Such a move will make Palestinian expectations much higher and their position more intransigent  One of the major obstacles to peace has consistently been the unrealistic expectations which have existed on the Palestinian side. From 1994 onwards, the Palestinians have confused the Peace Process with a process by which “wrongs will be righted” and their “rightful demands” met, rather than a compromise process of give and take. This has been fed by leaders like Yasser Arafat who have told Palestinians for so long that they will have a state with a capital in Jerusalem, with a right of return, etc. that it has become impossible for them to then go back to their constituents and sell concessions.  The fact is that no viable Peace Deal with satisfy everyone, and Israel has minimum demands of its own – some settlements will be maintained, millions of Palestinians will not be allowed to settle in Israel proper, and Israel will not allow an armed Palestinian state.  The problem with UN recognition is that while at best marginally improving the Palestinian negotiating position it will dramatically increase popular expectations, making it next to impossible for the Palestinian leadership to take advantage of any gains they achieve vis-à-vis Israel through recognition. In this sense you may well have a much greater gap between the Palestinian minimum and Israeli maximum than before recognition.


One reason why the United States would find a push for UN Recognition of a Palestinian state so awkward is because it has so many other concerns it has to value against the conflict.  Whereas relations with Israel are the dominant issue in Palestinian foreign policy, and a leading one in Israel’s, the US has to maintain its position and interests else ware in the world. This means that the United States has to balance domestic considerations with the need to appeal to world opinion.  It also means that the United States has an interest in a settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even if the US were inclined to allow the Palestinians to suffer in punishment for bringing up the issue, the dynamics of UN Recognition would raise the price of the continuation of the conflict for the United States.  That is because it would be increase the interest of every other country in the world in the conflict, if for no other reason than rather than an internal affair, there would now be a principle of national sovereignty involved.


Israelis have a low opinion of some UN organs, and with a good degree of justification. But they are also remarkably pragmatic. They understand that while they need to protect their own interests, they also need friends, and Israeli voters will turn on their own leaders with a vengeance if they ever think they are jeopardizing the relationship with the United States.  This can be seen in the reaction to the decision of the Bush Administration to freeze loan guarantees to Israel in 1991 due to the repeated refusal of the government of Yitzhak Shamir to halt settlement construction. The result, despite outrage on the American Right and in sectors of Israeli opinion, was the crushing defeat of the Shamir in the 1992 elections by Yitzhak Rabin . [1]  If the US abstains on UN recognition of Palestine, which would be necessary for such recognition to pass, it will send a message to the Israeli public and likely severely impact the next election.  [1] Rosner, Shmuel, ‘When US doesn’t meddle in Israeli politics, it strengthens the right’, JewishJournal.com, 9 December 2011,


This is exactly why simply giving money to the poor is a bad idea; not everyone who is poor will have a bank account. Indeed those who are the poorest are by far the least likely to have one. In India only 21% of the poor have a bank account. [1]  [1] Glassman, Amanda, and Birdsall, Nancy, ‘Can India Defeat Poverty’, Foreign Policy, 8 January 2013


Government money can go directly to bank accounts  Direct cash transfers can obviously be done very simply through simply handing out cash but this is clearly open to corruption. Instead money should be sent directly to the poorest’s bank accounts. In India the proposal is that the payments will be linked to the new biometrics based ID system that assigns a unique number to everyone based upon physical traits [1] (although this is not yet fully implemented) this will reach the whole population including those who currently have no identity papers. [2] This will enable those who get these ID to set up a bank accounts to enable the cash to be transferred to them as it will in effect be giving them with new ID.  [1] Glassman, Amanda, and Birdsall, Nancy, ‘Can India Defeat Poverty’, Foreign Policy, 8 January 2013  [2] Majumder, Sanjoy, ‘World’s biggest biometric ID scheme forges ahead’, BBC News, 13 February 2012


Providing money may in the long term reduce corruption for the reasons outlined but in the short term it may mean more corruption. With India’s program there have been accusations that the government is only enrolling people in districts that support the ruling party. [1]  [1] Thakur, Pradeep, ‘Why divide india into UID, NPR states?’, The Times Of India, 6 January 2013


Giving money to the poor is the fairest way of eliminating poverty  One of the reasons why poverty does not get eliminated is that it is governments who provide the subsidies that are intended to do just that. Many countries spend their money for subsidies poorly, for example in Indonesia before fuel subsidies were combined with cash subsidies in 2005 the top income decile received more than five times the amount of fuel subsidy as the bottom decile making the policy highly regressive despite it being politically sold as a subsidy to the poor. [1] No matter the intention such subsidies are clearly not fair. When the government provides lots of different subsidies for different things; fuel, food, housing etc., and especially when some of them are universal, it is clear that it will never be possible to distribute the money fairly on the basis of need.  [1] ‘Winds of Change East Asia’s sustainable energy future’, The World Bank, May 2010, Pp93-5


Subsidies are much fairer than providing cash. Subsidies can be directly targeted to provide the things that the poor need rather than letting the poor buy what they want. The government should not be providing money that is then being spent on cigarettes, instead it should be spent on food, heating, or the children’s education. Yes some subsidies are poorly targeted but this simply shows that these subsidies are poorly implemented, not that they cannot be the solution to poverty.


When it comes to the use of cash transfers on a large scale this is so far just wishful thinking; it may work but we don’t yet really know. How can the proposal of all subsidies being changed to cash be compared to a small stipend for sending the children to school?


Providing money directly is efficient and eliminates corruption  Most methods of attempting to eliminate poverty through state intervention are bureaucratic and inefficient and therefore inevitably are not very helpful. The subsidies India has previously provided to the poor is a case in point. In reference to food subsidies that provide for a 50% subsidy for those below the poverty line a 2010 study by the Asian Development Bank found that in rural areas 73% of recipients were above the poverty line so should not have been receiving the subsidy. [1] Providing money directly into bank accounts on the other hand is efficient as it is transferred electronically and can be set up to transfer without any human intervention. For the same reason it is very difficult to embezzle because it is going straight to a bank account from central government funds without passing through anyone’s hands.  [1] Jha, Shikha, and Ramaswami, Bharat, ‘How Can Food Subsidies Work Better? Answers from India and the Philippines’, ADB Economics Working Paper Series, No.211, September 2010, p.13


Providing money directly works.  All the evidence is that providing money directly to those who need it works much better than providing a mishmash of subsidies and credits decided by government. Providing money directly has been working with limited programs around the world, most prominently with Brazil’s Bolsa Familia which has meant millions of children get primary education because of a small cash incentive. [1]  In India the state already spends a huge amount on inefficient poverty reduction programs. If all the money that is spent on these programs was transferred to providing for the direct cash payments equally among the 70million households below the poverty line then it would provide a monthly transfer of 2,140 Rs; more than the poverty line income for rural households. [2]  [1] Economist, ‘Give the poor money’, 29 July 2010  [2] Kapur, Devesh, et al., ‘More for the Poor and Less for and by the State: The Case for Direct Cash Transfers’, Economic and Political Weekly, 12 April 2008, p.3


There are of course some occasions where the individual may use their money unwisely, but if they do then this is their choice. Those who receive aid are as deserving of being free to choose how to use their money as any wage earner. This choice only comes from providing cash rather than subsidies. [1]  [1] Glaeser, Edward, ‘Cash Is Better Than Food Stamps in Helping Poor’, Bloomberg, 28 February 2012


Dependency is potentially a problem for any form of transfers with the intention of eliminating poverty while it is slightly different to be dependent on transfers of food the effect is the same. Direct transfers can however be made conditional upon the recipients doing what the government wants them to. In Brazil for example small cash transfers have been made conditional upon parents keeping their children in school. [1] There is little reason the conditions could not include earning some money from other sources if it is suspected that individuals are becoming dependent.  [1] Economist, ‘Give the poor money’, 29 July 2010


Money cannot be targeted to meet specific needs  Governments have accepted, in documents like the universal declaration of human rights, that one of their primary roles is to provide a basic standard of living for their citizens. When the state simply hands out some money this responsibility is not fulfilled. The state is simply leaving the poor to fend for themselves with a little extra money. Governments provide subsidies in kind or for specific products and services for a reason; those are the things that are necessities rather than luxuries. If money is transferred directly then the person who is getting the money can use the government’s money on anything. Some may use it on the things the government was providing before but others will spend the money badly on tobacco, alcohol, or drugs. Subsidies however can be targeted at the things that the poor really need. This means the state provides subsidies for food, free or cheap housing and healthcare, fuel for cooking and heating etc.


It is wrong to assume that the individual always knows best  With subsidies at least the government knows what their money is being spent on. This is not the case with cash; it just gets taken and can be spent on anything. As already mentioned the most obvious examples are where the individual uses the money they are given on drugs or other harmful products not what they need. Yet there are times where individuals may simply not have their own best interests at heart for various reasons, particularly because they know no better. This does not just happen in economic situations but also in public heath. For example development agencies know that cooking on open fires in homes leads to thousands of deaths every year and is costly in terms of fuel. So thousands of clean smokeless stoves have been given out yet they are not being used despite them being cheaper to run and potentially a life saver. [1]  [1] Duflo, Esther, et al., ‘Up in Smoke: The Influence of Household Behavior on the Long-Run Impact of Improved Cooking Stoves’, MIT Department of Economics Working Paper, No.12-10, 16 April 2012


Giving out money does not encourage people to take responsibility  The beauty of direct cash transfers is that it simply adds a new income stream but this is also its Achilles heel. Providing direct cash transfers will create dependency upon the transfers and reduce the incentive to be earning money from elsewhere. There are several reasons for this.  First because the transfers from the government will be reliable, unlike much of the income the poorest have, the transfers will become the recipients main form of income. This will mean that there is less incentive to be earning money from other sources, which would often mean hard work, so as a result both harming the individual as they do not earn as much and the economy as they will not be contributing to the economy.  Secondly people will take up less work in order to qualify for the transfers; there is no reason to work more if that is simply going to mean that money you would have got from the government is taken away.  The advantage of in-kind transfers is that they help avoid expectations of long term assistance or the state essentially providing everything. [1] Dependency has happened with food aid in Ethiopia where more than five million people have been receiving food aid since 1984; far from getting better the food security situation has if anything been declining during this time and there could be much better use made of Ethiopia’s own resources; only 6% of the country’s irrigable land is used for agriculture. [2]  [1] Holmes, Rebecca, and Jackson, Adam, ‘Cash transfers in Sierra Leone: Are they appropriate, affordable or feasible?’, Overseas Development Institute, Project Briefing No.8, January 2008, p.2  [2] Elliesen, Tillmann, ‘Imported Dependency, Food Aid Weakens Ethiopia’s Selfhelp Capacity’, Development and Cooperation, No.1, January/February 2002, pp.21-23


This is simply creating individual responsibility. A few will spend the money badly but most will realise that they need it for necessities. The whole point of the system is that it is flexible rather than limiting in the way other subsidy systems are. It should be considered that while some may misspend their money as suggested on drugs others may find ways of investing it so that they make more money and pull themselves out of poverty which then saves the government in the long term. Ultimately however it is the government that controls the flow of money; if someone is misspending it they can always halt the transfers.


It is true that the founding treaties are long and, in some places, rather difficult documents. It is also true that many EU citizens know little about the EU. It is too simplistic to say that the treaties are the reason for this as the majority of the population are not interested in reading the original documents and will be happy for bureaucrats or the media to highlight relevant parts. So a concise constitution is not the solution to these problems. Whilst the treaties themselves might be intimidating, many pamphlets, books and websites exist that do a fine job in summarising and explaining these documents – one such site is Europa.eu . [1] The EU also provides many European briefing units across Europe to educate citizens about the EU. The job of providing a simplified and accessible explanation of the EU is already done well without a constitution. If there is still widespread ignorance about the EU then this is unlikely to be solved by the introduction of yet another legal document which will also  [1] Europa.eu, ‘Basic information on the European Union’


The current treaty-basis for the European Union is enormous, ambiguous and extremely complicated  The current treaty-basis for the European Union is enormous, ambiguous and extremely complicated. The existing treaties regulate multiple levels from the constitutional to detailed market regulations. As a result of this individuals cannot easily read and understand the treaties as a US citizen for example. [1] It is difficult to keep track of each new Treaty that amends the pre-existing treaties. The adoption of a shorter, clearer document will make the EU much more ‘user friendly.’ The EU currently suffers from the fact that many of its citizens do not know what it is or what it does; EU citizens either do not know where to look for this information or are deterred and intimidated by the size of the Treaty of Rome and the Maastricht Treaty. Having an easily digestible constitution will mean that the EU’s citizens can easily find out what the EU is and what it does.  [1] Gjørtler, Peter, ‘ Lisbon Treaty - the Reform Treaty of the European Union’, grayston & company, November 2009


There is no consensus for a United States of Europe. Most citizens identify themselves more with their nation-states rather than with the EU. [1] Only 28% of Belgians and 5% of Britons consider themselves equally their national identity and European. [2] It is also by no means clear that eroding national identities is a desirable phenomenon. The EU is an organisation in which twenty five nation-states cooperate with each other. Where necessary, these states pool their sovereignty in order to tackle common problems. The EU is thus an instrument used by nation-states to pursue their own interests in a world that makes it increasingly difficult for states to do this in isolation. The EU is a useful instrument of nation-states rather than a challenger to these states for the patriotism and loyalty of their citizens.  [1] Manuel, Paul Christopher, and Royo, Sebastián, ‘Re-conceptualizing economic relations and political citizenship in the new Iberia of the new Europe’ Suffolk University, 4 May 2001,   [2] Turmo, Ivan and Bradley, Simon, ‘Poll reveals European mindset among Swiss’, swissinfo.ch, 11 August 2010,


A comprehensive reform of the EU institutional layout is a must  A comprehensive reform of the EU institutional layout is a must given the pressures created by the continuing enlargement process as well as the integration process. The existing EU architecture worked fine for a community of six states, and even for a group of twelve, but it is now desperately out-dated and unsuitable for a Union of 27 or more. For example, the national veto still applies in many areas, meaning one state can block progress even when the other 26 agree. Even when agreement is reached, it is often agonisingly slow and difficult to implement across the whole of the Union, often having to pass through every parliament. As a result EU decision-making has often been criticised as slow, complex and producing too many ‘lowest common denominator’ solutions, therefore Ireland can bring to a halt a vital treaty like Lisbon [1] and the role of the Presidency and ‘foreign minister’ is a compromise that does not result in more unified policy. [2] While still leaving the people feeling distant from the EU’s political processes, undermining legitimacy. [3] A Constitutional Treaty is the only comprehensive tool that exists right now in order to allow for this necessary overall reform.  [1] BBC News, ‘Ireland rejects EU reform treaty’, 13 June 2008,   [2] Bellotti, Sarah M., and Dale, Reginald, ‘U.S. Media Snubs New EU Leaders’, Center for Strategic & International Studies,   [3] Renda, Andrea, ‘Policy-Making in the EU; Achievements, Challenges and Proposals for Reform’, Centre for European Policy Studies, 2009, www.ceps.eu/files/book/1854.pdf


While comprehensive EU reform is in theory clearly desirable, in practice the EU has proven not to be ready for such a radical step. Historically, the EU has evolved by taking a series of little steps, as opposed to taking big jumps with big risks- “Europe has always moved forward one step at a time and it should continue to do so” - German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble. [1] The EU is now facing a number of different crises – from the economic crisis that engulfed the Eurozone, to the social crisis that has spread throughout most of the EU members in the form of increasing opposition to migrants and a worrisome rise in nationalist and extremist parties and policies. The recent massacre in Norway (although outside the EU) is an example of this increasing extremism. Such violence “points to a dangerous undercurrent of hostility against the left’s platform, which is committed to open borders and multiculturalism.” [2] Any move to have constitutional reform will simply add to these pressures.  [1] Kovacheva, Ralitsa, ‘Is the EU ready for a new Treaty?’ euinside, 7 September 2011   [2] RT, ‘Rise of right-wing extremism rattles Europe’, 25 July 2011,


Having a European Constitution would make very little difference to the role of the ECJ. It could still have an activist agenda in terms of interpreting the new constitution. The United States Constitution is one of the shortest in the world yet the United States Supreme Court has felt free to either stick very closely to the text or very liberally interpret it depending on the composition of the court. Accusing judges of “judicial activism” is often just cover for someone saying that they don’t like the decision. [1] The adoption of a binding constitution will therefore not increase democracy in the European Union. It will tie the hands of democratically elected governments in the member states and force them to an even greater extent to be subordinate to the judges in the ECJ.  [1] Wallace, Chris, ‘Ted Olson on Debate Over Judicial Activism and Same-Sex Marriage’, Fox News Sunday, 8 August 2010,


A EU constitution will foster a “European identity”  Since the Maastricht Treaty, the citizens of EU member states have possessed parallel citizenship of the EU. However, European citizens do not identify themselves with the EU in the way that citizens of the USA self-identify as American. An important part of the patriotism of Americans is ‘constitutional patriotism;’ pride in their constitution and civic institutions. The European Union aims to bring about ever closer union between the peoples of Europe. It should foster a shared sense of ‘European identity’ by adopting a constitution, in which every citizen of the EU can take pride.


The ECJ has often been accused of over-stepping the legitimate boundaries of  The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has long treated the founding treaties as the constitutional documents of the European Union. Many commentators have noted the efforts of the ECJ to “constitutionalise” many principles – such as the direct effect and supremacy of Community law over the domestic laws of member states and the increasing protection of human rights – The ECJ is often overstepping its bounds when it comes to applying and interpreting the treaties. [1] The ECJ has often been accused of “judicial activism” in over-stepping the legitimate boundaries of courts in a democracy. By enshrining much of this creative jurisprudence in a democratically ratified constitution, the EU can assert and emphasise its status as a democratic entity, rather than an elite-driven process separate from the citizens of Europe.  [1] Roberts, Linda, ‘The CARICOM Single Market and Economy and the Caribbean Court of Justice’, Southampton Working Papers in European Law, 2007/1,


Any constitution need not be a step towards a European superstate or even a federal European state. It may simply be rationalising current treaties and making the EU more accessible with little in the way of real changes to the location of power. None the less such a change would not be all bad as Paavo Lipponen, Prime Minister of Finland argues “The EU ought to develop into a great power in order that it may function as a fully fledged actor in the world.” [1] The EU as a great power would be more effective in solving conflict and promoting development in other parts of the world, particularly in Africa, parts of Asia and even Latin America as well as providing economic benefits for its own members.  [1] Free Europe, ‘Building the EU SuperState: what leading EU politicians say about it’, 26 September 2005,


Constitutional ‘documents’ is exactly the problem. The EU is a very large (as of January 2007, 27 member states) international organisation with a considerable number of competencies and several important institutions. It is important to have one, clear document that precisely defines the different powers of, and relationships between the 27 member states, the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Courts of Justice. But also the relationships between states that may have opted out of some parts of the EU; between those who are in Schengen and those who opted out, between those in the Eurozone and those outside. Complicated federal polities such as the United States, Germany and Switzerland have constitutions which define the limits of central power and the areas in which the states have autonomy; the EU should in this respect be no different.


Adopting a European Constitution and failing to abide by it would be a big and challenging failure  The European Union should be wary of adopting a European Constitution as many states may not be able to abide by its terms. The reason why Greece is in so much financial trouble is its unwillingness to abide by the European Growth and Stability Pact, however others, Germany and France had already broken the pact. [1] Such a failure to abide by the rules with a constitution, something which is meant to be at the heart of the state, would greatly damage European credibility and would practically rule out the possibility of more comprehensive change in the future. Accession countries have shown little interest in the Constitutional Treaty overall, given a series of other more immediate concerns. Therefore a constitution is unneeded in order for the EU to develop, enlarge or prosper. It can only lose if it created a constitution which turned out a disaster.  [1] Aznar, José María, ‘Europe must reset the clock on stability and growth’, FT.com, 16 May 2010,


A EU Constitution will lead to a superstate, which is undesirable at the moment  A European constitution is a first step on a slippery slope towards a United States of Europe. Such a European superstate is widely opposed by citizens of all EU members, not least because it would be undemocratic, unaccountable and remote. Many EU citizens already believe this is the case. In Britain polls regularly show that far from wanting deeper integration the country is in favour of leaving the EU. [1] As has already been shown members do not consider themselves ‘European’ nearly as much as they do their own national identity. [2]  [1] The Democracy Movement Surrey, ‘The EU - Superstate or Free Trade Partner? We Can Leave.’ 2007   [2] Turmo, Ivan and Bradley, Simon, ‘Poll reveals European mindset among Swiss’, swissinfo.ch, 11 August 2010,


There already are constitutional documents  We already have such constitutional documents – the Treaty of Rome, the Maastricht Treaty and most importantly the Lisbon treaty from very recently (2009). The powers of, and relationships between the different institutional actors are clearly defined in the existing treaties. Just because the EU has expanded to incorporate new member states does not mean it needs a constitution. The Treaty of Nice was meant to have made the necessary amendments to facilitate enlargement. If it has failed, then we can simply amend the existing treaties again.


A failure of not having a ratified EU constitution will actually represent a more significant blow to the EU’s image abroad and at home. Talk about the decline of the EU is not helping the European economy, or the way in which the EU is perceived. The failure to reform could potentially lead to an actual collapse of the EU as we know it, which would have disastrous effects for the region as well as the world. The failure of the Constitutional Treaty would also result in powerful disillusionment in the countries that have recently entered the EU or are applying to enter. This could significantly slow down further enlargements and put their domestic reform agendas at risk.


This was meant to prevent colonies being carved up into irregular pieces not to allow a new colonial master over a territory almost 1400 miles away from the main country as the Chagos Islands are from Mauritius. The reasoning for setting administrative borders at the beginning of the 18th century cannot have any rational bearing on who the islands belong to when those borders are not either clear physical or ethnic boundaries. The borders of Mauritius changed regularly; they originally included the Seychelles until 1903 when they were made a new colony. Two more islands were transferred in 1908 and 1921. [1] Which was the real colonial border?  [1] Sookhoo, Narainduth, ‘Mauritius independence: Myths and realities!’, Le Mauricien, 3 March 2013,


Uti Possidetis  The borders of states that gain independence are set by the administrative boundaries that the colony had prior to independence. This prevents any gaps in sovereignty, or any attempt by the coloniser to keep a chunk of the territory, and the conflict this would inevitably bring. General Assembly Resolution 1514 made this clear “Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.” [1] This also means that Mauritius should have control of the Chagos Islands which were, up until 1965, a part of Mauritius.  [1] United Nations General Assembly, ‘Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples’, un.org, resolution 1514 (XV), 14 December 1960,


The islanders do wish the right to self-determination but that does not have to mean they wish the return to Mauritius. Self-determination would mean a referendum in which the islands might chose to remain British, or possibly become independent. [1] It would not mean simply being handed to Mauritius with no regard to the people’s views.  [1] Morrison, Alex, ‘Chagos Islands’ future lies with UK’, theguardian.com, 25 January 2010,


Mauritius is far closer  The UK should not be controlling territory that is almost 5786 miles away from London. The Chagos Islands should be under the sovereignty of an Indian Ocean country like Mauritius that is much better placed to look after the interests of the islands. The age when countries had the right to control territory half a world away on the basis of might makes right are long gone. The Chagos islands, as with other remnants of colonialism, should be handed over to the nearest state with a good claim. In this case Mauritius.


If distance is anything to go by then the Chagos Islands should be a part of the Maldives which the islands are 600 miles closer to than they are to Mauritius. [1] Moreover the Maldives are on the same geographical feature as the Chagos islands; the Chagos-Maldives-Laccadive Ridge. [2] The irregularities of the borders of colonial administration should not determine who rules offshore islands.  [1] Both distances taken from google search.  [2] Whitmarsh, Robert B., ‘Some aspects of plate tectonics in the Arabian Sea’, deepseadrilling.org, p.527,  Incidentally this would potentially matter if the Chagos islands were uninhabited as the Maldives might have a claim due to territorial contiguity


With the exception of the far greater human rights abuse of the expulsion of the islanders there have been few actual abuses on the Chagos Islands. Mauritius however itself does not have a clean record. The U.S. State Department notes there have been arbitrary arrests, particularly of the opposition parties with the leader of the Militant Socialist Movement having been arrested and interrogated as a result of naming the government a “paedophile government” for not suspending a teacher accused of raping a student. “Other reported human rights problems included official corruption, violence and discrimination against women, abuse and sexual exploitation of children, discrimination and abuse based on sexual orientation, discrimination against persons living with HIV/AIDS, restrictions on labor rights, antiunion discrimination, and child labor.” [1]  [1] Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, ‘Mauritius 2012 Human Rights Report’, State Department, 2012,


Self determination  The most important principle of the international system since the end of the Second World War has been self determination; the right of nations or peoples to "freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development". [1] The UK has staunchly defended the right of self determination in other cases such as the Falkland Islands about which the Foreign Secretary, William Hague has stated “We have always been clear that we believe in the rights of the Falklands people to determine their own futures and to decide on the path they wish to take. It is only right that, in the twenty-first century, these rights are respected.” [2] The UK has also said it will accept the result of a referendum in Scotland. If areas that are far more important to the UK are allowed their self determination so should the Chagossians.  [1] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, New York, 16 December 1966,   [2] Foreign & Commonwealth Office, ‘Falkland Islands vote to remain British Overseas Territory’, gov.uk, 12 March 2013,


A human rights black hole  The Chagos Islands have been excluded from almost every human rights treaty from the Geneva conventions (III/IV), the Convention against Torture, through to the Statute of the International Criminal Court. Resulting in what Peter Sand calls “a kind of human rights black hole” which has enabled rendition flights to pass through the base. This is possible because the British government claims they have no permanent inhabitants. Sand suggests “the fiction of the “unpopulated archipelago”, staunchly defended by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office [FCO], will inevitably come back to haunt its authors in the very near future”. [1] With the islands being ‘uninhabited’ they are not entitled to an Exclusive Economic Zone under the UN Law of the Sea. Britain’s claim to the islands as a whole is also made more tenuous.  [1] Harris, Peter, ‘Review Article: Not just a military base: Reframing Diego Garcia and the Chagos Islands’, African Affairs, 110/440, pp.491-99, 2011,  p.496


The establishment of the MPA is clearly an attempt to strengthen UK control over the islands. A State Department cable leaked by wikileaks states “He [Colin Roberts, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's (FCO) Director Overseas Territories] asserted that establishing a marine park would, in effect, put paid to resettlement claims of the archipelago's former residents.” [1]  Moreover the UK, or rather the US occupation, is not good for the environment either. The US base at Diego Garcia has accommodated nuclear-powered submarines opening the potential for radiation leaks as has happened before in Japanese ports. Similarly a large amount of air and sea traffic creates the possibility of oil spills; there have been at least four major spills at Diego Garcia, the one in 1991 involved 160,000 gallons being lost. [2]  [1] Mills, Richard, ‘HMG floats proposal for marine reserve covering the Chagos Archipelago (British Indian Ocean Territory)’, Wikileaks, 15 May 2009,   [2] Carey, Sean, ‘The UK’s role in Diego Garcia: green fingers or red faces?’, New Statesman, 7 September 2009,


There is no national interest in the Chagos Islands or Diego Garcia. If there were true national interests then Diego Garcia would be a British base not a US one, handing such security over to the US clearly shows that the UK does not have sufficient national interests at stake to maintain a base on the islands themselves. Moreover if it is in the national interests of the United States to have a base there is little reason to assume that the US could not negotiate similar terms from the government of Mauritius as that of the UK to secure those interests.


Chagos islanders don’t all want to belong to Mauritius  Many of the people of the Chagos Islands don’t want to belong to Mauritius. They want the right to return to their homeland, but also that the Chagos Islands should remain British. Allen Vincatassin, a leader of the Diego Garcians in the UK, argues “We were second-class citizens in Mauritius and if they govern the islands, we will be second-class citizens in our own land… We are British Indian Ocean Territory citizens, which we are proud to be. We believe we are part of this country. In a normal situation the people would come first but it seems the state of Mauritius comes before the rights of our people.” [1] The islands when resettled could survive very well as a part of the UK just as other territories such as the British Virgin Islands do with administration done locally but sovereignty remaining with the UK.  [1] Morrison, Alex, ‘Chagos Islands’ future lies with UK’, theguardian.com, 25 January 2010,


Marine protection  The UK government has turned the Chagos islands into a Marine Protected Area. This would cover 544,400km2 around the islands with a no take zone preventing any fishing in the zone. The MPA will protect 60-80,00km2 of reefs and eight endangered or critically endangered species. [1] As the biggest such protected area in the world this will be making a critical contribution to protecting global biodiversity. While the Chagos Island’s seas are almost pristine Mauritius has been overfished with the overfishing further damaging coral suffering from coral bleaching. [2] Mauritius has objected to the establishment of the MPA [3] clearly showing that they wish to engage in exploiting the resources of the islands rather than engaging in marine protection.  [1] Sheppard, Charles, ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’, UK Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies: 2011 Biodiversity snapshot, 2011,  p.33, 35  [2] Harris, Ed, ‘Warm seas and overfishing his Mauritius lagoon’, Reuters, 7 June 2007,   [3] ‘The Republic of Mauritius v. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’, Permanent Court of Arbitration, accessed 29/1/2014,


National interests  It is in British and US national interests that Diego Garcia and the Chagos islands stay under UK control with the UK continuing to allow a US base on the islands. Diego Garcia is clearly strategically located as a base in the middle of the Indian ocean a base that may be useful for action in any direction. The military base has a significant runway, satellite tracking facilities, and is one of only five control bases for the GPS. It has been used in every US military operation in the Middle East since 1973. [1] The island is therefore a necessary base for combatting terrorism and maintaining a US presence in the region. The UK has said that it will keep the islands until it is no longer needed for defence, with the Middle East as unstable as it ever has been now is not the time to be giving up the islands.  [1] Salter, Mark B., and Mutlu, Can E., ‘Securitisation and Diego Garcia’, Review of International Studies, 2012,  , p.6


If there is concern with the Chagossians becoming ‘second class citizens’ then this can be addressed in negotiations to return the islands to Mauritius. The British have not in the past been willing to take the views of the islanders into account, there seems to be little reason why they now should just because the UK might now stand to benefit. Regardless a poll of all Chagossians might equally lead to the islands being handed over to Mauritius.


The European Parliament may ‘speak for Europe’ but the Council speaks for the EU’s member states. Privileging the European Parliament at the expense of the Council erodes the intergovernmental nature of EU decision-making. It is important to protect the sovereign powers of the individual member states; this is achieved in the Council, which is comprised of representatives of each national government. This has been particularly the case in the United Kingdom where there have been rows over sovereignty in relatively obscure areas such as prisoners voting rights. [1]  The European Union can only work if national considerations are put above all others. The Council works because the best possible conclusions are reached precisely because compromise between the varying interests is required. Involving the European Parliament would shift the emphasis of the entire EU from being a forum for independent nations to being a decision making body for a large number of states, undermining the sovereignty of domestic parliaments.  [1] Bagehot, ‘Britain’s mounting fury over sovereignty’, The Economist, 10 February 2011,


Voice of Europe  The European Parliament is the only pan-European, directly elected institution in the EU. As such, only the European Parliament can authentically ‘speak’ for Europe on any issue. It should consequently be a more privileged institution in the EU decision-making process. As a step in this direction, the Parliament should have equal powers of co-decision with the Council on all legislative matters in the EU. [1]  This would turn the European Parliament from being a mere talking shop to a body which can affect real change by providing a balance to the Council of Ministers. By having a directly elected body making decisions on a par with the indirectly chosen body, better decisions will be made that will benefit all Europeans at once, turning the council from a body that focuses on implementing European policy instead of the council being a means for sovereign governments to negotiate based on partial considerations of what their electorates want.  This would prevent leaders from being able to come up with deals in their famous all night meetings that the public are opposed to. At the moment European governments can afford to make unpopular decisions in Europe confident that the issue will never be high enough up the electorate’s priorities, which is topped by issues such as unemployment, the economy, inflation, healthcare and crime, [2] so they will not be punished for the decision. The European Parliament which is elected on European issues would prevent be much more responsive to their electorate.  [1] Young European Federalists, ‘Political Platform of JEF-Europe’, XIX. European Congress in Copenhagen 21 October 2007,   [2] TNS Opinion & Social, ‘Public opinion in the European Union’, Eurobarometer 75 Spring 2011, P.21,


The argument that we should increase the European Parliament’s powers in order to increase people’s interest in it is as flawed as it is well-rehearsed. This argument has been used to repeatedly expand the competencies of the Parliament. However, far from becoming more interested in the Parliament, fewer and fewer people at each election have bothered to vote, turnout was a much higher 61.99% in 1979 (although the average is partially reduced by newer members on average having lower turnouts). [1] This argument merely signals the failure of the Parliament as a democratic institution and unhappiness with the increasingly federal European project. Rather than rewarding the EU Parliament for failure, we should consider seriously its abolition.  There is already a democratic check on the Commission – the Council of Ministers made up of democratically elected national governments. It is the Council that sets the agenda for the Commission to implement. The fact that the Commission acts on the behest of democratically elected bodies makes the Parliament superfluous in its present form.  [1] ‘European Parliament election turnout 1979 – 2009’, UK Political Info,


Democratic Deficit  The European Parliament’s powers need to be expanded because there is a widespread perception that the EU suffers from a democratic deficit: national parliaments have lost much of their power vis a vis national governments through the committee based decision-making in the Council of Ministers. This loss of national parliamentary influence has not been matched by a proportional increase in the power and influence of the European Parliament. To reduce this deficit the European Parliament must be given parity with the Council so that it can provide checks and balances in the system.  This becomes particularly pertinent given other developments such as the creation of the Single Currency, which has imposed monetary policy upon varied economies without the necessary oversight from democratic bodies. In the worst case scenarios that have befallen member states such as Greece and Italy, unelected apolitical governments lead by technocrats Lucas Papademos in Athens and Mario Monti in Rome have been imposed by Brussels upon countries that have failed to toe the line, in this case over keeping their debts down. [1] This has shown the damage that the deficit between policies at a supra-nation level and the lack of truly popular mandate has had. If the European Parliament had a greater say and control over the European Central Bank – where Germany has been stopping the use of the ability to print Euros and be a lender of last resort to stem the crisis [2] - then difficulties in the euro zone would have been countered with constant reference to a directly elected body representing the interests of all Eurozone Nations rather than action benefiting the interests of only some creating damage to democracy in others.  [1] Editorial ‘Europe: the rise of the technocracy’, guardian.co.uk, 13 November 2011,   [2] ‘Schaeuble: Will Block ECB Becoming Lender of Last Resort’, Market News International, 22 November 2011,


The democratic deficit is a myth. National governments have a strong democratic mandate from national elections. Therefore, their decisions are already imbued with considerable democratic legitimacy. National governments also rely on national parliaments to enact their legislation at home. As a result it would be extremely foolish of a government to pursue a course of action in the Council which was opposed by national parliamentarians, or which would be unpopular enough to lead to a future electoral defeat at home. Democracy is protected sufficiently by the Council already; there is thus no need to increase the powers of the European Parliament.  The current crisis is also not a good example as the policies that led to the ultimate undermining of democratic mandates in Eurozone nations were supported by the voters in the respective countries. Had those countries voted for more realistic fiscal policies then there would be no need for the drastic measures required to prevent the Eurozone from collapsing. Outside of extraordinary circumstances, the status quo can and does work, with the Council of Ministers being made up of National Governments elected by the people.


Relevance  The levels of turnout in elections for the European Parliament are worryingly low, in 2009 the average EU turnout was 43% and the lowest was in Slovakia with a turnout of only 19.64%. [1] EU citizens clearly feel that the European Parliament is not important enough, does not have enough power over their lives, to justify them voting in European elections. Therefore, we must increase the powers of the European Parliament to increase its relevance to ordinary people. By making it more powerful we create an incentive for people to vote.  People view the EU as being dominated by the Commission, unelected bureaucrats who can change millions of people’s lives with little oversight from elected bodies. This corrodes people’s faith in the European Parliament to make change, thus affecting turnout. If the Parliament had the power to truly influence the commission then it would seem much more relevant, encouraging increased turnout.  [1] ‘European Parliament election turnout 1979 – 2009’, UK Political Info,


It is because the Parliament is not the primary body in the EU that it cannot be truly able to split along the traditional ‘left-right’ cleavage as is the case many of the member states domestic politics. A consensus had to be acquired for decision-making in the Parliament in order to be on par with the council, which for all its flaws sought to operate in a similar manner. Even though there has been consensus between the two largest groups, it has still been able to effectively scrutinize the Commission with the powers it currently has. Giving more powers to the European Parliament would ensure that this remains the case. Indeed, increasing the importance of the Parliament within the structures of the EU will give greater impetus for consensus between all political groupings, resulting in better decision making.


Instead of facilitating greater European federalism, granting the Parliament more powers may actually do much to prevent it. By having a body directly accountable to the people directing the Commission, instead of the indirect Council, there can be greater room for criticism of what the Commission does and advocacy of alternate policies for the Commission. As the Parliament is directly accountable to constituents, the Parliament has a clear stake in representing their interests, which may be preventing ‘federalism’ which is agreed upon by national governments that make up the Council of Ministers for the sake of expediency. Parliamentary control of the Commission gives people a direct say in how it is run, preventing accusations of ‘federalism’ in future.


What Parliament currently does  Proposition likes to maintain that the European Parliament does not do anything to hold the Commission to account. However, this is not true. The Parliament has the power to reject appointments to the Commission as well as force the entire Commission from their jobs in the event of maladministration (While extremely rare, it has happened in the past such as the rejection of Rocco Buttiglione) [1] . As well as having the power to reject resolutions proposed by the Council and Commission. [2]  The status quo places Parliament in a co-equal position in relation to the Commission and Council, respecting the importance of the role national governments have in dictating Europe-wide policy. If the Parliament is made superior to the Council, then the risk is run of giving it supremacy over the national governments. The status quo can be seen as appropriate as there is a fine balance between the Parliament and Council in dictating matters to the Commission. No change is required.  [1] Gow, David, ‘MEPs reject anti-gay commission candidate’, The Guardian, 12 October 2004,   [2] European Parliament, ‘Parliament’s powers and procedures’,


Ineffectiveness of Parliament  While the Parliament is able to hold the Commission to account in a somewhat limited manner, the institution as a whole is rendered ineffective by its structure. As the parliament is largely elected by Proportional Representation, compromise is required in order to pass resolutions. In most parliaments the two largest groupings would square off against each other and try to dictate policy with the help of smaller groups, thus allowing for varied opinions to come to the fore. Instead in the European Parliament, the Socialist and the Center-Right groupings have dominated proceedings since the first elected Parliament sat in 1979, with the success and failure of resolutions being contingent upon these two groups being able to find compromise, they even share the presidency. [1] This means that once the compromise has been reached, the resolution passes with a large majority and smaller groups such as the Greens and the Liberals are unable to voice opinion on the matter effectively.  This reduces the ability of the Parliament to function effectively as a scrutinizing body, preventing a full discussion of issues with a view to establish as close to a full consensus as possible with as many groups agreeing as possible. The development of a ‘Grand Coalition’ has hamstrung debate in what Proposition hopes to be the primary body in the European Union. If more powers are awarded to the Parliament in its current form, then policies affecting many millions of people will be decided on account a pre-arranged agreement between two major groupings that tend to share very similar aims with the Commission, not affecting real change in how the European project works.  [1] Taylor, Simon, ‘Deal on Parliament’s presidency holds firm’, EuropeanVoice.com 11 June 2009,


Creeping Federalism  Awarding more powers to the European Parliament would signify a shift in the Parliament – and by extension – the European Union’s relationship with its member states. If the Parliament is the body in primary control of the Commission the following harms would be created:  1) The democratically elected national governments that make up the Council of Ministers will be side-lined, creating the precedent of a central European body determining the actions of the Commission, thus effecting European citizens.  2) This creates a situation where sovereign nations end up being tied to one particular policy as dictated by the central Parliament, undermining the sovereignty of National Parliaments and making it difficult for a nation to go against said policy (See the controversy over the Common Fisheries Policy, for instance).  These dual phenomena caused as a result of the Parliament gaining more powers will further centralisation within the European Union, creating what critics would call a ‘federal superstate.’


Parliament may on paper be able to influence decisions made by the Commission, but a lot of what the Commission does is still heavily influenced by the Council, a body established for national governments to negotiate based on their own partial self-interest. Such negotiations can lead to major anomalies in the European Union such the Parliament having a seat in Strasbourg order to appease France. Moreover the parliament’s powers over the commission are limited, the opposition cites being able to reject the appointment of members of the commission but it can’t reject individuals only the college of commissioners as a whole. [1] By making the Parliament the primary body in the European Union, decisions can be made with the view of fully representing the needs of their constituents rather than having to constantly be careful of the partisan Council. This can result in better decision making on how the Commission and by extension, the European Union should move forward.  [1] European Parliament, ‘Oversight over the Commission and Council’,


The wall would also entail a large overall of current border checkpoint protocol. This disrupts the routine of the cartels and makes it harder to smuggle drugs across the border and it will take a while before the figure out the new system.


Cartels can maneuver past checkpoints  The current 650 miles of wall has done nothing to stop the flow of drugs. Cartels heavily study checkpoints and find their weaknesses and exploit them. Checkpoint officers can also be corrupted and/or ineffective. Most drugs also come through ports of entry, not the border according to the Institute for Policy Studies. Drugs is the biggest danger that comes from the free flow between the borders, yet a wall would not effectively stop the flow of drugs. If it does not stop the bringing of drugs into the US then the wall does not fulfill its purpose.


Preventing terrorism is not the primary goal of the wall, only an added benefit. The primary goals of the wall is to stop the flow of undocumented people and illegal drugs. Any prevention of terrorism is an added benefit to the utility of the wall, however small the added benefit may be.


A lot of undocumented workers are already in the US  According to data from Department of homeland security most of the people who are here illegally arrive here legally and then overstay their visa. Over 400,000 people whose Visas expired in 2015 were still living in the country in 2016. That's about the same as the number of people who cross the southern border every year (328,00 - 479,00). The wall would do nothing to the people that are already here.


There are still a large number of people that do cross the border every year that would be affected if a wall was constructed. Even if the wall does not stop illegal immigration all together, even stopping some of it does make it effective.


The state of the economy does nothing to change the effectiveness of the wall at keeping drugs and people from crossing the US-Mexico border.


Terrorists are not undocumented  80% of terrorists than have been apprehended since 2001 in the US are homegrown. Only one of 154 terrorists in the US since 1975 has been Mexican.


Economic downturn would cause a surge of immigration  People leave Mexico because of poor employment opportunities, the wall would likely hurt the economy of Mexico and create a surge of immigration. Building the wall has a negative effect on natural resources as well as businesses in the area. Also it would discourage investment in Mexico because it would look like a serving of the partnership between the US and Mexico. Any hit to the Mexican economy would likely increase illegal immigration, despite the wall’s construction.


This is a large time jump and can be attributed to other exogenous factors, not just the construction of the prototype wall.


US is currently enduring a construction labor shortage. So the jobs that would be created would not likely to be filled by American worker and not have a very large effect on the unemployment rate. All the people who want a job in that sector likely already have one due to the shortage. Also border security agents make up a huge portion of the Department of Homeland Security’s budget so this would cause a huge increase in spending.


At the very least it slows people down  Navigating past the wall will be a problem that people trying to cross the border or bring drugs through the border will have to face. It will create apprehension from attempting to do so. It will make it harder for these crossings to occur.


Prototypes have seen success  A prototype in San Diego has been built and has seen a success. The number of illegal crossings dropped from 560,000 in 1992 to 68000 in 2010 after the prototype had been constructed.


Would create US jobs  A building project that large would likely create close to 25000 US jobs. There would also be a large increase in border patrol agents. This would make the wall an effective way to decrease unemployment and create economic opportunity that the Trump administration promised.


According to the Department of Homeland Security, people attempting to cross the border is already on the decline, so this wall might already be a mute point.


If this conflict really is zero sum then a lease over the whole of Crimea is a big loss to Ukraine; it is after all losing a whole province in return for some financial assistance. Moreover we have little evidence that it really would mean Russia getting what it wants; Russia continues to deny that it even has military forces in Crimea, “these were local self-defence forces”, let alone spell out to the world exactly what its objectives are. President Putin says “This is a humanitarian mission” that “corresponds with our interests of protecting people who are historically tied to us”. If protection is all that is necessary then a lease should not be necessary. [1]  [1] Siddique, Haroon, ‘Putin: Yanukovych ousting was ‘unconstitutional overthrow’’, theguardian.com, 4 March 2014


Russia gets what it wants  There have been many suggested motives for Russia’s sending military forces into Crimea. Providing a lease on Crimea to Russia would provide a solution to most of Russia’s main objectives; the Russians in Crimea are protected, and the Russian hold on its Black Sea base is secure. More importantly the crisis started after the defeat of President Yanukovych and the resulting blow to Russian prestige in what Russia sees as a zero sum game (if one side wins the other automatically loses to the same extent). An invasion or Crimea regained Russian leverage but left Russia with little room to manoeuvre as any climb-down would leave Putin with nothing. [1] A lease gets out of this zero sum problem as both can gain. A lease would enable Russia to make an agreement with the Ukrainian government and recognise that government without having to lose face as any other solution which maintains Ukrainian territorial integrity would.  [1] Crowley, P.J., ‘Crimea: Putin’s mission accomplished’, BBC News, 3 March 2014,


A lease is not all a financial gain for Ukraine. Any tax revenues from Crimea would be lost as they would instead go to Russia. As would any revenues from natural resources either now in the future; Crimea with its strategic location was intended to be the hub for gas pipelines across the Black sea so Ukraine would be losing transit fees.


A peaceful solution  Agreeing a lease would provide a much needed peaceful solution to the Crimean crisis which would not only solve the immediate crisis but would also prevent future flare ups. Shortly after Russian forces moved into Crimea Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk of Ukraine said “This is not a threat: this is actually the declaration of war to my country”. [1] It has not so far been a shooting war, and no one wants it to escalate. Russia’s UN Ambassador has said “Russia does not want war… We don’t want any further exacerbation of the situation.” [2] But when there are constant tensions the best way to prevent a potentially unpredictable situation is to provide a solution to the situation. A lease should be considered.  [1] Zinets, Natalia, and De Carboonnel, Alissa, ‘Ukraine mobilises after Putin’s ‘declaration of war’’, Reuters, 2 March 2014,   [2] ‘Ukraine crisis: Russia tells UN it does not want war’, BBC News, 14 March 2014,


Everyone wants a peaceful solution but that does not mean that a lease is the best solution. Having some form of shared sovereignty – Ukraine owning the land and Russia having the right to use it and control it requires a great deal of trust. This is especially true if the Ukrainian Black Sea Fleet were to remain based on the peninsula. With potentially overlapping jurisdictions there is a lot of potential cause for trouble.


Leases reflect inequality between those involved in the lease; Panama was much less powerful than the USA so had little choice – it also needed the money. China was a defeated state; it had just been defeated by Japan and had lost two previous wars to the UK. The treaties were considered to be ‘unequal treaties’ and those countries that were subjected to them threw them off at the first opportunity.


Helps Ukraine financially  Ukraine is in a dire financial situation; it has gone to the IMF seeking $15billion to help stabilise the economy with a bailout. [1] The interim finance minister Yuri Kolobov suggests that even this amount will not be enough for the full year with Ukraine needing $34.4billion. [2] Finance was one of the reasons why Ukraine turned to Russia in November 2013; Russia was offering money when the EU was not. The lease agreed for the Black Sea Fleet involves the payment of $90million per year and the renegotiations in 2010 involved giving Ukraine cut price gas as well. [3] A lease for the whole of the peninsular with almost 2 million inhabitants and is close to the size of Belgium would cost a lot more, potentially enough to fill much of that financial hole.  [1] Talley, Ian, ‘IMF Making ‘Good Progress’ in Ukraine Bailout’, The Wall Street Journal, 13 March 2013,   [2] Schmeller, Johanna, ‘Crimea crisis further imperils Ukraine’s economy’, Deutsche Welle, 4 March 2013,   [3] Harding, Luke, ‘Ukraine extends lease for Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, The Guardian, 21 April 2010,


Precedent  While of the core points of sovereignty is that is indivisible this has not stopped the existence of other similar deals happening in the past. Locally the Black Sea Fleet is a good example  There have however been more famous examples in the past; the Panama Canal Zone was leased to the United States from 1903 to 1977 for $250,000 per year (later increased). [1] There are other instances of territory being leased; the clearest example being Hong Kong’s new territories which were leased rent free for 99 years from 1898 after China was defeated by Japan [2] – at the time there was a general view that if one great power gained then all the others have to as well. That leasing territory is an established practice means that it should be easy to apply to this case.  [1] Lowenfeld, Andreas, ‘Panama Canal Treaty’, Institute for International Law and Justice,   [2] Welsh, Frank, A History of Hong Kong, 2010


Ukraine would clearly find it difficult to trust Russia however it has several reasons for doing so. The first is that Russia and Ukraine "for decades had warm and friendly relations" to which they can return if they sign an agreement. Second Ukraine has little choice; it does not have the military strength to oppose Russia. Finally the United States and other countries could be a part of the agreement providing formal guarantees which would provide much more guarantee of action to help Crimea in the event of a repeat situation in the future.


While legitimising a reward for Russia’s actions may hurt it is far better that the dispute be resolved than it be left to fester. Under the status quo there are concerns that war will break out because the situation is unstable and Russia “reserves the right to take people [Russian speakers elsewhere in Ukraine] under its protection”. [1] This is in large part a result of the Russians and Ukrainians not speaking to one and other as the Russians won’t recognise the Ukrainian government. Peace will only come when both sides give some ground no matter who is in the right. Under this deal there will be peace, not further aggression.  [1] MacAskill, Ewen, and Luhn, Alec, ‘Russia and west on collision course over Ukraine as talks fail in London’, theguardian.com, 14 March 2014,


Does not provide guarantees for the protection of other Russian minorities  Although it is the region in which Russia has acted its interest in Ukraine is not just about Crimea. Foreign Minister Lavrov has made clear “Russia recognises its responsibility for the lives of countrymen and fellow citizens in Ukraine and reserves the right to take people under its protection”. [1] A lease over Crimea will resolve nothing if it does not also resolve other issues between the two countries such as the protection of minorities and Russia’s economic interests.  [1] MacAskill & Luhn, 2014,


The crisis affects more than just Crimea  There is a lot more at stake than just the Crimean peninsula. While suggestions that it may destroy the whole international system are hyperbole the territory becoming part of Russia would be the most major territorial change in Europe since the unification of Germany and breakup of the USSR both of which were peaceful and mutually agreed events. The G7 notes “the annexation of Crimea could have grave implications for the legal order that protects the unity and sovereignty of all states.” [1] A lease however would be a de facto change of territory, a hand over from Ukraine to Russia. Hong Kong was on a lease from China but during that time it was essentially considered as part of the UK.  [1] G7, 12/3/2014,


Why would Ukraine trust a lease when the previous one was violated?  It is hard to see why Ukraine would be willing to sign a lease with Russia when Russia has already proven it will not stick to the terms of its lease. Russia signed agreements in 1997 that recognised Crimea as a part of Ukraine in return for a lease on the base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. [1] Under that lease Russia was allowed to keep up to 25,000 troops based in Sevastopol so long as they remain on the base unless. [2] Russia has violated both of these; its troops have clearly moved off the base without Ukrainian permission and it is estimated to have 30,000 soldiers in Crimea. [3] When Russia has violated what would be a similar agreement once why should Ukraine believe it will not happen again next time Russia wishes to extend the lease either physically by incorporating more territory or in terms of duration.  [1] Felgenhauer, T., ‘Ukraine, Russia, and the Black Sea Fleet Accords’, dtic.mil, 1999,   [2] ‘Ukraine crisis: Does Russia have a case?’, BBC News, 5 March 2014,   [3] Boyle, Jon, ‘Ukraine says Russian troops in Crimea have doubles to 30,000’, Reuters,


Rewards aggression  The US Secretary of state condemned Russia’s action in Crimea as "You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text". [1] Yet it is exactly 19th century thinking that expects that a great power will get away with launching aggressive acts against a weaker neighbour. If the result were to be effectively a hand over of Crimea, and a legal recognition of that status even if it is in the form of a lease Russia would be getting away with this act of aggression and might be tempted to try it again elsewhere. Russia has already got away with one aggressive act when it launched an assault on Georgia in support of separatist regions. Under such circumstances it is better for everyone if Russia is isolated and there is no deal that rewards and legitimises Russia’s acts.  [1] Dunham, Will, ‘Kerry condemns Russia’s ‘incredible act of aggression’ in Ukraine’, Reuters, 2 March 2014,


The big advantage of a lease is that it maintains the territorial status quo while giving Russia what it wants. If the concern is about the legal order and sovereignty of states then a lease provides the answer because the actual sovereignty over the territory is not handed over, merely the control over the territory and functions of that territory are.


Any deal for a lease would clearly involve negotiation on other concerns that Russia and Ukraine have. Russia would clearly need to renew its guarantees of Ukraine’s territory perhaps with the acceptance that the lease would become null and void if Russia again takes aggressive acts. Ukraine for its part would need to guarantee the rights of minorities; this should not be a problem as both countries are signed up to the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. [1]  [1] Council of Europe, ‘Geographical reach of the FCNM’, coe.int, 24 October 2008,


The case given is quite different. The parents directly acted to cause harm to their child, inflicting a series of violent beatings over a sustained period. Such a course of action is already illegal and they were rightly convicted and punished. In this instance, a course of action is being avoided with the best interest of the child uppermost in the minds of the parents.


Religious freedom does not allow for the right to harm others  Nobody is questioning the rights of adults to take actions in accordance with their faith, even when these may cause them some personal harm. Their beliefs may well lead them to conclusions that others might consider reckless but that is their concern. However, when those actions impact others in society, it is a matter for social concern and, frequently, the intervention of the law. If that harm is caused to those who cannot resist or who are incapable of responding, intervention is required. The law explicitly includes children in this category. We do not, for example, allow religious practices such as sacrifice or torture in pursuit of a religious end, however religiously convicted the parents might be. The case of Kristy Bamu, murdered by his parents, practitioners of voodoo, in the belief he was a witch, is just one such example [i] .  We expect the legal and medical professions to accord particular protection to children against the actions of others that could harm them including, in extremis, their parents. It is difficult to see what could be a more flagrant example of possible harm than allowing your child to die when an available remedy could save their life.  [i] Sue Reid. "Britain's voodoo killers: This week a minister warned of a wave of child abuse and killings linked to witchcraft. Alarmist? This investigation suggests otherwise." Daily Mail , 17 August 2012.


We fully accept that children are treated differently in the eyes of the law. However, the very fact that proposition allows for that exceptionalism must require them to acknowledge that the role of the parent is given a status different from any other in society. We acknowledge their right to make decisions in the stead of their child, fully accepting that those decisions have enormous implications. We accept that parents take life and death decisions for their children on a regular basis and we must trust them to do so. Society respects the rights of parents to keep their children safe in no end of perilous situations, and when their judgement is wrong, it is a matter for regret, not legislation.


The right to live to regret  The primary duty placed on doctors, by society and themselves, is the preservation of life. In pursuing this goal they use not only medicines and scalpels but, first and foremost, their judgement. In many countries practising medics swear an oath to this effect; although these vary greatly in detail, they are well encapsulated by the Declaration of Geneva [i] , the critical clause of which for the purpose of this debate is “The health of my patient will be my first consideration”.  Asking doctors to take other considerations into account is not only a breach of their professional integrity, it also poses grave risks for society. They are being asked, in this situation, to allow the opinions of a third party take precedence over the wellbeing of their patient. If this were a younger relative with their eye on an inheritance or a distant sibling seeking to settle an old score, the dangers would be all too apparent. In this instance, the motivation may be well-intentioned but it is no more reasonable. Allowing relatives to say “well, what I think you should do is X” in defiance of medical opinion is fraught with dangers. If a relative decided on behalf of a patient to reject chemotherapy in favour of prayer or expressed their preference for Shamanic rituals rather than medication, why not let them. After all their intent is just as compassionate and their reasoning as solid.  [i] There are several forms of the declaration some of them, including the modern one in most common usage, can be found here .


Proposition have made a lovely argument, except for one small detail, nobody is suggesting prayer or ritual as a replacement for medical attention. The issue here, as defined by proposition, is whether JW parents should be able to reject blood transfusions on behalf of their child. No more than that; no witchcraft wards or miracle cures. This is just a consideration of whether, given the time for discussion and consideration, the religious views of parents and, usually, their child should be able to say that perspectives other than a strictly medical one should be considered in addressing a complex human situation.


The status of the child  The protection of children is treated differently from how we address the needs of adults. The very fact that their parents’ consent for procedures is required acknowledges that fact. We further accept that when that consent is questionable - when the parents may not be acting in the best interests of the child - that right may be revoked.  In most instances of such revocation, if the parent is an addict or mentally incapable of a particular decision, such a decision can be determined well in advance. However, in this instance, the status of the parent has not previously been an issue. However, the same principles should surely apply. For example, if a parent has been denied access rights to their child by a court, they would have no standing in making any such decision. If their child is a ward of the court, the same would apply. Society has a general duty to at least keep children alive until they reach the age of majority and remove all possible obstacles to that happening. We do not allow parents to give their children the right to pursue other harmful activities or to take unnecessary risks with their safety; the principle of a presumption of protection would also apply here.


Society does intervene in the private sphere to prevent harm. Domestic abuse is simply the most obvious example but parents are also responsible in most societies for ensuring their children receive an education in accordance with the law. If a parent were to deny their children food when it was available, it would be neglect. If they were to deny them shelter and protection when available, it would be neglect or abuse. It is difficult to see how denying them healthcare, when available, would not fall into the same category.


We frequently set limits not on religious beliefs but on their practices. The two determinant used there are the possible harm to others and whether the person being harmed can be deemed ‘capable’ in a legal sense. There can be no doubt that the decision to refuse available medical treatment causes harm, that is beyond dispute. The issue then is whether the person harmed, the child, can be considered capable. Legally they cannot, they cannot enter into a contract, they cannot marry or vote, legally they are not allowed to make many decisions because they are not full members of society until they are adults. It is worth noting that if the child is not deemed competent to make a decision regarding their own healthcare, it is difficult to see how their determination of their own religious choices can be assumed as authoritative. So the child cannot make the decision and the parents actions would cause harm to the child.  In the light of this, the only remaining opinion is that of the doctor.


The burden of parental responsibility  Societies recognise the importance of parenting and the enormous responsibilities that go with it. In light of these, the parent is allowed broad discretion in determining how those responsibilities are best exercised. It seems likely that a parent in a situation such as this is likely to undertake a great deal more soul searching and thought than could be expected of an external party. This is a decision that is made in good conscience and, as things stand in most countries, within the law.  Medical experts and others may well have opinions, frequently strongly held, but they are just that – opinions. The very fact that this issue has come to court, been heard and judges have reached differing decisions demonstrates that this is not an argument against fact. The opinions of parents are often supported by expert and legal authority. The parents can be expected to consider these opinions among many but must be left free to act in what they believe is the best interest of the child.


The division between the personal and social spheres  The law is a cumbersome tool to use in matters that relate to family life; this can be seen in the reluctance to legislate too much in this area. In those areas that require massive social interaction and agreement, such as education, there is a need for legislation but even that frequently proves to be controversial and many parents take the opportunity to opt out. This is particularly true in the moral, ethical and religious education of children as it is recognised, both implicitly and explicitly that this is a matter for the family.  How then is this different? That there are repercussions to the decisions individuals make regarding their religious beliefs is beyond question but we still leave them free to make them – the pacifist may go to prison but cannot be compelled to fight.  The same principle applies here; decisions based on deep religious conviction are a matter for the individual or, in this case, their family. The views of the family are respected in the choice of whether to prolong the life of someone in a permanent vegetative state, regardless of medical opinion about the individual case. Many consider PVS to be “more dead than dead”. [i] Despite this religious views on the matter, which often compare ‘pulling the plug’ to assisting suicide, are given a level of respect that cannot be justified by the available medical evidence. Although inverted, approaching the issue of the relationship between faith and death from the opposite angle – keeping the dead ‘alive’ rather than allowing the living to die – the same level of respect for the beliefs involved would seem to apply.  [i] Tune, Lee, “Vegetative State Seen as More Dead than the Dead, UMD Study Finds”, University of Maryland, 22 August 2011,


Freedom of religious observance  Most cultures respect the right of adults to practice the religious observances of their choosing and to raise their children within that tradition. The prohibition of blood transfusion is a part of the observances of JWs and is worthy of the respect that might be expected of other religiously motivated decisions.  There are other religious observances that have medical implications, for example the rejection of certain vaccines, but society accepts that it is appropriate for parents to inculcate their children with the values in the practical outworking of their faith [i] .  The refusal to accept blood products may seem reckless to outsiders but there is no suggestion that parents take their decision lightly; it would be difficult to conceive of how they would do so. What then is the alternative? Allowing the state to sanction which religions are acceptable or which practices of those religions? Such an act would strike not only at the freedom of religious practice but at the very principle of freedom of conscience more generally. If the state can challenge these views because it does not like the consequences, then why not social or political opinions? This is the first step on a road to tyranny.  [i] Jennifer Steinhauer. New York Times. Public Health Risk Seen as Parents Reject Vaccines. 21 March 2008.


Parental responsibility is a duty, not a right. Society trusts parents to act in the interests of their child but does not do so unreservedly. Where those actions lead directly to a provable harm, we consider it either neglect or abuse of the child and the parental privileges are revoked. No matter how earnestly the parent may believe it is in the child’s best interest, they may not send them out to work in injurious conditions, they may not allow or encourage them to engage in sexual conduct, they may not allow them to use armaments or certain drugs before a certain age. Because these things cause harm to the child and that is a breach of the duty of care entrusted to the parent by wider society. The same is true of denying them medical treatment.


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.


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,  , p.124


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


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’,   [2] Dahl, Eric Domestic Intelligence Today: More Security but Less Liberty?


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’,   [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,  p.78


The military or foreign intelligence or just as able to conduct counterintelligence, because the potential targets for foreign intelligence services are well known. But even if a domestic intelligence service is best placed for counter-intelligence, this is just an argument for limiting their functions to counter-intelligence, where they won’t harm citizen’s privacy as much. The arguments above deal with the other work a domestic intelligence does, and that work is illegitimate.


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


Domestic intelligence services are the only organization that is capable of performing counterintelligence  Domestic intelligence services are the only organization that is capable of performing counterintelligence. They have the capacity and the authority to detect foreign spies in the national jurisdiction, and experience with local surveillance and investigation. Part of the job of domestic intelligence is to maintain a network of informers and agents, and this can be used to find and track foreign intelligence services on a mission – these functions can’t be easily performed by the military or foreign intelligence so an independent domestic intelligence agency is necessary.


It is better to have some fear and suspicion in society than letting a terrorist attack which costs lives through. Without a domestic intelligence agency we probably would not even know about the 1600 potential terrorists. Now that many of these plots are known by the intelligence agency they can be prevented.


Some citizens don’t just have political differences with the current government, but are fundamentally opposed to the democratic state and are willing to use violence against state and society. Such is the case with Germany’s far-left party where the Federal Administrative Court ruled that the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) could continue to observe Bodo Ramelow, leader of the Left Party in the eastern state of Thuringia. [1] Or where domestic intellegence agencies are necessary to monitor home grown terrorist organisations like the IRA. To protect itself, society and most importantly, the lives of other citizens, it’s necessary for a government to sometimes want to keep a close eye on some of their own citizens. A democratically elected government has both the authority and the legitimacy to order such surveillance, and can be held accountable for the way in which it uses its powers.  [1] Der Spiegel, ‘Is Germany's Left Party a Threat to Democracy?’ 22/7/2010


Domestic intelligence agencies cannot be controlled  There are no effective ways of controlling the activities of a domestic intelligence agency. With an information request, an investigated citizen has no way of being sure what the intelligence service in question actually does with the information, once it has gathered it, and whether the service actually upheld the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality as they should, because the methods used are not given out. Also, the intelligence service might promise to delete a file after a court honoured a request, but no one can ever be sure that the intelligence service didn’t make an extra, secret copy.


Intelligence agencies inflate threats.  Having domestic intelligence agencies creates suspicion and fear, and ultimately resentment. Domestic intelligence agencies are created in response to war and external threats, for example MI5 was created in the build up to world war one, and Australia’s intelligence service was created in response to the discovery of a soviet spy ring within the Australian government. [1] Having any such service involved in more than simply counter-intelligence against foreign services shows that the government does not trust its own people. The United States has until very recently not had a domestic intelligence exactly because it was considered that the FBI could do everything that was required without creating undue suspicion. Bureaucracies inflate threats so as to gain more resources, MI5 is a good example, it was given more resources than it needed to engage in counterintelligence against Germany so expanded its role to surveillance of elements such as pacifists and organised labour. [2] More recently the head of MI5 announced there were 1600 Britons plotting terror, which may simply be threat inflation, something which not only makes everyone fearful for no reason. [3] An agency which is equally focused on criminal investigation would have much less reason to inflate dangers in order to maintain or increase funding.  [1] Jackson, Brian a. ed., ‘Considering the Creation of a Domestic Intelligence Agency in the United States’, Rand, 2009,  p.15  [2] Wikipedia, ‘MI5’,   [3] Kayyem, Juliette, and Posner, Richard A., ‘Does the United States Need a Domestic Intelligence Agency?’ CFR, 17 November 2006,


The government does not have the right to spy on its citizens  The government should not want to spy on its own citizens – that is the mark of a totalitarian regime. If some citizens disagree with the current government or current form of government, it is their fundamental democratic right to do so, and the government has no right to judge their different political preferences as ‘dangerous’. Experience shows that elected governments are not always able to control their domestic intelligence services, which may develop their own views of what constitutes subversive behaviour. In the 1970s MI5 kept files upon Labour Party MPs, including ministers in the UK Government. Elsewhere, fragile democracies such as Pakistan and Turkey have seen military coups launched against elected governments with the involvement of the domestic intelligence services which were supposed to be guarding them. In Turkey despite a coup against army leaders in 2008 the domestic intelligence agencies remain very strong and are supported by the national police. [1] Whenever there is a domestic intelligence service it is potentially very powerful due to the information it controls which could be used in support of other groups like the military to undermine or overthrow the government. It is better to keep intelligence focused outward.  [1] Cagaptay, Soner, What's Really Behind Turkey's Coup Arrests? Foreign policy, 25/02/2010


It is quite possible to put checks on the power of a domestic intelligence agency in order to prevent abuse of authority. An important way, in which individual citizens can actually control the intelligence service, is through lodging an information request at the domestic intelligence service. In a democracy, the service is obliged to share if it has a dossier on that citizen, and if it’s unfounded, can request the deletion of it. Of course, the dossier will not include specific intelligence gathering methods used nor mention sources, but overall, it will provide a good picture of what the intelligence service has been investigating so far.


Atrocities have continued on both sides of the conflict throughout this war. Military threats of intervention have not caused any reduction in hostilities – they just ramped up tension. There is a very real prospect that an ICC intervention could just fan the flames of the existing warfare; UN weapons inspectors being in the country did not deter the use of chemical weapons, they were used only a few miles from where the inspectors were staying.  Also, the ICC has not been a useful deterrent in other situations, such as Darfur, which while referred to the ICC by the UN Security Council is still an ongoing conflict. [1] One of the few academic studies done on the issue suggests ICC involvement simply damages the prospects of peace by ensuring that an actor who may have been willing at some point to negotiate has to fight on. [2] Combatants are already fearing death – would the prospect of spending 30 years in a European prison cell really add too much of a deterrent?  [1] Kristof, Nicholas D., ‘Darfur in 2013 Sounds Awfully Familiar’, The New York Times, 20 July 2013,   [2] Ku, Julian, and Nzelibe, Jide, ‘Do International Criminal Tribunals Deter or Exacerbate Humanitarian Atrocities?;, Washington University Law Review, Vol.84, No.4, 2006, pp.777-833,  pp.181, 832


The threat of investigation could deter future war crimes, including the use of chemical weapons  The ICC has a high level of soft power in this case. It has the resources to investigate and prosecute, backed up by widespread support from large swathes of the international community. The ICC is part of a growing international norm against war and crimes against humanity. The willingness to prosecute for these crimes – particularly if it is done consistently – will build norms where even ruthless leaders realise they can’t get away with such crimes. Pursuing war crimes from the Syrian conflict alone will not be enough but when combined with similar measures elsewhere and the arrests of other leaders such as Charles Taylor, Slobodan Milosevic and Laurent Gbagbo show that even leaders are no longer out of reach of international law. [1]  The ICC could act as an effective deterrent to the use of chemical weapons and other war crimes by threatening to prosecute individuals who commit them.  [1] Grono, Nick, ‘The deterrent effect of ICC on the commission of international crimes by government leaders’, International Crisis Group, 5 October 2012,


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,