BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Schengen Agreement is an anachronism of a safer age.

Since the Schengen Agreement was first designed and implemented the world has moved on and become a much more dangerous place. The war on terror has already brought bombings to a number of European cities, and this changed circumstance makes Schengen a luxury the EU can no longer afford. September 11th has created a preoccupation with the security of the Union’s external borders.[1] Even before September 11th 2001 the drawbacks of open borders in terms of crime were obvious - which is why Paris controversially imposed stricter checks against drugs flowing into France from the more relaxed regime in the Netherlands using a broad interpretation of the rules for temporary issues of public order.[2] Since 9/11 there is a pressing need for stricter border controls to catch international terrorists and prevent the movement of dangerous materials which could be used in terror attacks. [1] Batt, Judy, ‘The enlarged EU’s external borders – the regional dimension’, Partners and neighbours: a CFSP for a wider Europe, (September 2003), pp.102-118, http://www.cespi.it/STOCCHIERO/Ascod-Adriatico/chai64e.pdf p.104 [2] Easton, Susan H., ‘Honor Thy Promise: Why the Dutch Drug Policies Should Not Be a Barrier to the Full Implementation of the Schengen Agreement’ Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, Vol.23., Issue 1., (12-1-1999), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1203&context=iclr&sei-redir=1#search=%22France%20schengen%20drugs%20Netherlands%22P.128 See also the Text of Schengen Agreement, especially Article 2.2 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:42000A0922(02):EN:NOT
The Schengen Agreement is both a symbol of and fundamental means of upholding the unity of the European Union

The Schengen Agreement has been supported by the majority of EU members since its inception in 1985 (it covers all the continental states of the EU) and has not caused any of the feared divisions in the 20 years of its existence. Indeed, the idea of freedom of movement creates a united Europe. Most EU leaders, together with a majority in the European Parliament, oppose any major restrictions to Schengen, which they see as a core value of European integration – both as a potent symbol (ranking close to the euro) and a fundamental reality of European solidarity. European Parliament negotiator Carlos Coelho said "Schengen is free movement and, like the euro, is one of the symbols of Europe"[1]. There is thus little reason to believe that major divisions will occur any time in the future. Italy and France’s disagreement actually produced a unified response about how to reform the Schengen Agreement for the good of all within it[2]. [1] ‘EU warned against changing Schengen deal on borders’, BBC News, 3rd May 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13266402 [2] ‘France and Italy push for reform of Schengen treaty’, BBC News, 26th April 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13189682
The Schengen Area eases the free movement of goods and people that the EU strives for

The freedom of movement of goods and people is a fundamental aspect of the European Union[1], and the Schengen Agreement is a crucial part of making that a reality. This is not just useful in terms of cutting the cost of conducting business across Europe; it also makes it easier to have holidays too. The Schengen Agreement paved the way for the Schengen visa[2] to come into being, which is what actually makes the EU free movement policy a reality; visitors to the 25 countries above now only need one visa to visit all of them. The Schengen visa also gives non-members of the European Union the ability to travel unimpeded through all of the countries that take part in the program. Obtaining the Schengen visa is the same as any visa process: you apply, send in your passport and then receive a stamp in it if you are approved. This process not only saves money – as you do not have to pay and apply for a visa for every country - but it also allows for more freedom of movement even for those who enter the Schengen area under a visa regime. All members of the EU believe that “the free movement of people is one of the Union's key achievements and we have to maintain and safeguard this”[3]. This is only a single point in favour of the Schengen area, but the freedom of movement clause is the very essence of the EU. Without the Schengen Agreement the most basic tenet of the European Union would cease to be. This far outweighs many of the technical disadvantages. [1] ‘Free movement of persons, asylum and immigration’, Europa, http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_mov... [2] ‘The Schengen Agreement: History and Information’, ACS, 2011, http://www.acs-ami.com/en/travel-articles/schengen-agreement.html [3] European Affairs, ‘EU haunted by fear of refuges, not reality’, The European Institute, June 2011, http://www.europeaninstitute.org/EA-June-2011/eu-haunted-by-fear-of-refu...
An African voice would change priorities for the better

An African state with veto power in the UNSC would have much more leverage to get African positions listened to. This is something that is particularly important as Africa is the region that is most commonly on the UN agenda. An African permanent member would likely alter the priorities of the Council for the better. It would be the first UNSC member without nuclear weapons, indeed if it were South Africa it would be a state that had given up nuclear weapons so would be in favour of disarmament.[1] There might be more attempts to solve the ‘root causes’ of conflicts rather than just providing a response when a conflict breaks out as Rwanda promoted as president of the UNSC in 2013.[2] An African member might also be more interested in development issues, pushing on climate change etc. It would provide more of a view from the South. [1] Graham, Suzanne, ‘South Africa's UN General Assembly Voting Record from 2003 to 2008: Comparing India, Brazil and South Africa’, Politikon, Vol.38, No.3, 2011, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02589346.2011.623842#.UrQ0IeImZI0 [2] Kanyesigye, Frank, ‘Rwanda Sets Priorities for UNSC Presidency’, AllAfrica, 2 April 2013, http://allafrica.com/stories/201304020025.html
The UNSC mostly deals with Africa

Africa’s goal is to be fully represented in all the decision-making organs of the UN, particularly in the Security Council, which is the principal decision-making organ of the UN in matters relating to international peace and security.  In 2013 the majority (23 out of 41) of UNSC resolutions concerned Africa.[1] Beyond 2013 almost 70% of issues considered are African; further 90% of peacekeeping personnel are in Africa. The African continent is keen to ensure that their opinion is considered on prospective embargos and military interventions. At the moment African countries are “preached to rather than consulted as equals” this must change. [2] [1] United Nations Security Council, ‘Resolutions adopted by the Security Council in 2013’, un.org, 2013, http://www.un.org/en/sc/documents/resolutions/2013.shtml [2] Spies, Yolanda K., ‘The multilateral maze and (South) Africa’s Quest for Permanent United Nations Security Council representation’, University of Pretoria, http://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/6307/Spies_Multilateral?sequence=1, p.99
The current UNSC Membership is outdated

The composition of the council is outdated and must adapt to a much-changed world in the 21st century. It is clear that there is growing discontent among African countries regarding the current structure of the UNSC. “We don’t understand why you have three countries out of five countries on the Security Council as permanent members with a veto coming from Europe,” Simbarashe Mumbengegwi, Zimbabwe’s Foreign Affairs minister has said.[1] South African  Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Maite Nkoana-Mashabane appealed for United Nations Security Council (UNSC) reforms and inclusion of Africa with at least two permanent seats, he made it clear that South Africa expects a UNSC seat when reform occurs.[2] The United Nations is meant to present sovereign states equally. The current membership was created in 1945 when there were 51 member states; most of them European, now there are 193 of which almost a third are African. On numbers alone in the current UNSC Africa should have between 4 and 5 members of which 1-2 should be permanent. The current distribution is selfish reflecting an imperialist past. [1] Phiri, Gift, “African nations push for permanent UNSC seat”, Al Jazeera, 26 September 2013, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/09/african-nations-push-for-permanent-unsc-seat-2013924133231925482.html [2] Nkoana-Mashaban, Maite, ‘South Africa demands permanent African seats in UNSC’, South African Foreign Policy Initiative, 12 August 2013, http://www.safpi.org/news/article/2013/south-africa-demands-permanent-african-seats-unsc
More vetoes mean less action

The reason there are only a few states with veto power is to prevent most states from being able to block essential security action that is in the international interest. More members increase the chances of vetoes and deadlock. There have been 263 vetoes since the founding of the UN with vetoes having been used by every permanent member. The veto is used to protect national interests not for the good of the international community.[1] States provide veto cover for censure against those they consider allies or even trading partners. Thus the most common veto in the last couple of decades has been by the USA to prevent censure of Israel. China and Russia on the other hand have prevented action against Syria and Sudan despite crises in these countries.[2] Give more countries vetoes and it will be used more often. Even worse an African country would have very different interests so would be vetoing different proposals. Thus for example in the past the USSR and USA have vetoed the admission of new members from Angola to Vietnam. An African veto might be wielded to discourage secession movements by for example vetoing the membership of South Sudan. [1] Okhovat, Sahar, ‘The United Nations Security Council: Its Veto Power and Its Reform’, Sydney University, CPACS Working Paper no.15/1, December 2011, http://sydney.edu.au/arts/peace_conflict/docs/working_papers/UNSC_paper.pdf pp.11-12 [2] United Nations, ‘Security Council – Veto List’, Dag Hammarskskjöld Library, accessed 20/12/2013 http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/resguide/scact_veto_en.shtml
International competition for seats on UNSC

African countries are not the only ones who wish to have a chair at the P5 table. There are more financially and military prominent countries who also have expressed their desires for having a veto power.[1] Among them, the most important are Germany and Japan who are, the second and third largest contributors to the UN budget.  Offering an African state permanent membership to the UN, would likely offend Germany and Japan. The reason UNSC reform has not gone ahead is that all potential members have other powerful countries that would be opposed to their membership. Thus for example Japan is opposed by China. And the G-4 (Japan, India, Germany, Brazil) are generally opposed by the 'coffee club' of 40 mid-size countries led by Argentina, Pakistan, Italy, Mexico, South Korea and Spain.[2] [1] Parashar, Sachin, “Insistence on veto may delay UNSC reform process”, Times Of India, 16 January 2012 http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-01-16/india/30631641_1_veto-power-veto-rights-veto-issue [2] Alam, Mohammed Badrul, ‘For a Rightful Place: UNSC Reforms and Japan’, SSPC, 12 July 2005, http://www.sspconline.org/opinion/ForARightfulPlace-UNSCReformsandJapan_MohammedBadrulAlam_120705
Proportionality

When looking at contributions to the UN, in 2010 no African countries are in the Top 27.[1] Those who fund an organisation deserve to lead it and have their opinion count the most. Of course, there is the need for a democratic council such as the UNGA, where all the countries, regardless of contribution deserve a right to vote, but when it comes to the UNSC, the veto power is just a privilege the African countries have not earned yet. Imagine creating a union to which a few states provide contribute the most resources, but are prevented from acting by another member who actively contributes nothing. This sort of power is unjustified. Peacekeeping and other activities the UN undertakes in Africa require money. No African state would want these operations to be diminished as Africa would be the region that has most to lose. But in return the continent has to accept the funders will get more say over the UN. [1] Browne, Marjorie, and Blanchfield, Luisa, ‘United Nations Regular Budget Contributions: Members Compared, 1990-2010’,  Congressional Research Service, 15 January 2013, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL30605.pdf, p.23
An African voice would change priorities for the better

Countries on the UNSC do already take an interest in the Africa, illustrated by French troops helping local democratic governments form Mali and CAR defeat various outlaw rebel groups.[1] Secondly, simply giving a veto to an Africa nation, does not guarantee that they will promote beneficial policies. South Africa for example has been accused of using UNSC membership to defend human rights abusers, South Africa’s response was that human rights "have always targeted mainly the developing countries".[2] [1] “Sand on their boots”, The Economist, Jan 24th 2013 http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21570718-french-action-mali-seems-be-workingso-far-sand-their-boots [2] Humphreys, Joe, ‘SA defends human rights voting at UN’, The Irish Times, 20 November 2007, http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1319279&ct=4653987
The UNSC mostly deals with Africa

There is no reason to believe that African opinions are disregarded when in the UNSC. Three out of 15 members is not particular disproportionate. First of all, many decisions are taken in the United Nations General Assembly, a completely democratic body, in which the African Union due to its 54 members has a lot of influence. Therefore Africa is not underrepresented on economic and development issues. Moreover the UNSC is usually following local concerns; the African Union has a chance to intervene on African security issues first like every other regional organisation. Indeed the AU is increasingly providing peacekeeping and even intervention as in Somalia.[1] [1] African Union Peace and Security, ‘Somalia (Forward AMISON HQ)’, African Union, 12 September 2012, http://www.peaceau.org/fr/page/40-2889-static-somalia-forward-liaison-office
The current UNSC Membership is outdated

Despite Africa’s demands for increased influence, they are not in a position of power and it is within their interest to maintain positive relations with the developed powers. They have numbers but despite their economic growth in the past decade Africa is still more dependent than any other region on foreign help. The budgets of Ghana and Uganda, for example, are more than 50 percent aid dependent.[1] Moreover, they need foreign troops in order to maintain order and fight rebel groups. In 2013, there were 15 peacekeeping missions in Africa playing a necessary role in maintaining order in countries such as the CAR.[2] [1] Ayodele, Thompson et al., “African Perspectives on Aid: Foreign Assistance Will Not Pull Africa Out of Poverty” Cato Institute, 14 September 2005 http://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/african-perspectives-aid-foreign-assistance-will-not-pull-africa-out-poverty [2] “UN Peacekeeping”, Better World Campaign, http://www.betterworldcampaign.org/un-peacekeeping/missions/africa.html
More vetoes mean less action

There is no evidence that an African state would constantly use the veto if they had it. No African state has the kind of interests around the world the current members have so a veto is only likely to be wielded over African issues. Such a veto will simply be ensuring that the African side is put before the council.   Moreover an African veto would not prevent the council from being useful; it won’t even have the effect the cold war did. Since 1990 62 UNSC resolutions were adopted per year, during the cold war only 15 were on average. If the UNSC could operate then it can operate with more veto members now.[1] [1] Okhovat, Sahar, ‘The United Nations Security Council: Its Veto Power and Its Reform’, Sydney University, CPACS Working Paper no.15/1, December 2011, http://sydney.edu.au/arts/peace_conflict/docs/working_papers/UNSC_paper.pdf p.12
Proportionality

Assessment of fees for the UN is not done on the basis of the influence of the member within the UN, rather it is done through a formula based on national income. The payment is for membership, not to buy influence.[1] As far as peacekeeping forces are concerned, South Africa is already a prominent contributor.  In the UN’s assessments of present troop contributions for peacekeeping efforts South Africa is 10th. Its record in promoting peace on the continent includes playing leading roles to end conflicts in Burundi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and most recently in Ivory Coast.[2] [1] Committee on Contributions, ‘Regular budget and Working Capital Fund’, United Nations, 2013, http://www.un.org/en/ga/contributions/budget.shtml [2] African Union Monitor, ‘Africa and the UN Security Council Permanent Seats, Pambazuka News, Issue 204, 28 April 2005, http://pambazuka.org/en/category/aumonitor/27913
A Palestinians were forced to leave and so have a right to return

The characterization of the 1948 Palestinian exodus as forced by Israel is incorrect. In the very same passage quoted opposite, Morris goes on to argue that only "an extremely small, almost insignificant number of the refugees during this early period left because of (Israeli) expulsion orders or forceful 'advice' to that effect".[1] Count Bernadotte, the UN mediator in Palestine, testified that "the exodus of the Palestinian Arabs resulted from panic created by fighting in their communities, by rumours concerning real or alleged acts of terrorism, or expulsion."[2] Thus, Israel is not responsible for acts of flight from Palestine which were largely motivated by imagined fears, which were the cause of almost all the Palestinian refugees, as they were not directly expelled or threatened by the IDF. The Palestinians of 1948 may have made a tragic choice, for themselves and for their descendants, but this does not make Israel morally responsible for this choice and its consequences, as in almost every case Israel was not to blame, and it is impossible to isolate and identify those few where it may have been. Even if Israel were somehow morally responsible, it does not follow from this that Israel should accept an unlimited Palestinian right of return on the part of every refugee, considering the massive harms this would inflict on the state of Israel (outlined below). Rather, as Israel has proposed in the past, the Palestinians could accept words of contrition from Israel, and generous allocations of international aid, in place of the right of every refugee and his descendants to go back to his old home inside Israel.[3] This would be a more acceptable alternative to Israel, and still help to heal Palestinian wounds. [1] Morris, Benny. "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited". Cambridge University Press. 2004 [2] UN Progress Report, 16 September 1948, Part 1 Section V, paragraph 6; Part 3 Section I [3] The Economist. "The Palestinian right of return". The Economist. 4 January 2001. http://www.economist.com/node/464892
Palestinians have a right to return under international law

Whatever the strengths and weaknesses of the Palestinians' legal case, their foremost argument for a 'right of return' has always rested on a claim of victimhood; this claim is highly disputed (as outlined below). Without this moral culpability on the part of Israel, there is no responsibility to right the situation on the part of the Israeli state. Moreover, the 'individual' nature of the right of return is not helpful to the Palestinian case: Stig Jagerskiold argued in 1966 that the right of return was intended as an individual and not a collective right: "...[it] is intended to apply to individuals asserting an individual right. There was no intention here to address the claims of masses of people who have been displaced as a by-product of war or by political transfers of territory or population, such as the relocation of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe during and after the Second World War, the flight of the Palestinians from what became Israel, or the movement of Jews from the Arab countries."[1] The claimed legal 'right of return' was never intended to be invoked by masses of people, which would fundamentally alter the welfare and nature of the state they returned to, and so its use in this way is invalid. [1] Lapidoth, Ruth. "LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE PALESTINIAN REFUGEE QUESTION". Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs: Jerusalem Letter / Viewpoints. 1 Septemebr 2002. http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp485.htm
Denying the right to return harms Palestinians

This argument again assumes that Israel is morally responsible for the current plight of the Palestinian refugees, which is untrue as Israel was not responsible for their exodus (as outlined below). Moreover, it is Arab countries, not Israel, which keep Palestinians in a state of limbo. It is the failure of Arab states to incorporate Palestinians into their societies by offering legal status which keeps the Palestinian refugees in their current indeterminate position, not Israeli policy. Furthermore, self-determination is not an absolute right. Not every territory and region in the world that seeks independence has the right to it. This is due in no small part to the fact that such a system would be unworkable. Certain criteria must be met for a territory and people to obtain a legitimate right to self-determination, including not compromising the fundamental security or nature of the original state, something which recognising the Palestinian right of return would do to Israel. Such policies are often pursued by Arab states explicitly as a tool against Israel: for example, Palestinians who moved from the West Bank (whether refugees or not) to Jordan, are issued yellow ID cards to distinguish them from the Palestinians of the "official 10 refugee camps" in Jordan. Since 1988, thousands of those yellow-ID card Palestinians have had their Jordanian citizenship revoked in order to prevent the possibility that they might become permanent residents of the country. Jordan's Interior Minister Nayef al-Kadi said: "Our goal is to prevent Israel from emptying the Palestinian territories of their original inhabitants," the minister explained. "We should be thanked for taking this measure... We are fulfilling our national duty because Israel wants to expel the Palestinians from their homeland."[1] [1] Abu Toameh, Khaled. "Amman revoking Palestinians' citizenship". The Jerusalem Post. 20 July 2009. http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443863400&pagename=JPost/J...