BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Further protections are required to grant migrants full human rights.

Unless migrants receive equal social and economic rights, they will never be seen as equal in a human sense. According to Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to leave or enter a country, as well as to move within it (internal migration). This freedom of movement is often not granted under current laws. Human rights also include fair treatment under the welfare state, and increased economic protections for migrants is necessary in many states for them to receive such treatment. Without this equal treatment, common myths about migrants will continue to be widely believed. These myths claim that immigrants are criminals and that they steal jobs from natives. The organization Migrant Rights says, “All these myths rob migrant workers and refugees of their humanity, and are aimed at portraying them as less deserving of our sympathy and help.”[1] It is a violation of migrants’ human rights to be treated this way, and they will only be seen as equals when they are granted economic protection that allows them to work alongside natives. [1]  Migrant Rights, "Fact-checking the Israeli government’s incitement against migrants and refugees," October 1st, 2010, accessed June 30, 2011, http://www.migrant-rights.org/2010/10/01/fact-checking-the-israeli-gover....
An international regulatory body should exist for global migration.

With an international regulatory body, states would be held accountable for protecting migrant rights, and migrant policies and protections would be better coordinated. The international community has created a number of regulatory bodies that have helped the global economy adapt to rising globalization, such as the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. Migration is an essential part of globalization, but there is no international body regulating the flow of workers around the world. Jason Deparle of the New York Times writes, “The most personal and perilous form of movement is the most unregulated. States make (and often ignore) their own rules, deciding who can come, how long they stay, and what rights they enjoy."[1] Because migrant rights are a growing problem and an essential part of globalization, an international regulatory body would be an effective way of improving human rights around the world. [1] Deparle, "Global Migration.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/weekinreview/27deparle.html
Economic and social protections prevent the exploitation of migrants.

Migrants face a number of challenges when they reach their destination, such as finding housing and in integrating into the workforce, and the opportunities to exploit them can be dangerous. According to Dr Tasneem Siddiqui, "In 1929, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) identified the migrant workers as the most vulnerable group in the world. Seventy years have elapsed since then, but they still belong to that group."[1] This is something that the U.N. Convention attempts to address creating specific changes in many countries that would make migrants less vulnerable. For example, in all of the Gulf States, migrants are prohibited or at least restricted from “participation in independent trade union activities.”[2] Protecting the right to unionize, as the U.N. Convention does with Article 40(1), allows migrants to fight for their own rights in the workplace, allowing migrants to fight and ensure their own rights is the best way to ensure that they will be protected in the long-term. Migrants have the same fundamental rights as any other segment of the population as recognised by all states when they signed the universal declaration of human rights. Yet while migrants often initially migrate due to the dream of a better life they often find themselves in terrible living conditions, even in developed countries like Britain they often end up in what are essentially shanty towns, in London for example even if they manage to stay off the streets many new immigrants are housed in sheds and garages.[3] All governments should recognise their responsibility to ensure the minimum rights of migrants when it comes to shelter, education, and health are protected. [1] Daily Star, “Ratify UN convention on migrant workers’ rights,” May 3, 2009, http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=86583. [2] Human Rights Watch, “Saudi Arabia/GCC States.” [3] Rogers, Chris, ‘The illegal immigrants desperate to escape squalor of Britain’, BBC News, 28 February 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17183171
Migration policy should be crafted on a state-by-state basis, allowing countries to protect their national identities.

Every state has different issues and problems related to migration. There is no monolithic economic and social crisis facing migrants around the globe. It is inappropriate, therefore, to call for all nations to improve their protections in some standard manner. Instead, immigration policy and even rights need to be approached on a case-by-case, nation-by-nation basis. This approach would allow each state to pass a law that fits its needs, particularly those of protecting its national identity, which is a concern international law cannot approach. Maintaining an original ethnic and cultural structure is important to many states, especially those that are populated by one ethnic group. Is Israel, for example, wrong to term itself a "Jewish state"? There is nothing inherently wrong with its efforts to maintain this identity, even if that effort constrains the expansion of migrant rights.
For the people and accountable to the people

A country’s resources should be used democratically. The resources that are found under the soil belong to the nation and therefore they should be used for the benefit of the people. Even where there is private ownership extending to mineral and energy resources it is the responsibility of the owners to use those resources for the good of the nation. The only way for this to happen is if there is a democratically accountable body in charge of the funding; this has to mean a democratic parliament. Putting the money in an ‘independent fund’ is not very accountable. Even if it is independent there is no saying what the money will be used for, or that the fund is not really designed to funnel money back to a few individuals.
An independent trust fund discourages investment.

When it is politicians who control both the investment and the amount funds being returned from that investment then they have an incentive to encourage more investment. They will want more exploration to find more resources, they will promote technological advances to be able to extract more from the same fields, and they will be willing to grant more production licences. If on the other hand the money goes into a trust fund then the government and parliament has little incentive to encourage the market and every incentive to hold it up. The oil only provides a risk; unpopularity due to environmental impacts without any benefit in return. The result will be that the costs of drilling will be seen in the environmental damage it causes while communities do not get any of the benefit as the money is being squirreled away ‘for the future’.  This is hindering the market and so reducing the economic benefits to the country.
Keeping funds from government has negative consequences for spending

Let us not forget that in most of the cases when we talk about oil revenues, we are talking about very large sums of money, which can have an immense impact on the budget. In countries where oil already contributes to the budget any change could be immensely disruptive to the government’s ability to deliver services. If we take Venezuela as an example oil revenues account for 25% of GDP (1), with government expenditure of 50% of GDP (2) any drop in oil revenues would have an immense impact upon social policies such as education, health and welfare. For those where the funding would be new that country would be foregoing a potentially transformative sum of money that could help to eliminate poverty or provide universal healthcare and education. Such a drop in funds flowing into the government would also have a huge impact on politics; politicians would block the implementation of a proposal that takes away so much revenue. If it did happen the independent fund would simply get criticism heaped on it as an excuse for why services can’t be improved. (1)    Annual Statistical Bulletin 2013, ‘Venezuela facts and figures’, OPEC, 2013, http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/about_us/171.htm (2)    2013 Index of Economic Freedom, ‘Venezuela’, Heritage Foundation, 2013, http://www.heritage.org/index/country/venezuela
Oil wealth flowing to politicians discourages democracy

The biggest problem African countries face is instability whether from rebellions, coups, international conflicts, or terrorist organisation. The inevitable result is violence. What the population needs is safety to enable social benefits like healthcare and education. Money to pay for an army can therefore be a good thing. A good well paid professional force is needed to ensure stability and prevent conflict. Nigeria for example would surely have split apart without a large army; violence from terrorist groups like Boko Haram is increasing creating Muslim-Christian tensions.(1) Without stability there can be no democracy; votes can’t be held, so financing for stability is a good thing. Egypt is a good example that shows a well-trained army can work for the benefit of democracy; it first stood aside while the people overthrew Egyptian dictator Mubarak and then stepped in when it was believed Morsi threatened democracy. (1)     “Nigeria’s troubles ,Getting worse”, The Economist, Jul 14th 2012 http://www.economist.com/node/21558593 (2)    Siddique, Haroon, ‘Egypt army was ‘restoring democracy’, claims Kerry’, theguardian.com, 2 August 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/02/egypt-army-restoring-democracy-kerry
A fund would prevent pollution

This is based on several potentially faulty assumptions first the trust fund may not be aimed at helping to prevent pollution of clean up afterwards; it may simply be given the role of generating the biggest possible return. Second it assumes that politicians see themselves as tied to the people so that they have a reason to prevent pollution, in practice in an autocracy or a faulty democracy this may not be the case. The desire may therefore be to invest as much money as possible in the trust fund and therefore to exploit the resource as fully and cheaply as possible.  Even if the money is going into a trust fund the self interest is in polluting as we should remember that dictators are likely to believe they will still be around to see the benefits in decades to come.
Long term benefits

Not all politicians are incapable of investing for the long term. After the economic crisis in which the world saw the perils of “living in the moment”, politicians will be more cautious in the way they spend money.  Politicians have in the past been able to build visionary projects such as the EU, or high speed rail, or invest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions; in Europe, domestic greenhouse gas emissions fell by over 15 % between 1990 and 2010, due also to improvements in energy and fuel efficiency, so there is no reason to think they could not do so again.(1) As a result, we do not need a separate group for taking these decisions for the politicians, as they would do it by themselves. (1)    European Environment Agency, “Mixed success for European environmental policies”, Spiral, 2012 http://www.spiral-project.eu/content/mixed-success-european-environmental-policies
Preventing Corruption

Having oil does not just provide the money to undermine, or prevent democracy taking hold; it also provides an immense source for corruption. Oil revenues provide a revenue stream that is not dependent on the people but simply upon the global market and oil production. In a country with no checks and balances, accountability or transparency the money will inevitably go to the elite. This is how Equatorial Guinea can be rich while having most of the population in poverty.  Dictator Obiang himself is worth an estimated $700million or the equivalent of about 4% of GDP.(1) A trust fund can ensure that money from oil goes to the poorest not the richest. It is managed outside the country and away from political pressure. If the government is corrupt and uses the national budget to its own ends the trust fund can provide the dividends as investment in individual development projects to ensure the money is used where it is most needed. All the time it can be transparent to show when and where the government is trying to influence it or get backhanders. (1) ‘The Richest World Leaders Are Even Richer Than You Thought’, Huffington Post, 29 November 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/29/richest-world-leaders_n_4178514.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
For the people and accountable to the people

Politicians only think about themselves and only for the short term looking for re-election. The result will be the money used for populist measures even if it is not sustainable. The example of Greece proves this idea, as there public sector wages rose 50% between 1999 and 2007, despite having a deficit (1). Everyone wants more money, so will vote for such measures. They don’t think about the question of how that money will be acquired in the long run so will go for unsustainable policies that kick the problem to future generations. Only an independent body will be immune to short-termism. (1) ‘Eurozone crisis explained’, BBC News, 27 November 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13798000
An independent trust fund discourages investment.

Is it better that money should be wasted immediately or should the return be spread out? Any prudent population would choose the latter. Most populations are wary of untrammelled exploitation of natural resources of the kind being promoted for fear of the devastating environmental impact. Recent failures of big companies to protect the environment, like Chevron(1), only add to this discontent and lack of trust.  The case of Rosia Montana Gold Company which wants to get a permit to mine for gold in Romania is also very illustrative. Following the request of this company to exploit certain mountainous areas in the Carpathian, a series of nation-wide protests have emerged. Thousands of people from across the nation are going out on the streets on a weekly basis to protest against this project.(2) An independent fund won’t disincentivise investment; money will still be returned to the nation’s treasury to be used by politicians but because it takes longer to flow into the treasury there is less incentive for reckless investment that disregards the people’s will. (1)     “Chevron's Toxic Legacy in Ecuador”, Rainforest Action Network, http://ran.org/chevrons-toxic-legacy-ecuador (2)    Vlad Ursulean “Stopping Europe's biggest gold mine”, Al Jazeera, 27 Nov 2013 http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/11/stopping-europe-biggest-gold-mine-20131117102859516331.html
Keeping funds from government has negative consequences for spending

The change need not be dramatic; it need not apply to all oil revenues at once. For example only revenues from new fields could go into the independent fund while existing revenues to the government are maintained. Services therefore won’t need to undergo contraction. The impact on politics would also be minor; people elect those who get things done not those who blame others for their problems.  Moreover all of the politicians will have the same constraint of a lack of funds so no single party will have an unfair advantage.
Oil wealth flowing to politicians discourages democracy

The wealth from oil, or other natural resources, holds back democratization as a result of the “resources curse” or “paradox of plenty”. Resources provide money, and money is what is needed to run a security state. When money can come from natural resources there is little need to tax the people, instead it becomes a “rentier” economy where the dictator has resources to buy support without recourse to taxation.[1] It is essentially the opposite of the well-known idea ‘no taxation without representation’; if the money comes not from taxes but from oil what need is there for democracy? This proposal takes away the option of having access to large oil revenues instead providing only a limited amount to the state rather than the pockets of the dictator. This prevents the buying of key groups such as the army and the policy who can be used to repress the population. It is not by chance that the only countries in the Arab Middle East that could be considered democracies before the Arab Spring never had oil; Jordan and Lebanon. [1] Michel Chatelus and Yves Scehmeil, ‘Towards a New Political Economy of State Industrialisation in the Arab Middle East’, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 16, No. 2 (May, 1984), pp.251-265, pp.261-262
A fund would prevent pollution

Environmental damage is an example of the ‘tragedy of the commons’ where if a resource is not owned by an individual (or is free to all) then it will be overexploited. This is because it is in everyone’s self-interest to use it as much as possible. The result is pollution; politicians and oil companies want to exploit the oil as cheaply as possible so they dump pollution on the local population. For example, the $19 billion ruling handed down last year by a court in Lago Agrio, a town near Ecuador’s border with Colombia, held Chevron accountable for health and environmental damages resulting from chemical-laden wastewater dumped from 1964 to 1992(1). Putting oil wealth into a trust fund can help prevent this kind of abuse. There are two reasons for this. First if politicians are not getting an immediate benefit they will be less inclined to overlook pollution and there won’t be money to buy support for drilling and pollution to continue. The second is that since the fund is meant to provide long term benefits and investments one of the things it can be doing is being devoted to cleaning up any pollution that is created thus protecting the future generations. (1)    Joe Carroll, Rebecca Penty & Katia Dmitrieva ” Chevron’s $19 Billion ‘Disaster’ Gets Hearing”, Bloomberg, 29 November 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-29/chevron-s-19-billion-disaster-gets-hearing-corporate-canada.html
Long term benefits

It is very tempting to recklessly use an unexpected windfall of money immediately. But the best thing to do is to invest for the long term either to build infrastructure that will pay back its cost in future economic growth, or to invest it in funds that will continue paying dividends long into the future. The example of how Britain and Norway spent their North Sea oil revenues is very revealing: “the British governments spent their North Sea winnings on cutting national borrowing and keeping down taxes. Whatever came in went straight into the day-to-day budget. By contrast, for the past 16 years Norway has squirreled away the government's petroleum revenue in a national oil fund”(1) which now has $810 billion in assets, almost twice the country’s GDP, providing 5% returns.(2) The advantage of such investment is that they will continue to bring income even after the oil is gone. The oil will therefore benefit future generations as well as the current one. A panel of experts which are immune to political influence is the most likely body to think about long-term needs of the country and devise a plan which can ultimately bring income for a long period of time. (1)    Simon Gompertz “Has the UK squandered its North Sea riches?” , BBC News , 8 October 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19871411 (2)  Jonas Bergman, “World’s Biggest Wealth Fund Says Record Size Is Posing Hurdles”, Bloomberg, 1 November 2013, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-01/world-s-biggest-wealth-fund-says-record-size-is-posing-hurdles.html
Surveillance is necessary to protect national security

No one disputes that some surveillance is necessary, the question is how much. Is the use of bulk catch all surveillance useful? In the case cited it seems not – this was the monitoring of specific individuals who were already known to US intelligence services; Ayaman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s leader and Nasser al Wahishi the head of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.[1] Normal intelligence methods without the broad based surveillance would have caught the same messages. Monitoring the communications of known terrorist leaders was done long before the internet was on the scene. [1] Associated Press, ‘AP sources: Al-Qaida chief’s intercepted m,essage to deputy in Yemen caused embassy closures’, The Washington Post, 5 August 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/state-dept-says-us-diplomatic-posts-in-19-countries-will-stay-closed-through-saturday/2013/08/05/d58fbbdc-fda2-11e2-8294-0ee5075b840d_story.html
Broad web surveillance prevents terrorist attacks

Clearly the intelligence efforts on such a scale must provide some return in terms of stopping terrorism or they would not be worth the cost. However it is open to question whether the impact has been nearly as big as had been cited by the intelligence agencies. We clearly don’t know if these terrorists would have been detected through other methods. Additionally in at least one case where the FBI and NSA have stated that electronic surveillance has played a key role it has turned out not to be the case. FBI deputy director Sean Joyce has claimed that an attack on the New York Stock exchange was foiled by electronic surveillance; “We went up on the electronic surveillance and identified his co-conspirators” yet the emails involved were perfectly ordinary – the only information gained from the broad brush surveillance was that the plotter was in contact with al Qaeda leaders in Yemen. Something which surely could have been caught the other way around – by looking at the al Qaeda leaders communications.[1] Other cases such as that of Basaaly Moalin who was convicted of sending $8,500 to support Somali terrorist group al Shabab that have been highlighted by the NSA have similarly not required such broad surveillance.[2] [1] Ross, Brian et al., ‘NSA Claim of Thwarted NYSE Plot Contradicted by Court Documents’, ABC News, 19 June 2013, http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=19436557 [2] Nakashima, Ellen, ‘NSA cites case as success of phone data-collection program’, The Washington Post, 8 August 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-cites-case-as-success-of-phone-data-collection-program/2013/08/08/fc915e5a-feda-11e2-96a8-d3b921c0924a_story.html?hpid=z1
Indiscriminate spying damages trust

Trust is important in international relations. Whenever there is an international agreement each side has to trust that the other side will fulfil its side of the bargain; there is no court to step in and ensure that they do. Trust therefore needs to be built up. A large part of this is simply fulfilling promises that have been made in such treaties but trust can also be about being open with each other. When a country engages in an immense spying operation against another nation it is clearly damaging the trust between those nations. With the United States this is just one in a long line of issues that have undermined trust in the US government; the Iraq war, Guantanamo bay, drone strikes etc. and the continued violations of international law these represent have all undermined trust in the United States internationally.[1] [1] Dunn, Matthew, ‘PRISM: An International Relations Disaster?’, Huffington Post, 10 July 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-dunn/prism-nsa_b_3563170.html