BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Trade is a long-term basis for international co-operation.

Trade can be as short term as aid is; demand is very cyclical so if a country specializes in providing that good or service it can soon find that the product they are providing is no longer desired by consumers, or that there is a new product that makes what they provide obsolete. Even if there is a long term partnership between two trading partners it may simply mean tying the poor country into a different kind of dependency. Instead of the poor country being dependent upon handouts it is dependent upon the richer country buying its products or not trying to undercut it.  improve this
Trade may not help those most in need.

All countries have something to trade. Many of the world’s poorest countries have a lot of natural resources so they can take part in trade. Even if a country does not have sufficient natural resources it still has people. In order to be able to take part in the globalized manufacturing industry it need only be willing to accept lower wages than its rivals. Alternatively if it is landlocked and has not opportunity to trade in manufactures it can invest in education in order to become a services hub. All states have a comparative advantage somewhere, they just need to find it. improve this
Free trade is dangerous

Aid money is often misspent, even when handled honestly. By imposing solutions from outside, it favors big projects, "grand gestures" and centralization - all of which may be inappropriate, only benefit a small number of people, and suffer from intended consequences. By contrast, the profits of trade trickle down to the whole population, giving people the power to spend additional income as they choose, for example by reinvesting it in worthwhile local industries and enterprises. improve this
The global economy is not welcoming to African players

Even if that were true, people naturally want to trade with each other, seeking to turn their particular resources or skills to their advantage. All too often trade is limited not because government action is needed, but because the government actually gets in the way with restrictive rules and statist controls. For example, regardless of their terms of trade with developed nations, developing countries could all become more prosperous if they removed the barriers they have erected to trade with each other. Putting the emphasis on trade rather than aid redirects attention from what developed states should or could be doing for the developing world, to what developing countries can and should do for themselves. improve this
Financial contributions from the West have proved detrimental for Africa.

Between 1970 and 1998 when aid was at its peak, poverty rose alarmingly from 11% to 66%. This statistic alone suggests aid is damaging to African welfare. Africa began borrowing money in the 1970s when interest rates were low, but a rising rates in 1979 caused 11 African countries to default. Even after restructuring, they fell deeper into debt. While the Marshall Plan had been a success, the same approach would not favor Africa; as Dambisa Moyo contends, it lacks the required institutions to utilize capital efficiently. Debt servicing meant money was passing from the poor to the rich, leaving Africa in a precarious global position. Furthermore, countries which have rejected aid as an approach to combat poverty have prospered, indicating an additional correlation between aid and a ruined economy 1.   1 Edemariam, A. (2009, February 19). 'Everybody knows it doesn't work'. Retrieved July 20, 2011, from The Guardian:
A cyber treaty benefits everyone

It is unlikely that all states would see this as beneficial to them. There will always be some states that benefit more from engaging in cyber-attacks than others – usually the underdog in other areas. If cyber-attacks are an area being used to redress the balance then why should they be willing to restrict their freedom of action? This is why Russia is unwilling to engage in deep cuts in the number of nuclear weapons it has – they are the main area of armaments in which they have an advantage over their potential adversaries.
It would never work

There is no reason to assume that nations cannot get along on the issue of cyber security just because cooperation has not been prevalent so far. The US and China despite regularly accusing each other of launching cyber-attacks have set up a joint US-China working group on cyber security.[1] There is clearly a willingness to work together on this issue. As to working out who is behind attacks the United States at least claims to be capable of doing this. Panetta says the Department of Defence can track attacks so “Potential aggressors should be aware that the United States has the capacity to locate them and hold them accountable for actions that harm America or its interests.”[2] That computers in multiple countries should be taken over in order to launch an attack should simply provide another reason why all nations should want to be involved in preventing cyber-attacks. [1] ‘US-China cyber security working group meets’, BBC News, 9 July 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-23177538 [2] Garamone, Jim, ‘Panetta Spells out DOD Roles in Cyberdefense’, American Forces Press Service, 11 October 2012, http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=118187
A treaty would benefit larger powers over the small

Everyone would benefit from the potential closure of a zone of possible future conflict. While cyber warfare may give a smaller state a brief advantage due to some low cost methods of attack ultimately the superior resources, both in defence and attack in cyberspace of the richer state would be telling. In the United States the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) alone has a budget of $1.54billion for research into cyber offence from 2013-2017[1] considering that there are numerous other agencies involved in cyber warfare or defence, or monitoring the internet it is clear that cyber-attacks are not some wonder weapon that can even the odds between states. [1] Kallberg, Jan and Thuraisingham, Bhavani, ‘Cyber Operations: Bridging from Concept to Cyber Superiority’, Joint Force Quarterly, Vol.68, no.1, January 2013, http://www.ndu.edu/press/cyber-operations.html
Unlike warfare cyber-attacks don’t kill so they don’t need to be restricted in the same way

Clearly cyber-attacks are not currently deadly but this does not mean they will not become so in the future. Leon Panetta has warned “A cyber-attack perpetrated by nation states or violent extremist groups could be as destructive as the terrorist attack of 9/11”. Such an attack would be indirect – unlike setting a bomb – but could be just as effective “An aggressor nation or extremist group could gain control of critical switches and derail passenger trains, or trains loaded with lethal chemicals. They could contaminate the water supply in major cities, or shut down the power grid across large parts of the country.”[1] At the moment systems are not really connected enough to allow this but it is pretty much certain that technology will become more sophisticated, control more systems, and become more and more connected. This is immensely beneficial economically but does create vulnerability. [1] Garamone, Jim, ‘Panetta Spells out DOD Roles in Cyberdefense’, American Forces Press Service, 11 October 2012, http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=118187
Arenas of potential conflict must be regulated

Conflict needs to be regulated, and something that can start conflicts even more so. Warfare and conflict is currently regulated by the Geneva Conventions that seek to limit the effects of armed conflict and regulate the conduct of the involved actors.[1] Just as importantly there are rules on what weapons can be used through various treaties that ban weapons such as the Land Mine Ban,[2] and on when a state can legally initiate conflict through the UN Charter. In just the same way when a new area of potential conflict arises that too must be regulated by treaty. The internet and the threat of cyber-conflict is that new area at the moment. While cyber warfare is not currently a large scale threat it is still a form of conflict that could escalate just like any other - the Pentagon has explicitly stated it could respond militarily to a cyber-attack.[3] As a result it is most sensible to draw up the rules and regulations early, to ensure everyone knows the consequences and prevent damage by making sure that states agree not to engage in offence cyber-attacks against each other. [1] ‘The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols’, ICRC, 29 October 2010, http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions/overview-geneva-conventions.htm [2] ‘Convention on the prohibition of the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and on their destruction’, un.org, 18 September 1997, http://www.un.org/Depts/mine/UNDocs/ban_trty.htm [3] Brookes, Adam, ‘US Pentagon to treat cyber-attacks as ‘acts of war’’, BBC News, 1 June 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13614125
States will monitor each other, and an international body could be set up

Once a treaty is set up to limit or eliminate cyber-attacks monitoring is unlikely to be a problem because states will be willing to monitor each other. States in order to defend themselves from cyber-attacks already monitor the cyber-attacks that occur – the United States for example already has several cyber defense forces.[1] If that is not enough then there are numerous private groups that will be monitoring cyber-attacks as most are made against corporate rather than government targets. For example private company Mandiant exposed a unit of the People’s Liberation Army for its cyber-attacks in February 2013.[2] Once a cyber-attack has been traced and evidence gathered if the appropriate domestic authorities won’t deal with the culprit then an independent international institution can decide on the punishment for the government that is not living up to its treaty commitments. If there is a need for international monitoring rather than simply a dispute settlement mechanism then there are models available through current treaties; a UN organisation similar to the International Atomic Energy Agency or International Criminal Court could be set up that can investigate incidents when asked. [1] US Department of Defense, ‘The Cyber Domain Security and Operations’ http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2013/0713_cyberdomain/ [2] Mandiant, ‘Exposing One of China’s Cyber Espionage Units’, mandiant.com, February 2013, http://intelreport.mandiant.com/Mandiant_APT1_Report.pdf
The use of the internet undermines the state by demonopolizing the use of force

Ever since the state rose to ascendancy over powerful internal actors, such as the nobility in a feudal system, the state has had a monopoly on the use of force. The state quickly became the only institution with the resources to maintain military forces and has become the only legitimate wielder of force. The internet however changes this. Cyber-attacks are often by individuals or groups who can carry out a cross border attack without the aid of their home country. In 2011 CIA director Leon Panetta told Congress “when it comes to national security, I think this represents the battleground for the future. I've often said that I think the potential for the next Pearl Harbor could very well be a cyber-attack.”[1] If cyber-attacks are so important it stands to reason that the groups who are able to engage in such activities should be as limited as possible. While it is not always possible states try to make sure that the weapons of war for the most part remain in the hands of responsible actors. This should apply as much in cyberspace as elsewhere. While terrorist groups do exist – and are occasionally armed by states – for the most part they are seen by every government as being illegitimate. [1] Serrano, Richard A., ‘U.S. intelligence officials concerned about cyber attack’, Los Angeles Times, 11 February 2011, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/11/nation/la-na-intel-hearing-20110211
A cyber treaty benefits everyone

A treaty that bans, or sharply curtails cyber-attacks would benefit every state. Even those who may currently benefit from cyber espionage would be better off signing up to the treaty. First most cyber-attacks are not carried out by the state even in countries like China where the state is using the internet as an offensive tool. In its annual report to congress the Department of Defence stated some cyber-attacks “appear to be attributable directly to the Chinese government and military” but this does not sound like a majority.[1] Secondly no state wants a risk of conflict as a result of an unregulated new field of potential conflict. Or even to risk relations with other nations; cyber-attacks in large part go on because they are cost free. And finally all nations are the victims of cyber-attacks. The United States has repeatedly condemned cyber-attacks against it but China also claims that it is the victim of cyber-attacks. China’s Minister of National Defense General Chang Wanquan says “China is one of the primary victims of hacker attacks in the world.”[2] Having a treaty against cyber attacks would not only make business easier for all countries but it would build up trust between nations where it is currently being eroded. [1] Office of the Secretary of Defense, ‘Annual; Report to Congress Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2013’, Department of Defense, http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2013_China_Report_FINAL.pdf p.36 [2] Brook, Tom Vanden, ‘Cyber attack? What cyber attack?’, USA Today, 19 August 2013, http://www.usatoday.com/story/nation/2013/08/19/china-cyber-attack-pentagon/2671579/
It would never work

There are immense challenges to making a treaty seeking to prevent or curtail cyber-attacks work. Even on issues where there are clear security concerns it is unusual for the involved nations to be willing to get along and cooperate. This has proven to be the same with regards to the internet governance with Russia and China wanting greater state control while the US and Western Europe is opposed.[1] Even on issues where lives are being lost there is often no global agreement as can be seen by the deadlock in the UN security council over what to do about the civil war in Syria.[2] Additionally there is the problem that working out who engaged in a cyber-attack is difficult. Such attacks are often routed through proxy computers to launch their attacks. If attacking a difficult target that may seek to strike back the attack will be through numerous proxies which will be in numerous countries to make tracking back difficult.[3] This means there can be misattribution of attacks creating confusion about which state needs to act domestically to prevent the cyber-attacks – or in the worst case resulting in a response aimed at the wrong country. For example South Korea has blamed its Northern neighbour for an attack on the website of the South Korean Presidency but the hacking is more likely to have been the work of someone in South Korea itself as a South Korean detailed his plans on Twitter before the attack.[4] If it is difficult to attribute who launched the attack then it would clearly be easy to get around any ban. [1] Nebehay, Stephanie, ‘China, Russia seek greater control of Internet’, Reuters, 7 March 2013, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/07/net-us-internet-usa-idUSBRE92617220130307 [2] Black, Ian, ‘UN may struggle to respond to reports of Syrian chemical attacks’, The Guardian, 21 August 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/un-security-council-syrian-chemical-attacks [3] Greenemeier, Larry, ‘Seeking Address: Why Cyber Attacks Are So Difficult to Trace back to Hackers’, Scientific American, 11 June 2011, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=tracking-cyber-hackers [4] Koo, Soo-Kyung, ‘Cyber Security in South Korea: The Threat Within’, The Diplomat, 19 August 2013, http://thediplomat.com/2013/08/19/cyber-security-in-south-korea-the-threat-within/
A treaty would benefit larger powers over the small

Any treaty that seeks to ban cyber-attacks would simply be an attempt to cement the position of the most powerful countries at the expense of weaker ones. This is because cyber-attacks are, like terrorism, weapons that can be used by anyone to attack a much bigger target. To launch a cyber-attack there is little need for training, only a small amount of comparatively cheap equipment (to military hardware at any rate), and an internet connection.[1] And it is difficult to defend against. This makes it ideal for poor nations to maintain cyber warfare as a credible threat to their bigger neighbours while their neighbours threaten them conventionally with their bigger militaries. We have seen before arms treaties that are fundamentally biased in favour of a small group of powerful states. Most notable is the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty where there are five recognised nuclear weapons states who are allowed the horrific weapons and everyone else is banned from having them. This discrimination was accepted as a result of the agreement that the nuclear weapons states would eventually disarm. It has not happened so leaving a troubled treaty system that appears to be regularly flouted.[2] [1] Phillips, Andrew T., ‘Now Hear This – The Asymmetric Nature of Cyber Warfare’, U.S. Naval Institute, Vol.138/10/1316, October 2012, http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2012-10/now-hear-asymmetric-nature-cyber-warfare [2] Miller, Steven E., ‘Nuclear Collisions: Discord, Reform & the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime’, American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 2012, https://www.amacad.org/multimedia/pdfs/publications/researchpapersmonographs/nonproliferation.pdf
Unlike warfare cyber-attacks don’t kill so they don’t need to be restricted in the same way

Warfare needs to be closely regulated because of the numbers of people who can be killed and the devastation that can result. This is not something that is a concern with cyber-attacks. So far cyber-attacks have not been very effective. ‘Stuxnet’ was a computer worm targeted an important control system in the Iranian nuclear program sabotaging gas centrifuges by making them run out of control. It was created by US and Israeli intelligence yet was not particularly effective, and certainly did not kill anyone.[1] Other major attacks have infected a large number of machines, such as ‘Shamoon’ that attacked the Saudi state oil company ARAMCO which affected 30,000 computers, but again this is simply destruction of property.[2] No matter how indiscriminate cyber-attacks may be that they don’t cause large numbers of deaths means there is little need to ban such attacks – it simply does not matter if attackers don’t follow a set of conventions like the Geneva conventions. [1] Barzashka, Ivanka, ‘Are Cyber-Weapons Effective? Assessing Stuxnet’s Impact on the Iranian Enrichment Programme’, RUSI Journal, Vol.158, Issue 2, 28 April 2013, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03071847.2013.787735 [2] Garamone, Jim, ‘Panetta Spells out DOD Roles in Cyberdefense’, American Forces Press Service, 11 October 2012, http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=118187
Arenas of potential conflict must be regulated

While there are bans on certain weapons these are because such weapons are considered beyond the pale. This is either because they are horrifying as in the case of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, or indiscriminate as with land mines. This does not apply to cyber warfare. Other regulations similarly do not provide a good parallel as the Geneva conventions seek to limit the effects of armed conflict a similar treaty is clearly not necessary for cyber-conflict because the effects will already be limited by the type of conflict. Ultimately cyber-attacks are much more akin to espionage and are not regulated because they are small scale, localised, and have limited effects as well as being difficult to trace.
The use of the internet undermines the state by demonopolizing the use of force

While it is true that governments for the most part seek to prevent non-state actors that engage in violence we should not assume that the response will be the same for activities that are not violent. The rise of multinational companies has sometimes (particularly in the 1970s) been mentioned as a threat to the state (particularly poorer states where the MNC may be richer than the state) yet many countries promote their MNCs because they bring them wealth and therefore power.[1] Similarly having non state groups that are able to engage in cyber-attacks bring an advantage to those states that have them as they provide benefits both in conflicts (essentially creating a cyber-militia) and in peace where they engage in espionage so damaging competitors businesses. [1] Kobrin, Stephen J., ‘Sovereignty@Bay: Globalization, Multinational Enterprise, and the International Political System’, The Oxford Handbook of International Business, 2000, http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:8OQRH9PQoA8J:scholar.google.com
People who are destitute are more likely to turn to crime in order to satisfy basic living necessities.

Some people counter this argument by claiming it is not that people who are in extreme poverty that are more likely to take drugs, but those who take drugs are more likely to be in extreme poverty, as drugs are expensive and many drug users are unstable and therefore unable to keep a job. This could be taken to suggest that poverty is not a cause of crime in itself, but might merely be associated with other factors which cause it. Therefore to tackle the crime of drug use, we do not need to tackle social deprivation, but the drug use itself. Furthermore the argument that poverty increases the likelihood of racism or racist crime can be refuted if we acknowledge one of the most famous cases of racist crime, apartheid in South Africa.  This event is now considered a crime against humanity, "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime".[1] However, it was also created and maintained by politicians and many of the upper class in a stable and well-off society, thus this hate crime cannot be attributed to social deprivation. Even racist actions that occurred in socially deprived areas at this time or later must be looked at in a wider context and it seems clear that social deprivation alone cannot be blamed. [1] United Nations General Assembly, ‘International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid’, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 30 November 1973, http://web.archive.org/web/20061001200717/http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu...
We acquire our knowledge of what is right and wrong through education.

While it seems defendable that we learn moral values at a young age, the proposition argument does not look with the factual evidence about the individuals who are most likely to get involved in criminal activity. Criminologists came up with the ‘age-crime curve’.[1] This reveals that the profile of the average criminal is a male between the ages of 15 and 25. After the age of 25, the majority of criminals desist. Presuming that this pressure of social deprivation affects everyone in society in the same way, more steps need to be taken in order to explain why predominantly males between the ages of 15 and 25 seem to respond to it in this manner. This further goes to suggest that perhaps social deprivation is not a primary cause, but that factors such as age and gender play as much of a part in the likelihood of criminal activity.  [1] Bottoms, Professor Sir Antony E., ‘Crime prevention for youth at risk: some theoretical concerns’, Resource Material Series, No.68, 129th International Senior Seminar Visiting Experts’ Papers, pp.21-34.