Neo-functionalism proposes a purpose to EU integration.  Neo-functionalism proposed building a community Europe, through the concept of spillover the theory proposes economic determinism. Spill-over will eventually lead to a completely integrated Europe with a strong central government. This has not yet been proved true, as EU integration has become a long and difficult process. This is understandable since it is not exactly easy to integrate together all those policies, economies and people. However this would most probably be the eventual result, which is already visible: The experience of the European Union (EU) is widely perceived as not just an example, but the model for regional integration. In recent years, the EU has also been pursuing an increasing number of trade agreements which may in turn lead to spillover. [1] Furthermore the recent enlargements of the EU in Eastern Europe, as well as the ongoing negotiations with Croatia and Turkey have renewed the academic and political interest in the effects of European Economic integration. [2]  One of the theory’s strengths is to predict the outcome of integration and an eventual conclusion to the process, allowing for political and economic aims to be made and realised. For example ‘Larger companies have been acting on the assumption that the internal market will eventually be established’. [3]  [1] Bilal, Sanoussi, ‘Can the EU Be a Model of Regional Integration?’, Paper to be presented at the CODESRIA - Globalisation Studies Network (GSN), 29-31 August 2005,   [2] Lafourcade, Miren, and Paluzie, Elisenda, ‘European Integration, FDI and the Internal Geography of Trade: Evidence from Western-European Border Regions’, 23 December 2004, www.cepr.org/RESEARCH/Networks/TID/Paluzie.pdf  [3] Tranholm-Mikkelsen, Jeppe, ‘Neo-functionalism: Obstinate or Obsolete? A Reappraisal in the Light of the New Dynamism of the EC’, Millennium - Journal of International Studies, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.1-22,


Supranational Entrepreneurs played a crucial role in integration  The role of supranational entrepreneurs within the development of integration within Europe has been crucial. Characters such as Jean Monnet envisaged and worked continuously towards uniting Europe. As the head of France's General Planning Commission, Monnet was the real author of what has become known as the 1950 Schuman Plan to create the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), forerunner of the Common Market. Later a similar role was played by Jacques Delors with the creation of the Single European Act (SEA) and the all-important 1992 project that would see the single market and eventually fully Economic and Monetary Union complete. These characters act in support of integration within Europe and represent an empirical example of cultivated spill-over. Unmitigated pressure from Delors in pushing for the single market ensured that it became a reality in the time it did.


Neo-functionalism explains the cause of integration  Spill-over is the following concept – in order to enjoy the full benefits of integration of the first sector you need to integrate the related sectors. An example of this is the ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community) evolving into other energy sectors and forming Euratom. There are three types of spill-over – functional spill-over, political spill-over and cultivated spill-over. Firstly, functional spill-over, which regards spill-over in an economic context. For example, this might involve integrating coal and steel, then integrating transport systems so that coal and steel are moved around more easily. Secondly, there is Political spill-over, where political actors shift their allegiance to a new centre, for example from the national parliament to Brussels. Thirdly, there is cultivated spill-over, which is the idea that institutions drive further integration by being in practice; for example the European Commission’s growing autonomy. [1]  [1] Tranholm-Mikkelsen, Jeppe "Neo-functionalism: Obstinate or Obsolete? A Reappraisal in the Light of the New Dynamism of the EC Millennium - Journal of International Studies, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.1-22,


Neo-functionalism - liberal theory of regional integration  Neo-functionalism is an example of a liberal theory of regional integration. Its focus is on human welfare needs, not political conflict and law. Its focus is on individuals aggregated into interest groups as the main actors in integration, so the focus is on low politics and the areas which become integrated in the European Union reflect that. As such there has been much more progress on economic integration than there has on creating a common foreign and security policy. [1]  It also accepts the independent role of international organisations and that the transformation of the international regional system towards a better order is feasible so making the European Union a project worth investing effort in.  [1] Center for European studies, ‘European Union –Common Foreign and Security Policy’, unc.edu,


Neo-functionalism provides a good starting point for EU analysis.  Neo-functionalism is an accessible theory which provides a good starting point for analysis. As a theory it has the advantages of being able to predict the outcome of integration and clearly explains which actors must be studied in order to explain integration. Haas and Lindberg’s “main thesis was that sectorial integration was inherently expansive - integration of some functional tasks would tend to spill over into  integration of other tasks(…) In the basis of this analysis, Haas argued that an acceleration of the  integration process could be 'safely predicted' and that it might lead to a 'political community of Europe' within a decade”. [1]  [1] Tranholm-Mikkelsen, Jeppe "Neo-functionalism: Obstinate or Obsolete? A Reappraisal in the Light of the New Dynamism of the EC Millennium - Journal of International Studies, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.1-22,


The Founder of Neo-functionalism abandoned his own Theory (Haas).  The Founder of Neo-functionalist theory Ernst B. Haas later abandoned his own theory; According to Tranholm-Mikkelsen (1991)- “By the mid-1970 s, Ernst Haas had effectively abandoned the neo-functionalist theory by assimilating it within general interdependence theories of international relations”. [1] The theory proved a success in the economic realm but a fiasco in high politics; “…at the time of the ‘empty chair’ crisis [see next point] neo-functionalism was considered too incapable of describing the process of integration in general because of its extreme Eurocentric nature. Rosamond states that it is emerged from the process of complex web of actors pursuing their interests within a pluralist political environment.” [2] Neo-functionalism remained a partial theory, good at explaining particular parts of integration but required supplanting by other theories to keep it relevant.  [1] Tranholm-Mikkelsen, Jeppe, ‘Neo-functionalism: Obstinate or Obsolete? A Reappraisal in the Light of the New Dynamism of the EC’, Millennium - Journal of International Studies, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.1-22,   [2] ‘European Political Theories: Neo – functionalism’, May 2011,


The international system is characterised by anarchy and the distribution of economic and military capabilities  Stanley Hoffman used a Neo-Realist view of International relations to build the theory of intergovernmentalism. In a neo-realist understanding the international system is characterised by anarchy and the distribution of economic and military capabilities is of primary importance. States will not trust each other but can still reach agreement, but the agreement will be characterised by bargaining and negotiation (not an automatic process!) ‘Nations prefer the certainty, or the self-controlled uncertainty, of national self-reliance, to the uncontrolled uncertainty of the untested blender’. [1]  [1] Wikipedia, ‘Intergovernmentalism’, en.wikipedia.org,


The Empty Chair Crisis 1965  In 1965 during the Empty Chair Crisis brought integration came to a halt and shifted the institutional balance of power away from the commission to the Council of Ministers, it shows that spillover will not always occur. [1] It was caused by President de Gaulle of France being in conflict with other member states, specifically Germany and Italy. France wanted a deal on the Common Agricultural Policy but was unwilling to agree to further integration through creating majority voting in the Council of Ministers. When France took on the Presidency the normal system of mediation was lost. Bonn and Rome were unwilling to give way. [2] De Gaulle pulled his ministers out of the Council of Ministers thus reasserting the power of national governments. This showed that states would not automatically be prepared to give up their national sovereignty and might of helped lead to the abandonment of Neo-functionalism in the 1970s.  [1] Moga, Teodor Lucian, ‘The Contribution of the Neofunctionalist and Intergovernmentalist Theories to the Evolution of the European Integration Process’, Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 3, 2009 pp.796-807,  , p.799  [2] Ludlow, N. Piers, ‘De-commissioning the Empty Chair Crisis : the Community institutions and the crisis of 1965-6’, LSE Research Online, 2007,


The assumption of the automaticity of Spill-over is wrong.  The core of Neo-functionalism that spill-over being the main driving force behind continuing integration assumed the automaticity of integration. Once integration has started it will be a self-continuing force that will eventually integrate the whole of Europe - is clearly wrong. Supranational functionalism 'assumed first, that national sovereignty, already devalued by events, could be chewed up leaf by leaf like an artichoke'. [1] The functional method of spill-over is very limited, its success in the relatively painless area in which it works relatively well lifts the participants to the level of issues to which it does not apply well any more. For example no common defence or foreign policy within the community project has been successful. This failure in high politics is fundamental, without a coordinated foreign and security policy the role of the EU in the world is open to question. Opposition too much further enlargement reduces the role the EU can play outside the union unless a common foreign policy can be agreed. [2]  [1] Hoffmann, S. ‘Obstinate or obsolete? The fate of the nation-state and the case of Western Europe.’, Daedalus, Vol. 95, No. 3, 1966, pp. 862-915, p882  [2] Pabst, Adrian, ‘The EU as a Security/Defence Community?’, Luxembourg Institute for European and International Studies, 2/3 July 2004,


It may be necessary to limit trial by jury in cases where there is a real danger of jury tampering or intimidation.  It is very difficult to carry out trial by jury if people involved in the case continuously attempt to tamper with the jury, or unduly influence its decision. For example, the UK home office has stated that trying to protect jurors from tampering can be extremely disruptive to the jurors themselves, who may in extreme cases need police protection 24 hours a day. Cases involving international terrorism, drug smuggling or organized crime are the most likely to present such problems 1. In the infamous trial of Italian anarchists Vanzetti and Sacco, one of the jurors had a bomb thrown at his house, despite a huge number of security measures taken by the Massachusetts government 2. Another example is the 2008 case of a large armed robbery at Heathrow. After three mistrials, which cost £22m and the last of which collapsed after a serious attempt at jury tampering, it was decided that the case would be tried by a judge alone 3. If eliminating the jury is the only way to ensure that a) a trial occurs and b) jurors are safe, particularly when it is the defendants' fault that a fair trial by jury is untenable, it may be necessary to do so.


It may be necessary to limit trial by jury in cases where it is impossible to recruit an impartial jury.  Especially in cases of nationalist conflict or terrorist attacks, it may be extremely difficult to have a non-biased jury. In Northern Island, for example, jurors may sympathize with violent offenders and acquit them despite a preponderance of evidence. Similarly, it can be a struggle to appoint non-biased juries for terrorism trials post 9/11. In 2003, the "Lackwana Six" were accused of aiding a foreign terrorist organization. The magistrate noted that "Understandably, the infamous, dastardly and tragic deeds and events of September 11, 2001 have caused a maelstrom of human emotions to ... create a human reservoir of strong emotional feelings such as fear, anxiety and hatred as well as a feeling of paranoia... These are strong emotions of a negative nature which, if not appropriately checked, cause the ability of one to properly reason to ... be blinded." Questions about jury impartiality have been raised in multiple similar cases, even leading some defendants to claim that they pled guilty out of resignation that the jury would inevitably be biased and refuse to acquit.1 The implication is that in some trials, juries may be unable to make impartial decisions, thus making the trial unfair. The only way for justice to be done, in such cases, is to allow a judge to decide the verdict.  1Laura K. Donohue, "Terrorism and Trial by Jury: The Vices and Virtues of British and American Criminal Law"


It may be necessary to limit trial by jury in terrorism cases, or other cases surrounding large national security issues.  There are three reasons why this is the case. First, terrorist groups may threaten jury members (see Argument 2 for more detail). Second, terrorism may politicize the jury (see Argument 3 for more detail). Third, the state may be limited in what information it can provide if jurors are present. The government may be unable or unwilling to present classified information for fear of intelligence leaks; for example if it does not want to reveal intelligence methods and sources to the public. This reluctance may make it very difficult to prosecute terrorists. The implication is that the unique national security issues terrorism trials pose may make juries untenable if we ever want to convict terrorists of serious crimes.1 1Laura K. Donohue, "Terrorism and Trial by Jury: The Vices and Virtues of British and American Criminal Law"


Judges are better at delivering justice than juries are.  Juries are not technically trained in evaluating evidence.1 Additionally, judges are trained to recognize and suppress their own prejudices, evaluate information given to them, recognize prosecutorial strategy etc., better allowing them to make objective decisions. Furthermore, some studies suggest that juries actually work against the innocent; a 1979 study found that "more than 5 per cent of defendants found guilty by juries were considered by professionals to have been convicted in questionable circumstances."2This is hardly surprising given that jurors are ordinary citizens who are forced to sit through what are often dull and protracted trials, and who may have little interest in actually listening to what is being said (Joanne Frail, a juror convicted for contempt of court stated that she 'drew more than she wrote [during the trial]').3 Perhaps we should trust in the expertise of screened and trained justices instead.  1Sir Louis Blum Cooper QC, "A Judge Can Do the Work of 12 Amateurs, and Better  2Baldwin and McConville, "Jury Trials"  3BBC, "Juror Admits Contempt of Court Over Facebook Case"


Having trial by jury for people accused of very small offences is a waste of resources.  Juries are very expensive and time consuming, and courts may not be capable of using them for all trials. Indeed, in both the UK and the United States, minor or petty offences can be tried without jury (such offenses are defined differently in different places; in the US petty offences are those carrying less than 6 months prison time or a fine of $5000)1. That is because in densely populated areas, the courts are simply not capable of handling all trials with juries 2. But even beyond the limitations already in place, there may be more small-scale trials which could function without juries, and free up resources. According to British government crime advisor Louise Casey, if all of the either-or cases (cases dealing with minor offences which can be tried in either a crown or a magistrates court) were shifted entirely to the latter, Britain would save £30m in the costs of setting up juries. Such money could be used to help out victims of serious crimes, or otherwise improve the justice system 3. For example, if more time and money were freed up in the United States, the courts might not need to pressure so many defendants into plea bargaining, or pleading guilty without a trial in exchange for less harsh sentencing or the dropping of other charges (in 1996, about two thirds of American criminal case dispositions involved guilty pleas) 4. That would allow more trials to take place, and more justice to be done.  1.  )  2.Robert P. Connolly, "The Petty Offence Exception and Right to a Jury Trial"  3.Peter Wozniak, "Trial by Jury Faces the Axe for Petty Crimes"


Through jury nullification, juries make the law more accountable to the people.  Although juries are not technically supposed to nullify the law, or choose to acquit even if the evidence suggests that the defendant is guilty, they sometimes do. This usually happens when the jury believes the law is unjust: for example when the punishment is disproportionate to the crime1 (for example some activists encourage juries to nullify in cases of non-violent drug crimes). We believe this is good because it allows the public to check the government in a way for which rare elections and complex legislative processes do not allow. Only consider how many 'democratic' countries have upheld policies of segregation or discrimination, and it becomes clear that 'free and fair' elections can lead to outcomes that are anything but. Thus jury nullification can a) protect individuals from blatantly unjust laws, and b) provide impetus to actual legislative change. For example, some scholars believe that it was in part the frequent acquittal by juries of defendants who were probably guilty, but who would have received the death penalty if found to be so, that led to the US Supreme Court declaring mandatory capital punishment schemes unconstitutional.2 This community input is valuable in all circumstances, and there is no reason why it should be limited to certain cases.  1Doug Linder, "What Is Jury Nullification?  2Andrew Leipold, "Rethinking Jury Nullification


Limiting trial by jury in some cases sets the stage for limiting it in other, unjustified, cases.  Humans are fallible, and so sometimes it is better to have absolute rules against certain actions, even if we recognize that in a perfect world, it might be better to allow such actions in very specific circumstances.1 It is for this reason, for example, that we never allow evidence obtained by illegal measures to be presented in court, even though such evidence would sometimes make it possible to convict. Similarly, even if removing trial by jury might be good in individual circumstances, it is too great a power to give to a fallible government which may misuse that authority. If there is a precedent of the right to trial by jury being removed in some circumstances, even if that removal is justified, it becomes much easier for corrupt governments to remove it for unjustified reasons, and it becomes correspondingly more difficult for us to condemn that decision as illegitimate.  1Brad Hooker, "Rule Consequentialism"


Trial by jury is a fundamental right and should never be abridged.  Trial by jury is an essential check on abuse in the court system for three main reasons. First, it prevents governmental oppression by ensuring that non-state actors determine guilt 1. It is dangerous to allow the government—the same body which makes and enforces the laws—to also decide who is guilty of breaking the laws. Second, it checks against corrupt judges and prosecutors2. Judges are only human, and are susceptible to the same weaknesses, like prejudice and corruption, as the rest of us. Consequently, it is very dangerous to put the future of defendants in their hands. A representative group of jurors, approved by both sides, is far less likely to reach an unjust decision, since they are generally required to reach unanimous decisions to convict, and it is unlikely that an entire jury will be made up of biased, corrupt, or negligent people. Third, trial by jury allows for community input in the justice system (see Opp Argument 4 and response to Prop Argument 3 for more explanation). Thus trial by jury is essential to ensuring that innocent individuals are fairly treated, and is a fundamental right which ought never be denied. As Chairman of the Criminal Bar Association Paul Mendelle QC said, "Some principles of justice are beyond price. Trial by your peers is one of them."3  1.Robert P. Connolly, "The Petty Offence Exception and Right to a Jury Trial"  2.Robert P. Connolly, "The Petty Offence Exception and Right to a Jury Trial"  3.Clive Coleman, “Debating non-jury criminal trial”


Protections offered in a court must be absolute in order for the court to be just.  A just adversarial court system is premised on absolutes: that the defence has certain absolute rights which check it against government corruption, and which ensure fair trials even at the expense of conviction. Indeed, it is for this reason that we say it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to punish one innocent man. The protections in place that ensure fair trials must always be upheld, or else the guarantee of fairness no longer exists. If the government can sometimes remove this right, even in clearly delineated circumstances, then the right is no longer absolute, and the presumption in favour of the defence is far weaker, undermining the justness of the entire system.


Terrorism can lead to discussion  In some cases, terrorism can result in the acknowledgement of certain groups. Therefore, terrorism is justified by its success in achieving results when peaceful means have failed. In many countries terrorists have succeeded in bringing governments to negotiate with them and make concessions to them. Where governments have not been willing to concede to rational argument and peaceful protest, terrorism can compel recognition of a cause. Nelson Mandela moved from terrorist to President. In many other countries we see this trend too – in Israel, Northern Ireland, in Sri Lanka, and in the Oslo peace process that led to the creation of the Palestinian Authority. [1]  [1] Palestine Facts. (n.d.). Details of the Oslo Accords. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from Palestine Facts:


Consequentialism  Actions can only be justified by their outcomes, and if the outcome of an act of terror is an overall increase of justice, freedom and welfare, this action is therefore legitimate. Many people around the world suffer on a daily basis from poverty, injustices and violence. Generally, these people did not choose to suffer, nor was it a result of their actions; therefore it can be seen as a logical conclusion that it is a good thing that this suffering is diminished. However, authorities might not always agree to redistribution or an acknowledgement of rights, and more drastic measures are needed to obtain the goal. If, in this case, the use of acts of terror is needed to obtain greater goods such as justice and equality, and this would mean that on balance, more people would gain more utility, the action would be justified. In this way, terrorism can be seen as an effective weapon in a revolutionary struggle that results in progression. A very current example are the terrorist attacks in several Middle Eastern countries that have led to the Arab spring, such as the attack on the Yemen president Ali Abdullah Saleh. [1]  [1] Sinjab, L. (2011, June 3). Yemen: President Saleh injured in attack on palace. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from BBC News:


Legitimacy  In extreme cases, in which peaceful and democratic methods have been exhausted, it is legitimate and justified to resort to terror. In cases of repression and suffering, with an implacably oppressive state and no obvious possibility of international relief, it is sometimes necessary to resort to violence to defend one’s people and pursue one’s cause.  Every individual or (minority) group has the right to express its discontent. The state, being a representation of the people, should facilitate this possibility. Even more, the state should support the rights of minorities, in order to prevent the will of the majority suppressing the rights of people with other interests. If this does not happen, the state has failed to serve its purpose and loses its legitimacy. This, in combination with the growing inequalities and injustices amongst certain groups, justifies committing acts of terror in order to defend these rights, that were denied in the first place.  For instance, Umkhonto we Sizwe, a liberation organisation associated with the African National Congress in South Africa and led by Nelson Mandela, decided in 1961 to turn to violence in order to achieve liberation and the abolishment of Apartheid. The reason they gave was:  “The time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two choices: submit or fight. That time has now come to South Africa. (...) Refusal to resort to force has been interpreted by the government as an invitation to use armed force against the people without any fear of reprisals. The methods of Umkhonto we Sizwe mark a break with that past.” [1]  [1] African National Congress. (1961, December 16). Manifesto. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from African National Congress:


Terrorism can bring attention  Terrorism can raise the profile of a neglected cause. The hi-jackings of the 1970s and 1980s brought publicity to the Palestinian cause, helping to bring it to the attention of the world. [1] States can use their wealth and media to put across their side of the story; their opponents do not have these resources and perhaps need to resort to terrorism to publicise their cause. In this way, limited and focused use of violence can have a dramatic international impact.  [1] Tristam, P. (n.d.). The 1970 Palestinian Hijackings of Three Jets to Jordan. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from About.com:


Terrorism is relative  The definition of terrorism depends very much upon your point of view - the proposition does not need to defend every atrocity against innocent civilians to argue that terrorism is sometimes justified. A broad definition would say terrorism was the use of violence for political ends by any group which breaks the Geneva Conventions (which govern actions between armies in wartime) or ignores generally accepted concepts of human rights. Under such a broad definition, states and their armed forces could be accused of terrorism. So could many resistance groups in wartime or freedom fighters struggling against dictatorships, as well as participants in civil wars - all irregular groups outside the scope of the Geneva Conventions.  A narrower definition would say that terrorism was the use of violence against innocent civilians to achieve a political end. Such a definition would allow freedom fighters and resistance groups with a legitimate grievance to use force against dictatorship and occupation, providing they only targeted the troops and other agents of oppression. Yet even this tight definition has grey areas - what if the soldiers being targeted are reluctant conscripts? Are not civilian settlers in occupied territories legitimate targets as agents of oppression? What about their children? Doesn't it make a difference if civilians are armed or unarmed? Don't civil servants such as teachers and doctors count as agents of an occupying or oppressive state?  There will always be grey areas that might be justified, under the broader definition most armed forces in history could be accused of terrorism particularly acts such as the bombing of cities during World War II. While under the narrower definition the various resisitance groups during the same war would count. Perhaps at a half way house would be independence movements including the American Revolution.


Terrorism creates a negative abusable portrayal  Acts of terror will not lead to a deeper mutual understanding, but to alienation from the international community. People see acts of violence as a threat, and especially in the context of international terrorists attacks, the fear of escalation prevails. Even more, acts of violence are open to multiple interpretations, which can be used in favour of the oppressing state, that has much more resources to spread its message. Not only can it say it uses violence against these terrorists groups to defend itself, but it can also paint an image of the terrorists as irrational, violent creatures. This plays easily into existing stereotypes of non-Westeners as being violent. In order to counter this scenario, it is wiser to resort to non-violent actions. This has the benefit of conveying a very clear message to the outside world that the people protesting are the victims, and not the perpetrators. For instance, the actions of Mahatma Ghandi were known for their civil disobedience and their political messages that went against the norm, but because of the peaceful nature of his protest, he was able to attract a lot of positive attention and followers. [1]  [1] BBC News. (1998, January 29). The life and death of Mahatma Gandhi. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from BBC News:


Corrupt states  States or institutions created in concession to terror are often corrupt, dominated by men of violence with links to organised crime. Nothing is achieved to improve the lives of the people in whose name terror has been used. Terrorist organisations have often a military and violent character. The sort of people who attracted to committing acts of terror often glorify illegitimate acts of violence and justify the possible harm done to civilians by proving their complicity or the outcome of the actions. More precisely, they have only the interest of their ideology or the minority they are supporting. When these people are put in a position of power, they are likely to follow the same lines as before, especially when they do not have a political background. They are likely to be ignorant of how political processes work, and will appoint people that have the ideology in other powerful positions. This will make the whole political system inefficient and biased towards a minority or a fringe interest. As a result, level of corruption could rise, and in extreme cases people with other opinions can be persecuted. Iran went from a Westernizing state to an Islamic one, and is now hostile to dissidents. [1]  [1] BBC News. (2012). Iran Profile, Retrieved 17 February 2012 from BBC News:


Exacerbation of poor conditions  Terrorism creates a perpetual situation of poverty and anxiety within the community. Terrorism creates an unsafe situation for the local community, which has several consequences: firstly, people are less able to continue their daily actions, such as going to work or school of they are afraid of attacks. Secondly, people are less likely to save or to take risks such as setting up a business when they are uncertain about the their future. Thirdly, international companies are less likely to set up business in a location which is seen as unstable, and with the local market which has little to spend. This all lead to a continuation of poor conditions where many people live in poverty and anxiety, and see little opportunity than continuing the violence themselves. In Northern Ireland, the political violence which is present, combined with the high rates of poverty, creates a vicious circle where the unstable situation is continued. [1]  [1] Horgan, G. (2011, July 12). Equality of misery? Poverty and political violence in Northern Ireland. Retrieved August 3, 2011, from Politico:


Harm to others is never legitimate  Even in cases of suppression and deprivation of human rights, it is not justified to harm others outside the law. Considering acts of terror, there are three possible targets: civilians, political, military or other powerful authorities and their representatives, and structures such as (government) buildings, cars etc. without any causalities. In the case of the first, it is illegitimate to kill innocent civilians because not only have these people not contributed to the terrorists' marginalization, which means that hurting them will not undo the cause of harm, but this also perpetuates the harm that was the cause for violence in the first place. In the case of the second target, the attack on authorities responsible for the marginalization might be removed in some cases (if there is one), but it more often results in backlash where supporters of the authorities act against the insurgents, resulting in more harm. This happened with the Kurdish revolt against the Turkish authorities, which led to a guerilla war with over 30.000 causalities. [1] Thirdly, attacking the infrastructure of a country means disabling the population for accessing their basic capacities such as accessing healthcare by destroying roads or hospitals. Regarding the fact that the population is innocent in the crimes of the government, this is unnecessary and harmful for the whole population.  [1] Washington Post. (1999). Who Are the Kurds? Retrieved August 3, 2011, from Washington Post:


Justice co-operation  Crime does not stop at national borders. Therefore efforts to fight crime cannot, either. A country that abolishes capital punishment will be in a much better position to cooperate on justice issues internationally.  Many states, particularly ones in the Global North, have policies of not extraditing people to jeopardy of capital punishment. Not only could more people be extradited, foreign states may be more willing to provide broader based assistance and co-operation if they see that a state has made steps forward in criminal justice policy.  Some states have a policy of not extraditing to states where there is a risk of capital punishment: a particular clause on this is included in the US-Mexico extradition treaty, and it is the position of the European Court of Human Rights. [1]  [1] Soering v United Kingdom - available at


Encourages a culture of respect for human rights  Capital punishment is, in general seen as a significant human rights violation by the international community - not only most liberal democracies, but much of international civil society.  Abolition will help lead to the development of a culture of human rights and the rule of law by acting as a benchmark of progress, and a symbol of a commitment to these principles. It is notable that Guinea Bissau is the only abolitionist nation in the bottom ten countries in Africa for the rule of law – according to the Ibrahim Index of African Governance’s safety and rule of law category, compared to six abolitionist countries in the top ten [1] .  [1] Mo Ibrahim Foundation, “Ibrahim Index of African Governance”, Mo Ibrahim Foundation, 2013,


Diplomatic relations  European states in particular put a particular emphasis on capital punishment when determining human rights issues for foreign policy. The UK for example has a policy of promoting and lobbying for the abolition of capital punishment with foreign governments. [1]  This will help generate goodwill for the nation. This could have a whole myriad of benefits - from aid and trade, to being seen as the “good guy” in any international disputes. When using capital punishment the opposite is the case; controversy has been created by the use of UN resources in drugs cases in Vietnam that could lead to executions for drug offences [2] .  [1] Foreign & Commonwealth Office, ‘HMG Strategy for Abolition of the Death Penalty 2010-2015’, gov.uk, October 2011,   [2] “UN urged to freeze anti-drug aid to Vietnam over death penalty”, Reuters, 12 Feb 2014,


African values  Human rights are a concept that take on different conclusions and priorities when applied in different cultural contexts. Protecting the community as a whole, by removing dangerous offenders from circulation, and by a deterrence effect, capital punishment is a manifestation of a form of “African Values” that place more emphasis on the community over the individual than western legal tradition. Capital Punishment has traditionally used for the most serious crimes such as murder as well as some serious religious offenses which it was feared might bring serious consequences for the entire community. [1]  [1] Balogun, Oladele Abiodun, ‘A Philosophical Defence of Punishment in Traditional African Legal Culture: The Yoruba Example’, The Journal of Pan African Studies, Vol.3, No.3, September 2009,  , p.47


Particular need in Africa  Capital punishment for particularly dangerous offenders is a practical solution for African nations with low quality prison systems, which, through either deliberate policy or basic underfunding, can have poor conditions, or poor security. In 2013, over a thousand prisoners escaped from a prison near Benghazi in Libya [1] . A similar escape with particularly dangerous offenders would be dangerous - a corpse can’t escape.  [1] Zway, Suliman Ali, “Amid protests, Inmates escape from Libyan prison”, New York Times, 27 July 2013,


Capital punishment is a comparatively small issue  Whatever the merits, capital punishment in Africa is a small issue. Capital punishment opponents should focus on China, which uses capital punishment in a secretive manner for all variety of offences and executes far more people than the rest of the world put together. [1]  If Western human rights groups genuinely want to improve human rights in Africa, there are a myriad of issues that affect many more people relating to good governance, political rights and socio-economic rights, rather than just focusing on a small number of individuals, generally convicted of particularly serious criminal offences.  [1] ‘Death Sentences and Executions 2012’, Amnesty International, April 2013,  , p.6


“Benefits” of capital punishment apply universally  The same arguments about capital punishment apply in Africa - deterrence value, potential cost savings, and principles of justice. [1] This could be more acute, with growing issues of international crime, such as drugs, growing in Africa [2] .  Africa has had many issues of conflict and crimes against humanity – these are the kind of crimes that many who are less enthusiastic about capital punishment would still support it for.  [1] See “This House Supports the Death Penalty” -   [2] See Cockayne, James, “Africa and the War on Drugs: the West African cocaine trade is not just business as usual”, African Arguments, 2012,


Self-determination and independence is recognition of the fact that indigenous peoples were unfairly treated by colonial powers, and their proprietary rights abused.  In some contexts, separation may not be a realistic option for minority peoples. However, that does not mean that self-determination is not meaningful for such groups. For indigenous peoples, self-determination may take the form of restitution for land that was stolen from them, or compensation and reparations. Furthermore, self-determination may take the form of political autonomy, or greater rights to decide how children are educated, or parallel systems of justice such as sharia courts. Self-determination is about representation and identity and choice - not about outcomes.


Self-determination is necessary to protect minority cultures.  Many states in the modern world do not respect the rights of minorities or actively seek to dilute and subsume them into the majority culture. Others offer limited protections to minority peoples but stop short of allowing them to choose their own futures. We need to reassert their right to self-determination to ensure that these minority cultures are not lost. Failure to defend the principle of self-determination now will effectively close off the choices of future generations.  For example, Australian government policy for many decades was to ignore Aboriginal rights, denying them full citizenship1 and removing children from their homes and relocating them with white families (the so-called "stolen generation"2). As a result many indigenous Australians no longer have a strong link to their native cultures and languages. The same is arguably true in places like Tibet, where traditional culture is being diluted over time through the deliberate policy of the Chinese government.  1 See "Collaborating for Indigenous Rights", National Museum of Australia 2 "Bringing Them Home: Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families", Australia Human Rights Commission, April 1997.


Self-determination embodies the fundamental right of peoples to decide their own futures.  Modern liberal democracy is founded on the idea that people should be free to decide their own leaders and their own futures, but not all states give their minority peoples such a right. However, this is a right guaranteed under international law. The International Court of Justice has held that this right applies not just to national governments but also people1. The two important United Nations studies on the right to self-determination set out factors of a people that give rise to possession of right to self-determination: a history of independence or self-rule in an identifiable territory, a distinct culture, and a will and capability to regain self-governance2. If these criteria are in place, such peoples should have the right to determine their own constitutional and political arrangements.  1 Western Sahara Case, 1975 International Court of Justice 12, 31. 2Critescu, A. and GrosEspiell, H. "The Right to Self-determination", United Nations, 1980 (not online, but widely cited


Self-determination offers a way to resolve otherwise intractable disputes.  Many modern nation states are the product of historical accident or hurried decolonisation processes that did not properly take account of ethnic or religious differences between peoples in the states that resulted. Examples can be seen all over the world but especially in Asia, Africa and the former Soviet Union, where postcolonial or post-Cold War boundaries separate people from their kin against their wills. Other territories may be disputed between one or more nation.  Allowing ethnic or religious groups self-determination may help to reverse the harmful effect of artificial, poorly-drawn borders. If self-determination is universally accepted (and applied) by the international community as a key principle in such disputes, they may in future be easier to resolve.  Two examples; Kashmir, which straddles the line of partition drawn up by the British when granting independence to India and Pakistan in 19471; and the Falkland Islands, which are the object of dispute between the UK and Argentina, including a brief war in 19822. History, law geography all offer competing and incompatible views of who should rightfully own these territories. If we recognise the principle of self-determination as key, however, it is clear that it is the view of the inhabitants that should decide its future. Indeed, if this principle is ignored, such disputes will rumble on for many years to come.  1 "Kashmir: Run-up to Partition", Globalsecurity.org 2 "Falklands/Malvinas War",Globalsecurity.org For the Falkland Islanders' view of self-determination, see Falkland Island Government website, "Falklands call on UN Committee to uphold right to self-determination",


The rise of universal human rights makes self-determination increasingly irrelevant.  Across the developed world, modern nation states are bound into a complex network of treaties and international organisations which together go a long way to guaranteeing citizens very similar rights wherever they live. These supra-national rules make it less and less important on what side of an international boundary you happen to live. What matters is not so much self-determination as whether or not an individual citizen is able to enjoy the same rights and privileges as those of the majority culture.  For example, EU citizens enjoy many common rights, common European citizenship, freedom of movement between member states and so on. Minorities who fifty years ago might have taken up arms to "free" themselves from an oppressive nation state – such as Catholics in Northern Ireland – don’t need to do this now, because they have new rights against discrimination, guaranteed and enforced by international treaty.


Self-determination can destabilise nation states, sometimes with very destructive consequences.  If we accept self-determination as such an important principle that it trumps all others, this will encourage people to self-identify along nationalistic, racial or religious lines, at a time in human development when we are moving away from racist and nationalist ideologies. Nationalism is about difference, which flies in the face of the idea of the global citizen. Taken to its extremes, it encourages increased conflict, separatist terrorism. For example, the ethnic conflicts that led to the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s were fuelled by nationalist ideologies and the stressing of the differences between ethnic and religious groups that made up that country.


What matters are individual democratic rights, not necessarily collective self-determination.  Simply being a minority in a nation should not be enough to claim the right to self-determination. As long as people have democratic rights, such as the right to protest, to lobby and to vote , they enjoy the same rights and protections as those of the majority community in that country; there should be no obligation on the state to go further in granting them self-determination. For example, during the Franco era in Spain, minority nationalities such as Basques and Catalans were for a long time discriminated against and excluded from real political power, and backed political parties that explicitly represented their community. As their position in society has improved, however, so the hold of identity-based politics has loosened, and the pull of secession has weakened1.  1 Macko, Kalyna: "The Effect of Franco in the Basque Nation", Salve Regina University, July 2011.


Suicide is a selfish act that causes suffering to others  Suicide is an entirely selfish act that causes immense pain and suffering for those loved ones that are left behind. It is also cowardly; rather than facing your problems and being strong, you instead take the easy way out and kill yourself. It is important, therefore, to instil a strong sense of responsibility to one’s family and for one’s affairs and to do this by punishing those who try and fail to perpetrate this selfish and cowardly act.


Suicide is a waste of life  Suicide is a waste of life. It is an immoral act that ignores the sacrosanct nature of human life – something that is universally considered to be the case as shown by being something nearly all religions consider to be the case. [1] Failure to criminalize such a flagrant violation of the sanctity of human life condemns any society as irreligious and immoral. Nowadays we hear everyone talking about human rights; we hear precious little about human obligations. If we believe in the moral worth of human rights we do so because we think that human life is a wonderful thing and something with which we should not interfere. Whether the interference is by others or by ourselves, any action that denigrates human life is morally wrong for precisely the reason that we support human rights. We have an obligation to preserve all life, including our own.  [1] Perrett, Roy Wo., ‘Buddhism, euthanasia and the sanctity of life’, Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 22, No. 5, October 1996,


Prohibiting suicide sends the message that it is not an acceptable behaviour  Individual action is shaped by what norms and standards are set by society. By prohibiting suicide, society sends out a message that it is not an acceptable action. Legislation is a useful social tool, in that it proscribes the limits of individual action. And by failing to prohibit suicide, society fails to add the ultimate sanction of its laws into the balance of any decision whether or not to commit suicide. Many of those who have tried and failed to commit suicide never attempt it again. This suggests that many who kill themselves do so because of their particular short-term circumstances, perhaps while ill, suffering financial problems or under emotional stress, rather than through a considered and rational decision. More than 30% of suicides are precipitated by intimate partner problems, more than 10% by jobs problems and 10% by financial problems. [1] Given this, even a small deterrent will help to save many lives that are currently wasted needlessly.  [1] Canters for Disease Control and Prevention, ‘Suicide: Data Sources’, 26 August 2011,


Suicide undermines the sanctity of the human body  Like abortion, euthanasia, cloning and genetic engineering, suicide undermines the sanctity and inviolability of the human body. It is legitimate to legislate against such actions because the sanctity of the human body is an intrinsic constituent part of the respect for human dignity, which is the sine qua non of social life in any country.


The right to life means a right to death  When we speak of the right to life it means more than merely the right to be alive, it encompasses the right to self-ownership, the notion that one’s life is one’s own and that you are not beholden to anyone else by the mere fact that you are alive. It follows from this that there can be no duty on anyone to live beyond a point of their own choosing, and there should be no attempt to interfere with suicidal behaviour whether by individuals or by the law. [1]  [1] Chobli, Michael, ‘Suicide’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward n. Zalta (ed.), Fall 2009,


We are all dying  Death is an inevitable fact of life. We will all die. Suicide is therefore not a matter of choosing between life and death per se, but of choosing the time and manner of death one wishes. We would all prefer a painless death over a slow and agonising one, and it is better to be able to prepare oneself and if possible anyone else who will be affected, so why should the difference between the two be a matter of luck and not one of choice?


This is not the role of the criminal law  Criminal legislation is not the vehicle for society’s pronouncements on questions of how one should live one’s life. It instead involves the entirely practical exercise of ensuring that individuals are able to live freely and enjoy their freedom without fear of external interferences like theft, violence or murder. Criminal legislation should guarantee a safe space for autonomous individual action - like suicide.


Head of state immunity  Traditionally, heads of state have had immunity in foreign courts. This is for the normal functioning of diplomacy – so heads of state can engage in business at other states and travel to summits without the risk of harassment by vexatious claims in foreign courts, or foreign governments trying to attack the decisions of other governments in their own courts.  The ICC trying sitting heads of state would set a terrible precedent of a method of regime change – not even by foreign militaries, but by the ICC prosecutor. Regimes should change according to democratic mandate not foreign courts.


A delay is necessary for national security  Kenya is at risk of terrorist attack. Al-Shabab, a group linked to Al Qaeda have launched a number of attacks against Kenya. In addition to the Westgate massacre, there have been grenade attacks on bus terminals [1] and suicide bombings in refugee camps [2] .  Kenya’s waters are also used by Somali based pirates as a ground for attacks on international shipping, including possibly targeting ships travelling towards the port of Mombasa.  It is more important to the international community to have credible action taken in order to protect the Kenyan people from terrorism. This needs a strong Kenyan government – which means that there cannot be a change due to an international trial.  [1] Associated Press, “Two grenade blasts rattle Nairobi; 1 dead”, USA Today, 25/10/2011   [2] Ombati, Cyrus, “Terror suspects die after bombs explode on them”, Standard Digital News,


Interferes with a democratic mandate  Unlike many of the other ICC defendants, Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto have a democratic mandate from elections that “represented the will of the voters” [1] – electoral mandates given to them after their indictment by the International Criminal Court.  This must be respected by the ICC and the international community as a whole: even though they are suspected of crimes against humanity by a foreign court.  [1] European Union Election Observation Mission To Kenya, General Elections 2013 :Final Report,


Kenya needs the trial now  Without justice, there cannot be peace. Following the total failure of the Kenyan justice system to take action, exemplified by the Parliament’s complete and utter rejection of the Waki Commission, the ICC, which Kenya voluntarily signed up to, has to step in.  Ethnic violence still goes on in Kenya [1] , and if there is impunity in this case, no message will be sent out: justice must be done and seen to be done to prevent similar abuses and prevent justice being taken outside of the courts.  [1] Wachira, Muchemi, “Cattle raids and tribal rivalries to blame for perennial conflict”, Daily Nation, November 18 2012,


Just hold the trial by videolink  It has already been agreed that defendants can appear at the court by videolink [1] for parts of the trial. This is not problematic, unless the defendants want to start representing themselves.  Bearing in mind that Ruto and Kenyatta have been continuing to co-operate with the trial throughout the process, there is no reason to think that they would flee the international criminal court. Either way, if they change their mind, they could simply not travel to The Hague for the trial.  [1] Corder, Mike, “International court changes trial attendance rule”, The Wichita Eagle, November 28th 2013,


Kenya would be better off without them  Kenya does not need or want government by those who hand out illegal title deeds [1] and threaten the freedom of the press [2] as Kenyatta’s government does.  In addition to that, the allegations that the president used a banned occult gang, the Mungiki, in order to perform acts of mass murder is enough to end his credibility as a leader in the country – the best interests of good governance in Kenya mean that Kenyatta should go.  [1] Chanji, Tobias, “Raila Odinga says title deeds issued by President Uhuru Kenyatta illegal”, Standard Digital, November 25th 2013,   [2] Shiundu, Alphonce, “President retains punitive fines against media in new law”, Standard Digital, November 27th 2013,


Criminal defendants don’t get to pick and choose trial dates  Irrespective of who they are, Kenyatta and Ruto are nothing special – they’re just another two criminal defendants.  A person who is on trial murder or any other offence, whoever they are, can’t pick and choose their trial date for their own convenience or for their own business interests – why should these two particular defendants get a special privilege? Silvio Berlusconi was prosecuted by the Italian courts; the slow speed was due to the glacial pace of the Italian legal system rather than him particularly agitating for a special hold-up. The court cases were not done at his convenience.


Coca production can be justified on cultural grounds  Coca chewing is hugely prevalent amongst the peoples of the Andes, and their social relationship with it is akin to that of ours with coffee in Western nations. This is why so many nations in this region cannot and simply will not ever conform to any international ban that calls for phasing it out. The custom of chewing coca leaves may date back as far as 3000 BC in the region, and so hugely pre-dates cocaine consumption, and thus shouldn't be bundled with it or banned on the grounds that cocaine is banned. [1] Coca has also been a vital part of the religious traditions of the Andean peoples from the pre-Inca period through to the present, being used 'to communicate with the supernatural world and obtain its protection, especially with offerings to the Pachamama, the personification and spiritual form of the earth.' [2] All South American countries have signed several declarations by the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) that acknowledged that the chewing of coca leaves is an ancestral cultural expression that should be respected by the international community. [3] The international discouragement of the practice of chewing coca leaves and the prohibition on its use by Andeans when they travel or reside abroad can thus be seen as a violation of their indigenous religious and traditional rights, and therefore is not acceptable on a moral level.  [1] Morales, Evo. “Let Me Chew My Coca Leaves”. New York Times. March 13, 2009.   [2] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006.   [3] Jelsma, Martin. “Lifting the Ban on Coca Chewing”. Transnational Institute, Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies Nr. 11. March 2011.


Coca chewing is not equivalent to the consumption of hard drugs. It is no more harmful than drinking coffee.  The coca leaf, in its natural state, is not even a narcotic, even though the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs considers the natural leaf to be so. However it only truly becomes a narcotic when the paste or the concentrate is extracted from the leaf to form cocaine. [1] The simple coca leaf, by contrast, only has very mild effects when chewed and is different from cocaine. In 1995 the World Health Organisation found that the “use of coca leaves appears to have no negative health effects and has positive therapeutic, sacred and social functions for indigenous Andean populations.” [2] It may even be useful in combating obesity, and there is no evidence that coca use is addictive. At worst, it is comparable to caffeine in terms of its effect on its consumer. [3] Therefore there are no significant health reasons behind this ban on the cultivation of coca leaves for their chewed consumption in its traditional form.  [1] Morales, Evo. “Let Me Chew My Coca Leaves”. New York Times. March 13, 2009.   [2] Jelsma, Martin. “Lifting the Ban on Coca Chewing”. Transnational Institute, Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies Nr. 11. March 2011.  [3] Morales, Evo. “Let Me Chew My Coca Leaves”. New York Times. March 13, 2009.


Legal coca cultivation would enhance economic growth in developing states  Millions of people in South America chew coca leaves, so this practice cannot simply be wished away. [1] Moreover, it currently acts as a vital income source in many impoverished areas of the Andes. Pasquale Quispe, 53, owner of a 7.4-acre Bolivian coca farm, explained to the New York Times in 2006: “Coca is our daily bread, what gives us work, what gives us our livelihood.” [2] Previous attempts to eradicate coca cultivation in Bolivia harmed the poorest farmers there and led to significant social unrest. [3] When it is allowed, however, coca cultivation can actually have economic benefits. Peasant cultivators in the Andes have indicated their belief that coca chewing helps increase production in agriculture, fisheries and mining. [4] The legalization of coca cultivation globally would allow for the expansion of these economic benefits. The coca leaf may have uses as a stimulant and flavouring agent in drinks (in which it is currently used to a limited extent in the West), but also in the expansion of the many domestic products currently in use in the Andes, including syrups, teas, shampoo and toothpaste. It may also have a use as a general anaesthetic. [5] Only the legalization of its cultivation globally will allow these product and economic potentials to be fully realized and allow humanity to reap the full rewards of the coca plant, rather than simply being limited by the fear and stigma surrounding its illegal use in cocaine.  [1] Morales, Evo. “Let Me Chew My Coca Leaves”. New York Times. March 13, 2009.   [2] Forero, Juan. “Bolivia's Knot: No to Cocaine, but Yes to Coca”. New York Times. February 12, 2006.   [3] Forero, Juan. “Bolivia's Knot: No to Cocaine, but Yes to Coca”. New York Times. February 12, 2006.   [4] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006.   [5] Transnational Institute Debate Papers. “Coca yes, cocaine, no?”. Transnational Institute. No. 2006/2. No. 13. May 2006.


Legalising coca production would undemine the wider war on the drugs economy  The UN International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) said in 2011 that exceptions for Bolivia would undermine international narcotics control efforts: “[Allowing coca] would undermine the integrity of the global drug control system, undoing the good work of governments over many years.” [1] A US official said in January of 2011: “there is evidence to suggest that a substantial percentage” of the increased coca production in Bolivia over the past several years, registered in U.N. surveys, “has indeed gone into the network and the marketplace for cocaine.” [2] These examples thus show that legalizing coca cultivation would undermine the wider war on drugs, because it shifts the policy away from one of eradicating crops which could be turned into narcotics and instead turns towards making them acceptable on the global market. It encourages countries to take eradication efforts less seriously, and seemingly undermines the commitment of the international community to the war on drugs, once it gives in on this narcotic. This will make not just cocaine but many other drugs more widely available, leading to even more ruined lives through drug abuse.  [1] M&C News. “Bolivia undermines global anti-drug efforts, UN warns”. M&C News. Jul 5, 2011.   [2] Associated Press. “U.S. to fight Bolivia on allowing coca-leaf chewing”. The Portland Press Herald. January 19 2011.


Coca chewing is harmful and should be proscribed  The original decision to ban coca chewing was based on evidence that this was indeed harmful to human health. A 1950 report elaborated by the UN Commission of Inquiry on the Coca Leaf with a mandate from ECOSOC states that: "We believe that the daily, inveterate use of coca leaves by chewing ... is thoroughly noxious and therefore detrimental." [1] Therefore the risk of health harms should not be dismissed or undermined. Coca is also different to caffeine and other similar products in in its capacity to be diverted to highly potent, dangerous, and damaging use in cocaine. Therefore it has unique health considerations which make its prohibition acceptable.  [1] Jelsma, Martin. “Lifting the Ban on Coca Chewing”. Transnational Institute, Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies Nr. 11. March 2011.


Unrestricted Coca production would increase the availability of cocaine  Cocaine can be readily extracted from the coca leaf. In 1992 the World Health Organization’s Expert Committee on Drug Dependence (ECDD) undertook a ‘prereview’ of coca leaf at its 28th meeting. The 28th ECDD report concluded that, “the coca leaf is appropriately scheduled [as a narcotic] under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, since cocaine is readily extractable from the leaf.” [1] The active ingredient in coca leaf is the same as in cocaine, just more concentrated. Because the raw material of coca and its more potent relative cocaine are so closely aligned, it is impossible to disassociate the two, and so any attempt to consider cocaine a narcotic and stop its spread must also forbid coca. Globally, cocaine is also most produced where coca is legal, and this is a clear correlation. In Bolivia, coca eradication efforts in the 1980s and 90s helped reduce cocaine production. However, as Evo Morales took power and legalized coca production and consumption, cocaine production has shot up, despite his efforts to fight cocaine production. [2] Thus legalizing coca makes it easier for cocaine producers to operate. Legalizing the cultivation of the coca leaf would therefore simply make cocaine more readily available, thus increasing all the harms that come with widespread cocaine use in society.  [1] Jelsma, Martin. “Lifting the Ban on Coca Chewing”. Transnational Institute, Series on Legislative Reform of Drug Policies Nr. 11. March 2011.  [2] Forero, Juan. “Bolivia's Knot: No to Cocaine, but Yes to Coca”. New York Times. February 12, 2006.


Juries need to have all the information possible in order to reach a fair verdict.  It is nonsensical to withhold evidence from a jury that might be necessary for them to reach an accurate verdict. Just because their verdict might be more prone to conviction rather than acquittal does not necessarily mean that this is an unfair or even inaccurate conclusion; given that violent offenders are likely to re-offend [1] , it may illuminate the truth rather than confuse it. Jurors should be allowed to weigh the relevance of previous convictions and compare them with the accusations of the trail at hand. A criminal justice system which currently relies on the ability of the jury to make a decision [2] cannot legitimately choose to withhold evidence from them without innately biasing the trial itself. As the UK Government’s White Paper states, ‘we want less evidence to be withheld from the courts, on the principle that relevant evidence should be admissible . . . magistrates, judges and juries have the common sense to evaluate relevant evidence and should be trusted to do so’ [3] . If we cannot trust juries to decide which evidence is relevant to the verdict and which is not, then the entire use of juries in the criminal justice system should be reconsidered.  [1] CBC News, ‘Getting out of prison’, March 2008.  [2] Direct Gov, ‘Jury service – what happens in court and after the trial’, 10 October 2011.  [3] CPS, ‘Justice for all’, The Stationary Office, July 2002.


Occasional disclosure of convictions leads to an inconsistent justice system.  At present in Britain, some previous convictions may be disclosed if they bear a striking resemblance to the case at trial, if the defendant falsely claims to be of good character, or if they attack the character of a prosecution witness [1] . However, different judges invariable interpret these criteria in different ways, which leads to a wavering standard of trail where previous convictions may or may not be revealed. It would be much more efficient and transparent to allow this motion and make court procedures more accessible.  [1] The Economist, ‘Tilting the balance’, 2 January 2003.


The current system is unfairly weighted in favour of criminals.  It is unfair that those who repeatedly re-offend should be treated in the same manner as those who have committed one offence; a singular offence could mark a mistake or accident in the defendant’s choices, but repeated criminal acts mark a habit and a lack of regret for past crimes. Failing to take past convictions into account can lead to many dangerous offenders being underestimated by the jury, and so released. This is particularly pertinent in cases of child molestation, where child molesters have a particularly high rate of re-offending – expected to be even ‘larger than the reported 50 per cent’ - but ‘only a small proportion of sexual offences against children result in a conviction’. This conviction rate, however, does rise for ‘those with a history of prior sexual offences’ [1] .  Under the current conditions, this system is unfairly weighted against the innocent victims of repeated crime. A higher conviction rate, informed by the knowledge of previous offences, helps to reach justice for these victims and their families, as well as promoting justice and the safety of the general public who find it frustrating that so many dangerous offenders are released without appropriate conviction [2] . Moreover, jurors themselves lose confidence in the justice system when they find out that they have just acquitted a defendant who has committed a similar crime before. One notable example of this was series of trials of Kirk Reid, who committed many sexual assaults against women including several instances of rape and who was ‘wrongfully acquitted’ of his first offence in 1996. Not only did his victim lose all sense of hope in the justice system – she had faced her attacked and been discredited – but one of the jurors at the trial who believed that he was guilty went on to criticise the justice system itself [3] . The current system seriously risks acquitting criminals who have already committed similar crimes; it is time to rebalance the justice system to acknowledge the needs of the victims who suffer through wrongful acquittal of their attackers.  [1] Victims of Violence, ‘Research – Protecting Children from Sexual Abuse’, 28 February 2011  [2] Hughes, David, ‘Sex offenders to lose right to get out of jail early’, The Daily Mail  [3] Lette, Kathy, ‘For sexual assault, justice is on trial’, The Guardian, 1 July 2010


Jurors are already aware of information which might ‘bias’ their verdict.  Jurors are frequently affected by media coverage of particular cases, which makes it almost impossible for them to remain impartial in the idealistic way which opposition naively believes possible. This creates a situation where the jury may be more affected by information which they have found out elsewhere – for example on the news or in newspapers – than the information which is presented to them in court. There have been some cases where jurors search the internet to find the backgrounds to their cases, despite the fact that this is not allowed [1] . This evidently reflects that jurors feel that they have not been adequately informed and so seek facts elsewhere. Given that this need has been reflected by the jurors themselves, the court should give jurors all possible information and bring previous convictions into the open to ensure that they can base their verdict on reliable fact presented in court rather than resorting to sensationalist media.  [1] Attorney General’s Office, ‘Juror convicted for internet research’, 23 January 2012.


Defendants who are innocent will be protected  This motion could allow innocent defendants to mount a stronger case. This is because, if allowed, the previous convictions of prosecution witnesses would be admitted as evidence. In this case, if a prosecution witness falsely claims good character in opposition to the defendant, any falsity could be more easily seen and weighed by the jury. This solves a problem under that status quo where ‘the threat of introducing his [the defendant’s] previous convictions will frequently inhibit him from introducing character evidence about the prosecution witness’ [1] ; fear that the defendant’s convictions may weigh against them where the prosecution witness remains untouchable creates a discrepancy in the justice system. However, if convictions on both sides were to be revealed anyway, then neither can falsely claim the character of the other and attempt to convince the jury of false information on this front.  [1] CPS, ‘Justice for all’, The Stationary Office, July 2002.


We already recognise that we cannot place complete trust in juries.  Although we recognise that juries can provide valuable insight and represent the will of the general public in court cases [1] (and especially the communities in which the crimes occurred [2] ), there is also recognition that juries can be subject to bias [3] . Britain has even suggested plans to restrict the right to trial by jury in order to prevent undue bias from affecting court cases [4] . Elsewhere, experts are debating over whether jurors should learn about ‘a victim’s sexual history in rape cases where the defendant asserts that the accuser consented to sex, or a victim's propensity for violence in murder cases where the accused claims self-defense’ [5] because of fears that it might cause juror bias. We do not grant ultimate knowledge to jurors, nor should we; it endangers the potential for an unbiased trial.  [1] Lawson Neal, and Simms, Andrew, ‘A People’s Jury of a thousand angry citizens’, The Guardian, 31 July 2011.  [2] New Jersey Courts, ‘Welcome to the New Jersey Court System’, judiciary.state.nj.us, 2011.  [3] Howard Nations, ‘Overcoming Jury Bias’  [4] Davies, Patricia Wynn, ‘Plans to restrict right to trial by jury condemned’, The Independent, 28 February 1997.  [5] Silverglate, Harvey A., and Poulson, Dan, ‘Getting Real at the SJC’, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, 30 May 2005 .


Allowing this motion would lead to a miscarriage of justice.  This motion removes the incentive for police to conduct vigorous investigations. Given the increasing pressure on policemen and women to gain convictions [1] , this motion will mean that their best chance of obtaining those convictions is simply to accuse those whose backgrounds could feasibly lead a jury to believe that they are not only capable of crime, but have committed the crime in question. Subsequently, the real culprits may be left to go free as suspicion is routinely pointed towards those who already have a criminal record. Given that poor police investigation [2] and poor case preparation by the prosecution [3] are currently a large source of dissatisfaction with the justice system, it is important to prevent either police or the prosecution from becoming dependent on the negative records of the defendants rather than properly fulfilling their roles.  [1] Bushywood, ‘CPS - Crown Persecution Service’.  [2] The Guardian, ‘The cost of poor policing’. 11 October 2010  [3] Human Rights Watch, ‘Justice at Risk: War Crimes Trials in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia and Montenegro’, 14 October 2004, D1607.


The disclosure of previous convictions could falsely characterize the defendant.  This motion is incredibly dangerous in a variety of ways as not only convictions but also acquittals and other past conduct could then be raised in a court trials. This means that a jury could be informed that somebody had questionable behaviour, such as a sexual interest in children, even if they had never been tried or much less convicted of an actual offence. This would allow the prosecution to unduly blacken the character of the defendant, and easily prejudice the jury against them for no valid reason, and without the evidence which formal proceedings would require. Studies into jury verdicts have found that a jury was ‘50% more likely to convict if it was told that the defendant had a conviction for a similar previous offence than if it was given no information’, particularly in regard to sexual offences [1] . This is proof that jurors are highly susceptible to prejudice when reaching a verdict.  [1] The Economist, ‘Tilting the balance’, 2 January 2003.


The motion completely undermines the assumption of innocence which accompanies a fair trial.  By projecting past convictions on to a new case, this disclosure greatly weakens the presumption of innocence which is the defendant’s right [1] . It is the jury’s duty to form a verdict based on the relevant case, and it should not be dependent on events from the defendant’s past life which may be completely irrelevant to the case in hand. Many people who mistakenly committed a crime at one point in their life realise that it was a mistake and do not go on to re-offend, particularly if they have received help or treatment from the state [2] . Even if the defendant has repeatedly committed crimes in their past, it does not necessarily follow that they are guilty of the particular offence which has gone to trial.  [1] Criminal Defense Department’ Every person is PRESUMED INNOCENT until Proven Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt’, Parkes Law Group, 6 May 2011  [2] Public Safety Canada, ‘Treatment for sex offenders’, 28 December 2007


Witnesses might be identified and placed in danger  Televising criminal trials may cause a number of problems with witnesses. It may make individuals less likely to give evidence, make them more likely to play to the television audience, or make the already intimidating process of giving evidence in court more so. Also, television broadcasts make it more likely that the identities of anonymized witnesses would leak out – something that has already happened at the ICC in the Ruto-Sang case [1] .  The ICC already has problems with witnesses, including allegations of bribing and intimidating prosecution witnesses in the Ruto case [2] , which has led to Walter Barasa, a Kenyan Journalist, being subject to an arrest warrant [3] . Ending the televising of trials may go some way to remedy those problems.  [1] Lattus, Asumpta, ‘Evenson: ‘First time arrest warrant has been issued in Kenya case’, Deutsche Welle, 2 October 2013,   [2] Stewart, Catrina, ‘ICC on trials along with Kenya’s elite amid claims of bribery and intimidation’, The Guardian, 1 October 2013,   [3] ‘ICC seeks Walter Barasa arrest for Kenya ‘witness tampering’, BBC News, 2 October 2013,


Televising turns justice into entertainment  Broadcasting trials would be likely to turn the court in to entertainment. The Simpson trial showed how harmful a televised high profile trial can be degenerating into a freak show. The ICC trials are among the most high profile in the world so are likely to be susceptible to this. Much of the interest in the SCSL Charles Taylor trial came along when Naomi Campbell gave evidence so giving the trial celebrity interest that had little to do with the legalities involved [1] .  Jurisdictions where cameras are not permitted in courts still can and do have accurate, informative and timely reports of cases, however high profile, without filming them. Courtroom sketches, written transcripts and other tools allow reportage without the use of original footage in a tawdry manner.  [1] Bowcott, Owen, ‘Charles Taylor and the ‘dirty-looking stones’ given to Naomi Campbell’, theguardian.com, 26 April 2012,


Unruly defendants can play up to the cameras  Televising the trial can create extra incentives for defendants to attempt to disrupt the process. During his trial, Saddam Hussein regularly made outbursts and went on political rants – based on Iraqi law, he was able to examine witnesses after his lawyer. This was not new – Slobodan Milosevic tried various antics in front of the (televised) ICTY [1] , and Ratko Mladic used those tactics post-Hussein [2] . Milosevic’s approval ratings grew, and he even won a seat in the Serbian parliament while on trial.  A televised trial creates more of a risk of a political hijacking of the trial – something that has been shown to be a successful tactic by Milosevic. This both potentially damages the successor government by giving those on trial a platform and the court itself.  [1] Scharf, Michael P., Chaos in the Courtroom: Controlling disruptive defendants and contumacious counsel in war crimes trials’, University of Galway  [2] Biles, Peter, ‘Mladic’s courtroom antics’, BBC News, 4 July 2011,


Open justice – crimes with large numbers of victims  The principle of open justice, including the right to a public trial [1] , is enshrined in many legal systems. The best show of commitment to open justice is to allow everyone to watch it, the best method of doing so is for the trial to be televised. This is all the more the case when the victims can't all be in court, either because of the numbers or because of the distance.  Television coverage will help bring the trial closer to the victims. International criminal trials regularly take place outside the location of the offences, either in The Netherlands such as the ICTY, ICC and Charles Taylor trial, or elsewhere, such as the ICTR sitting in Arusha, Tanzania. It would be helpful in terms of providing closure to the victims, who should be witnessing proceedings.  [1] See the 6th Amendment to the US Constitution, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights


Broadcasting provides a public record  Unlike many other criminal trials, since Nuremberg a key principle of International Criminal Law is that it aims to set a historical record. The events that it deals with are important as they are heinous crimes that change regions forever. A trial helps to get to the bottom of events that happened preventing there being multiple conflicting versions of events. This record also can help to act as a deterrent to others considering similar measures.  Broadcasting the trial will bolster this record by providing footage of the trial itself (which may reduce myths about it being unfair, for example) and providing a voice to the victims through their evidence, in their own words, being recorded for posterity and future study.


ICC does not have same problems as other legal systems  The ICC as a court does not have many of the things that a domestic criminal trial would have in terms of disadvantages of televising. Like all other international tribunals, there is no jury, only a panel of professional judges. Judges are going to be less intimidated by there being television broadcasts even if broadcasts of trials typically aim to obscure the identity of the jury. Similarly, there is a competent system of witness protection, and other safeguards.


Handguns are uniquely dangerous when compared with other weapons  Handguns are specifically worse than most other weapons. They are weapons which are both concealable and portable. Shotguns and Rifles can easily be identified from a long distance making it easier to avoid those who are carrying them or conversely for the authorities check their motives for carrying arms. Handguns, being ranged weapons (as opposed to knives), prevent people from opting to run away if they are confronted by an attacker and being concealable prevent any attempt at avoiding those carrying them.  Because of these unique capabilities they make excellent weapons for gang members who wish to remain inconspicuous to avoid being searched by the police. Further, they are also uniquely useful for other criminal actors such as drug dealers who need to be able to protect themselves, but also need to appear unassuming for clients.  As such, handguns, where they are freely available, are often used by most criminals for these purposes. Given that handguns are also more likely to cause accidental injuries- as a result of incompetence or recklessness- than a knife, it seems logical that handguns cause a much larger harm to citizens in places where they are freely available.4


Individuals Should Not Have the Right to Bear Arms in DC  Under the status quo the state exists to protect the security of its citizens. It does so by maintaining a monopoly of violence with the consent of its citizens. US citizens have been allowed to bear small arms as a symbolic representation of their ability to rise up against state oppression should it ever occur. That is, to keep a check and balance upon the monopoly of violence that the state has.  It is important to note that the state has the monopoly of violence such that it can protect its citizens in the best possible way. In the same way, the right to bear arms exists such that citizens can protect themselves and prevent harm. This means that should the state visit harm upon the citizens of the state then its right to claim a monopoly on violence is revoked and the citizens can fight against the state.  In a similar fashion to the above, should the citizens of the state use their right to bear arms to visit harm upon one another, it seems reasonable that in the same way that the state’s monopoly on violence is revoked, the citizens should have their right to bear arms revoked.  Given that this does not occur in every single part of the U.S. it also seems reasonable to isolate the ban to areas where the spirit of the right to bear arms is being significantly violated. In this case the ban is limited to DC however it could potentially extend to other areas in the U.S. which suffer similar problems.2


A handgun ban reduces crime and deaths  Aside from the fact that handguns are uniquely dangerous weapons, when the handgun ban was in place in DC, there was a reported decrease in crime in the area. In 1977 the year immediately following the ban the U.S. Conference of Mayors reported robberies, assaults and homicides using handguns had fallen in DC sharply. Further, in 1991 the University of Maryland published a study in the New England journal of Medicine suggesting the gun ban had saved lives in the decade before 1991, claiming that the ban had prevented 47 deaths in DC per year.5  It is theorised that the handgun ban does this because it makes other police tactics, such as stop and search, significantly more effective. If criminals wish to get the tactical advantage of power that opposition mention then they have to carry hand guns in order to do it. However, it means that if they are caught with a gun they become very easily identifiable and can easily be arrested to prevent harm coming to the populace of large. Specifically, the handgun ban means that the police have a much lower burden required in order to arrest suspects and given that a lot of the time the police have a strong idea of who the criminals are, but simply can’t pin them for arrest, such a tactical advantage helps them get dangerous people off the street.


Handguns are Required For Symbolic Reasons As A Defence Against the State Monopoly of Power  Handguns are legal in the U.S. for symbolic reasons. In Justice Scalla’s oral argument he stated “isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons -- that was the way militias were destroyed. The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”9 Guns are necessary to prevent the disarming of the people and as a statement that the citizens of the U.S. are allowed to stand up against the state.  In the formation of the state, the citizens of the state give up their freedoms and their ability to do violence upon each other in favour a state monopoly on violence. The implication is that the state, through this monopoly on violence, then prevents citizens from doing violence against one another.  However, it is possible for the state to use its monopoly on physical force in a reckless or subversive fashion. This means that the citizens should always be able to reassert the primacy of their rights and independence over the state, should the state begin to deviate from its mandated role as protector of those rights.  The right to carry firearms is part of this ability to assert one’s power over the state. However, as the state has become more powerful, ownership of small arms has become an increasingly symbolic gesture. Taking away the right to bear arms from any American is thus harmful, as it removes the symbol that the state’s power is not absolute and that ultimately the state is subservient to its people.10


The DC Handgun ban is inconsistent with other legislation in the U.S.  A change in legislation in DC that is markedly different from everywhere else in the U.S. is harmful. Whilst the constitution might be amended to give a specific change for DC, the rest of the U.S. will still be able to bear arms. The point of the American constitution is that it is meant to give an even field to all citizens under the law. Minor differences between people within different states is acceptable; owing to specific needs of specific states and all state legislation must be proved to be constitutional anyway. This difference is specifically problematic because of the nature of its interactions with both the constitution and the law.  This change is harmful because the state is dependent upon consistency within the law and perception of the law as being a fair mechanism for all people. Large inconsistencies within the law should not be tolerated as such inconsistencies often bring into debate the legitimacy of the state’s legal code. This is problematic as such debates and inconsistencies can lead to confusion about the reach of the law as well as doubt in the legitimacy of the law. The law is dependent upon citizens understanding and subscribing to the legal code, otherwise legal systems might suffer from problems such as people simply not reporting crime to the police owing to their doubt in the legal system and its ability to protect them, or otherwise law abiding citizens from other areas of the country inadvertently breaking the law by bringing guns into D.C.


Hand Guns Are Required For Self Defence.  Under the status quo handguns are legal. This means that should a criminal initially wish to consider mugging someone he has to consider the possibility that he might be shot should he choose to take this action. A visceral fear of death and injury means that a significant number of criminals will be deterred from engaging in burglaries, violent robberies or muggings if they suspect that they might face armed resistance. As such the presence of handguns within a community contributes to the general deterrence of crime within that community.7  Secondly, should someone try to attack someone else with a handgun, if the other person is armed then they are in a much better position to negotiate with their attacker and prevent harm to either party. Creating a public culture in which handguns are held and used sensibly, and in which firearms training is widely available, allows a parity of power to be created between ordinary citizens and criminals. However, this parity of power is changed in favour of the defender. This is because there are more law abiding citizens than criminals. If the mugger is caught by another citizen then it is possible that citizen will also have a handgun leading to a situation where the mugger will likely be arrested or risk death.8  Finally, the normalisation of handguns in society means that people are less likely to panic should they be attacked by a mugger who has one. Deaths from mugging can often be caused by the victim simply panicking in response to the mugger. Shots are often fired by desperate and unstable assailants who are unprepared for their victim’s reaction. In a society acclimatised to handguns and aware of the risk they present, incidents of this type- fuelled by panic, uncertainty and fear- are much less likely to occur.


Democracies have an obligation to shield these people and to encourage further dissent  The universality of human rights, of the freedom of speech and of due process is all touted as crucial by the world’s democracies. Democratic countries are frequently vocal on the subject of liberty, on the superiority of their system of government that provides for the best protection of human dignity. By offering amnesty to bloggers, the people standing at the forefront of the democratic cause in oppressive regimes, Western countries take a largely low-cost action that provides for the security and safety of some the bravest people in the public arena. The West must stop kowtowing to oppression and make a stand to offer an umbrella of protection to those who need it. That protection is absolutely crucial to the development of more dissent in the blogosphere and on the ground. Only by nurturing dissent can it ever take root and overcome the vast powers of authoritarian government. The promise of protection is hugely powerful because it gives bloggers a safety net to fall back on. Those already active will feel more empowered to speak out against their oppressors, and some currently cowed by fear will have the courage to speak up. The guarantee of amnesty also removes the perceived randomness of such offerings that currently occur, as in the recent case of Cuba in which two bloggers of similar pedigree asked for asylum in the US, but only one received it. [1] Such inconsistency has bred fear in the minds of dissidents. This policy would correct for it and help bolster the cause of justice on all fronts. It is through offering amnesty that democracies can provide the catalyst for the change they avow to be the paramount aim of human civilization.  [1] Fox News Latino. “Cuba: Prominent Blogger-Dissidents Receive Contradictory Results on Visa Petitions”. 31 January 2013.


These people are under serious threat for their pursuit of justice  The internet has become the paramount means of voicing dissent within repressive regimes. As the technology regimes have to keep control of their people increases, with access to high-tech surveillance technology adding to their already formidable arsenals of physical oppression, the internet has become the only platform to express meaningful dissent. The Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia, for example, wherein people mobilized to overthrow their dictator has even been dubbed the Twitter Revolution. [1] Bloggers have become a major voice of dissent in other repressive regimes, including Cuba and China. Yet the blog platform is far from safe. Governments have sought to crack down on bloggers’ ability to dissent, using draconian methods like imprisonment to cow them into silence. In China the arrests of bloggers like Zhai Xiaobing, who was arrested and detained for simply posting a joke about Communist Party, have served to frighten many into silence. [2] So long as information is denied to the public, governments are able to maintain their repression. Only external help from democratic, or at least more liberal, states can provide the safe haven for people who have rubbed their governments the wrong way in their pursuit of reform and justice.  [1] Zuckerman, E. “The First Twitter Revolution?”. Foreign Policy. 14 January 2011.   [2] Wong, G. “Zhai Xiaobing, Chinese Blogger, Arrested for Twitter Joke About China’s Government”. Huffington Post. 21 November 2012.


This offer of amnesty serves as a powerful public statement in favour of free speech and rule of law  In offering amnesty Western governments make an exceptionally powerful public statement in the international arena, an area in which they already hold great sway as norm-setters. It is a statement that shows that they will not simply ignore the abuses of power used by repressive regimes to stifle dissent and the voices of reform. [1] Ultimately, the power of oppressors to act with impunity is the product of democracies’ unwillingness to challenge them. Authoritarian regimes often claim to value freedom of the press, for example article 35 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China guarantees it, [2] and this policy challenges them to make their practice more like what they preach. A policy of amnesty for those threatened with the lash of tyranny serves to actively protect those people while at the same time upholding the avowed principles of justice and fairness the West proclaims. This will show that the West does not play favourites or turn a blind eye to these repressions, but is an active player, willing to step in to shield those who share its dreams of a freer world. The international ridicule these policies can generate will serve to shame regimes into relaxing their policies and to embrace at least a road to reform. Nor should it be assumed that this rhetoric will have no real consequences, many authoritarian regimes encourage investment by companies from democratic countries, such investment is less likely when that company’s home state is publically condemning that state by granting amnesties to dissident bloggers.  [1] Clinton, H. “Conference on Internet Freedom”. U.S. Department of State, 8 December 2011.   [2] Fifth National People’s Congress, “Constitution of the People’s Republic of China”, 4 December 1982,


The liberal democratic paradigm is not the only legitimate model of government, a fact that democracies should accept and embrace  Ultimately, states’ laws have to be respected. Liberal democracy has not proven to be the end of history as Fukuyama suggested, but is rather one robust system of government among many. China has become the example of a state-led capitalist model that relies on a covenant with the people fundamentally different from that between democratic governments and their citizens. [1] Chinas ruling communist party has legitimacy as a result of its performance and its role in modernising the country. [2] China’s people have accepted a trade-off; economic growth and prosperity in exchange for their liberties. When dissidents challenge this paradigm, the government becomes aggrieved and seeks to re-establish its power and authority. If the dissidents are breaking that country’s laws then the state has every right to punish them. Singapore similarly has an authoritarian version of democracy that delivers an efficient, peaceful state at the expense of constraints on the ability to criticise the government. [3] This collective model of rights has no inherent value that is lesser to that of the civil liberties-centric model of liberal democracy. In the end, as the geopolitical map becomes complicated with different versions of governance, states must learn to live with one another. The problem of offering amnesty to bloggers is that democracies and the West seek to enforce their paradigm onto that of states that differ. This will engender resentment and conflict. The world economy and social system relies on cooperation, trade, and peace. The difference between systems and cultures should be celebrated rather than simply assuming that there is only one true model and all others are somehow inferior.  [1] Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J. “Is State Capitalism Winning?”. Project Syndicate. 31 December 2012.   [2] Li, Eric X, “The Life of the Party”, Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013,   [3] Henderson, Drew, “Singapore suppresses dissident” Yale Daily News, 5 November 2010,