DDO Tournament - Top Tier: Intervention to Stop Rights Abuses

As I'm in my final round, I'd like to congratulate my opponent. This has been a close debate, and I look forward to resolving the final points my opponent has made here before I close.To begin, my opponent states I haven't refuted his framework. This is correct, he has chosen to limit himself to just two regards and I have refuted both. He also argues I haven't refuted his utility criterion – I may not have refuted it directly, but only because I have already established the utilitarian benefits of intervention (namely, bloodless revolution resulting in democracies). My opponent asserts it is 'erroneous' to regard international law as a limiter of sovereignty. He asserts states have unrestricted sovereignty over their territory, and can opt out of international agreements whenever they wish. Unfortunately (for him at least), the source he uses to support this claim states otherwise. To quote his source verbatim, “It does not follow, however, that sovereignty is absolute. Should it be absolute, it would deny the very idea of an international legal order of mankind. To rely on sovereignty as a fundamental attribute of the State does not necessarily entail exemption from international law either in the form of general international law or treaty obligations. Manifold legal obligations of States co-operating within a network of international instruments may restrain their freedom of action and consequently their exercise of sovereignty, but are in fact a form of exercising their sovereignty and may rather enhance the preservation of their legal status of sovereignty politically and economically. Such obligations neither deprive States of their sovereign status nor diminish it. It would be safe to conclude... that 'Sovereignty in the sense of contemporary international law denotes the basic international legal status of a State that is not subject, within its territorial jurisdiction, to the governmental, executive, legislative, or judicial jurisdiction of a foreign State or to foreign law other than public international law'.”[1] I've already established R2P as being international law, but this places a dagger through the heart of my opponent's sovereignty argument – even his own sources rejects the idea of absolute sovereignty. States have greed to uphold basic laws, and it is entirely appropriate to hold them to that standard.In response to my refutation of his endless pretext argument, he asserts that I misinterpreted his claim – he's not claiming countries could invade for minor abuses, but that countries could invade under the guise of helping stop abuses. This is an interesting argument, but fails as it actually doesn't harm the resolution at all. To explain, I am defending the idea that intervention to stop rights abuses isn't morally impermissible. What my opponent is arguing here is akin to saying it isn't morally acceptable to stop someone who is being mugged on the street, because some other person might attack a person he hates under the pretext of stopping a mugging when really there isn't anything going on. He is asserting the immorality of the latter (abusing intervention for devious means) magically makes the former (selflessly intervening) immoral. That is an utterly nonsensical claim, and my opponent may be the one using reductio ad absurdum[3] here. People abuse rights all the time. Is the right to fair trial immoral because some guilty people might abuse legal loopholes? Of course not.His second point, stability, is utterly crippled by the irrationality of my opponent's pretext claim. He asserts that “If interventions become too easily justified, then global stability is undermined”. Under R2P, however, interventions aren't easily justified. More importantly, I've already established that international law does not allow unrestrained state sovereignty. In this same section, my opponent asserts sovereignty outweighs human rights. Rather than try and refute the fact that the UN Charter specifically allows for humanitarian intervention,[4] he asserts absolute state sovereignty is supreme due to an ICJ ruling that found the United States could not attack Nicaragua because they didn't wage armed attacks.[5] Even my opponent does indeed admit that there are instances where intervention is allowed, and beyond that I have clearly established that international law allows for intervenention, this case is very narrow as it only applies to armed responses to unarmed conflicts. Intervention is not wholly limited to armed intervention, however – I've demonstrated how unarmed intervention can be done, something my opponent has failed to rebut. Regardless, this isn't a debate on legality – it is a debate on morality.In regards to long-term failings, my opponent once again ignores my key argument (that R2P stopped killings and mass dislocations). Instead, he asserts his source (which I demonstrated was selectively quoted) doesn't endorse R2P, but actually disagrees with it. He accuses me of “taking [the quote where R2P is endorsed] out of context”, but once again this is false. My opponent once again quotes only a part that seems to agree with him – namely, a part where it says “unable to robustly protect people from atrocity crimes”. I suggest we take a look at that whole section unedited. “So there is still work to be done to reconcile more effectively R2P with humanitarian and human rights concerns. It is essential to do so. The international community to date has shown itself unwilling and unable to robustly protect people from atrocity crimes committed in their countries. R2P is a tool to raise awareness to the obligation we all have when it comes to protection. It should have the support of everyone here”.[5] This basically annihilates his assertion that the source opposes R2P. Instead, it wants it expanded to ensure that people are protected not just from short-term issues (which it can effectively handle), but also long-term issues.On deterrence, my opponent once again focuses on just a tiny portion of my comment – he says I basically agree with him that intervention in regional wars doesn't stop long-term violence. He doesn't mention the part where I note intervention is aimed to stop violence in a certain country, not cease it in all areas, or that covert intervention has resulted in numerous long-term usccesses. In regards to backfiring, he doubles down on his claim that the Cambodian genocide was mainly caused by US intervention. Unfortunately, his source is weak – a Wikipedia article, which merely states that “some historians” hold this view and that many others believe the intervention broke Communist control of Phnom Phen or saved Cambodia from collapse.[6] Dr. Craig Etcheson describes my opponent's position as “untenable”.[7] Regardless, Con hasn't disproven my claim that the rise was cause primarily by Cambodia and Vietnam's regional conflict as well as internal turmoil in Cambodia.On his fifth and final argument, my opponent again ignores the brunt of my argument (namely, “the idea that that all intervention is morally impermissible because some intervention has backfired is silly”) and instead asserts that intervention would result in a bloody, chaotic world. He also argues I didn't respond to his arguments about escalation of violence, but I believe I have in the sense that I noted that war may indeed inflame those who supported the abusers, it may be required due to no-win scenarios. I've made my point clear in these cases – that war is ugly and nothing about that has changed or will change. What my opponent hasn't made clear is how this makes all intervention immoral.Finally, I wish to raise several other arguments Con has failed to contest (FTC) or has flat-out conceded (CE):*FTC that the law protects individuals who make reasonable attempts at rescue.*FTC that covert intervention has resulted in bloodless revolutions and a transition to democracy in Poland and South Korea*FTC that public support for any type of war is low.*CE that ”Clearly, helping those in need is a good thing, from a moral standpoint”Now, that's just a few examples - everything but the concession comes from my oppening rounds. However, I think this demonstrates a major flaw with my opponent's case. To put it simply he hasn't disagreed with one of my three key claims (morally appropriate to aid), didn't even try to refute another (covert intervention works). As Con noted in his framework, his goal is to “show that such intervention contravenes moral principles, or... stop Pro from showing that they don't contravene moral principles”. I don't feel my opponent has done an adequate job in either to warrant a vote. Whereas I have given philosophical reasoning to justify intervention and have established the utilitarian effect of intervention (in particular, covert intervention), my opponent has droppe many of my key arguments and has mainly focused on noting negative examples of intervention or hypothetical scenarios, rather than the underlying moral justification this debate is supposed to be about – basically, he might have proven some intervention (or type of intervention) has caused bad things, but not that it is immoral. Given I have established the moral justification and practical benefit of intervention, and my opponent hasn't refuted my arguments on either front, I have fulfilled my burden of proof (demonstrating intervention is not morally impermissible) and thus a vote for Pro is warranted. I look forward to seeing my opponent's closing. Good debate!Rerefences:1. https://www.dur.ac.uk...2. http://europa.eu...3. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...4. http://www.un.org...5. http://www.gwu.edu...6. http://www.ask.com... 7. Etcheson, Craig, The Rise and Demise of Democratic Kampuchea, Westview Press, 1984, p. 97