Textbook Notes (280,000)
CA (160,000)
UTSC (20,000)
Chapter

A+ Notes: Munk Debates


Department
Political Science
Course Code
POLB50Y3
Professor
Cochraine

This preview shows page 1. to view the full 5 pages of the document.
BIRT if countries such as Sudan, Zimbabwe and Burma will not end their man-made
humanitarian crises, the international community should.
Pro: Evans & Farrow Con: Bolton & Hillier
UN Resp. to Protect (R2P) doctrine: if state can’t protect its own ppl, int’l community
will (force if necessary)
Pro (Evans):
military force is not only option
states that can’t stop internal genocides can’t stop terrorism, weapons, other crimes
stake for everyone
obligation as human beings
Pro (Farrow):
Genocide Convention – countries have already agreed to act in case of mass atrocity
moral & legal obligation to protect civilians from atrocities
preventive measures cost less, more effective
Rebuttal:
no political will, but certainly there’s military capacity
UN clause & R2P is clear: wider int’l community resp. to protect if state can’t protect
own ppl
success w/ non-military intervention (ex. Africa)
moral interest & public sentiment
decline of # of mass atrocities through work of UN (most didn’t involve military force)
troops protect civilians, ppl, humanitarian workers
don’t restrict to loss of Amer. life larger human race
Con (Bolton):
R2P ≠ UN peacekeeping (w/ consent of parties, limited intervention)
who makes decisions? (UN has failed) what cases justify intervention? (didn’t take on
Russia or China)
any intervention considered on own merits & costs
Con (Hillier):
easy to say “do something” but resp. goes to soldiers
diplomatic, legal, financial sanctions don’t work
incapable of developing int’l strategy
UN & NATO don’t work – no consensus
no capacity to build gov’t & improve state
no collective will for long operation
thus, not morally justified to send in soldiers who may lose life w/o support & have no
effect in saving lives
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Only page 1 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Rebuttal:
in successful interventions, need 1 country leading (not int’l community)
no change, no sustainable structure going to make things worse
morality isn’t that simple neither side may be right, Amer. President resp. to protect
Amer. lives
public support disappears quickly when there’s causalities
what happens when Security Council won’t act?
NATO afraid of intervention b/c of prosecution for violating pirates’ rights
BIRT climate change is mankind’s defining crisis and demands a commensurate response.
Pro: May & Monbiot Con: Lawson & Lomborg
Pro (May):
consensus from world conference that ultimate consequence of climate change is only
second to global nuclear war
humanity has changed chemistry of atmosphere burning of fossil fuels releases CO2
CO2 acidifies oceans and affects marine life
no debate about climate change, just whether it has started or not
gov’ts unconcerned b/c changes seen by decades, not years
ice is melting faster than expected sea levels rise
no political will to do anything
climate change will bring water stress
Pro (Monbiot):
the con side is providing beyond optimistic stats
Stern Review say cost of preventing climate change is less than benefits
poor countries don’t have ability/tech. to adapt ex. serious droughts
without tackling global warming, can’t tackle those other problems
Rebuttal:
8 of 10 warmest years in history happened this century
there may be competing trade-offs, but it’s important (like economic stimulus)
ppl can’t grow food worst for poverty, global food shortage
to maintain energy supplies, need lots of $ too need to stop depending on fossil fuels
advocates for climate change never said they were against efficient technology
less emissions, less smog, better health & well-being
lot of energy waste – need improvement of energy prod’y
why should $ for climate change come for foreign aid, could come from military costs,
etc
tech. can’t help everything, ex. can’t make it rain to end drought
need to replace fossil fuels with clean energy, not supplement fossil fuels
Con (Lawson):
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version