Resolved: Pakistan is not a legitimate sovereign state

Framework"My opponent first points out that I did not provide sources for the standards, but regardless accepts the standards."I did not accept the standards as the entirety of these standards, nor did I accept them as the only representation of what constitutes a legitimate state."My opponent tries to argue that the 4th standard contradicts the 3rd standard but this is untrue on two levels.... Moreover, the 3rd standard is referring to aggression against another state...""The third is that the nation state cannot have violated the integrity of another nation which has legitimate claims to sovereignty. This can be justified by the fact that in a realm where all nations must co-exist and work towards their own ends peacefully a nation which seeks its own gain by violating the integrity of another debases international legal and normative ethical standards." The third standard does not limit violating integrity to aggression, as can be seen above. Therefore, the fourth standard still contradicts the third. C1: Pakistan has participated in genocidal activitiesTo justify his contention, my opponent must prove that the Pakistani government has participated in genocidal activities. According to the first standard, the nation state cannot have been involved in the planning or the genocide itself. My opponent's contention is that Pakistan has participated in genocide itself. My opponent next says that he has provided more sources on the genocide. I thank him for this, but two of the sources dealt with protests in response to the genocide, and none claimed that the Pakistani government had "participated in genocidal activities." I will point out, however, that in one of the sources he provided, there is evidence that the Pakistani government is fighting the genocide. "Last Thursday, Pakistani security forces thwarted a terrorist attack against Shia Muslims of Hazara community after they gunned down a would-be bomber on Kirani Road near Hazara Town, a pre-dominantly Shia neighborhood in the provincial capital, Quetta." [1]Next, he argues that his argument is that the government is condoning the action. This is an obvious change in his argument. The original contention was that Pakistan participated in genocidal activities. Now he is arguing that because they are unable to completely stop the genocide, they are condoning it. As I stated above using the quote from Pro's source, the Pakistani government is not taking action. I would certainly say that sending troops in to prevent an terrorism and genocide is an action. "A government has violated the terms of the Convention by being complicit in genocide."Complicit- choosing to be involved in an illegal or questionable act, especially with others [2].My opponent has certainly not proved that the Pakistani government has chosen to be involved in genocide.C2: Pakistan deals with transitional terror organizationsI will concede this link to the second standard.C3: Pakistan has violated established international standards on nuclear technologyThis argument has boiled down to the difference between the past actions of a nation and the present actions of a nation. The topic and hand is whether or not Pakistan is a legitimate sovereign state, not whether or not Pakistan was a legitimate sovereign state. In 2002, when my opponent's article was published, Pakistan had a different government then it has no. My opponent is trying to link events of a decade or more ago to the present legitimacy of a country. And he does this without providing a reason why these past events should still have an effect on the present nations sovereignty. Refer to what was said above about the third standard being violated by the fourth. How things stand: a tale of contentions and links to standardsMy opponent made three contentions to support four standards. C1: Pakistan has participated in genocidal activities. He is using this contention to support the first standard. In this round I refuted his argument, so he currently has no link to the first standard.C2: Pakistan deals with transitional terror organizations. I conceded this contention giving him a link to the second standard.My opponent has not really made an argument linking to the third standard, so he does not have a link.C3: Pakistan has violated established international standards on nuclear technology. I also refuted this argument in R3, so there is no present link to the fourth standard.Currently my opponent has made one out of four links. Thus, the way things stand in the debate as of now, Pakistan can be considered legitimate.Sources:[1]- http://www.presstv.ir...[2]- http://dictionary.reference.com...