Militarism Neg Framework



Download 232.64 Kb.
Page2/7
Date31.05.2016
Size232.64 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7

Counterplans


1NC – Development PIC

___ and I affirm the entirety of the 1AC except for their affirmation of ocean development.

Ocean development results in ecological destruction—the liberal discourse of the 1AC fails to recognize the inherent complexity and ignorance of our relation to the ocean

Deuchars, Victoria University of Wellington International Business Professor, 2013

[Robert, 2013, Victoria University of Wellington, “Governmentality and Risk: Managing ‘Ocean Space’,” http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10063/3336/thesis.pdf?sequence=2, p. 23-24, 7/12/14, IC]

The purpose of this essay was to look at an aspect of ocean management in general and in particular the institution that was brought into being by the Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean, the SPFRMO, which is one of the world’s Regional Fisheries Management Organisations responsible for the South Pacific Ocean. I have argued that to attempt to get a clear understanding of the purpose and function of such regimes it would be necessary to look at three inter-related areas; the first of being, the second of knowing and the third of discourse. To that end I introduced a theoretical framework drawn primarily from the neo-marxism of the Frankfurt School and what some might label the poststructuralist thought of Michel Foucault in general and his notion of governmentality in particular. I also suggested that some engagement with the physical sciences was necessary to understand the nexus between international environmental law and ocean space which I depicted as a complex adaptive system.

I situated this legal regime within a slightly broader context of science, the philosophy of science, technology, political economy and nation-state interests. One of the interesting aspects of marine ‘management’ is its inherent complexity, the fact that the ocean space as a system is a complex adaptive one and that our knowledge of it is meagre. Despite this clearly demonstrable ignorance, we have developed techniques that have the potential to cause irreparable damage to the fragile marine ecosystem and produce unintended consequences long into the future due to the fact that all complex systems display emergent properties.

I looked specifically at article 17 of the Convention and argued that although it can be viewed as an improvement, I do not view this improvement to be of material significance, given the real world consequences on fishing stocks and the discourse that surrounds them. In that sense I have come to the conclusion that the South Pacific Ocean cannot be managed under the dominant ways of being and knowing as the notion that it can via a regime premised on a legal convention, supported by an administrative and scientific apparatus is erroneous. From a long line of critical theory I have suggested that the convention, the idea of management with attendant notions of modernist managerialism and a culturally liberalist discourse will produce the effects and outcomes that we have before us, namely the devastation of marine life in the Southern Pacific Ocean and the continued over-exploitation of the remaining fishing stock, despite binding compliance measures. The SPFRMO is at present locked into a calculative discursive regime and a predominantly positivist problem-solving approach to ocean space. Lest this be too gloomy a conclusion I have also suggested that softer aspects of the law such as voluntary compliance with international environmental legal rules and regimes is not only possible, but with some imagination and political will, capable of expanding.57

2NC – Development PIC


This managerialism recreates and strengthens biopolitical control of the oceans and indigenous peoples—turns the case

Deuchars, Victoria University of Wellington International Business Professor, 2013

[Robert, 2013, Victoria University of Wellington, “Governmentality and Risk: Managing ‘Ocean Space’,” http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10063/3336/thesis.pdf?sequence=2, p. 12-13, 7/12/14, IC]

This shift away from sovereignty as the guiding principle or expression of power in the international realm can be seen in the current context. To be sure, the state and its importance is not underestimated; rather it is suggestive that a model of power that only gives the state primacy is limited and that power should be conceived of as extending well beyond the agency of the state and into the realm of other agents. In this sense Foucault highlights the limits of the sovereignty model of power and suggests that governance extends well beyond the state to include mundane processes and practices, the establishment of conventions and to use an example in this context the formalisation of institutions with expert bodies tasked with deriving the appropriate facts to be brought to bear on particular problems. These mundane practices of course include coding, classification and most importantly calculative practices. Immediately we can see the link between fisheries management in the form of total allowable catch (TAC) and how Foucault would describe it as a technology of power, although he would much later shift his position to suggest that the panoply of calculative practices were more indicative of a control function rather than one of domination.

So it should come as no surprise that the SPRFMO when viewed through the lenses of governmentality is formalised at the institutional level, has a secretariat, is tied to the disciplines of academia in the form of a scientific committee and exercises its compliance measures and objection procedures through expert knowledge, both in the form of normal science and modernist managerialism. In this sense the SPRFMO is tied into a model of governance that has been replicated on a global scale. This however, is not to suggest, that it is all malign and planned for the purpose of pure control. Rather it is more suggestive of a normalising discourse that has globalising tendencies as pointed out by Fisher when discussing ‘ecological governmentality’, who notes that:

These dominant global discourses can be co-opted by the state in advancing the goals of ‘ecological governmentality’; that is, these discourses are used through state agency as a means of gaining control and regulating the social life of both individuals and nature.28

In this sense nature and in this case the oceans are analogous to Foucault’s ‘docile bodies’.29 They are situated within a particular framework of thinking and are framed as passive and in a similar manner to Fisher’s discussion of the application of ecological governmentality to indigenous peoples in Brazil the world’s oceans and the life-forms that inhabit them are similarly idealized as ‘nature’, and concomitant to this idea is that they are passive actors in a game of dominant discourses whereby ‘Idealized transnational environmental narratives often then converge and conflict with other dominant global discourses, such as globalization, neoliberalism, modernization, and sustainability, creating contestable grounds for multifarious interpretations of nature, often with significant consequences for local peoples’.30



1NC – Employment CP

Text: The United States federal government should end discriminatory employment policies against the Chagossians on Diego Garcia.

CP is better for the Chagossians—allows for employment and contact with the outside world

Vine, American University Anthropology Associate Professor, and Jeffrey, University of Edinburgh Lecturer and ESRC Research Fellow, 2009

[David & Laura, 2009, Trans National Institute, edited by Catherine Lutz, “”Give Us Back Diego Garcia”: Unity and Division among Activists in the Indian Ocean,” in The Bases of Empire: The Global Struggle against U.S. Military Posts, p.197, 7/13/14, IC]

Other Chagossians are more tolerant or even supportive of the base. While the CSC opposes the base, the CRG’s position, despite its opposition to the current war in Iraq, is, according to Bancoult, that “we have no problem with the military base on Diego Garcia.” Some are even proud of the role Diego Garcia plays militarily, including one young activist who said, “I firmly believe that the construction of this military base was a must for the world’s protection against terrorism and any other mischievous enemy” (Ramdas 2003).

The Chagossians’ positions on the base must be understood within the context of their struggle to return and gain compensation. Many (mostly men) have been interested in working on the baseand thus finding one way to return to their homeland – since the base began employing non-U.S. or -U.K. support personnel. Because discriminatory policies have barred Chagossians from working on the island25 (Bowman and Lefebvre 1985:28), the CRG’s U.S. suit has made an end to this discrimination one of its claims. Others see the base as essential to any resettlement effort, both as a source of employment and, given that it provides the only runways in the archipelago, as a regular air link with the outside world.



Turn—Chagossians want the base—this is the only evidence that is comparative between Chagossian and Mauritian viewpoints

Vine, American University Anthropology Associate Professor, and Jeffrey, University of Edinburgh Lecturer and ESRC Research Fellow, 2009

[David & Laura, 2009, Trans National Institute, edited by Catherine Lutz, “”Give Us Back Diego Garcia”: Unity and Division among Activists in the Indian Ocean,” in The Bases of Empire: The Global Struggle against U.S. Military Posts, p.204-205, 7/13/14, IC]

We want to close this base down,” Lindsey Collen wrote for Lalit in an open letter to the people of the United Kingdom and the United States, days after the United States began bombing Afghanistan from Diego Garcia. “We want the terrible emptiness of the tarmac runways out! And the concrete docks out! We want the emptiness of all the military hardware out, too” (Collen 2002:224–229).

Having played an active role in the Chagossians’ strikes of 1978 and 1981–1982, Lalit portrays Diego Garcia as emblematic of its campaigns for decolonization, demilitarization, and human rights.37 On these and other issues, including the maintenance of the Mauritian social welfare system, workers’ and women’s rights, and education for the poor, the party has been a consistent (if relatively marginalized) leftist voice in Mauritian politics for three decades. Since the strikes of the early 1980s, there has been occasional collaboration between Lalit and Chagossians (the CRG in particular), with the party actively supporting the right of return and reparations (Lalit 2002). Lalit has long campaigned for the closure of the base and the return of Chagos to Mauritian control (Lalit 1986:4,15; Lalit 1987:8,19; Lalit 2002:9; Lallah 2002:64–65; Subron 2002).

In 1998, Lalit and the CRG jointly initiated the Rann Nu Diego Committee, aimed at unifying their struggles under a single platform. Notably, the platform was shaped largely by Lalit and other Mauritian organizations and prioritized closing the base and regaining sovereignty ahead of Chagossians’ claims. The platform’s description of Chagossians as “Mauritians of Chagossian origin” likewise represents a refusal to recognize them as an indigenous people, instead defining them as, first and foremost, Mauritians who happen to have been born in Chagos.

Tensions between Lalit and Chagossians have become more overt at times because of their divergent stances on Mauritian sovereignty and the base (Jeffery 2006; Jeffery 2007). In early 2003, Lalit mobilized Mauritian organizations opposed to the invasion of Iraq for an anti-war demonstration and invited the CRG to participate. Relations soured when the CRG declined, having decided that it was neither anti-American nor opposed to the U.S. base. The CRG increasingly distanced itself from Lalit’s opposition to the base, and began to stress instead its claims for an end to employment discrimination there. It insisted that, in the event of resettlement, the base should remain as an important source of employment and logistical support.

1NC – European Courts CP

Text: The European Court of Human Rights should declare the decision in Chagos Islanders v. the United Kingdom void and rule in accordance to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The decision was inconsistent with the European Convention’s purpose—justifies exploitation

Grandison, American University Washington College of Law UNROW Human Rights Impact Litigation Clinic member, et al. 2013

[Claire, & Seema Niki Kadaba & Andy Woo, American University Washington College of Law UNROW Human Rights Impact Litigation Clinic members, 2013, “Stealing the Islands of Chagos: Another Forgotten Story of Colonial Injustice,” Human Rights Brief, 20:3, 7/9/14, p.40, IC]

Second, UNROW contends that when the Court denied the applicants victim status by giving undue deference to the Chagossians’ supposed waiver of their right to pursue claims against the U.K. government, the Court acted inconsistent with the European Convention’s purpose of protecting and defending fundamental rights and freedoms. The Court upheld the validity of the renunciation forms some of the Chagossians signed in the Ventacassen settlement even though many of the signers were, in the words of the ECtHR, “illiterate, Creole-speaking and vulnerable and did not appreciate what they were signing.”36 The Court deferred to the U.K. High Court’s earlier rejection of the Chaggosians’ arguments, despite the High Court’s recognition that many of the Chagossians were illiterate, “lacked significant education,” and that “[l]egal concepts were, not surprisingly, poorly understood.”37 By refusing to evaluate the validity of the Chagossians’ waiver of their rights, the Court opened the door for future groups to take advantage of vulnerable populations. UNROW advocates for a more thorough evaluation of whether the Chagossians’ waiver was knowing and intelligent.

Following the Declaration is an effective standard for protecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples

Grandison, American University Washington College of Law UNROW Human Rights Impact Litigation Clinic member, et al. 2013

[Claire, & Seema Niki Kadaba & Andy Woo, American University Washington College of Law UNROW Human Rights Impact Litigation Clinic members, 2013, “Stealing the Islands of Chagos: Another Forgotten Story of Colonial Injustice,” Human Rights Brief, 20:3, 7/9/14, p.41, IC]

UNROW also uses impact litigation and advocacy to strengthen compliance with international law. In that capacity, UNROW argues that the Court in the present case would better serve its role in defending vicims by providing the Chagossians the special protection developed under international law to protect indigenous peoples, as the Chagossians are the native inhabitants of the Chagos Islands.40 International law, specifically the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the work of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination as expressed in General Recommendation XXIII on Indigenous Peoples, has widely recognized the rights of indigenous peoples.41 In 2007, the United Nations adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Declaration).42 Notably, 143 states, including the U.K., voted in favor of the Declaration.43 Although the Declaration is not legally binding, it serves as a benchmark for customary international law, and as “a guide for the actions of the international human rights treaty bodies.”44 The Declaration includes the “right not to be forcibly removed from land or territories” and “the right to redress for lands, territories, and resources which have been taken.”45 UNROW asserts that these principles of international law would be effective guides for the Court to develop its jurisprudence toward indigenous peoples.

The Court had persuasive authority for interpretion of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in the work of other regional courts, which have issued decisions that offer a differing representation of these developing international norms. For example, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), another regional human rights court that can hear individual petitions against a state, has incorporated the Declaration in its jurisprudence to provide indigenous peoples the special rights required under customary international law.46 The IACtHR has read Article 21 of the American Convention on Human Rights to recognize the “close relationship between indigenous people and their lands,” and has expanded on this to protect the rights of indigenous people, despite the lack of a clear statement of what those rights entail under the American Convention.47 In Kichwa People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, the IACtHR found that “the Ecuadorian state violated the [Sarayaku Indigenous] community’s right to be consulted, as well as their community property rights and their cultural identity.”48 The IACtHR’s ruling was based in part on the right to property laid out in the American Convention on Human Rights, which states, “No one shall be deprived of his property except upon payment of just compensation, for reasons of public utility or social interest, and . . . according to the forms established by law.”49 The European Convention provides an almost identical right to property and thus the IACtHR standards would provide an effective template for interpretation of customary international law.50



By incorporating the specicial protection that international law affords indigenous peoples in its jurisprudence, the ECtHR would ensure that Chagossians and other indigenous groups have access to redress for the full extent of the harm inflicted against them. Similar to the IACtHR, the ECtHR has the responsibilty to recognize the importance of indigenous communities’ right to be consulted and communaly owned property.51 Expanding the ECtHR’s current interpretation of property rights would benefit the Chagossians as well as other indigenous groups seeking recognition of their unique and longstanding rights related to their territory.

2NC – European Courts – Solves I-Law


The CP establishes a precedent for human rights—enforces and strengthens international law

Grandison, American University Washington College of Law UNROW Human Rights Impact Litigation Clinic member, et al. 2013

[Claire, & Seema Niki Kadaba & Andy Woo, American University Washington College of Law UNROW Human Rights Impact Litigation Clinic members, 2013, “Stealing the Islands of Chagos: Another Forgotten Story of Colonial Injustice,” Human Rights Brief, 20:3, 7/9/14, p.38, IC]



Believing that the plight of the Chagossian represents the quintessential impact litigation case, UNROW continues to take part in a global network advocating for the Chagossians. Most recently, UNROW filed an online “We the People” petition with the White House, asking the U.S. government to redress wrongs against the Chagossians.1 More than 30,000 people signed the petition within the thirty-day time limit. Yet, despite this overwhelming support for the Chagossians, the U.S. government failed to take any responsibility for its role in ousting the entire population from its homeland.2 The U.S. government waited until December 21, 2012, more than eight months, before responding to the petition, while, in comparison, it responded within a mere two months to a petition seeking funding for a Death Star.3 The response to the Chagossians’ petition almost immediately followed the European Court of Human Rights’s (ECtHR or “Court”) decision in Chagos Islanders v. the United Kingdom, issued December 20, 2012, that dismissed the Chagossians’ claims as inadmissible. ECtHR decisions are influential in informing the international community on the development of human rights law, so it is likely not a coincidence that the U.S. government’s response to the petition followed the ECtHR’s decision so closely. Had the Court decided on the merits of the case in the Chagossians’ favor, the U.S. government may not have issued as dismissive a response due to a risk of political embarassment. Due to the the prominence of the ECtHR, the Court’s decision in this case has a significant impact on the global effort to seek justice on behalf of the Chagossians and could have widespread impacts on the claims of indigenous peoples and others forcibly removed from their homelands.

The ECtHR is the sole transeuropean judicial organ with jurisdiction to hear petitions regarding state violations of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court’s decisions are binding on all members of the Council of Europe, including the U.K. However, because of the sheer number of petitions for review and the delicate balance with the Member States’ sovereignty concerns, the Court will only hear cases that meet certain pre-conditions for jurisdiction. In the Chagos Islanders case, the Court found that the pre-conditions had not been met, and refused to hear the merits of the Chagossians’ claims, finding the case inadmissible. This article will argue that the Court based its decision on rationales that threaten to not only undermine the global campaign of the Chagossians and their allies, but also damage the effort to strengthen international law and hold governments accountable for human rights abuses. It will further describe why the claim of the Chagossians to their homeland has vast potential for impact, the crux of UNROW’s mission, due to the relatively few decisions in the ECtHR on indigenous peoples’ rights and the Courts’ limited jurisprudence on collective rights to redress.

2NC – – European Courts – Solves Colonialism


The decision justified colonial dominance—CP is key to reparations

Grandison, American University Washington College of Law UNROW Human Rights Impact Litigation Clinic member, et al. 2013

[Claire, & Seema Niki Kadaba & Andy Woo, American University Washington College of Law UNROW Human Rights Impact Litigation Clinic members, 2013, “Stealing the Islands of Chagos: Another Forgotten Story of Colonial Injustice,” Human Rights Brief, 20:3, 7/9/14, p.39, IC]



The impact of the ECtHR’s decision reaches far beyond the Chagossians. The ECtHR could have set a precedent that would protect the rights of indigenous peoples who have been expelled from their land by colonial powers and provide them an avenue for redress. Instead, this decision failed to protect the collective population’s rights and set a precedent indicating that if certain members of a harmed population receive compensation, then all other current and future members are barred from recovery. Beyond that, this decision indicated that colonial powers’ expulsion of indigenous or aboriginal populations would escape the Court’s scrutiny as long as the colonial power makes a nominal payment to the removed population with the condition that acceptance of the payment functions as a waiver of the right to return. This type of decision is particularly harmful to impact litigators because it completely bars certain groups of victims from ever receiving reparations.

CP is necessary to spill over and solve other injustices against indigenous peoples

Grandison, American University Washington College of Law UNROW Human Rights Impact Litigation Clinic member, et al. 2013

[Claire, & Seema Niki Kadaba & Andy Woo, American University Washington College of Law UNROW Human Rights Impact Litigation Clinic members, 2013, “Stealing the Islands of Chagos: Another Forgotten Story of Colonial Injustice,” Human Rights Brief, 20:3, 7/9/14, p.42, IC]

Despite international recognition that forcefully removing a poulation from its territory violates international law, the Court implicitly endorsed a continuation of an all too familiar colonial narrative. In reaching its short-shrift decision ruling the case inadmissible, the Court found that an entire population had relinquished their right to their homeland simply because the colonial power had given them a nominal amount of compensation that came attached with an unknown waiver.

The Court should correct its approach and bring its jurisprudence in line with customary international law and other regional courts to avoid further injustice. Indigenous populations receive special protection under customary international law, and greater injustice could result if the Court overlooks the problems in this decision and fails to adapt its approach to conform with international standards. The Court will face new claims from indigenous populations and other group applicants and should change its analysis to ensure that other groups are not denied the ability to obtain justice.

This case is not the end of the legal road for the Chagossians, nor the end of their struggle to return home. For example, the lease on the Chagos Islands is coming up for review in 2016, which presents an opportunity for the global community to rally behind the Chagossians and inform the U.S. and U.K. govern ments that they must not continue this unacceptable colonial practice. This grievous injustice needs attention, and it is up to the relevant bodies to ensure that similar subsequent cases do not follow this troubling piece of jurisprudence. Unfortunately, world leaders can now point to this ECtHR decision and declare that the Chagossians’ claims are, as ruled by the Court, invalid. It is in situations like these that advocates of human rights must persevere in the effort to advance the development of international human rights law in a direction that leads to greater protection for all individuals—including the little-known and disenfranchised Chagossians who hailed from a forgotten island in the center of the Indian Ocean.





Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page