BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Approval of the Parliament

The Russian parliament has agreed to approve force “in connection with the extraordinary situation in Ukraine, the threat to the lives of citizens of the Russian Federation, our compatriots”[1] The Russian Federal Council approved the move unanimously so allowing Russian troops to be used.[2] This gives President Putting the authority to use the Russian military in Crimea, or elsewhere in the Ukraine, if he believes it is necessary. The Crimean Parliament has also asked to join Russia and is to have a referendum to show the support of the people for this action. “From today, as Crimea is part of the Russian Federation the only legal forces here are troops of the Russian Federation, and any troops of the third country will be considered to be armed groups with all the associated consequences.”[3] This clearly gives Russian troops the right to be in Crimea. [1] Kelly, Lidia, and Polityuk, Pavel, ‘Putin ready to invade Ukraine; Kiev warns of war’, Reuters, 1 March 2014 [2] RT, 1/3/2014 [3] AP, ‘Crimean parliament votes to join Russia, referendum on move March 16’, FoxNews.com, 6 March 2014
Any cross border troop movements are a violation of sovereignty

States are allowed to take measures for “self-defence if an armed attack occurs”.[1] The movement of troops across the international border from Russia into Ukraine, and from the Russian base in Sevastopol clearly is a violation of sovereignty and Ukraine if it wishes has every right to use force to defend itself even if the Russians don’t fire first.[2] [1] United Nations, ‘Article 51’, 1945 [2] Deeks, 2014
Damaging to Russia

The United States wants to isolate Russia economically with Kerry threatening Putting “He may find himself with asset freezes, on Russian business, American business may pull back, there may be a further tumble of the ruble.”[1] Even without economic action Russia is already suffering fallout from the markets. The Moscow stock exchange fell 11.2% - or almost $60billion. The ruble reached all-time lows against the dollar and the euro and the Central bank was forced to raise interest rates by 1.5% to prevent further losses.[2] Longer term investment is likely to be hit as US and European companies are less willing to invest in a country with an aggressive foreign policy. [1] Swaine, 2014 [2] Adomanis, Mark, ‘The Invasion Of Crimea Is Crushing Russia's Stock And Currency Markets’, Forbes, 3 March 2014
Necessary response to an illegal coup

Acting due to a change of government is not the prerogative of another state. Putin is within his rights not to recognise that government and to grant asylum to former president Yanukovych but not to take action within the Ukraine to change the situation. The coup however was not a coup but an abdication. “Yanukovych has lost his legitimacy as he abdicated his responsibilities. As you know, he left Ukraine – or left Kyiv, and he has left a vacuum of leadership.” It was therefore Yanukovych who essentially decided that he was no longer in charge by leaving Kiev and not making any statements for several days.[1] Moreover the Ukrainian constitution (both 2004 and 2010 versions) gives the right to impeach the President to Parliament[2] this is what the Parliament has done. [1] Psaki, Jen, ‘Daily Press Briefing’, U.S. Department of State, 28 February 2014 [2] Constitution of Ukraine, Article 85 (7 & 10),  wikisource, 2004, 2010
Need to protect Russian civilians

“Russian mobilisation is a response to an imaginary threat. Military action cannot be justified on the basis of threats that haven't been made and aren't being carried out.” Argues US UN Ambassador Samantha Power.[1] There is little threat to Russian citizens or minorities from the new government. Putin has accused the new government of intimidating minorities and increasing anti-Semitism but Ukrainian Jewish organisations have said “does not correspond to the actual facts”.[2] Any protection of citizens should not be pre-emptive. While it is right that the Crimea should be consulted on its future this should be done without any Russian intervention. Having Russian soldiers on the ground biases any referendum helping to make it illegitimate. With the referendum having happened after intervention Russia cannot say it was reacting to the demonstrated will of the people. [1] Mardell, Mark, ‘Ukraine's Yanukovych asked for troops, Russia tells UN’, BBC News, 4 March 2014 [2] Zisels, Josef, et al., ‘Open letter of Ukrainian Jews to Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin’, Voices of Ukraine, 4 March 2014
Russia should negotiate with the new government

Negotiating with the new government would mean recognising it. Russia may well recognise a new government after elections are held and the government is once more legitimate but until then there is little to negotiate. Moreover elections must be held only when there is stability. At the moment Russia won’t recognise any elections because they would be held under a situation of terror where “there is the danger that a fascist element will come to the fore, and some anti-semite will come to power.”[1] [1] Siddique, 2014
Necessary response to an illegal coup

The current government in Ukraine is the result of an illegal coup. On the 21st February Yanukovych and the opposition in Ukraine agreed to EU proposals that restored the 2004 Ukrainian constitution and set Presidential elections for later in 2014. The two sides were “to create a coalition and form a national unity government”. Thus Yanukovych was to remain President until the next elections.[1] The opposition however ignored this deal. As Putin puts it “They immediately seized his residence rather than giving him a chance to fulfil the agreement... He didn’t have any chance of being reelected.” The Ukrainian opposition used illegal and unconstitutional means to effect regime change. Russia therefore has a right to act to protect those who there has been an “armed seizure of power”.[2] [1] ‘Agreement on the Settlement of Crisis in Ukraine - full text’, theguardian.com, 21 February 2014 [2] Siddique, Haroon, ‘Putin: Yanukovych ousting was ‘unconstitutional overthrow’’, theguardian.com, 4 March 2014 [used this link as it is more comprehensive than the Guardian’s own]
Need to protect Russian civilians

It is the people of Crimea who are important and their interests should be considered. Putin told the Federation Council that Russia is responding to a “threat to the lives of citizens of the Russian Federation… and the personnel of the armed forces of the Russian Federation on Ukrainian territory”.[1] Russia needs to protect both the Russian citizens who are in Crimea and the ethnic Russians who look to Moscow not Kiev. The Crimean parliament has agreed to hold a referendum on 25th May on “Autonomous Republic of Crimea has state sovereignty and is a part of Ukraine, in accordance with treaties and agreements.”[2] This was put forward to 16th March with two options; Do you support Crimea's reunification with Russia? Do you support the restoration of the Constitution of the Crimean Republic dated 1992 and Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine?[3] The 97% vote for joining Russia and 83% turnout conclusively show that this is the will of the Crimean people.[4] [1] RT, 1/3/2014 [2] RT, 27/2/2014 [3] Interfax-Ukraine, ‘Crimean parliament speeds up referendum, introduces question about joining Russia’, Kyiv Post, 6 March 2014 [4] Hewitt, 17/3/2014
It is an invasion without Security Council sanction

The legality of Russia’s invasion of Crimea is simple “Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine violates international law.”[1] The UN Charter is unambiguous “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”.[2]Russia has both threatened the use of force by its parliament authorising the President to use force on Ukrainian territory[3] and actually done so by sending troops into Crimea. The only legal way for the UN Charter’s prohibition on force to be avoided is through a Security Council mandate. Which Russia does not have.[4] [1] Posner, Eric, ‘Russia’s Military intervention in Ukraine: International Law implications’, ericposner.com, 1 March 2014 [2] United Nations, ‘Article 2’, Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945 [3] RT, 1/3/2014 [4] Deeks, Ashley, ‘Russian Forces in Ukraine: A Sketch of the International Law Issues’, Lawfare, 2 March 2014
Russia should negotiate with the new government

If Putin is truly concerned about Ukraine’s government being illegitimate and unconstitutional then he should be supporting elections as soon as possible to settle the question of who the government. Putin himself accepts that Yanukovych has “no political future” and helped him for “humanitarian reasons”.[1] If this is the case then military action in Ukraine is superfluous; what Russia needs is a new government in Ukraine that is legitimate. The action in Crimea however simply unites Ukrainian opinion against him making it less likely that a pro-Russian candidate stands a chance of winning the election. Already 58% of Ukrainians support integration with the EU.[2] A rash attempt on Crimea could ensure Putin permanently loses Ukraine from Russia’s sphere of influence. [1] Siddique, 2014 [2] Titchenko, Ilya, ‘The Deadly illusion of a divided Ukraine’, Kyiv Post, 2 March 2014
Invited by the legitimate government

This is a very different situation from a government inviting in UN peacekeepers. First the Russians are an involved party – part of the cause of the conflict due to the protests in Kiev first breaking out due to Yanukovych turning from the EU to Russia a country so involved would never be asked to be involved in a UN peacekeeping force. Secondly a UN peacekeeping force requires not only the approval of the government but of the UN Security Council.[1] This has not been forthcoming in this case. On the other hand it is different from basing in another country as the US does as that does not involve coercion. Or for that matter taking vital strategic points such as airports and surrounding the host countries military bases.[2] [1] ‘Role of the Security Council’, United Nations Peacekeeping, accessed 4/3/2014 [2] Fraser, 2014
Crimea should be Russian

Historical and cultural claims are not worth much when it comes to sovereignty over territory; if they were then every country in the world would be involved in disputes with their neighbours. In 1994 Russia agreed the Budapest Memorandum with the US, UK and Ukraine in it committing “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine [and] reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”.[1] Russia signed agreements in 1997 that recognised Crimea as a part of Ukraine in return for a lease on the base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet.[2] Russia has therefore not been contesting sovereignty and so has no legal claim. [1] Presidents of Ukraine, Russian Federation and United States of America, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, ‘Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances, 1994’, cfr.org, 5 December 1994 [2] Felgenhauer, T., ‘Ukraine, Russia, and the Black Sea Fleet Accords’, dtic.mil, 1999
Approval of the Parliament

Approval by one parliament may make the action legal within Russia but it does not make an invasion legal under international law. The Russian parliament has no legal authority over Crimea or other regions of Ukraine so cannot authorise the use of troops within that country – that is something only the Ukrainian parliament, or in extremis the UN Security Council can authorise. Similarly the Crimean parliament cannot legally simply decide that Crimea is no longer a part of Ukraine, even a referendum does not enable such a transfer of sovereignty. Self determination should be internal, not external.[1] [1] Supreme Court of Canada, Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217
Any cross border troop movements are a violation of sovereignty

“Ukraine is not [only] our closest neighbour, it is our fraternal nation... we will not go to war with the Ukrainian people.”[1] There have been no shots fired and the action is not a hostile act, it is simply to protect the Crimeans. Russia has not engaged in an armed attack as the forces in Crimea have not fired a shot. [1] Siddique, 2014
Intellectual migrants are more impregnated by ideas of internationalism and universalism

The concept of nationalism as developed in Europe during the 19th century did not undergo the same evolution in the developing countries. Intellectuals do not identify themselves with their countries the way Europeans do. They are more impregnated by ideas of internationalism and universalism than the western nationalist – for example Mohsin Hamid argues our views of liberal values should be extended beyond nation states with their often unnatural borders. Thus, if they stay abroad after having adhered to the western way of life, they consider themselves part of the great human lot, value free movement as a basic human right, and do not necessarily suffer from complexes of disloyalty towards their home country (3).
Most young intellectuals from developing countries are politically conscious and want to be "actors" in policy making

Young intellectuals from developing countries are to a very large extent politically conscious and active. They want to be "actors" and not "spectators" in policy making, all the more so when their specialism is impacted by government policy. Those who grow up in an autocratic, or not very democratic state are likely to want to go where they can use their voice. Even in many democracies intellectuals often largely liberal views both for government and teaching are not readily approved by the conservative regimes of their countries where usually the older generation is in power and constitutes a barrier against their progress.
The inferiority complex within older generations in the developing countries affects intellectuals’ sense of belonging while in their countries

An inferiority complex still exists among the older generations in the developing countries as regards the western technical know-how and organisation. A persisting attitude to place more confidence in the experts and specialists belonging to the developed countries than the educated nationals of the country (3) could foster a feeling of underestimation amongst intellectuals while in their countries, and becomes an additional driver of the continuous intellectual migration.
Developing countries have high unemployment rates and need to invest in job creation

Developing countries invest in education and job creation because they have high unemployment rates (6). They need to address the lack of opportunities in order to improve their economy and reduce migration. This is as much the case for those at graduate level as for those who have less of an education. Africa’s 668 universities produce almost 10 million graduates a year, but only half find work.(14) It should therefore be no surprise that many migrate overseas for opportunities.
Many developing countries support entrepreneurship and gender equality

In many developing countries, entrepreneurship is supported to create jobs and dynamic work conditions, and women are empowered and politically represented reducing any concerns of feeling as if they don’t belong. For example in Tunisia, many initiatives are being introduced to promote the entrepreneurship ecosystem including angel investing and attempts to reduce administrative barriers (9). Moreover, regarding gender equality, Tunisia’s Parliament has approved an amendment ensuring that women have greater representation in local politics. This amendment includes a proposal for gender parity in electoral law. (10)
Some intellectual migrants already feel a certain degree of alienation towards their national culture before leaving their country

If there is really no freedom then these migrants will be asylum seekers and refugees not true intellectual migrants by choice.   Even if there is some alienation from their own native culture these migrants are still travelling to a much more alien culture. This being the case it seems unlikely that alienation is the main cause. Rather they are travelling to a culture that is more alien because they believe there are better opportunities there.
Intellectual migrants are more impregnated by ideas of internationalism and universalism

Intellectual migrants do not necessarily discard a traditional value to replace it with a corresponding western value. For example, they seldom renounce their religion in favor of a western one (3). A weaker sense of nationalism does not have to mean greater internationalism. Instead there may be greater ties to traditional culture, to a region or village. There may be fewer ties to nation, but throughout much of the developing world religion has a far greater adherence than in the west. Thus with a couple of exceptions (Communist states such as China and North Korea) it is more developed countries that are mostly non religious.(12)
Some intellectual migrants already feel a certain degree of alienation towards their national culture before leaving their country

Intellectuals need stimulation, organisation, freedom, and recognition (3) that they usually struggle to find in their countries of origin. Some intellectuals from developing countries already feel a certain degree of alienation towards their national culture before leaving their own country (3). This may be a result of government policy; a lack of intellectual freedom, or because of a generally conservative culture. Thus, they experience a strong lack of intellectual belonging despite the arising economic opportunities resulting from their countries’ investments. Family ties also play a strong role in aggravating or mitigating alienation. This is why it is the young, who don’t have dependents themselves, who are often the likeliest to migrate.
Intellectual women migrants outnumber intellectual men migrants

The need of belonging is greater for women than for men – Bardo and Bardo found that they miss home much more (5). On the other hand, unequal and discriminatory norms can be strong drivers of intellectual female migration (1). More young women than men now migrate for education and, in several European countries today, highly skilled migrant women outnumber highly skilled migrant men (1). Between 2000 and 2011, the number of tertiary-educated migrant women in OECD countries rose by 80%, which exceeded the 60% increase in the number of tertiary-educated migrant men. In Africa for example, the average emigration rates of tertiary-educated women are considerably higher than those of tertiary-educated men (27.7% for women and 17.1% for men).
Facebook is bad for life satisfaction

Facebook enhances people’s lives and brings numerous advantages. Facebook provides information and social support through the creation of a network of friends; sometimes this communication will bring them into contact with material that makes them envious. The need then it to focus on the things in Facebook that are positive. It is clear that people prefer a Facebook which is concentrated around subjects of interest, friends’ updates and funny pictures rather than one which is constantly reminding them about their failures or about their acne. Therefore, users will try to block any type of harmful information, as generally you dislike being reminded about things that make you feel bad about yourself. At the end of the day, no matter of user, the accent will always be on meeting new people, having fun and making the connection with people that you already know stronger rather than searching for reasons to be envious on other people.  If life satisfaction declines when using Facebook more often then users will log in to Facebook less often, but this is far from being a reason to abandon social networks entirely. Facebook is a commercial enterprise: if it is bad for people’s life satisfaction they will vote with their feet. At the moment it is clearly perceived as being positive.
Facebook has some dangerous consequences

It is absolutely regrettable that men use Facebook in order take advantage of certain women, but we must not forget that because of these very situations Facebook and many NGO’s initiated campaigns to prevent these kind of tragedies happening again(1). Such campaigns have informed thousands of women about the dangers of meeting strangers, both the virtual world and in the real one, and how to avoid them. These campaigns both help women avoid the threat in the first place and encourage them to make sure they are protected, for example by carrying pepper spray, so at the end of the day, a significant number of women are now more protected against being rape because of these social networks. Facebook has clearly not increased the incidence of rape as statistics (2) show that the number of rape cases has dropped dramatically since the start of the world wide web. Cyber bullying is potentially a problem. On this level too, Facebook recognized the possibility of certain teenagers posting harmful or offending information about another party so it took action in order to try and stop this from happening in the future. As Facebook officials are declaring, they will “update the training for the teams that review and evaluate reports of hateful speech or harmful content on Facebook. To ensure that our training is robust, we will work with legal experts. We will increase the accountability of the creators of content that does not qualify as actionable hate speech but is cruel or insensitive by insisting that the authors stand behind the content they create “(2). Facebook has an entire department to try to prevent such cyber bullying. Moreover Facebook is comparatively secure from cyber bullying compared to some sites; it is not anonymous and users can unfriend people and prevent people who they don’t know from accessing their profile. (1) Facebook https://www.facebook.com/AntiRapezeroTolerance (2) Federal Bureau of Investigation http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1 (3) Facebook https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-safety/controversial-harmful-and-hateful-speech-on-facebook/574430655911054
Facebook has a negative impact on learning

On this point, it may be true that children who get distracted easily use Facebook as an excuse not to study, but that doesn’t mean that social networks are the cause of this phenomenon. These children tend to use them as social networks are very accessible. Almost every single moment you are surrounded by technology that can connect to social networking sites; a smartphone, a laptop or a computer, which you can use to log in on Facebook. Even if it weren’t for these social networks, those kids would likely still be getting 20% worse grades than other students, as they would just find other activities to replace it with. There will be no change in their mentality, perception of learning or process of decision making. If the student is using Facebook at least there is a chance they are using it productively, for example, by participating in a Facebook group created by a professor for students of a particular class, then the social network may have a positive influence. Moreover, Facebook makes students feel socially connected, with a greater sense of community. This can be beneficial in boosting students’ self-esteem. Past studies have shown that students who are active on Facebook are more likely to participate in extra-curricular activities.(1) (1) Julie D. Andrews  “Is Facebook Good Or Bad For Students? Debate Roils On” April 28, 2011 http://allfacebook.com/is-facebook-good-or-bad-for-students-debate-roils-on_b41357