DDO Tournament - Top Tier: Intervention to Stop Rights Abuses

Thanks to TN05! I apologize for any formatting errors from C/Ping from word. I will now present my case.FRAMEWORKUltimately, Pro has the BOP to show that his advocacy is "morally permissible." What does this mean? Permissible means allowable [1], indicating that is something is permissible, it is allowed but not necessarily encouraged or obligated. What Pro must show then, is that the principles of morality do not prohibit (allow) intervention when a goal thereof is to stop human rights abuses. If I can show that such intervention contravenes moral principles, or if I can stop Pro from showing that they don't contravene moral principles, than I have won this debate.For the purposes of this round, I will be examining two particular moral criteria, that of sovereignty, and that of utility. I assert that if intervention violates either one of these moral criteria, Pro's position cannot be morally allowable. Criteria One: UtilityThe moral justification for utilitarianism is simple and straightforward. Humanity designs its moral precepts around what it believes to be good and bad. For example, we believe life to be good, and so we value it highly, while condemning those things that minimize it (e.g. murder). We believe pain, suffering, etc. to be bad, and so we condemn things that promote such feelings (e.g. theft.) Ultimately, our morality is structured in such a way that we seek to maximize beneficial outcomes, and minimize disutility.This approach is also a reflection of practical morality. Prof. Gary Woller explains why an ends-based standard is needed when referencing governmental actors: "Appeals to a priori moral principles...often fail to acknowledge that public policies inevitably entail trade-offs among competing values. Thus since policymakers cannot justify inherent value conflicts to the public in any philosophical sense...the policymakers' duty to the public interest requires them to demonstrate that their policies are somehow to the overall advantage of society."Criteria Two: SovereigntyWe can define Sovereignty as "supreme authority within a territory." [2] Central to this concept is the idea of territoriality. "Territoriality specifies by what quality citizens are subject to authority--their geographic location within a set of boundaries. International relations theorists have indeed pointed out the similarity between sovereignty and another institution in which lines demarcate land--private property." [2]Sovereignty has a clear link to morality through the social contract. By surrendering our rights to a central government, the people enlist that government to protect them from outside threats. Thus, a government has an obligation to the people of its geographic space that it doesn't have to other groups of people. Insofar as well assert that the government does have supreme authority within its sphere, as granted to it by the people, it would be wrong for outside groups to diminish that authority, since they lack the consent of the people.Now that I have established a framework, I will present my contentions, impacting them back to these criteria.ARGUMENTSContention One: An Endless Pretext"Violations of human rights are indeed all too common...and if it were permissible to remedy them by intervention, there would be no law to forbid the use of force by almost any state against any other. If humanitarian intervention were justified, powerful states would receive an almost unlimited right to overthrow governments alleged to be unresponsive to the popular will or to human rights needs."" [3]This creates a justification for countries to violate one another's sovereignty on a near endless level. It makes it easy to construct a pretext for imperialist or self-interested interventions, an severely undercuts the notion of sovereignty in global society.Contention Two: Intervention Undermines Stability"The presumption against intervention ensures a degree of international stability and relatively peaceful coexistence between states...Through the respect of juridical boundaries, states remain tolerant of each other's existence and the diversity of behavior that transpires within them. This order, emanating from the Treaty of Westphalia and international customary law, is maintained through legal obligations outlined in the United Nations Charter. Article 2 (4) prohibits states from 'the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.' In addition, Article 2 (7) further mitigates interference in the sovereign affairs of states by declaring, 'Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.'"" [4] This serves to reaffirm the importance and validity of sovereignty as it is needed in minimizing war and conflict among states.Contention Three: Empiric FailuresIntervention Fails to Halt Violence in the Long-term"In the case of Kenya, the first and only country to which R2P was applied...So R2P was not a preventive measure, but it did succeed in halting the violence and preventing further displacement...Reports show a lack of security for ethnic groups in areas of return, an absence of planning for those who do not wish to return, inadequate compensation for destroyed homes and property. Moreover, thousands still live in camps and temporary settlements. Yet we don't hear...about the promotion of compliance with the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement with regard to rebuilding. Welcomed by the World Summit in 2005...the national human rights commission in Kenya considers its government to be violating these Principles...[even] after the violence.'"" [5]Intervention does not Deter future Abuses"'Like the domino theory, deterrence by example is largely irrelevant in the context of actual events. The aborted U.S. intervention in Haiti, for example, is not going to lead to a rash of military dictatorships any more than strong American responses to Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein deterred Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic from pursuing his aims in Bosnia.(18) To formulate policy on such a premise would be a mistake." [6]Intervention Backfires"Humanitarian disasters in Eastern Congo, which are probably the largest in recent decades, are mainly due to foreign interventions (mostly from Rwanda, a US ally), not to a lack of them. To take a most extreme case, which is a favorite example of horrors cited by advocates of the humanitarian interventions, it is most unlikely that the Khmer Rouge would ever have taken power in Cambodia without the massive...US bombing followed by US-engineered regime change that left that unfortunate country totally disrupted and destabilized." [7]Contention Four: Nations go to Extreme Lengths to Avoid "Boost on the Ground""While it might be possible to claim that NATO's actions were purely altruistic, the actual intervention was severely limited in its ability to stop human-rights violations because NATO was unwilling to put its soldiers on the ground, in harm's way...Instead, 'NATO stepped up its show of force by expanding its target list to include infrastructure within the FRY. These new targets included civilian-use facilities such as bridges, factories, electricity grids, and water treatment plants.' In fact, in April 1999, while the bombing of the FRY was continuing, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights issued various reports that directly condemned the manner in which NATO was conducting its operations...As one scholar notes, '[i]f the intervention was predicated, as it was by NATO, upon overwhelming humanitarian necessity, one must wonder how an intervention constructed solely of dropping bombs could quickly improve the plight of the Kosovars.'"" [8]Ultimately, intervention is likely to be conducted in such away that it actually takes more innocent lives than need be. It oftentimes ends up causing more harm than was needed--actually damaging human rights in the process.Contention Five: Cycle of Escalation"Every aggressive action led by the United States creates a reaction. Deployment of an anti-missile shield produces more missiles, not fewer. Bombing civilians--whether deliberately or by so-called 'collateral damage'--produces more armed resistance, not less. Trying to overthrow or subvert governments produces more internal repression, not less. Encouraging secessionist minorities by giving them the often false impression that the sole Superpower will come to their rescue in case they are repressed, leads to more violence, hatred and death, not less. Surrounding a country with military bases produces more defense spending by that country, not less, and the possession of nuclear weapons by Israel encourages other states of the Middle East to acquire such weapons."" [7]In this way, intervention actually intensifies and promotes conflict. SOURCES1 - http://www.merriam-webster.com...2 - http://plato.stanford.edu...3 - Holzgrefe, J.L. and Robert Keohane [Professors at Cambridge University] 2003, “Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal, and Political Dilemmas,” Cambridge University Press.4 - Di Stefano, Paul [Prof. of Humanities at John Abbott College in Montreal, Quebec] 2011, “Human Rights Violations and the Moral Permissibility of Military Intervention,” Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice, 23:537–545 (2011)5 - http://www.brookings.edu...6 - http://www.cato.org...7 - http://dalehan.blogspot.com...8 - Hafkin, Gregory [J.D. Candidate 2010, Boston University School of Law] 2010, “The Russo-Georgian War of 2008: Developing the Law of Unauthorized Humanitarian Intervention after Kosovo,” Boston University International Law Journal, Vol. 28:219Thanks! Over to Pro...