BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It better enables Attorneys to advance their client's case

All this shows is that our 'adversarial system' is flawed. Rather than each party trying to pull the wool over the courts eyes and only see their version of the facts surely the system of justice would operate better if each attorney had the duty to the court in finding the truth. Perhaps it is for this reason that mediation is often seen as the better way to solve disputes. In mediation, the parties are each trying to reach an out of court settlement that balances both of their needs. Justice would be achieved more easily in this mediation setting if the client-attorney privilege did not apply. Solicitors then would truly be looking to advance justice, not the clients best interests. Justice is supposed to be unbiased in this regard.
Client-Attorney Privilege is already qualified appropriately

The circumstances under which Note 9 allows such a break in the rule of client-attorney privilege is for the HM Revenue and other bodies that act for the benefit of the Government. It is rather archaic that a principle such as that of attorney-client privilege is loosened only for bodies that act for the benefit of the Government. This does not show that attorney-Client privilege is necessary but that it is not. If the Government is willing to do away with it for their monetary benefit, why can we not do away with it in the interest of justice for society? There should be a system that encourages the adversarial system, and attorney/client privilege but yet allows a variety of circumstances to override this principle, such as public interest and public security. These principles are often used to justify potential Human Rights breaches, so we should also be able to use them to justify the breach of attorney/client privilege.
It makes it more likely that attorneys will lie for their clients

If communications between an attorney and their client are confidential, then it allows for lies to be put forward to the court in order to defend someone who is guilty. In the case of a criminal matter, it could mean that even though a defendant has stated they are guilty to their attorney, they will not be found to be guilty. Every attorney wants to win their case, and if they are likely to conceal the confession of their client if it means their client will be released. As the communication is confidential, such confession will not be informed to the court and the attorney would not be exposed for their lies. The confidential nature of the communications between attorney and client open the possibility for a system of justice based upon lies. This is not just and so the Attorney-Client Privilege should be abolished.
It blocks a significant amount of evidence

A system of just law is not based on opinions or ideologies. It is about finding evidence and using that evidence to prove or disprove either to 'beyond reasonable doubt' for criminal cases or 'on the balance of probabilities' for civil and commercial matters. The burden is on the importance of the evidence. It does not make sense for a legal system to on one hand place so much emphasis on evidence and lock away documents which will contain a vast array of empirical evidence with the other. Instead, attorney-client privilege should be abolished and all evidence should be in justices domain in order to ensure that the law achieves a just result.
It places excessive moral burden on solicitors

With the attorney-client privilege in place, there is an excessive burden on the solicitor to cope with any information their client may give to them on a confidential basis. This means they have to deal with the information alone. This is an excessive moral burden for any individual to have and should not be justified on the basis that a solicitor is there to advance the interests of their client. It should not be the solicitors role to deal with moral conflicts alone.
The principle behind attorney-client privilege is declining in relevance

One of the principles behind allowing communications between a solicitor and their client to be privileged is that a solicitor is independent of their client and so will not breach laws themselves in order to attain their clients objectives. However, after the recession of 2008 and the Legal Services Act 2007 the position of in house lawyer is more prevalent[1]. In house lawyers are not financially independent. They are in fact employees of their 'client'. This eradicates the principle behind client-attorney privilege and therefore the privilege itself is now irrelevant and should be eradicated. [1] In-house counsel on the rise, New Law Journal, 28 April 2010, http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/house-counsel-rise accessed 18/05/11
Attorney client privilege need not be sacrosanct in all situations

Most obviously it seems unnecessary for there to be attorney client privilege when the defendant’s interests cannot be adversely affected. For example when the confidential information just does not incriminate the client himself but it might clear somebody else, or when the client is dead. Few people will be discouraged from being candid with their lawyers if there is merely the possibility that the communications may be disclosed after their death. In addition there are situations where the client’s interest may indeed be hurt but where this should be outweighed by some other very important public interest. In other words perhaps there should be ‘necessity’ or ‘public interest’ or ‘in the interests of justice’ balancing exceptions to the privilege. This would be the case when public safety is at risk, for example if the client holds some very vital information but is not willing to disclose it to anyone other than his lawyer. In such cases the courts should weigh up and balance the client’s interests against society’s and make the decision accordingly rather than rigidly sticking to attorney-client privilege.
It better enables Attorneys to advance their client's case

An attorney's main duty is owed to their client. Under Rule 1.04 of the Solicitors' Code of Conduct a solicitor “must act in the best interests of each client”.[1] It is part of the adversarial system that we have that two opposing parties in litigation argue for their best interests. The whole working of the adversarial system of justice is that each party knows the facts but argues the facts that most support their case. To take away client-attorney privilege is to undermine this way of achieving justice. [1]  Rule 1: Core duties, Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007, http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/code-of-conduct/rule1.page accessed 18/05/11
No fly zones and bombing could eliminate the threat of chemical weapons

One of the reasons why there has not been an intervention in Syria already is the difficulty of doing so. Preventing or limiting the use of chemical weapons however does represent a defined objective that is smaller, and therefore easier, than bringing peace to Syria. It however has to be accepted that if Assad’s regime is determined to use chemical weapons then some are likely to get through and how much is prevented is largely dependent on intelligence. Interdicting chemical weapons during transport and bombing the storage facilities to make it much more difficult to move the weapons would be easiest to accomplish.[1] But if chemical weapons are about to be used then attacking the delivery vehicles would be necessary; any intervention would have overwhelming air superiority so would prevent the option of aircraft and helicopters being used to deliver the weapons. More difficult to destroy are ballistic missiles, and particularly artillery[2] but even these are much easier to hit than infantry would be. In the conflict against Gaddafi successfully used precision guided weapons to destroy tanks and artillery.[3] Moreover an intervening force would not need to destroy every missile and artillery brigade only find those that are being issued with chemical weapons.   [1] Eisenstadt, Michael, ‘Chemical Reaction’, Foreign Policy, 18 January 2013, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/01/18/chemical_reaction [2] Fargo, Matthew, ‘Targeting Syria’s Chemical Weapons – A Dangerous Proposition’, Center for Strategic & International Studies, 25 July 2012, http://csis.org/blog/targeting-syrias-chemical-weapons-dangerous-proposition [3] Hebert, Adam J., ‘Libya: Victory Through Airpower’, Airforce-Magazine.com, December 2011, http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2011/December%202011/1211edit.aspx
The use of weapons may not change the diplomatic situation

Russia and China have been vetoing U.N. action on Syria throughout the crisis.[1] It is precisely the intervention to prevent a massacre that the Russians and Chinese are trying to avoid, for fear that this would simply be a pretext for regime change as happened in Libya. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has explicitly stated “We’ll not allow the Libyan experience to be reproduced in Syria.”[2] When Obama said that chemical weapons use was a red line Xinhua, China’s state news agency, responded “Obama's "red line" warnings merely aimed to seek new pretext for Syria intervention” urging continued negotiations instead.[3] While the use of chemical weapons is odious and would make Assad even more of a pariah than he already is it should be remembered that China supports an equally odious regime in North Korea, so may not see Chemical weapons as sufficient reason to change position. [1] Lynch, Colum, ‘Russia, China veto U.N. action on Syria … and the blame game begins’, Foreign Policy Turtle Bay, 4 February 2012, http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/02/04/russia_china_veto_un_action_on_syria_and_the_blame_game_begins [2] ‘Russia Rules Out Libyan Scenario in Syria’, RIANovosti, 9 December 2012, http://en.rian.ru/russia/20121209/178024186.html [3] Chang, Liu, ‘Obama’s “red line” warnings merely aimed to seek new pretext for Syria intervention’, Xinhua, 22 August 2012, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-08/22/c_131800638.htm
Cannot prevent the use of chemical weapons

No intervention could prevent the use of chemical weapons of the Assad regime had decided to use them. No outside force could ever be certain they know where all Syria’s weapons are[1] and destroy them in time if they were distributed for use; even full scale air strikes might not be enough, the pentagon thinks it would require 75,000 troops to secure the arsenal in the event of Syria’s collapse.[2] The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Martin Dempsey, admits that even if acting before the use of Chemical weapons by the Syrian government the United States would not be able to stop their use. "The act of preventing the use of chemical weapons would be almost unachievable... because you would have to have such clarity of intelligence, you know, persistent surveillance, you'd have to actually see it before it happened, and that's -- that's unlikely, to be sure,"[3] If widespread chemical weapons use had already occurred then the intervention could hardly be to prevent their use in the first place but to punish their use. Responding to the use of chemical weapons would seem to be pointless; the deaths will have occurred already. Syria may have more chemical weapons in its arsenal still to use but an attack would simply make them more likely to use everything they have. [1] Stares, Paul B., ‘Preventing Chemical Weapons Use in Syria’, Council on Foreign Relations, 19 December 2012, http://www.cfr.org/syria/preventing-chemical-weapons-use-syria/p29701 [2] Alexander, Kris, ‘Syria’s Collapse Could be a Chem Weapon Nightmare’, Wired Danger Room, 16 July 2012, http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/07/syria/ [3] Rogin, Josh, ‘Exclusive: Secret State Department cable: Chemical weapons used in Syria’, Foreign Policy The Cable, 15 January 2013, http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/01/15/secret_state_department_cable_chemical_weapons_used_in_syria
Intervention would be legitimate

Intervention would only be legitimate if it was sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council or another country came directly under attack. What is being suggested while abhorrent does not meet either of these conditions. The Security Council is unlikely to agree to an intervention now and Syria would be very foolish to use their chemical weapons on a neighbour so inviting attack. The use of chemical weapons may be banned by international law but that does not mean that their use authorizes an intervention against a sovereign nation.[1] [1] Ku, Julian, ‘Would Syria’s Use of Chemical Weapons Change the Legality of U.S. Intervention?’, Opinio Juris, 7 December 2012, http://opiniojuris.org/2012/12/07/would-syrias-use-of-chemical-weapons-change-the-legality-of-u-s-intervention/
No reaction will embolden the regime

This is all supposition; we have no way of knowing if Syria will test any set red lines, or that they will use chemical weapons if there is no response. Instead it may be the response that causes the use of chemical weapons. The Syrian Foreign Ministry has said in the past that chemical and biological weapons “will never be used unless Syria is exposed to external aggression.”[1] Clearly an intervention aiming to stop the use of chemical weapons would constitute just such external aggression. [1] Associated Press, ‘Syrian regime makes chemical warfare threat’, guardian.co.uk, 23 July 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/23/syria-chemical-warfare-threat-assad
No fly zones and bombing could eliminate the threat of chemical weapons

Attacking chemical weapons stores prevents a threat in itself as it runs the risk of blowing up the weapons and therefore dispersing them into the air.[1] This risk would potentially be even higher with any biological weapons as they would not become harmless through dispersal as Chemical weapons would. Quite apart from the risks of setting off the arsenals when attacking them such attacks would be very unlikely to be successful. While Syria’s chemical weapons may be held in a few large centers this would seem to be unlikely given the history of attacks on unconventional weapons programs. Syria itself has had a nuclear weapons program destroyed as a result of an Israeli air attack in 2007.[2] This would have been a powerful lesson in the need to disperse these weapons to prevent their destruction from the air. [1] ‘Preventing Syrian Chemical Weapons Threat From Becoming Deadly Reality’, PBS Newshour, 5 December 2012, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec12/syria2_12-05.html [2] Harel, Amos, ‘Five years on, new details emerge about Israeli strike on Syrian reactor’, Haaretz, 10 September 2012, http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/five-years-on-new-details-emerge-about-israeli-strike-on-syrian-reactor-1.464033
The use of weapons may not change the diplomatic situation

The use of chemical weapons would change the Chinese and Russian positions. Syrian officials have been reported as saying they would not use chemical weapons because “We would not commit suicide” as the support from Russia and China would be lost.[1] While China and Russia do have interests in Syria these interests are nothing like those China has in maintaining the North Korean regime. [1] Blair, Charles P., ‘Why Assad Won’t Use His Chemical Weapons’, Foreign Policy, 6 December 2012, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/12/06/why_assad_wont_use_his_chemical_weapons
Cannot prevent the use of chemical weapons

According to Russia Syria has centralised its chemical weapons into just one or two locations which makes it possible to attack and destroy the weapons comparatively easily.[1] This might not destroy all Syria’s chemical weapons but would still severely restrict their access to these weapons. [1] ‘Syria ‘secures chemical weapons stockpile’’, Al Jazeera, 23 December 2012, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/12/201212221532021654.html
Intervention would be legitimate

If Syria uses, or looks as if it is about to use, chemical weapons then this would be a clear escalation that would require action. Syria has never signed the Chemical Weapons Convention[1] but it should be considered to be a part of customary international law so binding even on those who have not signed.[2] The use of chemical weapons would also clearly be an attempt to cause huge numbers of casualties and large scale suffering. In 2005 with the United Nations World Summit the nations of the world signed up to “If a State is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take collective action to protect populations.”[3] So any intervention would be fully justifiable, and indeed should occur as Syria would be demonstrating that it is “failing to protect its populations” by using chemical weapons on them. There is no doubt that the world has a moral responsibility to prevent atrocities in Syria, these atrocities are already happening, but the world cannot stand by while the Syrian government escalates their scale through the use of chemical weapons. [1] ‘Non-Member States’, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, http://www.opcw.org/about-opcw/non-member-states/ [2] ‘United States of America Practice Relating to Rule 74. Chemical Weapons’, ICRC, 2013, http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cou_us_rule74 [3] Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, ‘The Responsibility to Protect’, United Nations, 2012,
No reaction will embolden the regime

Not responding to Syrian moves to use chemical weapons will be enabling the Syrian government to use chemical weapons. It has already been reported that some chemical weapons are being made ready for use such as the combining of the two chemical precursors, isopropanol and methylphosphony difluoride, needed to weaponize sarin gas. It means that “Physically, they’ve gotten to the point where the can load it up on a plane and drop it”.[1] If there is no response to this then Syria will be more likely to use weapons. If there is no response to the limited use of chemical weapons, such as the use of Agent 15 in Homs, then there the regime will be encouraged to think that there will be no response to larger uses of chemical weapons. Syria would slowly escalate to see what it can get away with, an escalation that US officials think could “lead to a mass-casualty event” without the appropriate response.[2] [1] Shachtman, Noah, and Ackerman, Spencer, ‘Exclusive: U.S. Sees Syria Prepping Chemical Weapons for Possible Attack’, Wired Danger Room, 3 December 2012, http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/12/syria-chemical-weapons-3/ [2] Rogin, Josh, ‘Exclusive: Secret State Department cable: Chemical weapons used in Syria’, Foreign Policy The Cable, 15 January 2013, http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/01/15/secret_state_department_cable_chemical_weapons_used_in_syria
Free trade and aid distribution

Government intervention in the marketplace contradicts the values of free-trade advocated by western liberal democracies. The complexities of agricultural subsidies, price supports, regulations and protective tariffs means that farming in the US and the EU now has the air of a command economy. Coupled with highly liberal international trade markets and the relative ease of shipping foodstuffs around the world, subsidy schemes are increasingly subject to manipulation by farmers seeking to maximise the size of their support payments without engaging in additional productive activity. For example, “set-aside”[i] payments have been used by both European and American administrations to encourage farmers to leave a proportion of their fields fallow, in order to maintain the productivity and fertility of farming soil. However, many farmers have claimed set-aside payments by designating fertile land that is difficult or impossible cultivate (land on steep inclines, land obstructed by streams) as fallow fields. By promoting behaviour of this type, however inadvertently, the CAP and America’s Farm bills effectively reduce the credibility and good will that the west can command when engaged in trade talks with developing states. Policy makers may attempt to frame the debate over subsidies in terms of food supply security. However, the de facto protectionism of current subsidies regimes does nothing more than trade diplomatic credibility and geo political security for stable domestic food prices. Other countries that the developed world is engaging in protectionism and so are unwilling to compromise in areas where the developed world wants changes – as a result the Doha trade round is going nowhere, the developed world has to concede and abolish these subsidies.  [i] ‘Set-Aside’, UK Agriculture, http://www.ukagriculture.com/crops/setaside.cfm
Subsidies exacerbate poverty

Subsidies cause poverty, both domestically and internationally. By maintaining the price of certain goods at a low level that does not reflect their market price, subsidies prevent farmers in the developing world from selling comparable goods to international customers for a comparable price. Despite higher labor costs wealthy western farmers are able to undercut their poorer counterparts in the developing world, with any shortfall in their incomes accounted for by their government subsidy. Not only do subsidies harm the competitiveness of developing states’ export economies, they can also affect their domestic markets. Large food export businesses based in developed states are able to sell western produce to the citizens of underdeveloped states for less than its production cost. Once again, the shortfall is accounted for by subsidy payments. For examples, onion growers in Jamaica once lived off profits generated by their domestic market. However, once growers based in the United State gained the right to sell their produce in Jamaica, their heavily subsidised onions quickly put local producers out of business.[i] A further example of the trend illustrated above is provided by the international cotton trade. Growing cotton in West Africa is a much cheaper and much more efficient activity than growing it in the USA. It should be possible for growers in states such as Mali to export their cotton profitably, benefiting themselves, their states’ economies and consumers in the developed world. However, American subsidies incentivise over-production in the United States, which encourages US cotton farmers to sell their fibre overseas at massive discounts. This case study illuminates another of the negative externalities that exists in the status quo. Cotton is a hardy commodity, able to grow in areas that would normally be unsuitable for producing other cash crops. As the Guardian notes, an economy built on cotton cannot easily adapt to growing other forms of produce; survival and subsistence in Mali are entirely dependent on Malian farmers’ ability to sell fibre.[ii] If farmers in the developing world cannot be allowed by the developed countries to be competitive on even the most basic products such as agriculture where they have an advantage how can we expect to eliminate poverty? [i] Campbell, Mavis, ‘Jamaica’, FAO Corporate Document Repository, http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y4632E/y4632e0m.htm [ii] Jowit, Juliette, ‘Cotton subsidies costing west African farmers £155m a year, report reveals’, The Guardian, 15 November 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/15/cotton-subsidies-west-...