BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A EU constitution will foster a “European identity”

There is no consensus for a United States of Europe. Most citizens identify themselves more with their nation-states rather than with the EU.[1] Only 28% of Belgians and 5% of Britons consider themselves equally their national identity and European.[2] It is also by no means clear that eroding national identities is a desirable phenomenon. The EU is an organisation in which twenty five nation-states cooperate with each other. Where necessary, these states pool their sovereignty in order to tackle common problems. The EU is thus an instrument used by nation-states to pursue their own interests in a world that makes it increasingly difficult for states to do this in isolation. The EU is a useful instrument of nation-states rather than a challenger to these states for the patriotism and loyalty of their citizens. [1] Manuel, Paul Christopher, and Royo, Sebastián, ‘Re-conceptualizing economic relations and political citizenship in the new Iberia of the new Europe’ Suffolk University, 4 May 2001, http://webcas.cas.suffolk.edu/royo/eu_spain_portugal.pdf [2] Turmo, Ivan and Bradley, Simon, ‘Poll reveals European mindset among Swiss’, swissinfo.ch, 11 August 2010, http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/foreign_affairs/Poll_reveals_Europe...
The ECJ has often been accused of over-stepping the legitimate boundaries of

Having a European Constitution would make very little difference to the role of the ECJ. It could still have an activist agenda in terms of interpreting the new constitution. The United States Constitution is one of the shortest in the world yet the United States Supreme Court has felt free to either stick very closely to the text or very liberally interpret it depending on the composition of the court. Accusing judges of “judicial activism” is often just cover for someone saying that they don’t like the decision.[1] The adoption of a binding constitution will therefore not increase democracy in the European Union. It will tie the hands of democratically elected governments in the member states and force them to an even greater extent to be subordinate to the judges in the ECJ. [1] Wallace, Chris, ‘Ted Olson on Debate Over Judicial Activism and Same-Sex Marriage’, Fox News Sunday, 8 August 2010, http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/transcript/ted-olson-debat...
There already are constitutional documents

Constitutional ‘documents’ is exactly the problem. The EU is a very large (as of January 2007, 27 member states) international organisation with a considerable number of competencies and several important institutions. It is important to have one, clear document that precisely defines the different powers of, and relationships between the 27 member states, the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Courts of Justice. But also the relationships between states that may have opted out of some parts of the EU; between those who are in Schengen and those who opted out, between those in the Eurozone and those outside. Complicated federal polities such as the United States, Germany and Switzerland have constitutions which define the limits of central power and the areas in which the states have autonomy; the EU should in this respect be no different.
Adopting a European Constitution and failing to abide by it would be a big and challenging failure

A failure of not having a ratified EU constitution will actually represent a more significant blow to the EU’s image abroad and at home. Talk about the decline of the EU is not helping the European economy, or the way in which the EU is perceived. The failure to reform could potentially lead to an actual collapse of the EU as we know it, which would have disastrous effects for the region as well as the world. The failure of the Constitutional Treaty would also result in powerful disillusionment in the countries that have recently entered the EU or are applying to enter. This could significantly slow down further enlargements and put their domestic reform agendas at risk.
A EU Constitution will lead to a superstate, which is undesirable at the moment

Any constitution need not be a step towards a European superstate or even a federal European state. It may simply be rationalising current treaties and making the EU more accessible with little in the way of real changes to the location of power. None the less such a change would not be all bad as Paavo Lipponen, Prime Minister of Finland argues “The EU ought to develop into a great power in order that it may function as a fully fledged actor in the world.”[1] The EU as a great power would be more effective in solving conflict and promoting development in other parts of the world, particularly in Africa, parts of Asia and even Latin America as well as providing economic benefits for its own members. [1] Free Europe, ‘Building the EU SuperState: what leading EU politicians say about it’, 26 September 2005, http://www.free-europe.org/english/2005/09/building-the-eu-superstate-wh...
A comprehensive reform of the EU institutional layout is a must

A comprehensive reform of the EU institutional layout is a must given the pressures created by the continuing enlargement process as well as the integration process. The existing EU architecture worked fine for a community of six states, and even for a group of twelve, but it is now desperately out-dated and unsuitable for a Union of 27 or more. For example, the national veto still applies in many areas, meaning one state can block progress even when the other 26 agree. Even when agreement is reached, it is often agonisingly slow and difficult to implement across the whole of the Union, often having to pass through every parliament. As a result EU decision-making has often been criticised as slow, complex and producing too many ‘lowest common denominator’ solutions, therefore Ireland can bring to a halt a vital treaty like Lisbon[1] and the role of the Presidency and ‘foreign minister’ is a compromise that does not result in more unified policy.[2] While still leaving the people feeling distant from the EU’s political processes, undermining legitimacy.[3] A Constitutional Treaty is the only comprehensive tool that exists right now in order to allow for this necessary overall reform.   [1] BBC News, ‘Ireland rejects EU reform treaty’, 13 June 2008, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7453560.stm [2] Bellotti, Sarah M., and Dale, Reginald, ‘U.S. Media Snubs New EU Leaders’, Center for Strategic & International Studies, http://csis.org/blog/us-media-snubs-new-eu-leaders [3] Renda, Andrea, ‘Policy-Making in the EU; Achievements, Challenges and Proposals for Reform’, Centre for European Policy Studies, 2009, www.ceps.eu/files/book/1854.pdf
The current treaty-basis for the European Union is enormous, ambiguous and extremely complicated

The current treaty-basis for the European Union is enormous, ambiguous and extremely complicated. The existing treaties regulate multiple levels from the constitutional to detailed market regulations. As a result of this individuals cannot easily read and understand the treaties as a US citizen for example.[1] It is difficult to keep track of each new Treaty that amends the pre-existing treaties. The adoption of a shorter, clearer document will make the EU much more ‘user friendly.’ The EU currently suffers from the fact that many of its citizens do not know what it is or what it does; EU citizens either do not know where to look for this information or are deterred and intimidated by the size of the Treaty of Rome and the Maastricht Treaty. Having an easily digestible constitution will mean that the EU’s citizens can easily find out what the EU is and what it does. [1] Gjørtler, Peter, ‘ Lisbon Treaty - the Reform Treaty of the European Union’, grayston & company, November 2009 http://www.graystoncompany.com/gco/articles/G&C_article_Lisbon_Treaty_PG...
Interventions can be small and successful.

Individual rights are created by the state and do not exist in a vacuum, nor do they exist outside of the realm of the existence of a state. To argue that a “social contract” exists where one gives up their “rights” to the state is to suggest that these rights somehow exist outside of the scope of the state existing, which they do not. States empower individuals to have the capacity to do things and thus allow for practical rights to exist. The rights they allow or disallow, whether “human rights” or otherwise, are simply constructions of the state and its denial of certain rights is therefore in no way a breach of any contract or trust[1]. No state or external organisation has any right to decide what a state should or should not construct as its citizen’s rights and therefore has no basis for intervention. [1] Burke, Edmund. "Reflections on the Revolution in France." Exploring the French Revolution. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Jun 2011. <http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/563/>.   improve this
National sovereignty ends when human rights are systematically violated.

Referring back to counterargument one, this again assumes the a priori existence of individual rights. Moreover, following this logic, as all individuals would, behind a "veil of ignorance", most certainly choose to live is a developed, prosperous nation, all developed nations would have the moral obligation to literally relocate the entire population of the developing world into their own countries. Simply because something may be seen as "preferable" to some people does not a moral imperative create. Further, this experiment assumes universality of any conception of rights or "human rights". The subjective nature of what it means to be a human being between different faiths and cultures leads to different conceptions of what "dignity" means to humanity and thus enforcing the conception of "dignity" held by the militarily powerful on other states does not necessarily protect it, but in many ways can erode it. improve this
This deters future human rights abuses.

The use of force sends a strong message to oppressive regimes that their behaviour will not be tolerated. Human rights abuses happen around the world because there is no mechanism to stop it. Oppressive regimes thrive simply because there is no real, coherent deterrent to their abuses. Sanctions target their populations not their personal enrichment they gain through siphoning off money from domestic industry, diplomatic sanctions have no tangible impact on states and peacekeepers are useless when there is no peace to keep. The only true deterrent to regimes around the world is the danger that a strong military rival from outside will intervene and stop them and remove them from power. Sending a strong message that the international community can and will intervene in the cases of human rights abuses seriously increases the costs in regimes' cost-benefit-analysis of state behaviour and deters them from committing human rights abuses for fear of military defeat from abroad. improve this
Foreign intervention fragments the conflict.

The use of force by foreign agents fragments conflicts which perpetuates the war. The countries who are likely to and historically have participated in humanitarian intervention are developed Western nations such as the US, UK, Canada and France either unilaterally or under organisational banners such as NATO. In the vast majority of the world, the West is not well-liked and the education systems, media and local history have created negative perceptions of the West as "imperialists" and colonialists. Intervention can often be seen as "neo-colonialism" and the West trying to assert power to change regimes inside other countries around the world. This, combined with the inevitable human cost of the use of force, turns local populations against the intervening forces and allows government forces to cast any resistance movements that cooperate with the intervening forces as traitors to their country. This is both bad in terms of causing large military opposition from both sides of the conflict against the troops who are intervening, but also fragments the conflict. Resistance movements splinter into those cooperating with the intervening forces and those who aren't. This fractures the resistance movements, reducing their chances of success and reducing the possibility of ceasefires by fragmenting the sides of the conflict making it hard to determine who effectively represents who at the negotiating table. A good example of this can be seen by the fragmentation of Sunni and Shi'a factions in Iraq post-intervention and the further entrenchment of Sunni opposition to the Shi'a after the Western forces specifically enriched the Shi'a through power and wealth for their cooperation1. 1"Iraq in Transition: Vortex or Catalyst?" Chatham House 04.-2 n. pag. Web. 7 Jun 2011. improve this
Force does more harm than good.

The use of force is incredibly damaging to the people you are trying to protect. Military intervention inevitably leads to further casualties and loss of civilian life. All warfare has civilian costs due to imperfect strategic information, the use of human shields and the simple fact that more bombs, troops and guns leads to more violence and thus more death of those caught in the crossfire. Adding to this the propensity of forces to hide among civilian populations and, often, the lack of identifiable military uniforms, leads to further human costs and prolonged guerrilla warfare. Adding to human cost is the infrastructural costs of prolonged warfare, particularly seen in interventions including bombing campaigns, leads to prolonged and sustained damage caused by the use of force both during war and in reconstruction. For example, the NATO bombing campaign in Kosovo in 1998 led to 1,200-5,000 civilian deaths[1]. If we are aimed at protecting the human rights of individuals, the massive loss of human life, and sustained damage to basic infrastructure necessary for the functioning of the state means the use of forces furthers human rights abuses, not stops them. [1] "Kosovo: Civilian Deaths in the NATO Air Campaign." Human Rights Watch. United Nations High Commission for Refugees, n.d. Web. 7 Jun 2011. <http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,HRW,,SRB,,3ae6a86b0,0.html>.   improve this
This is an illegitimate violation of national sovereignty.

Human rights are a social construct that are derived from the idea that individuals have created on the subject. States empower individuals to have the capacity to do things and thus allow for practical rights to exist. The rights they allow or disallow, whether “human rights” or otherwise, are simply constructions of the state and its denial of certain rights is therefore legitimate practice of any state[1]. The imposition of one state’s conception of what rights should or should not be protected is in no way morally justifiable or universally applicable. Different religions and cultures create different constructs of human dignity and humanity and thus believe in different fundamental tenets and “rights” each person should or should not have. It is not legitimate to impede upon another state’s sovereignty due to subjective consideration imposed upon the less powerful by the superpowers of the global system. [1] Burke, Edmund. "Reflections on the Revolution in France." Exploring the French Revolution. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Jun 2011. <http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/563/>.   improve this
Interventions can be small and successful.

It is the interventions that take a long time to succeed, such as Kosovo, or even fail such as Somalia, or those where many people do not buy into the justification such as Iraq that are remembered. However this forgets that there have also been many small successful interventions and sometimes the threat of intervention is enough. Sierra Leone is the forgotten conflict of Tony Blair’s premiership in the UK. In 2002 Britain sent 800 paratroopers into Sierra Leone, originally just to evacuate foreigners from the country but became an intervention when the British helped government forces drive out rebels which may have saved many lives. However it may also have emboldened Blair to help with intervention in Iraq.[1] This example also shows that it is important to have support on the ground as the British were seen as being legitimate and there was a functioning government who could do the rebuilding. Where this luxury does not exist it is important not to do as happened in Iraq and disband the civil service and prevent those natives who are qualified from running the country even if they may have been implicit in the previous regimes actions. Where possible as little force as possible should be used. In Libya NATO only committed airpower and supplied weapons so keeping the conflict as much a domestic affair as possible. Slowly as it becomes accepted that interventions will happen the threat will become enough. Sudan may well in part have accepted the secession of South Sudan due to the US backing of the peace deal in 2005. [1] Little, Allan, ‘The brigadier who saved Sierra Leone’, BBC Radio 4, 15 May 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8682505.stm   improve this
National sovereignty ends when human rights are systematically violated.

States violate their right to non-intervention through systematic human rights abuses by violating the contract of their state. States derive their rights of control and on the monopoly of violence through what is called the ‘social contract.’ A state gains its right to rule over a population by the people of that state submitting to it their rights to unlimited liberty and the use of force on others in society to the state in return for protection by that state[1]. The individual is sovereign and submits his rights to the state who derives sovereignty from the accumulation of an entire population’s sovereignty. This is where the legitimacy and right to control a population by force comes from. When a state is no longer protecting its people, but rather is systematically removing the security and eroding away the most basic rights and life of those citizens, they no longer are fulfilling the contract and it is void, thus removing their right to sovereignty and immunity from intervention. The necessity of intervention in such a case comes from the desperation of the situation. Regimes that use the machinery of the state and their enriched elite against their populations hold all the wealth, power and military might in the country. There is no hope for self-protection for individuals facing a powerful, organized, and well-funded national army. In such a case, the sovereignty of the individuals need to be protected from the state that abuses them.
Foreign intervention fragments the conflict.

This is unlikely to happen in the majority of cases as not all countries have an anti-Western bias and not all intervening forces have to be Western or identifiably Western. Moreover, the best way to gain the support of a population is to tangibly impact their lives and demonstrate the commitment to their protection and their cause. The best solution for anti-intervention force bias comes with the intervening force itself when real people see troops fighting in a real way to protect them and their rights. There is no more powerful way to build trust than to save a member of someone's family or community in front of their eyes. Thus, this is a self-correcting issue. Although there may be initial issues with backlash from the region, most people will welcome those who are risking their lives to save them and their families. improve this
This is an illegitimate violation of national sovereignty.

Most human rights abuses are motivated by ideological factors that are not rationally calculated through a "cost-benefit-analysis." Much of the world's human rights abuses are committed along ethnic or religious lines and thus are not open to incentives and disincentives but are rather absolutist obligations they think they have from their religion or ethno-cultural beliefs. Moreover, most interventions are costly, damaging for the intervening forces and are generally unappealing to domestic populations in the states that are intervening. As such, the political will for intervention is usually quite low and not feasible. Most regimes will know this and thus take this "message" from the international community with a grain of salt and therefore have no impact on their actions. improve this
Factionalism is too strong

The question is as much whether once a democracy has been established it can sustain itself as a system through multiple changes in government without reverting to dictatorship by coup. Notionally at least Lebanon has been a democracy continually since 1932, if the interruption of the brutal civil war is ignored. While that event shows that it can hardly be called stable in the general sense, it has been in the way that democracy survived even that cataclysm. Such ethnic tensions are hardly conducive to stable government even in Western Europe.[2] When Belgium’s current political quagmire is looked at next to Lebanon the differences between Flemish and Walloon seem insignificant compared those which a Lebanese government must bridge, so even if its effectiveness may be questioned Lebanon’s democracy surely holds out hope for all, particularly for countries that are much less divided.  There are excessively high hopes for Arab democracy this early, given that democracy has only been the prominent governing system in the West for the past century or so, and only without widespread violence since the end of World War II. It may take more than a few months for the Middle East to establish durable democratic systems, but the first steps are certainly established.  [2] Belgium: Still No Government, Mar., 1. 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/world/europe/02briefs-Belgium.html
The west only supports democracies that fit with its world view.

The western reaction to victories by Hamas or Hizbollah while on one level hypocritical do not show that the west would be unsupportive of Arab democracy. Both parties are opposed because they are perceived to be both anti-democratic in nature and, through their opposition to Israel, agents of instability. Opposition to Hamas was always qualified, according to Tony Blair former British PM “Of course, we recognize the mandate for Hamas because the people have spoken in a particular way in the Palestinian Authority. But I think it is also important for Hamas to understand that there comes a point, and that point is now following that strong showing, where they have to decide between a path of democracy or a path of violence.”[1] Certainly when it comes to more moderate parties like Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party (AKP)’s victory in 2002 was cautiously welcomed by the United States despite the party’s islamist roots. With State Department spokesman Richard Boucher saying immediately after its electoral victory “Let's not speculate on the future of the Turkish government, but let us at this point congratulate the Justice and Development Party on its electoral success.[2] Although the press tended to present the party’s islamist leanings as a problem this was balanced by some in the western media welcoming the opportunity to marry Islam with liberal democracy, and the example that Turkey could show.[3] It has to be remembered that there is a great deal of religion in US politics, to dismiss any parties that had Islamic roots would be seriously hypocritical. It has to be assumed that democrats in Muslim nations would express piety in order to connect with the general population, if politicians did not reflect the views of their constituents they would not be very good democrats. [1] Bush: no change in US policy on Hamas, The Independent, Jan., 26, 2006, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/bush-no-change-in-us-po... [2] Michael Rubin ‘Green Money, Islamist Politics in Turkey’, Middle East Quarterly Winter 2005, http://www.michaelrubin.org/933/green-money-islamist-politics-in-turkey [3] Christian Christensen, ‘Pocketbooks or Prayer Beads? : U.S./U.K. Newspaper Coverage of the 2002 Turkish Elections’, The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 2005 10: 109, pp.120-1   improve this