphasizes the necessity of effective realization of this right”.[3] Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said in 2006 that the pre-1967 borders uphold the “legitimate aspiration of the Palestinian people for a secure, united, democratic and economically viable state coexisting peacefully with Israel.”[4] By this measure, the Palestinian majority in the occupied territories have the right to self-determination (by democratic processes), and Israel's suppression of that right through its refusal to withdraw to the 1967 borders should be seen as a human rights violation. Consequently, Israel should withdraw to its 1967 borders in order to end its violation of the rights of the Palestinian people. [1] BBC News. “Israeli settlements condemned by Western powers”. BBC News. 2 November 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15556801 [2] Kennedy, Hugh. “The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In”. Da Capo Press. 2007. [3] United Nations World Conference on Human Rights. “VIENNA DECLARATION AND PROGRAMME OF ACTION”. United Nations. 14-25 June 1993.http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/%28symbol%29/a.conf.157.23.en [4] Agence France-Presse, NDTV. “Brazil recognises Palestinian state on 1967 borders”. NDTV. 5 December 2010. http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/brazil-recognises-palestinian-state-on-1967-borders-70566
Returning to the 1967 borders would bring peace to Israel.

If Israel were to withdraw to its 1967 borders, the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) would recognise Israel as legitimate within its remaining territories and end the conflict. In October 2010 Senior Palestine Liberation Organization official Yasser Abed Rabbo said that the Palestinians will be willing to recognize the State of Israel in any way that it desires, if the Americans would only present a map of the future Palestinian state that includes all of the territories captured in 1967, including East Jerusalem. “We want to receive a map of the State of Israel which Israel wants us to accept. If the map will be based on the 1967 borders and will not include our land, our houses and East Jerusalem, we will be willing to recognize Israel according to the formulation of the government within the hour... Any formulation [presented to us] – even asking us to call Israel the 'Chinese State' – we will agree to it, as long as we receive the 1967 borders ” added Rabbo.[1] Even Ismail Haniyeh, leader of the more extreme Hamas organisation, has said Hamas will accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders and will offer Israel a “long term truce” if it withdraws accordingly.[2] Significant international support for Israel withdrawing to the 1967 borders also exists, even from states with a  history of hostility with Israel such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, who have made such a withdrawal a precondition of peace and recognition talks with Israel.[3][4] Even then-Israeli Prime Miniser Ehud Olmert acknowledged in 2008 that “almost all” of the territory seized during the Six-Day War in 1967 will have to be given back to the Palestinians return for peace.[5] Therefore Israel should withdraw to its 1967 borders as this would bring peace and security to Israel by ending the conflict with the Palestinians and neighbouring states. [1] Haaretz. “PLO chief: We will recognize Israel in return for 1967 borders”. Haaretz.com. 13 October 2010. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/plo-chief-we-will-recogniz... [2] Amira Hass News Agencies, Haaretz. “willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders”. Haaretz.com. 9 November 2008. http://www.haaretz.com/news/haniyeh-hamas-willing-to-accept-palestinian-... [3] Al-Quds. “Ahmadinezhad and the Implications of the Two-State Solution”. Pro-Fatah Palestinian newspaper Al-Quds. 29 April 2009 [4] UPI.com. “Saudi to Israel: Return to 1967 borders”. UPI.com. 5 November 2010. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/11/05/Saudi-to-Israel-Return-to-1967... [5] MacIntyre, Donald. “Israel will have to reinstate pre-1967 border for peace deal, Olmert admits”. The Independent. 30 Septemebr 2008.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-will-have-to-...
Returning to the 1967 borders would make war more likely.

The Foreign Minister of Israel, Avigdor Lieberman, said in 2009: “A return to the pre-1967 lines, with a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria, would bring the conflict into Israel's borders. Establishing a Palestinian state will not bring an end to the conflict.”[1] This is why the American ambassador to the UN at the time of the 1967 war pointed out that “Israel's prior frontiers had proved to be notably insecure”, and American President Lyndon Johnson, shortly after the war, declared that Israel's return to its former lines would be “not a prescription for peace but for renewed hostilities.” Johnson advocated new 'recognized boundaries' that would provide "security against terror, destruction, and war.”[2] An Israel that withdrew completely to the 1967 borders would offer a very tempting target, since it would be a narrow country with no strategic depth whose main population centres and strategic infrastructure would be within tactical range of forces deployed along the commanding heights of the West Bank. This would hurt Israel's ability to deter future attacks and thus make conflict in the region even more likely. This ability of Israel to deter aggressors is particularly important not only due to the region's history of aggression against Israel, but also due to the unpredictable future events in the highly volatile Middle East. There is no way, for example, to guarantee that Iraq will not evolve into a radical Shi'ite state that is dependent on Iran and hostile to Israel (indeed, King Abdullah of Jordan has warned of a hostile Shi'ite axis that could include Iran, Iraq, and Syria), nor that a Jordan's Palestinian majority might seize power in the state (leaving Israel to defend itself against a Palestinian state that stretches from Iraq to Kalkilya), nor that  in the future, militant Islamic elements will not succeed in gaining control of the Egyptian regime.[3] Given its narrow geographical dimensions, a future attack launched from the pre-1967 borders against Israel's nine-mile-wide waist could easily split the country in two. Especially seeing as Islamic militants throughout the Middle East are unlikely to be reconciled to Israel even by a withdrawal to the 1967 borders, such a withdrawal therefore would actually make peace in the region less likely and encourage war against Israel.[4] [1] Lazaroff, Tovah. “Lieberman warns against '67 borders”. Jerusalem Post. 27 November 2009. http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=160381 [2] Levin, Kenneth. “Peace Now: A 30-Year Fraud”. FrontPageMag.com. 5 September 2008. http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=32259 [3] Amidror, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Yaakov. “Israel's Requirement for Defensible Borders”. Defensible Borders for a Lasting Peace. 2005. http://www.defensibleborders.org/amidror.htm [4] El-Khodary, Taghreed and Bronner, Ethan. “Hamas Fights Over Gaza’s Islamist Identity”. New York Times. 5 September 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/world/middleeast/06gaza.html
Many Israelis now live in the occupied territories.

Israel has more than just national security at stake in the occupied territory of the West Bank -hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens now live there, many in areas which are not strategically essential (the areas described above). Between the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights (all outside of Israel's 1967 borders), over 400,000 Israelis live in settlements in the occupied territories.[1] These ever-expanding settlements represent a barrier to Israeli withdrawing to its 1967 borders. In 1993, when Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat famously shook hands on the White House lawn, there were only 109,000 Israelis living in settlements across the West Bank (not including Jerusalem). Today there are more than 230 settlements and strategically placed 'outposts' designed to cement a permanent Jewish presence on Palestinian land.[2] Forcibly removing these settlers would be too difficult, could foment a kind of Jewish civil war, and would create a level of resentment among fundamentalist Jews that would likely inflame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Furthermore it should be remembered that these settlers are Israeli citizens, with families, who moved to these areas because the Israeli government told them it was safe and that they would be allowed to stay, and thus Israel has a moral duty to live up to these promises by not withdrawing. Israel cannot afford this sort of internal turmoil, and should not neglect its duty to protect the rights of these citizens, and so it should not withdraw to its 1967 borders. [1] Levinson, Chaim. “IDF: More than 300,000 settlers live in West Bank”. Haaretz.com. 27 July 2009. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/idf-more-than-300-000-settlers... [2] Tolan, Sandy. “George Mitchell and the end of the two-state solution”. The Christian Science Monitor. 4 February 2009. http://stageorigin2.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2009/0204/p09s01-co...
High-rise housing is a successful solution to the problems of urban migration and urban sprawl

High-rise housing is a successful housing solution when faced with the problem of population growth and urban migration. Urban migration, whereby populations flock to urban centres looking for work, leaves cities short on affordable housing, transport links and can either lead to inner-city poverty or urban sprawl. High-rise housing offers solutions to both problems by maximising the number of people that can live on a scarce, fixed amount of available land. In London, where transport and affordable housing are major problems, 'new tower blocks offer a way of alleviating both problems'1. In contrast, Melbourne, where the population is expected to rise by 3 million people by 2050, 'better use of available city land has been identified as a key to maintaining Melbourne's liveability, and halting urban sprawl'2. 1Society Guardian. (2002, January 2). Ups and downs of high-rise living. Retrieved June 20, 2011, from Guardian 2Dobbin, M., & Cooke, D. (2010, March 16). High-rise push to halt urban sprawl. Retrieved June 14, 2011, from The Age