Question:
A Palestinians were forced to leave and so have a right to return

Especially in the 1948 War, Palestinians were forcibly removed from their homes and towns en masse by the Israeli Defence Force (IDF). The traditional Israeli point of view arguing that Arab leaders encouraged Palestinian Arabs to flee is simply untrue. In fact, Arab leaders intended for the Palestinian Arab population stay put. Historians such as Benny Morris, Erskine Childers, and Walid Khalidi state that no evidence of widespread evacuation orders exists, and that Arab leaders in fact instructed the Palestinian Arabs to stay put. [1] [2] [3] .

According to Morris, whatever the reasons driving many into flight, temporary evacuation under local orders, contagious panic, fear of Jewish arms, or direct expulsion manu militari, the 700,000 odd Palestinians who did become refugees acquired that status as a result of compulsory displacement or expulsion, since they were not permitted by Israel to return.(1) In terms of the cause of the Palestinian flight, Morris argues that "Arab evacuees from the towns and villages left largely because of Jewish... attacks or fear of impending attack."(1) A report from the military intelligence SHAI of the Haganah entitled "The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948", dated 30 June 1948 affirms that up to 1 June 1948: "At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations." To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which "directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration". A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to "fears" and "a crisis of confidence" affecting the Palestinian population.

As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases. [4] This clearly demonstrates not only Israeli responsibility for the Palestinian refugees of 1948, but also that Israel was aware of it while it was going on, thus showing that expelling the Palestinians was intentional Israeli policy. This is compounded by the fact that the dispossession and ethnic cleansing of the Arabs of Palestine was part of the Zionist project from the very beginning. Theodor Herzl, in effect the father of modern Zionism and the state of Israel, in the draft-agreement of The Jewish-Ottoman Land Company (JOLC) stated the company was 'for the purpose of settling Palestine and Syria with Jews' (the company lobbied for approval from Sultan Abdulhameed in Istanbul in 1901). In Article III of the same agreement the JOLC was given the right to deport the native populations, an act aimed at legitimizing ethnic cleansing, by granting "The right to exchange economic enclaves of its territory, with the exception of the holy places or places already designated for worship. The owners shall receive plots of equal size and quality procured by it (the JOLC) in other provinces and territories of the Ottoman Empire." [5] This intentional ethnic cleansing of Arabs from Palestine can therefore be seen as part of the Zionist project to create a Jewish majority state in Israel. Therefore, to deny the Palestinian right of return is to perpetuate this injustice and allow ethnic cleansing to succeed. Israel, a state founded by refugees of ethnic cleansing and the Holocaust, should not allow such an injustice to stand any longer.

[1] Morris, Benny. "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited". Cambridge University Press. 2004

[2] Childers, Erskine. "The Other Exodus". The Spectator. 12 May 1961

[3] Khalidi, Walid. "Why did the Palestinians Leave, Revisited". Journal of Palestinian Studies Vol 134, no. 2 (Win. 05).

[4] Morris, Benny. "The Causes and Character of the Arab Exodus from Palestine: The Israel Defence Forces Intelligence Branch Analysis of June 1948". Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Jan., 1986)

[5] Sakhnini, Nizar. "Dispossession and Ethnic Cleansing." Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition. 12 July 2004. http://www.al-awda.org/zionists01.html

The characterization of the 1948 Palestinian exodus as forced by Israel is incorrect. In the very same passage quoted opposite, Morris goes on to argue that only "an extremely small, almost insignificant number of the refugees during this early period left because of (Israeli) expulsion orders or forceful 'advice' to that effect". [1] Count Bernadotte, the UN mediator in Palestine, testified that "the exodus of the Palestinian Arabs resulted from panic created by fighting in their communities, by rumours concerning real or alleged acts of terrorism, or expulsion." [2] Thus, Israel is not responsible for acts of flight from Palestine which were largely motivated by imagined fears, which were the cause of almost all the Palestinian refugees, as they were not directly expelled or threatened by the IDF.

The Palestinians of 1948 may have made a tragic choice, for themselves and for their descendants, but this does not make Israel morally responsible for this choice and its consequences, as in almost every case Israel was not to blame, and it is impossible to isolate and identify those few where it may have been. Even if Israel were somehow morally responsible, it does not follow from this that Israel should accept an unlimited Palestinian right of return on the part of every refugee, considering the massive harms this would inflict on the state of Israel (outlined below). Rather, as Israel has proposed in the past, the Palestinians could accept words of contrition from Israel, and generous allocations of international aid, in place of the right of every refugee and his descendants to go back to his old home inside Israel. [3] This would be a more acceptable alternative to Israel, and still help to heal Palestinian wounds.

[1] Morris, Benny. "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited". Cambridge University Press. 2004

[2] UN Progress Report, 16 September 1948, Part 1 Section V, paragraph 6; Part 3 Section I

[3] The Economist. "The Palestinian right of return". The Economist. 4 January 2001. http://www.economist.com/node/464892

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

A politician who has to constantly concern himself with reelection has a much greater likelihood of being beholden to special interest groups and lobbyists than one who is term-limited so will actually engage in more corruption. While a term-limited legislator may suffer to a degree from lame duck status, the need to continuously seek electoral support is far more damaging to his ability to do what is right for the nation. Politicians who are not term-limited will spend more time doing what is popular than what is necessary. It is far better to have a representative who has only a limited time to enact the policies he envisions, so that he actively seeks to implement his vision, rather focusing on the short-term goal of reelection.

Far from being a unifying force the Schengen Area has already led to disagreements between individual countries. Italy and France were involved in a major political dispute after Italy abused the spirit, if not the terms, of the Schengen Agreement to offload thousands of North African migrants onto France. In April 2011, French police even went so far as to stop an Italian train carrying migrants and prevent it from crossing the border [1] . France took the rare decision to temporarily re-establish border controls, adding more than 300 police to patrols monitoring roads and foot trails that lead into French territory, along with inspecting rail traffic [2] . It issued instructions stating that an immigrant who wishes to cross the French border must “hold a valid travel document recognised by France” and a “valid residence document,” “show proof of having sufficient resources—that is, €31 per day if the person has accommodations, and €62 otherwise [3] . France’s unilateral decision to restore border controls and stretch the boundary of the Schengen Agreement underlines the extreme fragility of the legal basis of the European Union. Further, Romania was angry at attempts to exclude them from the Schengen area, a move led by France and Germany, after accessing to the EU and technically meeting all the border conditions for the passport-free zone, calling it “discrimination” [4] .

[1] ‘France and Italy push for reform of Schengen treaty’, BBC News, 26th April 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13189682

[2] Ira, Kumaran, ‘France re-establishes border controls with Italy amid dispute over African migrants’, World Socialist Website, 11th April 2011, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/apr2011/fran-a11.shtml

[3] Ira, Kumaran, ‘France re-establishes border controls with Italy amid dispute over African migrants’, World Socialist Website, 11th April 2011, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/apr2011/fran-a11.shtml

[4] Waterfield, Bruno, ‘Romania accuses France and Germany of discrimination over Schengen exclusion’, The Daily Telegraph, 22nd December 2010, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/romania/8219933/Romania...

The fact that the prison system is not designed to be punitive doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be. Retributive justice demands that criminals are punished. Prison should do that, and it should fit the crime, by having more than one category of punishment based on the offence. It is understandable that prison services themselves do not consider their task to be to punish; they claim that is done by the judge or jury that hands out the sentence. This however in effect means that no one takes responsibility for punishing those who have done wrong. Instead each stage of the criminal justice system becomes solely an attempt to prevent future crime without consideration to past victims.

The ICC does not infringe upon national sovereignty because it only has jurisdiction if the national justice system is either ineffective or unable to prosecute the criminal.

National courts still have the responsibility and ability to prosecute their own criminals, and the ICC is only meant to be used as a last resort in case these national measures fail; there is no contradiction between the two.1 Sovereignty only exists if the state has internal control, and the ICC will only have jurisdiction in cases where the national justice system has proven that for some reason, it will not prosecute the criminal.

1 Nanda, Ved P. "The Establishment of a Permanent International Criminal Court: Challenges Ahead." Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 2, May 1998, 413-428.

Although religions supported the anti-gay law, it is not solely a religious issue; the majority of Ugandans believe that homosexuality is contrary to their traditional values and all the anti-gay protests were inclusive regardless of religious denominations. It is therefore wrong to assert that the law was passed as a religious initiative. A separation of church and state does not mean the government should never run policies that the religious want simply that the government should not be favouring a particular religion.

There are procedural ways of mitigating this concern that are less severe than eliminating the jury altogether. Possible ways of dealing with jury intimidation/tampering include 1) having retrials in cases where jury tampering occurred, 2) attempting to increase the degree of juror anonymity, for example by seating jurors where they cannot be seen, and 3) by having higher penalties for jury tampering and intimidation. The second way is probably the most effective, and American courts have found that in cases where jury tampering poses a serious threat, it does not interfere with the defendant's right to a fair trial.1 1Laura K. Donohue, "Terrorism and Trial by Jury: The Vices and Virtues of British and American Criminal Law"

Past experience in Iraq and Afghanistan indicates that terrorism tends to flourish when states are weak. An Invasion of Sudan, especially if it had led to a collapse of the Sudanese state, would have create a vacuum terrorists could kill, especially when the very invasion would provide the resentment and motivation for thousands of jihadi volunteers to fight the Western “crusaders”

The AIVD example shows exactly that judicial and political control is not enough: the judicial control is control after the fact, so it didn’t prevent the AIVD from listening in to journalists conversations in the first place. Moreover, a regulatory committee judged that the Minister of Internal Affairs, who is supposed to be the a priori control, had given permission too easily, which is to be expected when a Minister faces a lot of requests like this, and has to decide in between the regular work of actually governing. [1] It is the lack of initial oversight which is anti-democratic, citizens expect their government and courts to prevent the intelligence agencies from infringing on privacy not simply demand an apology later when the intelligence agency is found out. How many more cases are there which are not caught?

[1] NIS News Bulletin, ‘Press Sector Sues State for Eavesdropping Telegraaf Journalists’ 9/07/2009 http://www.nisnews.nl/public/090709_1.htm

Even if the ICC brings proceedings, that does not guarantee that individuals, even if captured by forces that oppose them, will be transferred over to the ICC – the new Libyan government is still holding Saif Gaddafi. [1]

The ICC can also only act when the state is unwilling or unable to provide a trial – this this is the principle of complementarity. However there is not ICC force that can act to arrest a suspect. This means in effect that it will be down to the forces on the ground which may mean summary justice by those who capture the suspect if they think it won’t get a sufficiently stiff sentence at the ICC – there is no death penalty.

At any rate, many in Syria would want to see a fully military conclusion to the conflict, rather than any result through the international courts or a political settlement.

[1] Aliriza, Fadil, ‘Is Libya too scared to put Said Gaddafi on trial?’, The Independent, 16 August 2013, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/is-libya-too-scared-to-put-saif-gaddafi-on-trial-8771495.html

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
The Palestinian refugee crisis was created and is perpetuated by the Arab states and the Palestinians themselves

The current Palestinian refugee crisis is largely the creation of the Palestinian people themselves, who largely left voluntarily (or at least not by Israeli force) in 1948, and the Arab states who both started the 1948 war against Israel and who have kept the Palestinians in limbo ever since instead of integrating them.

Firstly, Palestinian flight from Israel was not compelled but was predominantly voluntary, as a result of seven Arab nations declaring war on Israel in 1948. Israel officially denies any responsibility for the Palestinian exodus, stating that their flight was caused by the Arab invasion. Efraim Karsh states that most Palestinians chose their status as refugees themselves, and therefore Israel is therefore absolved of responsibility. [1] Morris argues that only "an extremely small, almost insignificant number of the refugees during this early period left because of (Israeli) expulsion orders or forceful 'advice' to that effect". [2] Count Bernadotte, the UN mediator in Palestine, testified that "the exodus of the Palestinian Arabs resulted from panic created by fighting in their communities, by rumours concerning real or alleged acts of terrorism, or expulsion." [3] Therefore Israel is absolved of moral responsibility for the Palestinian exodus, as the vast majority of it was caused by the Palestinian people themselves.

Further, Arab states instigated the 1948 and 1967 wars, and so they bear responsibility for their outcomes, including the refugees that resulted. Israeli official sources, foreign press, and officials present at the time, and historians such as Joseph Schechtman have long claimed that the 1948 refugee crisis was instigated by the invading Arab armies, who ordered Palestinian civilians to evacuate the battle zone. Israel officially denies any responsibility for the Palestinian exodus, stating that their flight was caused by the Arab invasion. [4] [5] Thus the responsibility for housing and integrating Palestinian refugees into established, recognised nations in fact lies with the Arab states. However, this is a responsibility that the Arab world has neglected since 1948.

It is the failure of Arab states to incorporate Palestinians into their societies by offering legal status which keeps the Palestinian refugees in limbo, not Israeli policy. Refugees and their descendants are usually kept in refugee camps and not allowed to integrate into the Arab nations in which they reside. [6] Such policies are often pursued by Arab states explicitly as a tool against Israel: for example, Palestinians who moved from the West Bank (whether refugees or not) to Jordan, are issued yellow ID cards to distinguish them from the Palestinians of the "official 10 refugee camps" in Jordan. Since 1988, thousands of those yellow-ID card Palestinians have had their Jordanian citizenship revoked in order to prevent the possibility that they might become permanent residents of the country. Jordan's Interior Minister Nayef al-Kadi said: "Our goal is to prevent Israel from emptying the Palestinian territories of their original inhabitants. "We should be thanked for taking this measure... We are fulfilling our national duty because Israel wants to expel the Palestinians from their homeland." [7] Thus, the Palestinian refugee problem was brought about through choices made by Palestinians themselves, during a war against Israel initiated by Arab states. The crisis has since been perpetuated by other Arab governments. Many states- such as Jordan- have pursued policies that call for the exclusion and marginalisation of Palestinians, in the interest of weakening Israeli claims to statehood and maintaining and deepening Palestinian and Arab resentment of Israel. Israel is not therefore the morally culpable actor, and so has no responsibility to recognise the Palestinian 'right of return'.

[1] Karsh, Efraim. "Fabricating Israeli History: The "New Historians"". Cass. 1997

[2] Morris, Benny. "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited". Cambridge University Press. 2004

[3] UN Progress Report, 16 September 1948, Part 1 Section V, paragraph 6; Part 3 Section I

[4] UN Progress Report, 16 September 1948, Part 1 Section V, paragraph 6; Part 3 Section I

[5] Schechtman, Joseph. "The Arab Refugee Problem". 1952.

[6] The Economist. "The Palestinian right of return". The Economist. 4 January 2001. http://www.economist.com/node/464892

[7] Abu Toameh, Khaled. "Amman revoking Palestinians' citizenship". The Jerusalem Post. 20 July 2009. http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443863400&pagename=JPost/J...

The Zionist project which led to the state of Israel intended to displace Palestinians from the very beginning, long before the so-called Arab 'aggression' in 1948. Theodor Herzl, who presided the First Zionist Congress, had provided the ideological underpinnings of the Zionist movement in his pamphlet, Der Judenstaat, which was published in 1896. Herzl called for a colonial project for the exclusive benefit of the Jews and suggested that Der Judenstaat would 'form a portion of the rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism.' Efforts of the Zionist political movement to implement their project, with the support of the Imperialist Great Powers, in complete disregard to the Palestinian rights and human reality in Palestine, were responsible for initiating and prolonging the conflict in and around Palestine. The establishment of an exclusive Jewish State in a country where the majority of its people were not Jewish meant transplanting Jews from all corners of the world and bringing them to Palestine. Simultaneously, it meant dispossession and ethnic cleansing for the Palestinians. This was, and still is, the core issue in the conflict. All subsequent events are derivative and irrelevant as a consequence. [1]

[1] Sakhnini, Nizar. "The Core Issue". Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition. 11 July 2004. http://www.al-awda.org/zionists0.html

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

A politician who has to constantly concern himself with reelection has a much greater likelihood of being beholden to special interest groups and lobbyists than one who is term-limited so will actually engage in more corruption. While a term-limited legislator may suffer to a degree from lame duck status, the need to continuously seek electoral support is far more damaging to his ability to do what is right for the nation. Politicians who are not term-limited will spend more time doing what is popular than what is necessary. It is far better to have a representative who has only a limited time to enact the policies he envisions, so that he actively seeks to implement his vision, rather focusing on the short-term goal of reelection.

Far from being a unifying force the Schengen Area has already led to disagreements between individual countries. Italy and France were involved in a major political dispute after Italy abused the spirit, if not the terms, of the Schengen Agreement to offload thousands of North African migrants onto France. In April 2011, French police even went so far as to stop an Italian train carrying migrants and prevent it from crossing the border [1] . France took the rare decision to temporarily re-establish border controls, adding more than 300 police to patrols monitoring roads and foot trails that lead into French territory, along with inspecting rail traffic [2] . It issued instructions stating that an immigrant who wishes to cross the French border must “hold a valid travel document recognised by France” and a “valid residence document,” “show proof of having sufficient resources—that is, €31 per day if the person has accommodations, and €62 otherwise [3] . France’s unilateral decision to restore border controls and stretch the boundary of the Schengen Agreement underlines the extreme fragility of the legal basis of the European Union. Further, Romania was angry at attempts to exclude them from the Schengen area, a move led by France and Germany, after accessing to the EU and technically meeting all the border conditions for the passport-free zone, calling it “discrimination” [4] .

[1] ‘France and Italy push for reform of Schengen treaty’, BBC News, 26th April 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13189682

[2] Ira, Kumaran, ‘France re-establishes border controls with Italy amid dispute over African migrants’, World Socialist Website, 11th April 2011, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/apr2011/fran-a11.shtml

[3] Ira, Kumaran, ‘France re-establishes border controls with Italy amid dispute over African migrants’, World Socialist Website, 11th April 2011, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/apr2011/fran-a11.shtml

[4] Waterfield, Bruno, ‘Romania accuses France and Germany of discrimination over Schengen exclusion’, The Daily Telegraph, 22nd December 2010, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/romania/8219933/Romania...

The fact that the prison system is not designed to be punitive doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be. Retributive justice demands that criminals are punished. Prison should do that, and it should fit the crime, by having more than one category of punishment based on the offence. It is understandable that prison services themselves do not consider their task to be to punish; they claim that is done by the judge or jury that hands out the sentence. This however in effect means that no one takes responsibility for punishing those who have done wrong. Instead each stage of the criminal justice system becomes solely an attempt to prevent future crime without consideration to past victims.

The ICC does not infringe upon national sovereignty because it only has jurisdiction if the national justice system is either ineffective or unable to prosecute the criminal.

National courts still have the responsibility and ability to prosecute their own criminals, and the ICC is only meant to be used as a last resort in case these national measures fail; there is no contradiction between the two.1 Sovereignty only exists if the state has internal control, and the ICC will only have jurisdiction in cases where the national justice system has proven that for some reason, it will not prosecute the criminal.

1 Nanda, Ved P. "The Establishment of a Permanent International Criminal Court: Challenges Ahead." Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 2, May 1998, 413-428.

Although religions supported the anti-gay law, it is not solely a religious issue; the majority of Ugandans believe that homosexuality is contrary to their traditional values and all the anti-gay protests were inclusive regardless of religious denominations. It is therefore wrong to assert that the law was passed as a religious initiative. A separation of church and state does not mean the government should never run policies that the religious want simply that the government should not be favouring a particular religion.

There are procedural ways of mitigating this concern that are less severe than eliminating the jury altogether. Possible ways of dealing with jury intimidation/tampering include 1) having retrials in cases where jury tampering occurred, 2) attempting to increase the degree of juror anonymity, for example by seating jurors where they cannot be seen, and 3) by having higher penalties for jury tampering and intimidation. The second way is probably the most effective, and American courts have found that in cases where jury tampering poses a serious threat, it does not interfere with the defendant's right to a fair trial.1 1Laura K. Donohue, "Terrorism and Trial by Jury: The Vices and Virtues of British and American Criminal Law"

Past experience in Iraq and Afghanistan indicates that terrorism tends to flourish when states are weak. An Invasion of Sudan, especially if it had led to a collapse of the Sudanese state, would have create a vacuum terrorists could kill, especially when the very invasion would provide the resentment and motivation for thousands of jihadi volunteers to fight the Western “crusaders”

The AIVD example shows exactly that judicial and political control is not enough: the judicial control is control after the fact, so it didn’t prevent the AIVD from listening in to journalists conversations in the first place. Moreover, a regulatory committee judged that the Minister of Internal Affairs, who is supposed to be the a priori control, had given permission too easily, which is to be expected when a Minister faces a lot of requests like this, and has to decide in between the regular work of actually governing. [1] It is the lack of initial oversight which is anti-democratic, citizens expect their government and courts to prevent the intelligence agencies from infringing on privacy not simply demand an apology later when the intelligence agency is found out. How many more cases are there which are not caught?

[1] NIS News Bulletin, ‘Press Sector Sues State for Eavesdropping Telegraaf Journalists’ 9/07/2009 http://www.nisnews.nl/public/090709_1.htm

Even if the ICC brings proceedings, that does not guarantee that individuals, even if captured by forces that oppose them, will be transferred over to the ICC – the new Libyan government is still holding Saif Gaddafi. [1]

The ICC can also only act when the state is unwilling or unable to provide a trial – this this is the principle of complementarity. However there is not ICC force that can act to arrest a suspect. This means in effect that it will be down to the forces on the ground which may mean summary justice by those who capture the suspect if they think it won’t get a sufficiently stiff sentence at the ICC – there is no death penalty.

At any rate, many in Syria would want to see a fully military conclusion to the conflict, rather than any result through the international courts or a political settlement.

[1] Aliriza, Fadil, ‘Is Libya too scared to put Said Gaddafi on trial?’, The Independent, 16 August 2013, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/is-libya-too-scared-to-put-saif-gaddafi-on-trial-8771495.html

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
A Palestinian right of return would destroy the 'Jewish State' in Israel

If all or a large majority of Palestinian refugees and their descendants were to implement a 'right of return', it would make Arabs the majority within Israel and Jews an ethnic minority. This amounts to abolishing the Jewish people's right to self-determination, which they hold under the 1993 Vienna Declaration. [1] It would also mean eradicating Israel as a Jewish state, which was the intention behind its foundation. The majority of Israelis find a literal right of return for Palestinian refugees to be unacceptable, pointing to this worry that as they become a minority Israel as a Jewish state would be undermined. [2]

Re-enforcing the need for the existence of a Jewish state (as a safe haven for persecuted Jews) is the presence in Israel of 758,000-866,000 Jews who were expelled, fled or emigrated from the Arab Middle East and North Africa between 1945 and 1956, to whom the Arab states which expelled them are not willing to offer any 'right of return' of their own. [3] An open letter to the Palestinian leadership published in 2001 by Amos Oz, A.B. Yehoshua and other Israeli intellectuals and peace activists dramatically demonstrated the agreement even among the 'peace camp' in Israel that a total right of return for Palestinians can never be acceptable to the Israeli people: “We shall never be able to agree”, they wrote, “to the return of the refugees to within the borders of Israel. The meaning of such a return would be the elimination of the state of Israel.” Yossi Sarid, chairman of the Meretz Party, stated baldly that “Israel can survive without sovereignty over Temple Mount, but it cannot survive with the right of return. If the Palestinians insist on it, there will be no (peace) agreement.” [4] Thus asking Israel to recognise the Palestinian right of return is tantamount to asking Israel to accept its own destruction as a state, and is thus totally unacceptable.

There are further reasons that recognising the Palestinian right of return would be fundamentally harmful to Israel's welfare, and thus an invalid action. Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that rights can be limited by law solely for securing 'due recognition and respect for the rights of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order, and general welfare in a democratic society.' Article 30 states that nothing in the declaration may be interpreted as permitting any state, group, or person to engage in activity aimed at the destruction of any rights or freedoms guaranteed. The 'rights' and 'general welfare' of Israel's Jewish citizens would be endangered if millions of Palestinians who were openly hostile to Israel's existence became a majority. Article 3 of the declaration further states that "these rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purpose and principles of the United Nations". [5] The Palestinian right of return would result in the loss of Israeli sovereignty and its replacement with an Arab-majority state, and the dismantling of Israeli society in favour of an Arab-Muslim dominated society, resulting in the destruction of a UN member state: a violation of the United Nations Charter. For this reason, a Palestinian right of return is invalidated.

A right of return would also result in a flood of Palestinians stating their 'right of return' as justification for entering Israel at any time and in unlimited numbers and laying claim to old homes. This creates an unworkable legal nightmare, clouded by historical ambiguities. Such an extended legal nightmare would last for decades, and hurt the reconciliation process. [i-[1]

There are many things that Israel can and has offered to Palestinian refugees: compensation, assistance in resettlement, and return for an extremely limited number of refugees based solely on family reunification or humanitarian considerations. But an unlimited right of return for all refugees and their descendants simply goes too far. This is largely because it is purely unworkable to allow millions of Palestinians to return back to a territory that is already overcrowded. [i-[2] [6] For all these reasons, recognising the Palestinian right of return would destroy Israel as a 'Jewish state' and fundamentally harm the welfare of its current legal inhabitants by infringing on their rights, and so Israel should not pursue this recognition.

[1] United Nations World Conference on Human Rights. “VIENNA DECLARATION AND PROGRAMME OF ACTION”. United Nations. 14-25 June 1993. http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/%28symbol%29/a.conf.157.23.en

[2] The Economist. "The Palestinian right of return". The Economist. 4 January 2001. http://www.economist.com/node/464892

[3] Schwartz, Adi. "All I wanted was justice". Haaretz/adi-schwartz.com. 4 January 2008. http://www.adi-schwartz.com/israeli-arab-conflict/all-i-wanted-was-justice/

[4] The Economist. "The Palestinian right of return". The Economist. 4 January 2001. http://www.economist.com/node/464892

[5] United Nations. "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Wikisource. 10 December 1948. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Arti...

[6] The Economist. "The Palestinian right of return". The Economist. 4 January 2001. http://www.economist.com/node/464892

The inalienable rights of refugees are not negotiable, nor are they subject to the interests of the state which they would be returning to. International law considers agreements between an occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution. [1] Therefore the interests of the state of Israel are not legitimate reasons to deny the right of return which is owed to Palestinian refugees. Moreover, the right of return is feasible in Israel due to the availability of empty land. 80% of Israelis live in 15 percent of the land and that the remaining 20% live on 85% of the land that belongs to the refugees. Further, of the 20%, 18% live in Palestinian cities while the remaining 2% live in kibbutzim and moshavs. By contrast, more than 6,000 refugees live per square kilometer in the Gaza Strip, while over the barbed wire their lands are practically empty. [2]

[1] Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition. "Factsheet". Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition. http://www.al-awda.org/facts.html

[2] Sakhnini, Nizar. "Dispossession and Ethnic Cleansing." Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition. 12 July 2004. http://www.al-awda.org/zionists01.html

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

A politician who has to constantly concern himself with reelection has a much greater likelihood of being beholden to special interest groups and lobbyists than one who is term-limited so will actually engage in more corruption. While a term-limited legislator may suffer to a degree from lame duck status, the need to continuously seek electoral support is far more damaging to his ability to do what is right for the nation. Politicians who are not term-limited will spend more time doing what is popular than what is necessary. It is far better to have a representative who has only a limited time to enact the policies he envisions, so that he actively seeks to implement his vision, rather focusing on the short-term goal of reelection.

Far from being a unifying force the Schengen Area has already led to disagreements between individual countries. Italy and France were involved in a major political dispute after Italy abused the spirit, if not the terms, of the Schengen Agreement to offload thousands of North African migrants onto France. In April 2011, French police even went so far as to stop an Italian train carrying migrants and prevent it from crossing the border [1] . France took the rare decision to temporarily re-establish border controls, adding more than 300 police to patrols monitoring roads and foot trails that lead into French territory, along with inspecting rail traffic [2] . It issued instructions stating that an immigrant who wishes to cross the French border must “hold a valid travel document recognised by France” and a “valid residence document,” “show proof of having sufficient resources—that is, €31 per day if the person has accommodations, and €62 otherwise [3] . France’s unilateral decision to restore border controls and stretch the boundary of the Schengen Agreement underlines the extreme fragility of the legal basis of the European Union. Further, Romania was angry at attempts to exclude them from the Schengen area, a move led by France and Germany, after accessing to the EU and technically meeting all the border conditions for the passport-free zone, calling it “discrimination” [4] .

[1] ‘France and Italy push for reform of Schengen treaty’, BBC News, 26th April 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13189682

[2] Ira, Kumaran, ‘France re-establishes border controls with Italy amid dispute over African migrants’, World Socialist Website, 11th April 2011, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/apr2011/fran-a11.shtml

[3] Ira, Kumaran, ‘France re-establishes border controls with Italy amid dispute over African migrants’, World Socialist Website, 11th April 2011, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/apr2011/fran-a11.shtml

[4] Waterfield, Bruno, ‘Romania accuses France and Germany of discrimination over Schengen exclusion’, The Daily Telegraph, 22nd December 2010, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/romania/8219933/Romania...

The fact that the prison system is not designed to be punitive doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be. Retributive justice demands that criminals are punished. Prison should do that, and it should fit the crime, by having more than one category of punishment based on the offence. It is understandable that prison services themselves do not consider their task to be to punish; they claim that is done by the judge or jury that hands out the sentence. This however in effect means that no one takes responsibility for punishing those who have done wrong. Instead each stage of the criminal justice system becomes solely an attempt to prevent future crime without consideration to past victims.

The ICC does not infringe upon national sovereignty because it only has jurisdiction if the national justice system is either ineffective or unable to prosecute the criminal.

National courts still have the responsibility and ability to prosecute their own criminals, and the ICC is only meant to be used as a last resort in case these national measures fail; there is no contradiction between the two.1 Sovereignty only exists if the state has internal control, and the ICC will only have jurisdiction in cases where the national justice system has proven that for some reason, it will not prosecute the criminal.

1 Nanda, Ved P. "The Establishment of a Permanent International Criminal Court: Challenges Ahead." Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 2, May 1998, 413-428.

Although religions supported the anti-gay law, it is not solely a religious issue; the majority of Ugandans believe that homosexuality is contrary to their traditional values and all the anti-gay protests were inclusive regardless of religious denominations. It is therefore wrong to assert that the law was passed as a religious initiative. A separation of church and state does not mean the government should never run policies that the religious want simply that the government should not be favouring a particular religion.

There are procedural ways of mitigating this concern that are less severe than eliminating the jury altogether. Possible ways of dealing with jury intimidation/tampering include 1) having retrials in cases where jury tampering occurred, 2) attempting to increase the degree of juror anonymity, for example by seating jurors where they cannot be seen, and 3) by having higher penalties for jury tampering and intimidation. The second way is probably the most effective, and American courts have found that in cases where jury tampering poses a serious threat, it does not interfere with the defendant's right to a fair trial.1 1Laura K. Donohue, "Terrorism and Trial by Jury: The Vices and Virtues of British and American Criminal Law"

Past experience in Iraq and Afghanistan indicates that terrorism tends to flourish when states are weak. An Invasion of Sudan, especially if it had led to a collapse of the Sudanese state, would have create a vacuum terrorists could kill, especially when the very invasion would provide the resentment and motivation for thousands of jihadi volunteers to fight the Western “crusaders”

The AIVD example shows exactly that judicial and political control is not enough: the judicial control is control after the fact, so it didn’t prevent the AIVD from listening in to journalists conversations in the first place. Moreover, a regulatory committee judged that the Minister of Internal Affairs, who is supposed to be the a priori control, had given permission too easily, which is to be expected when a Minister faces a lot of requests like this, and has to decide in between the regular work of actually governing. [1] It is the lack of initial oversight which is anti-democratic, citizens expect their government and courts to prevent the intelligence agencies from infringing on privacy not simply demand an apology later when the intelligence agency is found out. How many more cases are there which are not caught?

[1] NIS News Bulletin, ‘Press Sector Sues State for Eavesdropping Telegraaf Journalists’ 9/07/2009 http://www.nisnews.nl/public/090709_1.htm

Even if the ICC brings proceedings, that does not guarantee that individuals, even if captured by forces that oppose them, will be transferred over to the ICC – the new Libyan government is still holding Saif Gaddafi. [1]

The ICC can also only act when the state is unwilling or unable to provide a trial – this this is the principle of complementarity. However there is not ICC force that can act to arrest a suspect. This means in effect that it will be down to the forces on the ground which may mean summary justice by those who capture the suspect if they think it won’t get a sufficiently stiff sentence at the ICC – there is no death penalty.

At any rate, many in Syria would want to see a fully military conclusion to the conflict, rather than any result through the international courts or a political settlement.

[1] Aliriza, Fadil, ‘Is Libya too scared to put Said Gaddafi on trial?’, The Independent, 16 August 2013, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/is-libya-too-scared-to-put-saif-gaddafi-on-trial-8771495.html

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
No real 'right of return' exists in international law

Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not guarantee a right of return because the clause "everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country" was meant to guarantee the right to leave.

According to its legislative history, Article 13 was aimed at governments which imprisoned certain subgroups of their own nationals by preventing them from moving beyond their national borders. According to its sponsor, the mention of a "right to return" was included to assure that "the right to leave a country, already sanctioned in the article, would be strengthened by the assurance of the right to return. [1] Moreover, Article 13 only guarantees a specific right to return "to his own country". [2] But, the Palestinians who were displaced were never citizens or legal residents of Israel. Therefore, they can have no right of return to Israel. U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194, furthermore, does not specify a 'right', but rather says refugees "should" be allowed to return. [3] Hence Israel is under no obligation to recognise a 'right', but rather merely to accept that Palestinians have some claim to return or to compensation for not being able to return. This is distinct from a total and inalienable 'right' to do so, regardless of the consequences for Israel. Also, there is no formal mechanism in international law to demand repatriation of refugees and their descendants in general or Palestinians specifically. No international legislation, binding UN resolutions or agreements between Israel and the Palestinians require this. This is demonstrated by international precedent, especially by the case of the 758,000-866,000 Jews who were expelled, fled or emigrated from the Arab Middle East and North Africa between 1945 and 1956, with property losses of $1 billion. [4] Since these refugees were neither compensated nor allowed return—to no objection on the part of Arab leaders or international legal authorities—the international community has accepted this migration of Jews as fait accompli, and thereby set legal precedent in the region against a right of return for Palestinians also.

Finally, most of the inhabitants of the Palestinian refugee camps abroad were not actually alive in either 1948 or 1967, and there is no reason to believe that their descendants automatically inherit any 'right of return' which their ancestors may have held. Therefore Israel should not recognise the Palestinian 'right of return' as no such right really exists under international law.

[1] Dinstein, Yoram. "Israel Yearbook on Human Rights". Volume 16; Volume 1986

[2] United Nations. "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Wikisource. 10 December 1948. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Arti...

[3] United Nations. "UN General Assembly Resolution 194". United Nations. 11 December 1948. http://unbisnet.un.org:8080/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=108V0691N26Y9.82&men...

[4] Schwartz, Adi. "All I wanted was justice". Haaretz/adi-schwartz.com. 4 January 2008. http://www.adi-schwartz.com/israeli-arab-conflict/all-i-wanted-was-justice/

The 1948 UN General Resolution 194 specifically applies the right of return to the Palestinian refugees. Paragraph 11 states "that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible." [1]

[1] United Nations. "UN General Assembly Resolution 194". United Nations. 11 December 1948. http://unbisnet.un.org:8080/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=108V0691N26Y9.82&men...

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

A politician who has to constantly concern himself with reelection has a much greater likelihood of being beholden to special interest groups and lobbyists than one who is term-limited so will actually engage in more corruption. While a term-limited legislator may suffer to a degree from lame duck status, the need to continuously seek electoral support is far more damaging to his ability to do what is right for the nation. Politicians who are not term-limited will spend more time doing what is popular than what is necessary. It is far better to have a representative who has only a limited time to enact the policies he envisions, so that he actively seeks to implement his vision, rather focusing on the short-term goal of reelection.

Far from being a unifying force the Schengen Area has already led to disagreements between individual countries. Italy and France were involved in a major political dispute after Italy abused the spirit, if not the terms, of the Schengen Agreement to offload thousands of North African migrants onto France. In April 2011, French police even went so far as to stop an Italian train carrying migrants and prevent it from crossing the border [1] . France took the rare decision to temporarily re-establish border controls, adding more than 300 police to patrols monitoring roads and foot trails that lead into French territory, along with inspecting rail traffic [2] . It issued instructions stating that an immigrant who wishes to cross the French border must “hold a valid travel document recognised by France” and a “valid residence document,” “show proof of having sufficient resources—that is, €31 per day if the person has accommodations, and €62 otherwise [3] . France’s unilateral decision to restore border controls and stretch the boundary of the Schengen Agreement underlines the extreme fragility of the legal basis of the European Union. Further, Romania was angry at attempts to exclude them from the Schengen area, a move led by France and Germany, after accessing to the EU and technically meeting all the border conditions for the passport-free zone, calling it “discrimination” [4] .

[1] ‘France and Italy push for reform of Schengen treaty’, BBC News, 26th April 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13189682

[2] Ira, Kumaran, ‘France re-establishes border controls with Italy amid dispute over African migrants’, World Socialist Website, 11th April 2011, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/apr2011/fran-a11.shtml

[3] Ira, Kumaran, ‘France re-establishes border controls with Italy amid dispute over African migrants’, World Socialist Website, 11th April 2011, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/apr2011/fran-a11.shtml

[4] Waterfield, Bruno, ‘Romania accuses France and Germany of discrimination over Schengen exclusion’, The Daily Telegraph, 22nd December 2010, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/romania/8219933/Romania...

The fact that the prison system is not designed to be punitive doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be. Retributive justice demands that criminals are punished. Prison should do that, and it should fit the crime, by having more than one category of punishment based on the offence. It is understandable that prison services themselves do not consider their task to be to punish; they claim that is done by the judge or jury that hands out the sentence. This however in effect means that no one takes responsibility for punishing those who have done wrong. Instead each stage of the criminal justice system becomes solely an attempt to prevent future crime without consideration to past victims.

The ICC does not infringe upon national sovereignty because it only has jurisdiction if the national justice system is either ineffective or unable to prosecute the criminal.

National courts still have the responsibility and ability to prosecute their own criminals, and the ICC is only meant to be used as a last resort in case these national measures fail; there is no contradiction between the two.1 Sovereignty only exists if the state has internal control, and the ICC will only have jurisdiction in cases where the national justice system has proven that for some reason, it will not prosecute the criminal.

1 Nanda, Ved P. "The Establishment of a Permanent International Criminal Court: Challenges Ahead." Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 2, May 1998, 413-428.

Although religions supported the anti-gay law, it is not solely a religious issue; the majority of Ugandans believe that homosexuality is contrary to their traditional values and all the anti-gay protests were inclusive regardless of religious denominations. It is therefore wrong to assert that the law was passed as a religious initiative. A separation of church and state does not mean the government should never run policies that the religious want simply that the government should not be favouring a particular religion.

There are procedural ways of mitigating this concern that are less severe than eliminating the jury altogether. Possible ways of dealing with jury intimidation/tampering include 1) having retrials in cases where jury tampering occurred, 2) attempting to increase the degree of juror anonymity, for example by seating jurors where they cannot be seen, and 3) by having higher penalties for jury tampering and intimidation. The second way is probably the most effective, and American courts have found that in cases where jury tampering poses a serious threat, it does not interfere with the defendant's right to a fair trial.1 1Laura K. Donohue, "Terrorism and Trial by Jury: The Vices and Virtues of British and American Criminal Law"

Past experience in Iraq and Afghanistan indicates that terrorism tends to flourish when states are weak. An Invasion of Sudan, especially if it had led to a collapse of the Sudanese state, would have create a vacuum terrorists could kill, especially when the very invasion would provide the resentment and motivation for thousands of jihadi volunteers to fight the Western “crusaders”

The AIVD example shows exactly that judicial and political control is not enough: the judicial control is control after the fact, so it didn’t prevent the AIVD from listening in to journalists conversations in the first place. Moreover, a regulatory committee judged that the Minister of Internal Affairs, who is supposed to be the a priori control, had given permission too easily, which is to be expected when a Minister faces a lot of requests like this, and has to decide in between the regular work of actually governing. [1] It is the lack of initial oversight which is anti-democratic, citizens expect their government and courts to prevent the intelligence agencies from infringing on privacy not simply demand an apology later when the intelligence agency is found out. How many more cases are there which are not caught?

[1] NIS News Bulletin, ‘Press Sector Sues State for Eavesdropping Telegraaf Journalists’ 9/07/2009 http://www.nisnews.nl/public/090709_1.htm

Even if the ICC brings proceedings, that does not guarantee that individuals, even if captured by forces that oppose them, will be transferred over to the ICC – the new Libyan government is still holding Saif Gaddafi. [1]

The ICC can also only act when the state is unwilling or unable to provide a trial – this this is the principle of complementarity. However there is not ICC force that can act to arrest a suspect. This means in effect that it will be down to the forces on the ground which may mean summary justice by those who capture the suspect if they think it won’t get a sufficiently stiff sentence at the ICC – there is no death penalty.

At any rate, many in Syria would want to see a fully military conclusion to the conflict, rather than any result through the international courts or a political settlement.

[1] Aliriza, Fadil, ‘Is Libya too scared to put Said Gaddafi on trial?’, The Independent, 16 August 2013, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/is-libya-too-scared-to-put-saif-gaddafi-on-trial-8771495.html

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Domestic intelligence operates just like the police do.

Domestic intelligence does require the collection of information, but this is not fundamentally different from a standard police investigation. The differences are minor when we have national security at stake. Furthermore, the rights, duties and powers of a domestic intelligence service are carefully restricted by law. For example, under Dutch law, the General Intelligence and Security Service (AIVD) is only allowed to wiretap someone after permission granted by the Minister of Interior Affairs (the UK situation is very similar). [1] Generally speaking, for every surveillance action the domestic intelligence can take, it needs to weigh whether the action satisfies the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, meaning that the invasiveness of a surveillance method should be proportional to the risk the person poses, and that the method chosen should be the least invasive of all possible methods.

[1] van Voorhout, Jill E.B. Coster, ‘Intelligence as legal evidence’, Utrecht Law Review, Vol. 2 Issue 2, December 2006, http://www.utrechtlawreview.org/index.php/ulr/article/viewFile/29/29 , p.124

For intelligence to be effective, the government will need to collect personal information, like bank transactions, emails, phone records, and more, without the citizen in question knowing this. However, democracy works on the assumption that each citizen has a private sphere, separate from the public sphere, of private information, thoughts and opinions, and that the citizen decides who to let into that sphere. Put differently, the citizen has control over when to release private information, and when not. Investigating them without their knowledge means taking away that control, and that is a violation of the right to privacy. Police investigations, on the other hand, are legitimate and not invasive of democracy - the police are generally obliged to inform a citizen when he or she is subject to a criminal investigation, and can generally only investigate a citizen without their knowledge after seeking specific permission from the judiciary, not just by a minister signing off a whole batch of requests as it’s done with domestic intelligence.

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

A politician who has to constantly concern himself with reelection has a much greater likelihood of being beholden to special interest groups and lobbyists than one who is term-limited so will actually engage in more corruption. While a term-limited legislator may suffer to a degree from lame duck status, the need to continuously seek electoral support is far more damaging to his ability to do what is right for the nation. Politicians who are not term-limited will spend more time doing what is popular than what is necessary. It is far better to have a representative who has only a limited time to enact the policies he envisions, so that he actively seeks to implement his vision, rather focusing on the short-term goal of reelection.

Far from being a unifying force the Schengen Area has already led to disagreements between individual countries. Italy and France were involved in a major political dispute after Italy abused the spirit, if not the terms, of the Schengen Agreement to offload thousands of North African migrants onto France. In April 2011, French police even went so far as to stop an Italian train carrying migrants and prevent it from crossing the border [1] . France took the rare decision to temporarily re-establish border controls, adding more than 300 police to patrols monitoring roads and foot trails that lead into French territory, along with inspecting rail traffic [2] . It issued instructions stating that an immigrant who wishes to cross the French border must “hold a valid travel document recognised by France” and a “valid residence document,” “show proof of having sufficient resources—that is, €31 per day if the person has accommodations, and €62 otherwise [3] . France’s unilateral decision to restore border controls and stretch the boundary of the Schengen Agreement underlines the extreme fragility of the legal basis of the European Union. Further, Romania was angry at attempts to exclude them from the Schengen area, a move led by France and Germany, after accessing to the EU and technically meeting all the border conditions for the passport-free zone, calling it “discrimination” [4] .

[1] ‘France and Italy push for reform of Schengen treaty’, BBC News, 26th April 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13189682

[2] Ira, Kumaran, ‘France re-establishes border controls with Italy amid dispute over African migrants’, World Socialist Website, 11th April 2011, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/apr2011/fran-a11.shtml

[3] Ira, Kumaran, ‘France re-establishes border controls with Italy amid dispute over African migrants’, World Socialist Website, 11th April 2011, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/apr2011/fran-a11.shtml

[4] Waterfield, Bruno, ‘Romania accuses France and Germany of discrimination over Schengen exclusion’, The Daily Telegraph, 22nd December 2010, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/romania/8219933/Romania...

The inalienable rights of refugees are not negotiable, nor are they subject to the interests of the state which they would be returning to. International law considers agreements between an occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution. [1] Therefore the interests of the state of Israel are not legitimate reasons to deny the right of return which is owed to Palestinian refugees. Moreover, the right of return is feasible in Israel due to the availability of empty land. 80% of Israelis live in 15 percent of the land and that the remaining 20% live on 85% of the land that belongs to the refugees. Further, of the 20%, 18% live in Palestinian cities while the remaining 2% live in kibbutzim and moshavs. By contrast, more than 6,000 refugees live per square kilometer in the Gaza Strip, while over the barbed wire their lands are practically empty. [2]

[1] Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition. "Factsheet". Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition. http://www.al-awda.org/facts.html

[2] Sakhnini, Nizar. "Dispossession and Ethnic Cleansing." Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition. 12 July 2004. http://www.al-awda.org/zionists01.html

The fact that the prison system is not designed to be punitive doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be. Retributive justice demands that criminals are punished. Prison should do that, and it should fit the crime, by having more than one category of punishment based on the offence. It is understandable that prison services themselves do not consider their task to be to punish; they claim that is done by the judge or jury that hands out the sentence. This however in effect means that no one takes responsibility for punishing those who have done wrong. Instead each stage of the criminal justice system becomes solely an attempt to prevent future crime without consideration to past victims.

The ICC does not infringe upon national sovereignty because it only has jurisdiction if the national justice system is either ineffective or unable to prosecute the criminal.

National courts still have the responsibility and ability to prosecute their own criminals, and the ICC is only meant to be used as a last resort in case these national measures fail; there is no contradiction between the two.1 Sovereignty only exists if the state has internal control, and the ICC will only have jurisdiction in cases where the national justice system has proven that for some reason, it will not prosecute the criminal.

1 Nanda, Ved P. "The Establishment of a Permanent International Criminal Court: Challenges Ahead." Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 2, May 1998, 413-428.

Although religions supported the anti-gay law, it is not solely a religious issue; the majority of Ugandans believe that homosexuality is contrary to their traditional values and all the anti-gay protests were inclusive regardless of religious denominations. It is therefore wrong to assert that the law was passed as a religious initiative. A separation of church and state does not mean the government should never run policies that the religious want simply that the government should not be favouring a particular religion.

There are procedural ways of mitigating this concern that are less severe than eliminating the jury altogether. Possible ways of dealing with jury intimidation/tampering include 1) having retrials in cases where jury tampering occurred, 2) attempting to increase the degree of juror anonymity, for example by seating jurors where they cannot be seen, and 3) by having higher penalties for jury tampering and intimidation. The second way is probably the most effective, and American courts have found that in cases where jury tampering poses a serious threat, it does not interfere with the defendant's right to a fair trial.1 1Laura K. Donohue, "Terrorism and Trial by Jury: The Vices and Virtues of British and American Criminal Law"

Past experience in Iraq and Afghanistan indicates that terrorism tends to flourish when states are weak. An Invasion of Sudan, especially if it had led to a collapse of the Sudanese state, would have create a vacuum terrorists could kill, especially when the very invasion would provide the resentment and motivation for thousands of jihadi volunteers to fight the Western “crusaders”

Even if the ICC brings proceedings, that does not guarantee that individuals, even if captured by forces that oppose them, will be transferred over to the ICC – the new Libyan government is still holding Saif Gaddafi. [1]

The ICC can also only act when the state is unwilling or unable to provide a trial – this this is the principle of complementarity. However there is not ICC force that can act to arrest a suspect. This means in effect that it will be down to the forces on the ground which may mean summary justice by those who capture the suspect if they think it won’t get a sufficiently stiff sentence at the ICC – there is no death penalty.

At any rate, many in Syria would want to see a fully military conclusion to the conflict, rather than any result through the international courts or a political settlement.

[1] Aliriza, Fadil, ‘Is Libya too scared to put Said Gaddafi on trial?’, The Independent, 16 August 2013, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/is-libya-too-scared-to-put-saif-gaddafi-on-trial-8771495.html

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
There is sufficient political and judicial control over intelligence service

Even if not every citizen can control exactly what the intelligence service does, there is sufficient political and judicial control. An example of this is a recent case involving the Dutch AIVD, which started wiretapping journalists after they had found a source within the AIVD to leak about the run-up to the Iraq War. The journalists were wiretapped but when the case came to court, the court judged that the AIVD was in error, should stop harassing the journalists, and must delete the files on the journalists immediately. Such cases show that the intelligence agencies, and those involved domestically in particular, have judicial and political oversight to make sure they remain within bounds. [1] Democracy is therefore not threatened as there is democratic oversight.

[1] Webber, Liz, Netherlands: De Telegraaf journalists win suit over secret service phone-taps, World Editors Forum, 27/07/2009 http://www.editorsweblog.org/newspaper/2009/07/netherlands_de_telegraaf_journalists_win.php

The AIVD example shows exactly that judicial and political control is not enough: the judicial control is control after the fact, so it didn’t prevent the AIVD from listening in to journalists conversations in the first place. Moreover, a regulatory committee judged that the Minister of Internal Affairs, who is supposed to be the a priori control, had given permission too easily, which is to be expected when a Minister faces a lot of requests like this, and has to decide in between the regular work of actually governing. [1] It is the lack of initial oversight which is anti-democratic, citizens expect their government and courts to prevent the intelligence agencies from infringing on privacy not simply demand an apology later when the intelligence agency is found out. How many more cases are there which are not caught?

[1] NIS News Bulletin, ‘Press Sector Sues State for Eavesdropping Telegraaf Journalists’ 9/07/2009 http://www.nisnews.nl/public/090709_1.htm

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

A politician who has to constantly concern himself with reelection has a much greater likelihood of being beholden to special interest groups and lobbyists than one who is term-limited so will actually engage in more corruption. While a term-limited legislator may suffer to a degree from lame duck status, the need to continuously seek electoral support is far more damaging to his ability to do what is right for the nation. Politicians who are not term-limited will spend more time doing what is popular than what is necessary. It is far better to have a representative who has only a limited time to enact the policies he envisions, so that he actively seeks to implement his vision, rather focusing on the short-term goal of reelection.

Far from being a unifying force the Schengen Area has already led to disagreements between individual countries. Italy and France were involved in a major political dispute after Italy abused the spirit, if not the terms, of the Schengen Agreement to offload thousands of North African migrants onto France. In April 2011, French police even went so far as to stop an Italian train carrying migrants and prevent it from crossing the border [1] . France took the rare decision to temporarily re-establish border controls, adding more than 300 police to patrols monitoring roads and foot trails that lead into French territory, along with inspecting rail traffic [2] . It issued instructions stating that an immigrant who wishes to cross the French border must “hold a valid travel document recognised by France” and a “valid residence document,” “show proof of having sufficient resources—that is, €31 per day if the person has accommodations, and €62 otherwise [3] . France’s unilateral decision to restore border controls and stretch the boundary of the Schengen Agreement underlines the extreme fragility of the legal basis of the European Union. Further, Romania was angry at attempts to exclude them from the Schengen area, a move led by France and Germany, after accessing to the EU and technically meeting all the border conditions for the passport-free zone, calling it “discrimination” [4] .

[1] ‘France and Italy push for reform of Schengen treaty’, BBC News, 26th April 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13189682

[2] Ira, Kumaran, ‘France re-establishes border controls with Italy amid dispute over African migrants’, World Socialist Website, 11th April 2011, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/apr2011/fran-a11.shtml

[3] Ira, Kumaran, ‘France re-establishes border controls with Italy amid dispute over African migrants’, World Socialist Website, 11th April 2011, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/apr2011/fran-a11.shtml

[4] Waterfield, Bruno, ‘Romania accuses France and Germany of discrimination over Schengen exclusion’, The Daily Telegraph, 22nd December 2010, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/romania/8219933/Romania...

The inalienable rights of refugees are not negotiable, nor are they subject to the interests of the state which they would be returning to. International law considers agreements between an occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution. [1] Therefore the interests of the state of Israel are not legitimate reasons to deny the right of return which is owed to Palestinian refugees. Moreover, the right of return is feasible in Israel due to the availability of empty land. 80% of Israelis live in 15 percent of the land and that the remaining 20% live on 85% of the land that belongs to the refugees. Further, of the 20%, 18% live in Palestinian cities while the remaining 2% live in kibbutzim and moshavs. By contrast, more than 6,000 refugees live per square kilometer in the Gaza Strip, while over the barbed wire their lands are practically empty. [2]

[1] Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition. "Factsheet". Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition. http://www.al-awda.org/facts.html

[2] Sakhnini, Nizar. "Dispossession and Ethnic Cleansing." Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition. 12 July 2004. http://www.al-awda.org/zionists01.html

The fact that the prison system is not designed to be punitive doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be. Retributive justice demands that criminals are punished. Prison should do that, and it should fit the crime, by having more than one category of punishment based on the offence. It is understandable that prison services themselves do not consider their task to be to punish; they claim that is done by the judge or jury that hands out the sentence. This however in effect means that no one takes responsibility for punishing those who have done wrong. Instead each stage of the criminal justice system becomes solely an attempt to prevent future crime without consideration to past victims.

The ICC does not infringe upon national sovereignty because it only has jurisdiction if the national justice system is either ineffective or unable to prosecute the criminal.

National courts still have the responsibility and ability to prosecute their own criminals, and the ICC is only meant to be used as a last resort in case these national measures fail; there is no contradiction between the two.1 Sovereignty only exists if the state has internal control, and the ICC will only have jurisdiction in cases where the national justice system has proven that for some reason, it will not prosecute the criminal.

1 Nanda, Ved P. "The Establishment of a Permanent International Criminal Court: Challenges Ahead." Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 2, May 1998, 413-428.

Although religions supported the anti-gay law, it is not solely a religious issue; the majority of Ugandans believe that homosexuality is contrary to their traditional values and all the anti-gay protests were inclusive regardless of religious denominations. It is therefore wrong to assert that the law was passed as a religious initiative. A separation of church and state does not mean the government should never run policies that the religious want simply that the government should not be favouring a particular religion.

There are procedural ways of mitigating this concern that are less severe than eliminating the jury altogether. Possible ways of dealing with jury intimidation/tampering include 1) having retrials in cases where jury tampering occurred, 2) attempting to increase the degree of juror anonymity, for example by seating jurors where they cannot be seen, and 3) by having higher penalties for jury tampering and intimidation. The second way is probably the most effective, and American courts have found that in cases where jury tampering poses a serious threat, it does not interfere with the defendant's right to a fair trial.1 1Laura K. Donohue, "Terrorism and Trial by Jury: The Vices and Virtues of British and American Criminal Law"

Past experience in Iraq and Afghanistan indicates that terrorism tends to flourish when states are weak. An Invasion of Sudan, especially if it had led to a collapse of the Sudanese state, would have create a vacuum terrorists could kill, especially when the very invasion would provide the resentment and motivation for thousands of jihadi volunteers to fight the Western “crusaders”

Even if the ICC brings proceedings, that does not guarantee that individuals, even if captured by forces that oppose them, will be transferred over to the ICC – the new Libyan government is still holding Saif Gaddafi. [1]

The ICC can also only act when the state is unwilling or unable to provide a trial – this this is the principle of complementarity. However there is not ICC force that can act to arrest a suspect. This means in effect that it will be down to the forces on the ground which may mean summary justice by those who capture the suspect if they think it won’t get a sufficiently stiff sentence at the ICC – there is no death penalty.

At any rate, many in Syria would want to see a fully military conclusion to the conflict, rather than any result through the international courts or a political settlement.

[1] Aliriza, Fadil, ‘Is Libya too scared to put Said Gaddafi on trial?’, The Independent, 16 August 2013, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/is-libya-too-scared-to-put-saif-gaddafi-on-trial-8771495.html

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Intelligence is necessary for the safety of the public.

Domestic intelligence is very important to the national security and to the safety of the public. Domestic intelligence is imperative in preventing terrorist attacks on the country when terrorists are as likely to be natives as foreigners, for example the 7/7 bombers in Britain were all native. [1] In order for a domestic intelligence organization to be effective, its organizational discretion must be limited by establishing clear legislation that is not secret, on the focus, limits, and techniques of domestic intelligence.

When this is in place domestic intelligence is not harmful, nor infringement on democracy – it is in the people’s best interest. As Professor Dahl notes “Intelligence is about the thousands and thousands of routine, everyday observations and activities… in many cases these observations, this intelligence, is about routine activities undertaken by ordinary Americans and others who do not intend to cause harm.” This intrusion is necessary in order to catch the few who do intend to do harm. [2]

[1] BBC News, Special Report London Attacks ‘The bombers’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/london_blasts/investigation/...

[2] Dahl, Eric Domestic Intelligence Today: More Security but Less Liberty? http://www.hsaj.org/?fullarticle=7.2.8

Even if it is protecting lives the scale of the intelligence gathering is undemocratic. By allowing interception, widespread tracking of public records, unfair legal treatment, we erase the trust between citizens and the government in return for very occasionally preventing a terrorist attack. As shown by 7/7 terrorists still get through despite intelligence even when the bombers have already been noticed. [1] When all your library patrons can be seized and all your browsing logs checked just on a claim that they are relevant to intelligence information, as initially happened under the patriot act, too much liberty is being given up in the name of very little extra security. [2]

[1] BBC News, Special Report London Attacks ‘The bombers’, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/london_blasts/investigation/...

[2] Strossen, Nadine, ‘Safety and Freedom: Common Concerns for Conservatives, Libertarians, and Civil Libertarians’, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 29, No. 1, Fall 2005, http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No1_Strossen.pdf p.78

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

A politician who has to constantly concern himself with reelection has a much greater likelihood of being beholden to special interest groups and lobbyists than one who is term-limited so will actually engage in more corruption. While a term-limited legislator may suffer to a degree from lame duck status, the need to continuously seek electoral support is far more damaging to his ability to do what is right for the nation. Politicians who are not term-limited will spend more time doing what is popular than what is necessary. It is far better to have a representative who has only a limited time to enact the policies he envisions, so that he actively seeks to implement his vision, rather focusing on the short-term goal of reelection.

Far from being a unifying force the Schengen Area has already led to disagreements between individual countries. Italy and France were involved in a major political dispute after Italy abused the spirit, if not the terms, of the Schengen Agreement to offload thousands of North African migrants onto France. In April 2011, French police even went so far as to stop an Italian train carrying migrants and prevent it from crossing the border [1] . France took the rare decision to temporarily re-establish border controls, adding more than 300 police to patrols monitoring roads and foot trails that lead into French territory, along with inspecting rail traffic [2] . It issued instructions stating that an immigrant who wishes to cross the French border must “hold a valid travel document recognised by France” and a “valid residence document,” “show proof of having sufficient resources—that is, €31 per day if the person has accommodations, and €62 otherwise [3] . France’s unilateral decision to restore border controls and stretch the boundary of the Schengen Agreement underlines the extreme fragility of the legal basis of the European Union. Further, Romania was angry at attempts to exclude them from the Schengen area, a move led by France and Germany, after accessing to the EU and technically meeting all the border conditions for the passport-free zone, calling it “discrimination” [4] .

[1] ‘France and Italy push for reform of Schengen treaty’, BBC News, 26th April 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13189682

[2] Ira, Kumaran, ‘France re-establishes border controls with Italy amid dispute over African migrants’, World Socialist Website, 11th April 2011, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/apr2011/fran-a11.shtml

[3] Ira, Kumaran, ‘France re-establishes border controls with Italy amid dispute over African migrants’, World Socialist Website, 11th April 2011, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/apr2011/fran-a11.shtml

[4] Waterfield, Bruno, ‘Romania accuses France and Germany of discrimination over Schengen exclusion’, The Daily Telegraph, 22nd December 2010, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/romania/8219933/Romania...

The inalienable rights of refugees are not negotiable, nor are they subject to the interests of the state which they would be returning to. International law considers agreements between an occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution. [1] Therefore the interests of the state of Israel are not legitimate reasons to deny the right of return which is owed to Palestinian refugees. Moreover, the right of return is feasible in Israel due to the availability of empty land. 80% of Israelis live in 15 percent of the land and that the remaining 20% live on 85% of the land that belongs to the refugees. Further, of the 20%, 18% live in Palestinian cities while the remaining 2% live in kibbutzim and moshavs. By contrast, more than 6,000 refugees live per square kilometer in the Gaza Strip, while over the barbed wire their lands are practically empty. [2]

[1] Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition. "Factsheet". Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition. http://www.al-awda.org/facts.html

[2] Sakhnini, Nizar. "Dispossession and Ethnic Cleansing." Al-Awda - The Palestinian Right of Return Coalition. 12 July 2004. http://www.al-awda.org/zionists01.html

The fact that the prison system is not designed to be punitive doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be. Retributive justice demands that criminals are punished. Prison should do that, and it should fit the crime, by having more than one category of punishment based on the offence. It is understandable that prison services themselves do not consider their task to be to punish; they claim that is done by the judge or jury that hands out the sentence. This however in effect means that no one takes responsibility for punishing those who have done wrong. Instead each stage of the criminal justice system becomes solely an attempt to prevent future crime without consideration to past victims.

The ICC does not infringe upon national sovereignty because it only has jurisdiction if the national justice system is either ineffective or unable to prosecute the criminal.

National courts still have the responsibility and ability to prosecute their own criminals, and the ICC is only meant to be used as a last resort in case these national measures fail; there is no contradiction between the two.1 Sovereignty only exists if the state has internal control, and the ICC will only have jurisdiction in cases where the national justice system has proven that for some reason, it will not prosecute the criminal.

1 Nanda, Ved P. "The Establishment of a Permanent International Criminal Court: Challenges Ahead." Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 2, May 1998, 413-428.

Although religions supported the anti-gay law, it is not solely a religious issue; the majority of Ugandans believe that homosexuality is contrary to their traditional values and all the anti-gay protests were inclusive regardless of religious denominations. It is therefore wrong to assert that the law was passed as a religious initiative. A separation of church and state does not mean the government should never run policies that the religious want simply that the government should not be favouring a particular religion.

There are procedural ways of mitigating this concern that are less severe than eliminating the jury altogether. Possible ways of dealing with jury intimidation/tampering include 1) having retrials in cases where jury tampering occurred, 2) attempting to increase the degree of juror anonymity, for example by seating jurors where they cannot be seen, and 3) by having higher penalties for jury tampering and intimidation. The second way is probably the most effective, and American courts have found that in cases where jury tampering poses a serious threat, it does not interfere with the defendant's right to a fair trial.1 1Laura K. Donohue, "Terrorism and Trial by Jury: The Vices and Virtues of British and American Criminal Law"

Past experience in Iraq and Afghanistan indicates that terrorism tends to flourish when states are weak. An Invasion of Sudan, especially if it had led to a collapse of the Sudanese state, would have create a vacuum terrorists could kill, especially when the very invasion would provide the resentment and motivation for thousands of jihadi volunteers to fight the Western “crusaders”

Even if the ICC brings proceedings, that does not guarantee that individuals, even if captured by forces that oppose them, will be transferred over to the ICC – the new Libyan government is still holding Saif Gaddafi. [1]

The ICC can also only act when the state is unwilling or unable to provide a trial – this this is the principle of complementarity. However there is not ICC force that can act to arrest a suspect. This means in effect that it will be down to the forces on the ground which may mean summary justice by those who capture the suspect if they think it won’t get a sufficiently stiff sentence at the ICC – there is no death penalty.

At any rate, many in Syria would want to see a fully military conclusion to the conflict, rather than any result through the international courts or a political settlement.

[1] Aliriza, Fadil, ‘Is Libya too scared to put Said Gaddafi on trial?’, The Independent, 16 August 2013, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/is-libya-too-scared-to-put-saif-gaddafi-on-trial-8771495.html

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim