BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A UN standing army is simply impossible to form.

A U.N. standing army is not impossible to form. The United Nations has already conclusively proved, in numerous peacekeeping among other missions, its ability to play a constructive, effective military role in interventions; a standing army would merely replace the top level of command. Instead of taking orders from the top brass in a national military, the orders would come from United Nations commanders. For soldiers trained to listen and respond to commands, this would constitute merely a subtle shift that would not alter their operational effectiveness. Furthermore, funding would be provided through similar streams to how peacekeeping forces are funded contemporaneously,; however, once the U.N. standing army has proved itself capable, funding will surely come from those states who recognize that pooling resources to form a U.N. army is more prudent than scratching together a under-resourced, native army. improve this
There are better alternatives to solving the problems of contemporary warfare.

Although other reforms of the UN may be desirable in their own right, without involving the creation of a standing army they will not address the central problems of peacekeeping. Proposals for a rapid reaction force formed from member states may speed up the arrival of troops a little, but it will still make the UN dependent upon the goodwill of member states; if they choose not to participate in a particular mission, then the usual long delays and inadequate forces will result. The predominant concern is the safety of civilians, and the existence of a force or process for establishing a force able to quickly and effectively achieve this wherever necessary in the world. A UN standing army is the only solution able to provide both quick and effective force in every possible case.
A U.N. standing army renders the United Nations a de facto state, but without a territory or a population.

A U.N. standing army does not render the United Nations a de facto state, for the army would still be under the authority of the Security Council and therefore subject to the will and control of its sitting members. As such, a standing army does not qualitatively alter the decision-making process which is the foundation for the moral authority of the United Nations and its ability to broker peace agreements. The decision to deploy troops will still have to be ultimately authorized by the UN Security Council; the only development being that the force will be both quicker to deploy, averting humanitarian catastrophes, and more effective, due to group cohesion, in its actions 1. The institutional restraints of the General Assembly vote and Security Council veto would remain as a leash on the use of any standing army, with the proviso that once unleashed, the UN would be both quicker and more effective in its use of force to implement security council mandates.  1. Johansen, R. C. (2006). A United Nations Emergency Peace Service to Prevent Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity.p.26 improve this
The ICC is a force for good, and the all states should be seen to be standing fully behind it.

The International Criminal Court is a major breakthrough in providing a permanent and durable system that can effectively prosecute and independently try war criminals. In the past there was no permanent framework for dealing with grave breaches of human rights protection, often allowing states to perform evil acts with impunity. Only for the very worst atrocities were special courts and tribunals set up. It should also act as a deterrent to future violations; it may not reduce conflict but will encourage states to keep a tighter rein on their militaries. An attempt at a solution to the problem of enforcement of international criminal law is something to be applauded, for the same reason the criminal law on the domestic sphere is – it saves lives, protects human rights and provides civilization to what would otherwise be anarchy.
Domestic courts are often incapable of providing a fair trial, when they fail the ICC fills the void.

Domestic legal systems will often suffer from a lack of judicial independence and potentially politicised prosecutions, and are also open to allegations of victors’ justice, or whitewashes by a judiciary biased towards the winners of the conflict. The ICC, as an effective court and with an independent judiciary, provide a suitable and unbiased climate for these cases to be heard in.  While it is difficult to give any former head of state a fair trial, it is even more so in cases involving states divided along ethnic and political fault lines where any conviction could be seen as one based on continuing hatreds rather than evidence and criminal procedure. It is clearly in the interests of the United States and Israel to support the principle that where there is no independent judiciary cases can be moved to a higher level. These states as much as any other desire that those who commit large scale international crimes be brought to book. The ICC for example might provide an alternative method of going after terrorists. In addition, the principle of complementarity – that the ICC should only  prosecute where states have shown themselves unable or unwilling to prosecute - means that when a state can take effective action against war crimes, there will be no role for the ICC. This means that the US and Israel with independent judiciaries should have nothing to worry about unless their judiciary proves unwilling to prosecute if one of their own nationals commits a crime prosecutable by the ICC.
Ratification of the International Criminal Court would be a violation of national sovereignty

Any state ratifying the Rome Statute, is placing its citizens at the mercy of a court that operates outside of national control. This is an unacceptable ceding of national sovereignty – thus no state other than the US has the power to deal with American criminals, and no one but Israel should deal with Israeli criminals. International criminal law and national sovereignty are inevitably enemies Not only does the ICC threaten American sovereignty, it threatens the sovereignty of all nations – the ICC can, in some cases, prosecute citizens of nations that are not state parties. Authority for justice within one’s territory is however at the heart of the concept of sovereignty. As a matter of principle the US should not be supporting measures that affect the sovereignty of any nation, let alone the US itself.
Risk of “lawfare” against Israel

The specific position that Israel is in, places it at a unique risk of “lawfare”, the use and abuse of the legal process by states for political ends. A particular concern is Article 8(2)(b)(viii), which could be used as a particular tool to attack Israel over the settlements policy. Issues over settlements in the West Bank should be resolved by negotiation during the existing, albeit fractious, peace process, rather than being used as a tool for those who wish to derail good faith negotiations by dragging matters in to the hands of the international courts. Israel has regularly been singled out for particular beration by UN bodies. For example, over half of the country-specific resolutions passed by the UN Human Rights Council have been about Israel, while praising Muammar Gadaffi.
The rest of the world is better off with the US out

The crucial role that the US plays for international security means that, for the benefit of the rest of the world, it is advantageous for the US to be outside of the ICC jurisdiction. When military intervention is needed , it will often be the US that does so. The US being in a position where its actions would be constrained by a fear of ICC prosecution. This would be even worse if the crime of aggression were to take effect, a broad definition of which could harm US interests. With the notable exceptions of the 1991 Gulf War and the invasion of Afghanistan, most recent US overseas missions could be seen as amounting to the crime of aggression. Depending on the definition used, it has been argued that every single US president since Kennedy has committed the crime of aggression. In an increasingly uncertain world, it could be necessary for the US to intervene American ratification of the ICC would therefore have the unintended consequence of constraining US actions that would otherwise save lives. If the United States does not intervene in cases where there may be considered to be a responsibility to protect then it is unlikely that any other state will either.
ICC trials violate the due process guarantees of the US constitution

US ratification of the Rome Statute would lead to the possibility of Americans being subject to trials with procedures that violate the American Constitution. For example, there are no jury trials at the ICC – a majority vote of the judges is enough to convict - is a violation of the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution. The independence and neutrality of some of the judges may be doubtful if they come from countries with definite foreign policy interests that run contrary to those of the US. This is particularly pertaining to judges who are from backgrounds where judicial independence from the executive is not a defining feature of the legal system who will be more likely swayed by political considerations. There is, in addition, a lack of rules against double jeopardy, and the glacial rate of progress made by the ICC with lengthy waits in pre-trial detention for defendants, affecting the right to a speedy trial. It has also been argued that the procedures for special measures to protect witnesses hamper the defence.
The ICC is a force for good, and the all states should be seen to be standing fully behind it.

It took nearly two years for the ICC to launch an investigation into atrocities in the Central African Republic. This has helped defeat the argument that it would be faster than the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and International Tribunal for Rwanda were. So far being indicted by the ICC has had little impact; for example it failed to prevent the election of Uhuru Kenyatta, who is currently facing trial by the ICC for crimes against humanity, as President of Kenya. The ICC is also hamstrung by its inability to capture defendants itself. It can only do so with the co-operation of its member states. The US and Israel have nothing to gain from membership, and everything to lose in terms of being on the receiving end of politically motivated and abusive prosecutions.
Domestic courts are often incapable of providing a fair trial, when they fail the ICC fills the void.

Independent nations are capable of trying war crimes themselves. The ICC is an unnecessary intrusion on national sovereignty. It should be up to each state to determine its own legal system as to how criminal matters should be prosecuted. If the US and Israel do have issues where military officials have broken the international criminal law, they can be dealt with by the existing Courts-Martial of their respective militaries. Both Israel and the US are states that obey the rule of law. The ICC was unnecessary when the US military convicted William Calley for the My Lai massacre, or the Mahmudiyah case. The principle of complementarity is no guarantee as it is up to the ICC itself to determine if the state is unable or unwilling, meaning it could take over a case for its own ends.
Ratification of the International Criminal Court would be a violation of national sovereignty

It is accepted that there is now such a thing as international criminal law – from Nuremberg onwards, there are some matters that can be punished by multinational courts. The US also supported the ICTY and ICTR – if the ICC is a breach of national sovereignty, so are all the single use tribunals. The ICC is essentially an intergovernmental institution in the mould of the United Nations or the IAEA – an institution that can sometimes lead to a decision that goes against the wishes of individual members but that does not mean the members sovereignty is undermined. While the ICC does have jurisdiction over nationals of non-party states, that only applies if referred by the UN Security Council or if the acts in question. The principle of complementarity will allow states to deal with issues themselves if they are willing and able to do so. Therefore the ICC is perfectly compatible with national sovereignty.
Risk of “lawfare” against Israel

If Israeli nationals have not committed any criminal offences against international law, they have nothing to fear from joining the International Criminal Court system. While some may agitate for action to be brought against Israel for political reasons, the International Criminal Court has an independent prosecutor and complex procedures that will act as an adequate filter to stop it being hijacked as a tool for “lawfare” No state should have immunity from the international law, whatever their circumstances or potentials for mischievous uses of the legal system. In addition, Israeli membership of the ICC would be useful part of the bargaining in the peace process, to allow any criminal cases against Israel to be handled by an impartial international court obeying full rules of law.
The rest of the world is better off with the US out

The only effect on US freedom of action would be prohibition of clear and significant violations of international law. If the US stays within the international criminal law, they will not be affected by the ICC. It would be harmful for any state to have special treatment – if the US were to be granted such special treatment to the United States other large states could request the same due to their self-perceived international roles. Such exceptions and opt outs would mean that the International Criminal Court would be granting impunity to large states, whatever gargantuan violations of the international law are committed, and only investigate smaller ones. This would clearly be an unfair system of international justice. If a country engages in more military engagements, and is larger and more powerful, it is all the more necessary that they are held to the same standards as smaller powers.
ICC trials violate the due process guarantees of the US constitution

While the ICC operates its own rules of procedure and uses its own formulation for due process rights, it has protections as strong as the top legal systems around the world. While the ICC is unique, it meets the standards accepted for a fair trial. For example, article 66(2) of the Rome Statute guarantees the presumption of innocence, article 54(1) covers disclosure, article 67 includes the right to counsel and a speedy trial. These safeguards are considered more than adequate by human rights campaign groups such as Amnesty International. While the ICC does not use juries, in many cases it would be difficult to find an impartial jury or to transport them, and they would be unlikely to cope with the weighty and complex legal issues that occur in complex international criminal trials. At any rate, many states, even common law ones such as the US, do not use juries at all (such as Israel), and in some circumstances they can be allowed in the US.
The AU faces immense challenges that did not affect Europe

The AU’s model, the EU, is a work-in-progress. Even in Europe, there is some concern that the EU will not hold and the Euro crisis has shown the difficulties in integrating economies. Even if the EU were a perfect model, it was established in a time of peace. In Africa, war still rages in parts of the continent; such as Somalia, Congo, and Mali. And in Europe, unification is broadly supported by international and economic heavyweights: Britain, France and Germany. In Africa, the comparable AU anchors are Nigeria and South Africa, neither of which can guarantee AU commitments by themselves. Africa also has huge economic concerns that don’t plague Europe: most African countries trade with their former colonial masters rather than each other, Africas trade with itself is on average only 10% of trade,[1] and the standard of living varies widely across the continent (e.g. South Africa’s GDP is ten times that of Nigeria). Finally it should be remembered that it took the EU forty years to establish a shared currency and a central bank – which is itself showing the strains created by doing so. How will Africa, home to some of the world’s poorest and most corrupt countries, do it any faster? [1] Giorgis, Tamrat G., ‘Exclusive: Pascal Lamy, “Africa should strengthen trade within itself”, Afronline, 8 Frbruary 2012.
The role of leaders will prevent success

A pan-African organization must be willing to stand up to African dictators and military rulers, the real cause of bloodshed and poverty on the continent. So far the AU has failed in this mission: Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe is a charter member of the AU and the AU has done little to encourage him to relinquish control of his country. It continued this trend by being unwilling to recognise the Libyan rebels until after the capital, Tripoli, had fallen.[1] The conflict in Libya showed that are still happy to support autocrats and unwilling to champion democracy.[2] So long as this is the case the AU will be unable to pool sovereignty in the way the European Union has as these individuals are unwilling to give up power, whether that is in elections or to international organisations. [1] Adedoja, Tokunbo, and Oyedele, Damilola, ‘At Last, AU Recognisis Libyan Rebels’, This Day Live, 21 September 2011. [2] Tostevin, Matthew, ‘Has the African Union got Libya wrong?’, Reuters, 31 August 2011.
The AU can bring peace to the continent

There is too much distrust amongst the AU’s membership already: Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone all accuse each other of backing rebel movements in their respective civil wars. The UN is asking regional organizations to shoulder some of its "peace and security" responsibilities out of desperation, as prompted by its failure in Rwanda, not as part of some strategy. In Kosovo, NATO had to intervene because Russia blocked any UN action at the Security Council. There are as yet no other successful examples of regional organizations (i.e. ASEAN, APEC, OAS) getting involved in a military conflict and successfully bringing peace.
There is already some African integration that can be built on.

While African governments may be good at professing to want cooperation and integration the reality on the ground lags behind this considerably. No regional trade block has yet been really successful in creating a free trade area let alone a customs union and protectionism, restrictive trade practices and import bans often remain.[1] The effectiveness and chances of integration through free trade are also greatly reduced by almost all the potential member states having very similar economies that rely on the export of primary goods. This makes specialisation and a concentration on trade within the block difficult without a complete restructuring of countries economies. Moreover free trade requires effective infrastructure, something Africa is lacking.[2] Integration is therefore unlikely to go anywhere and even if it does it may have little effect. [1] Gumede, William, ‘Saving Africa’s free trade area from failure’, Pambazika News, Issue 553, 20 October 2011. [2] Goodridge, R.B., ‘Chapter 3: Factors Against Regional Economic Integration’, 2006, p.30.
Integration will fix the problem of borders

Many of Africa’s wars are ethnic conflicts (i.e. Rwanda, Burundi, Sudan, the Congo). These conflicts will not be dissipated by simply redrawing – or attempting to dissolve - national borders. Instead of integration if borders are the problem then Africa needs to be redrawn into smaller states based on ethnicity as in Europe. Secessionist would then movements would disappear, each state could have its own language so facilitating democracy, there would be no more identity politics and each state, though smaller would be stronger.[1] Only when this is done can these states begin continental integration. [1] Zachary, G. Pascal, ‘Africa Needs a New Map’, Foreign Policy, 28 April 2010.
Africa prizes sovereignty

While it used to be correct that Africa prized sovereignty above everything else, including stability,[1] this is no longer the case. Just by signing up to the African Union states were showing that they were now willing to cede some sovereignty to the organisation as it involved ceding some power to the Pan African Parliament and the African Court of Justice and Human Rights.[2] Some sovereign power is also ceded to the Assembly of the AU, composed of heads of state and government, as while decisions are preferably by consensus it can also be by a two thirds majority, and the decision is still binding on the minority that disagrees.[3] Moreover the protocols establishing all of these bodies anticipate more powers slowly being transferred to them. In particular the Pan African parliament will slowly gain the power to legislate much as the European Parliament does. [1] Zachary, G. Pascal, ‘Africa Needs a New Map’, Foreign Policy, 28 April 2010. [2] Wachura, George Mukundi, ‘Sovereignty and the ‘United States of Africa’ Insights from the EU’, ISS Paper 144, June 2007, p.3. [3] Ibid p.4
African international organisations do not have a history of effectiveness

We should not be tarring the AU with the failures of the OAU. The objectives of the AU are different than that of the OAU. To begin, it is modelled on the European Union, a successful blueprint for building regional institutions and alliances. Second, the AU has already accepted the need for more coercive measures and as a result used sanctions nine times between its foundation and 2011 in response to unconstitutional changes of government.[1] The common electoral standards already call for independent observers before and after any national election so encouraging good governance. And the peace and security council has the authority to send troops to stop crimes against humanity or war crimes. The buzzword at the AU is "people-centred" as opposed to the OAU’s focus on state sovereignty. [1] Williams, Paul D., ‘The African Union’s Conflict Management Capabilities’, Council on Foreign Relations, October 2011, pp.17-18.
The AU faces immense challenges that did not affect Europe

Africa also has advantages that Europe did not have; there is no cold war dividing the continent into opposing armed camps, there are now many successful examples of developing world countries industrialising to draw on, and organisations like the EU that have forged on ahead have shown up some of the potential problems for Africa to avoid. Kofi Annan has also noted that Europe too started integration with a devastated continent  "That, Excellencies, should be our aim - to rebuild, as Europe did, after a series of devastating wars, uniting across old divisions to build a continent characterized by peace, cooperation, economic progress and the rule of law."[1] Moreover some of Africa’s disadvantages could potentially be turned into advantages if integration is managed correctly. Africa’s lack of industrialisation for example means that member states can choose to specialise in complementary areas as they industrialise. [1] Annan, Kofi, ‘Call for Leadership in Africa’, Business Day, 10 July 2001.
The role of leaders will prevent success

First of all Africa is becoming more democratic; in 1983 there were only three democracies in Africa but by 2010 this had increased to 23 and with this comes an increase in accountability and desire both for cooperation with neighbours and for economic liberalisation.[1] While individuals certainly dominate African politics and often power is more concentrated in their hands than in more mature democracies this can be an advantage. If these leaders do want to move towards a closer union they can potentially do so much faster than countries where many more interest groups need to be taken into account. [1] ‘Emerging Africa: How 17 Countries are Leading the Way’, Devprac.org.