BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Balance of power seen as a good thing

not necessarily; where there are philosophes there is an argument: Johann H. G. Justi attacked the whole idea of a balance of power arguing that it rested upon the axiom that power could in some way be compared. Quite the contrary he argued that there was various sorts of power and that these could not be measured against each other, further even the same types of power were difficult to compare. Thus shown to be based upon a false premise he went on to point out how it should be made obsolete. He argued a state could accrue great additional strength without territorial expansion through internal reform, the ration of the less enlightened would be to try and set this back thus the balance of power would operate contrary to the spirit of Human progress. [[Per Maurseth, 'Balance of Power thinking from the Renaissance to the French revolution' Journal of Peace Research, Vol.1, No.2. (1964) pp.120-136: pp.131-2]] Similarly, Immanuel Kant asked ‘the restoration of freedom to certain states’ thus requiring the partitioning powers to disgorge their gains even after the fact. [[Immanuel Kant, ‘On the Common Saying: ‘This May be True in Theory, but it does not Apply in Practice’ pp.61-92 in Political Writings, Reiss, Hans (ed.) and Nisbet, H. R. (trans.) (Cambridge, 1991) p.92]] It is notable that both were writing after Vattel.
Ideal conditions for a self sustaining balance of power

These were greater divisions between classes within a country than between people of the same class in different countries; a European cosmopolitanism was created that, under the traditional view, facilitated limited diplomacy and militarism. There were no ideological or national issues to complicate the balance of power, this allowed the alliances to be flexible and states could be compensated with territories from anywhere in Europe. Conflicts were limited; rulers could not rely on popular support for a protracted struggle to the finish.[[Richard Rosecrance, International Relations: Peace or War? 1973, McGraw-Hill, New York, p.26.]] Some theorists such as Rousseau believed that a balance of power was automatically created without anyone in particular wishing for it: “we are not to suppose that the boasted balance of power in Europe has actually been deliberately established: or that anyone has done anything really with a view to support it.”[[Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Project for Perpetual Peace 1761,‘The Works of J.-J. Rousseau’, x. Edinburgh, 1774. pp.182-91 extract in Wright, pp.74-80, p.77.]]This lead to the eighteenth century belief was that the balance of power was a self-sustaining system.[[ Michael Sheehan, The Balance of Power: History and Theory, Routledge, London, 1996, p.105. ]]
Changing views of the needs of states within the system

It is unclear precisely how this means the balance of power was destroying itself. The problems identified seem to be: 1) Louis the XIV had access to power and resources other nations did not. 2) Louis the XIV abused this by starting wars unnecessarily. Perhaps there are additional policy problems with "partition schemes," but it is both unclear what these schemes are and why they are harmful. This point seems more of an argument FOR balance of power than against it. Seeing as raison d'etat was only invented in the 17th century by Richelieu under Louis XIII, it is hard to believe that the "balance of power" system was out of control by the end of that same century. Perhaps a more illuminating analysis is that France implemented an aggressive campaign of national interest in the early part of the 17th century, which the rest of Europe neither expected nor prepared for. The result was a dominant Louis XIV. Had the concept of balance of power existed EARLIER and been MORE PREVALENT. It is unlikely that Richelieu ever would have succeeded in fragmenting the German states, and that France would have been able to expand without facing a strong European coalition concerned with maintaining the balance. edit by booji: im not going to delete this but please read the comment as while this point is factually more or less correct it is not particularly relevent to my point as it is talking about the wrong century.
Elimination of weaker actors

A major consequence of these principles was the elimination of smaller powers in Europe; they were given away as compensation.[[Luard, Balance, p.202.]] The main weak factors in the system were, Poland, the Ottoman Empire, The Holy Roman Empire and to a lesser extent Italy. The main change at the end of the 18th Century was the extent of compensation, as represented by the division of Poland. The polish partition was the first partition not to be the result of either defeat in war or extinction of a ruling house.[[Hochedlinger, Emergence, p.356.]] Frederick seized upon a minor Austrian occupation: “If we thus look at the realities of the position, the question is no longer one of keeping Poland intact, since the Austrians want to truncate it, but of preventing this dismemberment from upsetting that balance”1[[Frederick to Privy Councillor of Legation Count von Solms at St Peatersburg, 20/2/1771, C.A. Macartney, The Habsburg and Hohenzollern Dynasties in the seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, Macmillan, London, 1970, p.357.]]
A downward spiral

“If might is right, if convenience is a title, what security will other states henceforth enjoy? A new combination is supplanting that system of general equilibrium. Three powers [Austria, Prussia, Russia] endeavour to establish a particular one; they found it on the equality of their usurpations. Thus they cause the balance of power to lean strongly in their favour. There is no reason to think that their avarice is yet fully satisfied”[[Charles Gravier, comte de Vergennes, Memoir of M. de Vergennes at the beginning of the reign of Louis XVI, in 1774, ‘Œuvres completes de M. le Comte de Ségur, Politique des cabinets de l’Europe’, Paris 1825. pp.146-58. extract from wright, pp.81-86, pp.81,83.]] Under the normal rules of the system Vergennes’ France would also want compensation that would most likely have had to come out of Germany or Italy, however France had been weakened too much by the seven years war to take part in a possible war in Poland.[[Schroeder, Transformation, p15]] Vergennes also realised the likelihood of partitions continuing and that “The second- and third-rate powers are without support, and likely to find themselves engulfed by those now predominant, when the latter see fit to partition them.”[[Vergennes, p.84]] The problem that the system faced was a continuing cycle of partitions.
Balance of power seen as a good thing

The permanent condition of suspicion between states was necessary as it created a mechanism of rivalry that protected peace and prevented the oppression of one people by another.[[John G. Gagliardo, Reich and Nation: The Holy Roman Empire as Idea and Reality, 1763-1806, Indiana university press, bloomington & London, 1980, p84]] As shown by Vattel’s view:“It is simpler, easier, and more just to have recourse to the method just referred to, of forming alliances in order to make a stand against a very powerful sovereign and prevent him from dominating.”[[Emmerich de Vattel, ‘The law of Nations or The Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns’, 1758, extract in Moorhead Wright, Theory and Practice of the Balance of Power 1486-1914: Selected European Writings, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1975, pp.71-74, p72]]The balance of power was seen as a foreign policy goal that should be worked for, it was morally right to defend the balance of power against aggressors.
The book has no plot

The basic plot of 'Catcher' can be summarized in two sentences; Holden Caulfield is a teenager who hates life, runs away from school, and hangs out in New York City. There he has a terrible time, goes home, tries to run away, and doesn't. The end. No drama. No suspense. It's true, not every book has to have a successful plot to be good, however a plot would have definitely helped make the book interesting- the book in its present state basically repeats itself over and over as the hero does the same things in different variations, all the while griping and complaining at how terrible everything is. Why should the reader have to suffer through two hundred and seventy six pages of repetition and bore?
The book is depressing

Readers do not always want to be cheered up. There is a market for depressing books. Memoirs of people who had awful childhoods is a popular genre. Either people feel depressed themselves but want somebody to empathise with them, rather than forcing them to cheer up, they see depressing stories as more deep and meaningful or they want to know the facts of what it a depressing scenario is like. he's not depressed; it was a very witty/funny read. Not once does the reader I feel like saying "stop whining" unlike when one reads 'Jude the Obscure' by Thomas Hardy; where Jude is pathetic. Holden is never 'depressed', (saying this and that depresses me is not the same as being depressed), angry, yes, but not sad. And he reconciles his anger in the end with the ride of the carousel/merry-go-round with his sister.
The book is depressing

Holden Caulfield is a depressed, ranting teenager. He does his best to make us be in the same mood. Holden sees almost nothing in a positive light, and as such is not a pleasant read. Yes, it's true, there are many teenagers and grownups in the world who go about with a negative attitude, but we don't need to HEAR ABOUT IT for 276 pages. This only depresses the readers making them detest Salinger for writing such a book.
The book is too long

276 pages isn't really that long for a reasonably fast reader who is concentrating on reading it, it can easily be read in a week. A story where the plot is briefly summarised so as to fit into 15 or 16 pages wouldn't be very well written. A short story has to be written as a short story from the start. I thought it was much shorter than most coming-of-age books(case in point the Harry Potter series). I read it in e-form so no paper wasted :P. At least his book shaped an entire epoch of moody teenagers. Think about all the paper people who never amount to writers/poets/artists waste in Art and English class. I don't think there was much repetition: it starts with his brother writing scripts for Hollywood,then his pompous school and the hilarious fart that erupted during doctor death's speech. He complains about teachers who make fun of parents; then his roommate who insists on clipping his nails on the floor goes on about secret slobs ...point being the story has a beginning middle and end. Salinger never plays it like a broken record.
The book is too long

Granted, Salinger is not trying to write a novel. He's trying to make a point. I, however, think that this point, whatever it may be, was made after ten or twenty pages. As noted above, the book has no plot, as well as no character development. This would be ample reason to make 'Catcher' a short story, fifteen or sixteen pages long. Holden repeats the same complaints, talks about the same things, and maintains the same attitude throughout the book. With global warming threatening the planet, why waste paper?
Universality of theme

Different young people have different personalities (this is reflected upon in the book), maybe secret slobs wouldn't be happy about that part. There are people who don't tap dance in the loo nor are crazy about half-nelsons in wrestling matches nor are remotely as sad about the F-word spangled everywhere. The structure of the book is built upon endless repetition. It seems as if Salinger had initially written this book with purpose, but quickly lost interest and relied on attempting to make Holden's daily life seem enthralling. The novel is nothing more than a documentary of the mundane activities of a stereotypical teenager who has the money to pay for endless taxi rides in New York. Readers of Catcher in the Rye are simply delving into these activities and erroneously depicting them as deeper than they actually are.
Universality of theme

The troubles and mentality unique to the young are a theme that transcends the boundaries of culture and era. Proposition argues that it lacks theme, but that vagueness is a crucial element that allows readers of all background to relate to the book. The volatility of the protagonist, Holden Caulfield, captures the essence of young people's predicament: restless curiosity, unsettled focus and fear of what to come in the future. It makes the piece somewhat ambulatory, but the close and intimate description of Holden's actions and emotions enriches what could be a mundane account of the life of a reckless teenager.
even when in default, a defendant can have a judgment against them varied or set aside

Under CPR 12, a defendant who does not respond to the particulars of claim that a claimant validly serves them can have a judgment in default made against them. This judgment is often due to the defendant's lack of time keeping or pure negligence. The CPR rules make allowance for this in the pursuance of Article 6, a right to a fair trial. If the judgment was entered wrongfully by the claimant not complying with the rules, or if the defendant had in fact sent the required forms, the court MUST set the judgment aside [[CPR 13.2]] The court has discretion as to whether to vary or set aside a judgment in default if it thinks the defendant has a real prospect of defending the claim [[CPR 13.3 (1)(a)]] or by virtue of some other good reason [[CPR 13.3(1)(b)]]. This means that even if a defendant does not comply with the time limits imposed by the CPR then they can still have their right to a fair trial, and the court has a wide discretion in adopting this.
experts owe their duty to the court

In order to support their case, parties can instruct experts as witnesses of expert opinion. The experts will produce a written report [[CPR 35.5(1)]] stating the extent of their research based on their instructions[[CPR 35.10(3)]]. Despite their instructions coming from one side of the party, the expert's duty is owed to the court [[CPR 35.3(1)]]. This means that they should not produce their report solely to advance the case of the party who instructed them. It is for that reason that the courts encourage the use of a single joint expert for both parties rather than having two experts [[CPR 35.8]]. This ensures that a more wealthy party cannot hire experts for vast sums of money who will say whatever that party wants them to say. The experts duty to the court is overriding and their report must state that the expert understands that his duty is to the court [[CPR 35.10 (2)]]. In producing such a report the expert may be liable if it is found they were in flagrant disregard of this duty and produced a report based solely on advancing the rights of the party who instructed them [[s.51 Supreme Court Act 1981]]. An expert will thus be unlikely to breach such a rule.
the cost of litigation is excessive

Due to all the formal requirements that the CPR lays down, litigation is very expensive. There are so many formulaeic procedures to follow, that the costs spiral. This often leaves many without a chance of a fair trial. Whilst legal aid may be able to cover the people who earn the least in society, it will not help the vast majority of the public[[http://www.courtroomadvice.co.uk/court-costs-and-legal-aid.html]]. In addition to that, the legal aid is only applicable to some cases. For instance, businesses and partnerships cannot claim legal aid, even if they are struggling. Neither can you get legal aid if your claim is for personal injury. This leave many people without a chance to a fair and public hearing as per Article 6.
There are limitation periods to bring claims

In order for a claim to be heard, there are certain limitation periods that run[[Limitation Act 1980]]. These limitation periods are different for different causes of action. This leads to unsatisfactory results. The time for the limitation period to start is when the damage arises. We can see the unfairness in this via the case Stubbings v Webb [[ [1993] AC 498, S v W [1995] FLR 862]]. In this case, 11 years after being sexually abused, Stubbings realised that her mental disorder was caused by her uncle who committed the sexual abuse. Upon trying to sue, she was prevented. Th case was not allowed to proceed because the limitation period had expired. For deliberate personal injury claims, the limitation period is 6 years [[http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/limitation_actions_summary.htm]]. This stopped Stubbings from having her case heard and therefore her Article 6 right to a fair trial was breached.
A fair trial is impossible to achieve no matter what legislation is introduced to make trials 'fairer'

This is because of several reasons. One, juries and judges are not free of prejudice or value-neutral. Two, imperfect information, most trials are conducted using circumstantial evidence and if the the evidence in a case was perfect there would be no need for a trial. All trials, thus have an element of subjectivity in the judgments passed in their completion and room for reasonable doubt since the evidence is rarely perfect. Counterargument: Trials usually occur while a police investigation is ongoing and evidence is still being analysed. Sometimes crucial evidence is not available before trial because of the police department's inefficiency and the Defense/prosecution suffers. Sedulous judges are excused for being irritable when asked to review new but relevant evidence because of the rules. Cases that are clear-cut in terms of evidence therefore do not always use all the information available and are resultantly not fair.
a claimant can obtain a judgment against a defendant without a hearing!

A claimant can obtain a 'judgment in default' against a defendant. This is a judgment where there is no trial[[CPR 12 PD 1.1]]. The court merely decides the case on the basis of the one sided evidence it has to its disposal. The judge has discretion as to what the amount it awards, and it can even apply a costs order so that the defendant has to pay the claimants costs for bringing the claim [[CPR 12.5 (3)]]. The judgment in default can also claim interest[[CPR 12.6 (1)]], and once again this can be decided by the courts without any evidence from the defendant. This is not congruent with the Article 6 right to a fair trial.
strict rules on witness statement formalities

There are strict rules in the CPR as to the format of witness statements[[CPR 32 PD 17-19]]. There are requirements as to the order of the contents of such a statement and even rules about how the paper is to be headed, and it is even stated that the witness statement is to only be on one side of the paper. A failure to comply with these rules means that courts can refuse to admit the witness statement as evidence [[CPR 32 PD 25.1]]. This does not allow for a fair trial. Valuable evidence maybe refused entry into court due to an inadequacy in format; but the courts should not assess format but the content in order to make sure a fair trial ensues.
the CPR encourages early exchange of information

The Pre-Action Protocols contained in the CPR dictate how parties are to conduct themselves even before a trial is started. This favours both parties and ensures a fair hearing. Parties are told to exchange information before starting proceedings. The claimant is to inform the defendant they wish to make a claim against by writing them a letter dictating the issue they are claiming on. The defendant is then guided to respond with a full and written response.[[Pre-Action Protocol: Pre-Action Conduct 7.1(1) and (2)]] The exchange of information is to be sufficient in order to ensure that each party understands the issues [[Pre-Action Protocol: Pre-Action Conduct 4.4(1)]]. If a trial results from the case in hand then each party will be able to proceed with all the relevant information they need to conduct their case. This allows for fair trails in compliance with Article 6 ECHR as it levels out the imbalance of power which could potentially arise between parties (between a company and an individual for example).
if a witness will not attend trial, the opposing party must be informed

When preparing for a case, there are various pieces of evidence that can be submitted. One of these is the witness statement. Witnesses produce a witness statement and then attend court for cross-examination. If a witness makes a statement but will not attend trial to give oral evidence, the party whom relies on that witness must inform the opposing party[[CPR 33.2]]. This ensures that the parties have access to all the information they need before the trial takes place. Upon receiving such notice, the opposing party may request that the court order that the witness attends trial so that they may be cross examined [[CPR 32.7]], this once again ensures that all parties can adduce the evidence they need to advance their case and ensure a fair trial.
the cost of litigation is excessive

The reason why legal aid does not cover some court cases is because soliciting firms offer 'no win, no fee' representation. That means that the person who wants to bring an action to court (the 'claimant') will not have to incur the costs. They will just have to accept the fact that if they win, their award at the end may be hampered by commission charges of the solicitors. But it does mean that Article 6 is catered for. The person had a fair and public hearing. Article 6 does not say that after being heard a claimant must be able to recover all of the damages awarded to them.
There are limitation periods to bring claims

Stubbings was not actually stopped from having her case heard. She did have her case heard, you cited the case reference. The problem was that upon being heard, Stubbings was told that it was too late for any chance of recovery. She still had the chance to be heard, the court if it felt it appropriate could have amended the interpretation of the wording of the Limitation Act if they thought it unjust that Stubbings could not claim. But they did not. In the interest of certainty they left the law as it was. But Stubbings had the opportunity before an open court to argue otherwise, on this occasion her argument failed. None the less, her right to a fair trial was no breached.
A fair trial is impossible to achieve no matter what legislation is introduced to make trials 'fairer'

Let us define fair as 'as fair/just as is humanly possible taking into account cost and time constraints, while also keeping a vast allowance for human error." Also the debate is to discuss the value of the law in improving the justice system. Has it made trials fairer or less fair? There have always been issues with the officious nature of how the law work; evidence has to presented at a certain time and not after. Surprise revelations or developments are not expected in court because of the limited time during proceedings. It is up-to lawyers and their clients to run their case efficiently pertaining to the rules or suffer. Outlining the rules has helped the legal system because it motivates court room efficiency and helps the lawyer and his/her client make the best prepared case before the trial so that time is not wasted and all the relevant information is presented in an organized and efficient fashion. A court room is not a fish market. Failure to produce the right evidence before trial(or not following other outlined CP rules) damages any client's case irrespective of whether the rules were/are in place or not. [[http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/]]