Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 1
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
PlanetDebate.com / Lincoln-Douglas.com
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial:
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought
to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
Dr. Minh A. Luong
Author/Editor
International Security Studies
and
The Brady-Johnson Center in Grand Strategy
and
Ivy Scholars Program
Yale University
New Haven, Connecticut USA
<minh.a.luong@yale.edu>
Department of Political Science
and
Taubman Center for Public Policy and
American Institutions
and
Watson Institute for International Affairs
Brown University
Providence, Rhode Island
<Minh_Luong@Brown.EDU>
© 2011 Minh A. Luong and Harvard Debate, Inc., All Rights Reserved
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 2
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
Selected Quotations
We the Peoples of the United Nations, determined to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and
worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small...
—United Nations Charter
It was never the people who complained of the universality of human rights, nor did the people consider human
rights as a Western or Northern imposition. It was often their leaders who did so.
—Mr. Kofi Annan,
United Nations Secretary-General
I believe we should try to move away from the vocabulary and attitudes which shape the stereotyping of developed
and developing country approaches to human rights issues. We are collective custodians of universal human rights
standards, and any sense that we fall into camps of “accuser” and “accused” is absolutely corrosive of our joint
purposes. The reality is that no group of countries has any grounds for complacency about its own human rights
performance and no group of countries does itself justice by automatically slipping into the “victim” mode...
—Mary Robinson,
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights - This great and inspiring instrument was born of an increased sense of
responsibility by the international community for the promotion and protection of man’s basic rights and freedoms.
The world has come to a clear realization of the fact that freedom, justice and world peace can only be assured
through the international promotion and protection of these rights and freedoms.
—U Thant, Third United Nations Secretary-General, 1961-1971
In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (December 1948) in most solemn form, the dignity of a person is
acknowledged to all human beings; and as a consequence there is proclaimed, as a fundamental right, the right of
free movement in search for truth and in the attainment of moral good and of justice, and also the right to a dignified
life.
—Pope John XXIII, 1881-1963 Pacem in Terris, 1963
Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.
—Abraham Lincoln
I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself
my master. I want the full menu of rights.
—Bishop Desmond Tutu
UDHR was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims
without trespassing the Islamic law.
—Ambassador Said Rajaie-Khorassani,
Iranian representative to the United Nations, 1982
Critics of the universal idea of human rights contend that in the Confucian or Vedic traditions, duties are considered
more important than rights, while in Africa it is the community that protects and nurtures the individual. One
African writer summed up the African philosophy of existence as: “I am because we are, and because we are
therefore I am.” Some Africans have argued that they have a complex structure of communal entitlements and
obligations grouped around what one might call four “Rs”: not rights, but respect, restraint, responsibility, and
reciprocity. They argue that in most African societies group rights have always taken precedence over individual
rights, and political decisions have been made through group consensus, not through individual assertions of rights.
—Shashi Tharoor
2
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 3
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
In This Topic Briefing…
Cover page
1
Selected quotations
2
In This Topic Briefing (aka the Table of Contents)
3
A Note from the Editor
4-5
Topic in Context and Topic Briefing
6
Affirmative Strategy Notes
14
Negative Strategy Notes
19
Definitional Concepts and Definitions
23
Strategies and Arguments
Affirmative
27
Negative
29
Sources
31
Selected Evidence on the Topic
34-72
About the Author/Editor
74
3
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 4
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
A Note from the Editor
The Lincoln-Douglas debate topic for the National Forensic League 2011 National Tournament is:
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its
national interest.
The National Forensic League and its coaches have selected rights based topics a number of times in the
last decade and with the 10-year anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks approaching, our
engagement in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq winding down, and the debate over the use of secret prisons
and enhanced interrogation increasing in the wake of the recent Osama bin Laden operation, this topic has
a multitude of potential philosophical approaches and argumentation strategies.
Every PlanetDebate Lincoln-Douglas debate topic briefing is the collective product of a number of
scholars, topic-engaged professionals, researchers, and individuals from typical judge demographic pools
who evaluate potential arguments and their effectiveness. Even though my name appears at the top of
each briefing packet, it takes the combined contributions of between 25 to 40 people to produce each
topic tutorial; hence the “& Company” part of the series name. In fact, one of the most difficult tasks in
producing each topic briefing packet is to edit the material down to our target of 40 pages! (We failed
spectacularly in this regard – our briefing packet is over 65 pages!)
Due to the difficulty in finding high quality research material on the internet pertaining to this topic, my
colleagues and I have focused on presenting material that is generally not available to high school
debaters. We have focused on public policy, political science, legal, and other academic sources as well as
presenting evidence from authoritative practitioner and government sources. Because of the complexity of
this topic, we have also chosen to integrate extensive quotations directly into the topic analysis with the
intent of providing direct illustrations to promote better understanding of the topic. We have also
integrated the topic in context material into the topic briefing for a clearer explanation of the intricacies of
this topic. This topic tutorial is longer than usual (our target is 40 pages total) due to the complexity of the
topic and our desire to best prepare you for this challenging topic.
I am particularly indebted to my colleague, Nick Coburn-Palo, a former collegiate national debate
champion and coach of national champions and most recently a doctoral candidate in the political science
department at Brown University for his significant contributions to this tutorial. His background on this
topic along with knowledge of international rights theory has added a unique dimension that we hope will
give you and your squad a significant competitive advantage when debating this topic at NFL Nationals.
Rick Brundage, nationally recognized coach and Yale Ivy Scholars Program senior instructor, continues
to play a key role on our research and analytic team here at PlanetDebate.com.
This topic briefing would not be possible were it not for the conversations with and contributions from a
wide range of scholars and policymakers. Even though this topic falls within in my professional field of
study and research, our goal at PlanetDebate is to bring you a wide spectrum of informed opinion from
the leading academic and professional experts in the field. My professorial colleagues here at the research
center that I help run, International Security Studies at Yale University, as well as the Taubman Center for
Public Policy and American Institutions at Brown University, provided important insights and
contributions. I am also indebted to a number of friends and peer reviewers who offered candid and
nuanced views on both sides of this topic –international legal scholars, political scientists in the
international relations sub-discipline, and leaders of advocacy groups – for their valuable feedback and
suggestions. And finally, many thanks to our focus group panelists for their feedback and suggestions on
prospective argument strategies.
4
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 5
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
My colleagues and I thank you for being a PlanetDebate.com/Lincoln-Douglas.com subscriber and we
hope that our unique blend of academic and policy practitioner approaches will give you a distinct
advantage in your debate rounds. We hope that you will continue your subscription for the 2011-12
Lincoln-Douglas season. We are planning more improvements to the PlanetDebate.com/LincolnDouglas.com website including instructional and coaching resources.
As a reminder, these topic briefings are copyrighted and are for the exclusive use of our subscribers and
may not be retransmitted, posted to a third-party website, or made available to non-subscribers without
written permission by Stefan Bauchard, President of PlanetDebate.com. Your subscription fees help
maintain the technology that keeps PlanetDebate.com on-line and supports the research team that
generates the products that has made us the premier source of research materials for high school debate.
As always, we invite your comments and feedback, and greatly value your confidence in our project by
using our materials to help your program prepare for each National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas
debate topic. My email address is minh.a.luong@yale.edu.
PlanetDebate.com as well as my Yale Ivy Scholars Program are proud sponsors of the NFL National
Tournament – I am hoping to make it to Dallas to meet our subscribers in person next month.
With best wishes for success at the NFL National Tournament in Dallas, Texas!
Minh A. Luong
Author/Editor
5
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 6
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
TOPIC IN CONTEXT and TOPIC BRIEFING
The topic for the NFL National Championship tournament this season will be Resolved:
when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its
national interest. This resolution, coming on the heels of the Private Military Contractor topic,
marks the second topic in succession which confronts the relationship between the states(s) and a
notion of morality. As a result, there will be a certain level of overlap between the arguments on
this topic and those utilized by many debaters at their qualifying tournaments. Moreover, this
topic analysis is being tailored not toward a national circuit tournament, such as the Glenbrooks,
but toward NFL Nationals; a fact which conditions the nature of the arguments which will be
considered. This topic seems to allow, at least conceptually, for the possibility of a multitude of
eccentric, primarily French, foreign policy flavored Kritiks. Similarly, the nationalism angle to
the topic seemingly allows for trendy Kritiks from the world of policy, such as the arguments of
Carl Schmitt, to spill over into the world of LD debate. Debaters would do well to remember
that very few disciples of Agamben or Badiou will be judging at NFL Nationals and adjust their
arguments accordingly. Most likely to on the minds of judges this June, at least when thinking
about this topic, will be events related to the “Arab Spring” and questions of how to prioritize
national security while still allowing America to function as the “leader of the free world.”
This topic analysis will begin by offering a detailed examination of the two major
concepts being compared by the resolution: Universal Human Rights and National Interest.
Universal human rights
The resolution employs a very strong term to imply an ethical or moral claim, that of
something which can be recognized as a right by all (or virtually all) nations and cultures. At
first glance, such a cause might seem too ambitious to contemplate. Happily for the students
debating this resolution, innumerable philosophers have attempted such an undertaking, allowing
you to draft off of their work. One of the most prominent modern ethicist in the world of
philosophy is longtime Princeton Professor Peter Singer. Singer identifies the roots on any
viable claim on a universal human right as deriving from a claim to a common notion of ethics or
morality. Singer believes such an impulse does, in fact, exist. He explains the source of such a
cosmopolitan conception of political ethics as follows :
6
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 7
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
“Some aspects of ethics can fairly be claimed to be universal, or very nearly so. Reciprocity, at
least, seems to be common to ethical systems everywhere. The notion of reciprocity may have
served as the basis for the ‘Golden Rule’ – treat others as you would like them to treat you…The
Golden Rule can be found, if differing formulations, in a wide variety of cultures and religious
teachings, including…Confucius…the Buddha…Hillel, Jesus, Mohammed, Kant, and many
others.”
[Singer, Peter. 2002. One World: The Ethics of Globalization. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.]
However, even if a common ethical coda exists among peoples, can that reasonably be
extrapolated to the expected behavior of a State? Shouldn’t a State, which lacks a soul and exists
instrumentally, be expected to act as if it were a singular person? Dr. Mary Maxwell argues that
it should, writing that…
“Morality, as we saw, has to do with judging the actions of oneself and others according to some
rules which were originally based on reciprocity or fair play. Morality was entrenched in human
nature from the start, and subsequently became an artifact of culture…I do not for a moment
suggest that everyone does right and abstains from wrong, but just that everyone is a moralizer.
When we see actions around us in which one party affects another…we automatically have some
moralistic opinion about it; our judgmental sentiments are aroused. It is for this reason that I
believe the position on international morality is correct. Rules of morality apply to all human
transactions whether the actors be individuals or states…the subjugation of the actor’s acts to
moral rules is a function of our moral nature, our habit of ‘noticing’ the rightness and wrongness
of transactions between humans. In short, my philosophical assertion…is based on a theory of
ethics which simply says that morality arises from our penchant for judging. What goes on
between states is ‘moral’ because we have a moral reaction to it and want to apply rules to it.”
[Maxwell, Mary. 1990. Morality among Nations: An Evolutionary View. Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.]
Coming out of World War I, President Woodrow Wilson, a Princeton University Political
Science Professor before he turned politician, was at the forefront of a Liberal internationalist
movement to create international law and institutions with the goal of making war less likely.
Arguments from that camp drew upon the argument of Immanuel Kant in his pragmatically
grounded foreign policy work Perpetual Peace. They drew upon a faith in rationality, markets,
and a cosmopolitan notion of rights. Entities such as United Nations and the ill-fated League of
Nations attempted to codify such an ethical impulse in numerous documents. The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights is probably the closest to a contextual definition which one might
find on this topic. The expansive nature of the rights recognized by the UDHR speaks both to an
impressiveness of vision and a lack of present commitment to seeing those principles brought
into being at a global level. That document can be found easily on-line. Less commonly cited,
7
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 8
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
but of a least as significant importance under international law, is the United Nations Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights. After decades of negotiation, it was initially passed by in 1966. In
1976, after being ratified by 35 states, it became an official part of international law. Similar in
composition to the UDHR, it recognizes the following laundry list of rights as being universal,
transcending nations and cultures: right to free trade, right to council, right to privacy, freedom
of thought, freedom of assembly, freedom of expression, forbids torture, forbids government
propaganda, forbids discrimination based on race, gender, national origin, or spoken language,
and mandates that duties and obligations be shared equally between marital partners. Obviously,
international agreements attempting to establish universal standards for human rights have not
lacked for ambition and optimism.
Such ambition has often been the source of criticism from numerous sources, including
Realist thinkers. They have argued that the harsh and dangerous world of international relations
is not an appropriate, or even possible, location from which to facilitate the emancipation of
oppressed others. The role of the State is, first and foremost, to protect its citizens and guard
their interests. As such, any political theory which attaches moral obligations that might
constrain a State in the performance of its prime directive is entirely inappropriate. Obviously,
theorist from the Liberal tradition would vigorously contest such a theoretical defense of an
entirely self interested State. Law Professor Fernando Teson offers a full throated iteration of the
Liberal argument:
“…tyranny and anarchy…are morally abhorrent forms of political injustice. I believe that all
reasonable religious and ethical theories converge in the judgment that those situations (mass
murder, widespread torture, crimes against humanity, serious war crimes) are morally abhorrent.
We are not dealing here with differing conceptions of the good, or with various ways to realize
human and collective excellence, or with the place of religion, civic deliberation, or free markets
in political life. We are confronting governments that perpetuate atrocities against people, and
situations of anarchy and breakdown of social order of such magnitude that no reasonable ethical
or political theory could reasonably condone them. And, of course, if there are political theories
that condone those situations, too bad for them: they cease to be reasonable or plausible.”
[Fernando Teson, in a chapter entitled “The Liberal Case for Humanitarian Intervention” from the
following edited volume: Holzgrefe, J.L. and Robert Keohane. (ed.) 2003. Humanitarian Intervention:
Ethical, Legal, and Political Dilemmas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press]
The tangible costs of hardhearted Realist conceptions of international relations theory are often
horribly tangible. Award winning journalist Samantha Power explains as follows:
“What is most shocking about America’s reaction to Turkey’s killing of Armenians, the
Holocaust, Pol Pot’s reign of terror, Iraq’s slaughter of the Kurds, Bosnian Serbs’ mass murder of
8
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 9
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
Muslims, and the Hutu elimination of Tutsi is not that the United States refused to…combat the
atrocities…What is most shocking is that U.S. policymakers did almost nothing to deter the
crime. Because America’s ‘vital national interests” were not considered imperiled by mere
genocide, senior U.S. officials did not give genocide the moral attention it warranted…Indeed, on
occasion the United States directly or indirectly aided those committing genocide. It orchestrated
the vote in the UN Credentials Committee to favor the Khmer Rouge. It sided with and supplied
U.S. agricultural and manufacturing credits to Iraq while Saddam Hussein was attempting to wide
out the country’s Kurds…It used its clout on the UN Security Council to mandate the withdrawal
of UN peacekeepers from Rwanda and block efforts to redeploy there. To the people of Bosnia
and Rwanda, the United States and its Security Council allies held out the promise of protection –
a promise that they were not prepared to keep. The key question, after a century of false promise,
is: Why does the United States stand so idly by?”
[Power, Samantha. 2002. “A Problem from Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide. New York:
HarperCollins Publishers.]
One answer to the haunting question posed by Powers is that we are reluctant to commit
resources – to have any skin in the game – if our national interests are not implicated. Doing the
right thing is simply not a good enough reason to act, not in a world full of nuclear weapons,
dangerous terrorists, and limited national resources. Such a “Fortress America,” isolationist
impulse, is the source of considerable criticism from liberal thinkers. Playing the “threat to
national security” card becomes a dangerously easy crutch to enable action which ultimately
might be morally condemnable. Daniel Callahan explains the dangers associated with such a
mindset:
“There seems to be no imaginable evil which some group is not willing to inflict on another for
the sake of survival, no rights, liberties or dignities which it is not ready to suppress. It is easy, of
course, to recognize the danger when survival is falsely and manipulatively invoked. Dictators
never talk about their aggressions, but only about the need to defend the fatherland, to save it
from destruction at the hands of their enemies. By my point goes deeper than that. It is directed
even at a legitimate concern for survival, when that concern is allowed to reach an intensity
which would ignore, suppress or destroy other fundamental human rights and values. The
potential tyranny of survival as a value is that it is capable, if not treated sanely, of wiping out all
other values. Survival can become an obsession and disease provoking destructive
singlemindedness that will stop at nothing.”
[Callahan, Daniel. 1973. The Tyranny of Survival and Other Pathologies of Civilized Life, New York:
Macmillan Publishing]
Ultimately, the need to prioritize universal human rights can be found in the need to maintain a
firebreak against the worst forms of immoral action between and within nations. Presumptions
and prohibitions against the harming of civilians, the use of biological and chemical weapons,
and the conscripting of child soldiers relies upon a cosmopolitan impulse against such actions.
9
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 10
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
The natural urge to halt both genocides – such as those which have occurred in Rwanda and Nazi
Germany – and particularly outrageous violations of human rights, also derive from the same
belief that human rationality can allow us to overcome our baser national impulses. And, as it is
possible for us to do the right thing, we ought to do so.
National Interest
On any topic dealing with international relations, it is simply impossible to ignore the
importance of Realism as a mode of political thought. This resolution asks the Negative to
defend national interest in the face of a claim grounded in an appeal to universal human rights
upon the State. Accordingly, Realist thought is the source of the core Negative arguments on
this topic. A wide variety of conceptions of realist political thought exist and this essay will not
make an attempt to address them in anything remotely approaching a comprehensive manner.
However, Negatives seem likely to couch their argument for national interest from a perspective
which is recognizably Realist in conception. Accordingly, it is incumbent upon debaters to have
a basic understanding of the concept. University of Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer, the
modern Godfather of political Realism, offers an initial explanation of the concept as follows:
“In contrast to liberals, realists are pessimists when it comes to international politics. Realists
agree that creating a peaceful world would be desirable, but they see no easy way to escape the
harsh world of security competition and war. Creating a peaceful world is surely an attractive idea, but it isn’t
a practical one. ‘Realism,’ as Carr notes, ‘tends to emphasize the irresistible strength of existing forces
and the inevitable character of existing tendencies, and to insist that the highest wisdom lies in accepting,
and adapting oneself to these forces and these tendencies.’ This gloomy view of international relations is
based on three core beliefs. First, realists, like liberals, treat states as the principal actors in world
politics. Realists focus mainly on great powers, however, because these states dominate and shape
international politics and they also cause hue deadliest wars. Second, realists believe that the
behavior of great powers is influenced mainly by their external environment, not by their internal
characteristics. The structure of the international system, which all slates must deal with, largely
shapes their foreign policies. Realists tend mint to draw sharp distinctions between ‘good’ and
‘bad’ states, because all great powers act according to the same logic regardless of their culture,
political system, or who runs the government. It is therefore difficult to discriminate among
states, save for differences in relative power. In essence, great powers are like billiard balls that
vary only in size. Third, realists hold that calculations about power dominate states’ thinking, and that
states compete for power among themselves. That competition sometimes necessitates going to war,
which is considered an acceptable instrument of statecraft. To quote Carl von Clausewitz, the
nineteenth-century military strategist, war is a continuation of politics by other means. Finally, a
zero-sum quality characterizes that competition, sometimes making it intense and unforgiving. States may
cooperate with each other on occasion, but at root they have conflicting interests.”
10
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 11
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
[Mearsheimer, John. 2003. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.]
In such an environment, it is only natural that states, acting in their self-interest, will tend to fear
each other and seek to enhance their relative power. If realism is correct, not only would actions
toward that end be consistent with “just government,” but – to the extent that any foundational
moral requirement exists at all, such action might be obligatory of the state. Mearsheimer
explains as follows:
“Why do great powers behave this way? My answer is that the structure of the international
system forces states which seek only to be secure nonetheless to act aggressively toward each
other. Three features of the international system combine to cause states to fear one another: 1)
the absence of a central authority which sits above states and can protect them from each other, 2)
the facts that states always have some offensive military capability, and 3) the fact that states can
never be certain about other states’ intentions. Given this fear – which can never be wholly
eliminated – states recognize that the more powerful they are relative to their rivals, the better
their chances of survival. Indeed, the best guarantee of survival is to be a hegemon, because no
other state can seriously threaten such a might power.”
[Mearsheimer, John. 2003. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.]
The implications of such a perspective are profound for the concept of moral obligation
in international relations theory; functionally, it has no place in such a neo-Hobbesian world.
Charles Beitz, an opponent of classical realism, explains the Hobbesian realist argument against
international morality as follows:
“The Hobbesian argument for international skepticism combines two premises…The first is the
empirical claim that the international state of nature is a state of war, in which no state has an
overriding interest in following moral rules that restrain pursuit of more immediate interests. The
second is that the theoretical claim that moral principles must by justified by showing that
following them promotes the long-range interests of each agent to whom they apply.”
[Beitz, Charles. 1979. Political Theory and International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.]
Such a realist position runs smack into a strand of thought which is often, in international
relations terms, referred to as “liberalist” in conception: that reason, rationality, and a sense of
good will pervade all human interactions, including those in the international community.
Realists deny this – they argue that one cannot extrapolate from the individual, or domestic,
sphere to the international. For Liberalists, such as former Princeton Professor and American
President Woodrow Wilson, cooperation and mutual gain are cosmopolitan impulses between
nations. For Realists, international relations is a zero sum game, one played for the highest of
stakes. For Liberals, human rights and resulting moral obligations are a natural outgrowth of the
11
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 12
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
human attribute of rationality – they are fundamental in that they exemplify what it is to be
human. For Realists, the state cannot be analogized to a person in the sense that a Kantian
obligation toward morality might exist – to the extent the state has a morality, it is a
commandment to provide for and protect the citizens of its nation. No prima facie obligation
exists for the state as regards non-citizens. They are not party to a social contract. They are not
stakeholders, so they have no basis on which to make a demand upon the state.
Moreover, even if one could prove that rejecting the world of Realism would be desirable
– if the Liberal notion of a world based upon universal rights and a democratic peace were
shown to be more just than that of Realism – it would be considered of no consequence by most
Realists. This is because of the distinction between normative and descriptive arguments. The
preceding Liberal claim in normative in conception – it assumes that one can choose or reject
living in a Realist world. A descriptive claim is made by most Realist authors – that the world is
harsh place, where great powers play a game with tremendously high stakes. Wishing the world
were not so is not only irrelevant, it is irresponsible in the sense described by Burke – that we
make plans for the world in which we live, not the one in which we wish we lived. For most
Realists, rejecting Realist thought makes about as much sense as rejecting the need to breath
oxygen by holding your breath – to succeed in such an endeavor would be to hasten your own
death.
However, not all Realists believe the choice is as strident or zero-sum as depicted in
Mersheimer’s anarchy driven account of international relations. One binary which serves to
disaggregate Realism is Offensive v. Defensive Realism. University of North Carolina Political
Science Professor Glenn Snyder explains the distinction as follows:
“Mearsheimer begins with the assertion that great powers "maximize their relative power.” That
puts him close to Morgenthau, who famously proclaimed a never-ending struggle for power
among states, arising from an animus dominandi—that is, a natural human urge to dominate
others. Mearsheimer, however, rejects this source of causation. There is a limitless power
struggle, he avers, but what drives it is not an appetite for power in the human animal, but a
search for security that is forced by the anarchic structure of the international system. When all
states have capabilities for doing each other harm, each is driven to amass as much power as it
can to be as secure as possible against attack. This assumption of a security motivation and
structural causation, of course, places Mearsheimer closer to Waltz. Where Mearsheimer departs
from Waltz is in his assertion that the search for power and security is insatiable, whereas Waltz
says that it has limits. Thus he disagrees with Waltz on the question of "how much power states
want." Mearsheimer makes the point succinctly: "For defensive realists, the international
12
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 13
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
structure provides states with little incentive to seek additional increments of power; instead it
pushes them to maintain the existing balance of power. Preserving power, rather than increasing
it, is the main goal of states. Offensive realists, on the other hand, believe that status quo powers
are rarely found in world politics, because the international system creates powerful incentives for
states to look for opportunities to gain power at the expense of rivals, and to take advantage of
those situations when the benefits outweigh the costs. A state's ultimate goal is to be the hegemon
in the system.” Waltz confirms the disagreement: "In anarchy, security is the highest end. Only if
survival is assured can states safely seek such other goals as tranquility, profit and power. The
first concern of states is not to maximize power but to maintain their positions in the system."
Clearly, Waltz believes that "survival" (i.e., sufficient security) can be assured with power well
short of the "hegemonic" amount postulated by Mearsheimer.”
[Snyder, Glenn. 2002. “Mearsheimer’s World: Offensive Realism and the Struggle for Security.”
International Security. 27:1. 149-173]
If theorist such as Waltz are correct, it may be possible to accommodate a commitment to
universal human rights within a Defensive Realist framework, insofar as it contributes to their
national interest as a secondary effect of stabilizing the international system.
As the preceding discussion has made clear, an understanding of the national interest
within an international relations context makes consideration of Realist theory unavoidable. Our
discussion has only scratched the surface of a complex debate about the contours and dimensions
of Realist theory, including Neo-Realism, as well as skeptical and heuristic forms of Realism.
Debaters who are comfortable with the nuances of this foundational discussion will possess a
significant advantage on this topic.
13
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 14
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
Our “Strategy Notes” section focuses on arguments that come from the academic and policy
communities and are ideally suited for tournaments where the judging pool is well-informed on
the debate topic area and highly-educated.
Affirmative Strategy Notes
#1:
Valuing Universal Human Rights Is Essential To Avoiding Genocides And Other
Significant Violations of Rights
This argument would focus on the humanitarian intervention angle of the topic, arguing that
national interests have too often dictated non-intervention in emerging genocides, such as those
which occurred in Rwanda. A more current case might be found in Libya, where the United
States was called upon to bomb Libyan government troops in order to avoid the massive
slaughter of civilians which had been threatened by the embattled leader of the government,
Muammar Gaddafi. In fact, the author I cite below in making this argument, award winning
journalist Samantha Powers, advocated for the bombings in Libya as a current official in the
Obama administration:
“Even if Americans become better able to imagine slaughter and identify with its victims, the
U.S. government is likely to view genocide prevention as an undertaking it can not afford as it
sets out to better protect Americans. Many are now arguing, understandably, that fighting
terrorism means husbanding the country’s resources and avoiding humanitarian invention, which
is said to harm U.S. ‘readiness.’…This would be a tragic and ultimately self-defeating mistake.
The United States should stop genocide for two reasons. The first and most compelling reason is
moral. When innocent life is being taken on such a scale and the United States has the power to
stop the killing at reasonable risk, it has a duty to act…those driven by a sense of America’s
responsibility have tried to make the case by appealing to a second reason: enlightened selfinterest. The warned that allowing genocide undermined regional and international stability,
created militarized refugees, and signaled dictators that hate and murder were permissible tools of
statecraft…security for Americans at home and abroad is contingent on international stability,
and there is perhaps no greater source of havoc than a group of well-armed extremists bent on
wiping out a people on ethnic, national, or religious grounds…Citizens victimized by genocide or
abandoned by the international community do not make good neighbors, as their thirst for
vengeance, their irredentism, and their acceptance of violence as a means for generating change
can turn them into future threats.”
[Power, Samantha. 2002. “A Problem from Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide. New York:
HarperCollins Publishers.]
14
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 15
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
#2:
Valuing Universal Human Rights Is Necessary To Perpetuate A Democratic Peace
This classic argument in international relations theory argues that democracies rarely, if ever, go
to war with each other. This is because they have shared values and interests. They trade
together. They value individual choice and freedom. Between democracies, the zero-sum world
depicted by Realist authors ceases to be accurate. By valuing human rights and cultivating
democratic values, peace – and the national interest – is ultimately served. The progenitor of the
argument, Immanuel Kant, is cited below:
“…the growth of culture and men’s gradual progress toward greater agreement regarding their
principles lead to mutual understanding and peace. Unlike that peace that despotism (in the
graveyard of freedom) brings about by vitiating all powers…The spirit of trade cannot coexist
with war, and sooner or later this spirit dominates every people. For among all those powers (or
means) that belong to a nation, financial power may be the most reliable in forcing nations to
pursue the noble cause of peace (though not from moral motives); and wherever in the world war
threatens to break out, they will try to head it off through mediation…In this fashion nature
guarantees perpetual peace by virtue of the mechanism of man’s inclinations themselves; to be
sure, it does not do so with a certainty sufficient to prophesy it from a theoretical point of view,
but we can do so from a practical one, which makes it our duty to work toward bringing about
this goal…”
[Kant, Immanuel. 1983. Perpetual Peace and Other Essays. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing
Company.]
#3:
Valuing Universal Human Rights Repudiates A Destructive Obsession With
National Sovereignty
A very different argument from that found in Kant’s Perpetual Peace is made by those who
criticize the international system as being dominated by national interests and a fetish with
protecting the sovereignty of nations. Such a preoccupation with national interest and
territoriality has had tragic costs, as Professor Singer explained:
“In Rwanda, a United Nations inquiry took the view that 2,500 military personnel, given the
proper training and mandate, might have saved 800,000 lives. Secretary-General Kofi Annan,
who, as Under-Secretary-General for Peace-Keeping Operations at the time, must bear some
responsibility…has learned from this situation. Now he urges, ‘the world cannot stand aside
when gross and systemic violations of human rights are taking place.’ What we need, he has said,
are ‘legitimate and universal principles’ on which we can base intervention. This means a
redefinition of state sovereignty that has prevailed in Europe since the Treaty of Westphalia in
1648.”
[Singer, Peter. 2002. One World: The Ethics of Globalization. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.]
15
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 16
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
Singer goes even further, arguing that no moral value whatsoever should be granted to national
sovereignty, and its associated doctrine of unbridled obligation to not interfere in the value
judgments of sovereign nations, emphatically including those related to universal human rights:
“A global ethic should not stop at, or give great significance to, national boundaries. National
sovereignty has no intrinsic moral weight. What weight national sovereignty does have comes
from the role that an international principle requiring respect for national sovereignty plays, in
normal circumstances, in promoting peaceful relations between states. It is a secondary
principle…The world has seen the horrific consequences of the failure of states like Cambodia,
the former Yugoslavia, Somalia, Rwanda, and Indonesia to protect their citizens. There is now a
broad consensus that, if it is at all possible to prevent such atrocities, they should be prevented.”
[Singer, Peter. 2002. One World: The Ethics of Globalization. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.]
In defending a cosmopolitan conception of human rights in the face of countervailing claims of
national interest, the need to expand the frame of obligation beyond that of a domestic social
contract is made clear. Dr. Mary Maxwell explains as follows:
“The significance of cosmopolitan morality in a discussion of international relations is that it
gives a focus of opposition to statist morality. It challenges the doctrine of national sovereignty
in two areas: that of humanitarian intervention and that of economic justice…He [Bietz] holds
that the social contract approach to distributive justice, as now practiced in domestic societies,
should be extended globally, since the actual economic interchanges of the contemporary world
are international. Bietz notes that ‘the intuitive idea is that it is wrong to limit the application of
contractarian principles of social justice to the nation-state.’ This, he says, is because of such
things as ‘the increasing sensitivity of domestic societies to external economic, political, and
cultural events’ and ‘the increasing impact of international arrangements…on human well-being.”
[Maxwell, Mary. 1990. Morality among Nations: An Evolutionary View. Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.]
#4:
Valuing Universal Human Rights Protects Fundamental Freedoms At Home – Here
In The United States
This tricky argument might work well in front of judges who you suspect as being conservative,
but with a civil liberties orientation. The resolution does not specifically state that the conflict
between universal human rights and national interest involves a dispute occurring outside of the
country whose national interest is at stake (as would be the case with U.S. intervention in Libya
to protect human rights). As a result, one could make a human rights argument about the
conduct of the U.S government toward the people of the nation regarding universal human rights
in myriad ways. For example, for those who like to make Kritical arguments about the historical
16
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 17
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
treatment of Native Americans, this seems like a huge opportunity to indulge your argumentative
muse. For the purposes of this briefing, a more conventional example will be utilized.
Accusations that the conduct of the U.S. in its War on Terrorism, as regards domestic
surveillance, is violating the fundamental rights of its citizens, have sparked calls for prioritizing
rights over national security interests. Law Professor Natsu Saito offers an initial explanation of
the argument as follows:
“…struggles take many forms, but all require the freedom to articulate the problems and potential
solutions and the ability to organize socially and politically. Fortunately, such freedoms have not
only been acknowledged historically, but are clearly articulated in the U.S. Constitutionn and are
spelled out in more detail in universally recognized international law. When the government that
purports to represent us engages in genocide, war crimes, or other actions calculated to perpetuate
the systematic oppression of large groups of people, we not only have the right to challenge such
actions, but the legal responsibility to do so. This was the primary message of the Nuremberg and
Tokyo Tribunals - when a government engages in basic violations of the most fundamental
human rights, it is the citizens' obligation under international law to stop those violations. The
fact that the government's domestic law may deem such policies or practices legal - or resistance
to them illegal - does not change this fundamental principle. It is in this context that we must
assess recent "antiterrorism" legislation such as the so-called "USA PATRIOT" Act.”
[Saito, Natsu. 2002. “Whose Liberty? Whose Security? The USA PATRIOT Act in the Context of
COINTELPRO and the Unlawful Repression of Political Dissent” Oregon Law Review. 81:4]
The cost of these violations of our privacy may spill over into violations of other core rights,
such as speech, association, and dissent. Law professor Susan Freiwald argues as follows:
“The misuse of surveillance powers comes at a significant cost to society. A common
misperception is that overzealous surveillance will hurt only the wrongdoers. In reality, few of us
conform all aspects of our behavior to the extant laws. The power to use surveillance to uncover
private acts is, then, the power to pressure and even prosecute those with unpopular views, such
as those critical of the government. Moreover, privacy rights shield not just illegal activities, but
also those things we would prefer to keep to ourselves or among our trusted associates. If we
reach a point where we can keep nothing from the government's prying eyes, then we will have
lost not only our privacy, but the full exercise of our rights of speech, association, and dissent.”
[Freiwald, Susan. 2004. “Online Surveillance: Remembering the Lessons of the Wiretap Act. Alabama
Law Review. 56:9]
Although the dangers of such a slippery slope should be evident to any student of history, Law
Professor Emanuel Gross makes the concern explicit:
17
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 18
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
“All those who argue that any infringement whatsoever to the privacy of a person can only be
tolerated in times of crisis, and that immediately upon the arrival of a time of peace, it must be
removed are suffering from self-delusion. The boundary line separating the protection of
individuals' rights in times of emergency and their protection in times of peace is extremely fine
and amorphous, and therefore there is a danger that unnecessary restrictions imposed in times of
emergency, and their moral impact, will remain long after the cessation of that emergency, and
we will find ourselves living in an abyss into which we have thrown ourselves unnecessarily.”
[Gross, Emanuel. 2004. “"The Struggle of a Democracy Against Terrorism-Protection of Human Rights:
The Right to Privacy Versus the National Interest-The Proper Balance," Cornell International Law Journal.
vol. 37]
18
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 19
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
Negative Strategy Notes
#1:
Realist Political Theory Dictates That National Interest, Not Moral Claims, Is The
Only Source Of A Sustainable And Relatively Safe Foreign Policy
This argument was explained in detail in the Topic in Brief section. However, its highlights can
be understood as follows. For Realists, international relations is a zero sum game, one played for
the highest of stakes. Moreover, even if one could prove that rejecting the world of Realism
would be desirable – if the Liberal notion of a world based upon universal rights and a
democratic peace were shown to be more just than that of Realism – it would be considered of no
consequence by most Realists. This is because of the distinction between normative and
descriptive arguments. The preceding Liberal claim in normative in conception – it assumes that
one can choose or reject living in a Realist world. A descriptive claim is made by most Realist
authors – that the world is harsh place, where great powers play a game with tremendously high
stakes. Wishing the world were not so is not only irrelevant, it is irresponsible in the sense
described by Burke – that we make plans for the world in which we live, not the one in which we
wish we lived. For most Realists, rejecting Realist thought makes about as much sense as
rejecting the need to breath oxygen by holding your breath – to succeed in such an endeavor
would be to hasten your own death. No shortage of good evidence from Mersheimer, Walt, and
Waltz exist on this point.
#2:
National Interest Is The Primary Obligation Of Any Government – It Is An
Outgrowth Of Commitments Deriving From The National Social Contract
This argument cuts to the core question of what is meant by a “just government.” To the extent
the state has a morality, it is a commandment to provide for and protect the citizens of its nation.
No prima facie obligation exists for the state regarding non-citizens. They are not party to a
social contract. They are not stakeholders, so they have no basis on which to make a demand
upon the state. They have not paid taxes to the nation or served in its military. While a nation
may decide to work with other nations and perhaps bend its will on a particular issue, it shouldn’t
do so because a wrong might be committed against a party external to the contract, but only
because such an action would be in alignment with the national interest. Although he finds its
conclusions problematic, Professor Singer effectively describes the argument as follow:
19
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 20
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
“…there is a strong case for saying that it is wrong for leaders to give absolute priority to the
interests of their own citizens. The value of life of an innocent human being does not vary
according to nationality. But, it might be said, the abstract ethical idea that all humans are
entitled to equal consideration cannot govern the duties of a political leader. Just as parents are
expected to provide for the interests of their own children, rather than for the interests of
strangers,…the…president…has taken on a specific role that makes it his duty to protect and
further the interests of Americans…There is no world political community, and as long as that
situation prevails, we must have nation-states, and the leaders of those nation-states must give
preferences to their own citizens. Our leaders feel that they must give some degree of priority to
the interests of their own citizens, and they are, so the arguments runs, right to do so. But what
does ‘some degree of priority’ amount to, in practice? Related to this question about the duties of
national leaders is another one: Is the division of the world’s people into sovereign nations a
dominant and unalterable fact of life?”
[Singer, Peter. 2002. One World: The Ethics of Globalization. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.]
#3:
Claims of Universal Human Rights Should Be Rejected – Such Claims Endanger
Democratic Values By Conflating Rights With Preferences
Many rights theorists, especially those influence by the school of thought known as Critical
Legal Studies, argue that our society has radically overextended the concept of what is meant by
a “right.” We use the rhetoric of rights to justify things we want; simple preferences. Rights are
often articulated as absolute, as a “full stop.” This use of “rights as trump” effectively cuts
against meaningful democratic debate and pluralistic politics. It also cheapens the value of
rights, just as inflation affects the value of money. Although most commonly used in a domestic
context, this argument can easily be extrapolated to the international realm. A seminal theorist
on the issue, Professor Mary Ann Glendon, explains the argument as follows:
“Our stark, simple rights dialect puts a damper on the processes of public justification,
communication, and deliberation upon which the continuing vitality of a democratic regime
depends. It contributes to the erosion of habits, practices, and attitudes of respect for others that
are the ultimate and surest guarantors of human rights…For the new rhetoric of rights is less
about human dignity and freedom than about insistent, unending desires…To make matters
worse, the possibility must be reckoned with that our shallow rights talk is a faithful reflection of
what our culture has become.”
[Glendon, Mary Ann. 1991. Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse. New York:
Macmillan Publishing.]
20
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 21
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
#4:
Universal Human Rights Claims Essentialize Ethics Into A Western Centric Model
Of Rights Which Destroys That Which It Claims To Help
Richard Rorty, arguably one of the most important philosophers of the twentieth century,
believed that foundational arguments for universal human rights and moral obligations, based on
our distinct rationality-in-common, were insufficient to defend their cause. In the real world,
people choose to focus on their differences, rather than on their commonalities. The answer to
such a problem ought not be the traditional abstract, ahistorical appeal to rationality, emblematic
of the moralist. Attempting to harness the power of the moral imperative is to utilize a volatile,
indeterminate mechanism for action. In fact, such avowedly well intended efforts will likely be
shrugged off by the populace, especially those who lack a site of safety and security from which
to make such an enlightenment-inspired, Eurocentric judgment. Worse still, opening the door to
such rhetoric risks regressive, sometimes genocidal, outcomes. Rorty argues that many persons
– such as the Serbs, Black Muslims, and even Thomas Jefferson – believe(d) that only by
purifying society can we rise above our animal nature and become fully rational. For them,
“Others” may appear to be biologically human, but, as a natural result of an ontology grounded
in a distinction based on rationality, not all human animals are due the same moral consideration.
Rorty’s argument may seem extreme until one considers American history and the implications
of its Manifest Destiny driven project. Professor Stephen Hopwood explains as follows:
“The story of the destruction of American Indian society is not one from which liberals have
taken much satisfaction. The Indians were driven relentlessly to the West before the onrushing
march of capitalism, embodied all too physically in frontiersmen, white settlers, and railway
tracks. Yet, central to this process was the idea of remaking, civilising ‘the Indian’, especially
Indian children, and making them ‘white’… This is reflected in the international media’s
uncritical attitude to human rights, its presumption in favour of Western morality (liberal
individualism as natural and obviously progressive), its identification of collective loyalties,
social conflict, intra-state violence and inequality with ‘backwardness’, and its failure to
understand the extent to which modern pressures for ethical homogeneity can lead to disturbing
and deeply dislocating social change. These presumptions manifest the conclusion of this essay
about the ‘small print’, the taken-for-grantedness of what constitutes a ‘good life’, visible in the
theory and also in the practice of contemporary global civil society.”
[Hopgood, Stephen. 2000. “Reading the Small Print in Global Civil Society: The Inexorable Hegemony of
the Liberal Self.” Millennium: The Journal of International Studies. 29:1]
Sadly, such an impulse is often at the core of international calls to intervene in the name of
universal human rights. Thinkers such as Giorgio Agamben have articulated this syndrome as
the “Kill to Save” impulse. Law Professor Makau Mutua explains the phenomenon as follows:
21
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 22
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
“The subtext of human rights is a grand narrative hidden in the seemingly neutral and universal
language of the corpus. For example, the U.N. Charter describes its mandate to "reaffirm faith in
fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of
men and women and of nations large and small." This is certainly a noble ideal. But what
exactly does that terminology mean here? This phraseology conceals more than it reveals. What,
for example, are fundamental human rights, and how are they determined? Do such rights have
cultural, religious, ethical, moral, political, or other biases? What exactly is meant by the "dignity
and worth" of the human person? Is there an essentialized human being that the corpus imagines?
Is the individual found in the streets of Nairobi, the slums of Boston, the deserts of Iraq, or the
rainforests of Brazil? In addition to the Herculean task of defining the prototypical human being,
the U.N. Charter puts forward another pretense--that all nations "large and small" enjoy some
equality. Even as it ratified power imbalances between the Third World and the dominant
American and European powers, the United Nations gave the latter the primary power to define
and determine "world peace" and "stability." These fictions of neutrality and universality, like so
much else in a lopsided world, undergird the human rights corpus and belie its true identity and
purposes. This international rhetoric of goodwill reveals, just beneath the surface, intentions and
reality that stand in great tension and contradiction with it…If the human rights movement is
driven by a totalitarian or totalizing impulse, that is, the mission to require that all human
societies transform themselves to fit a particular blueprint, then there is an acute shortage of deep
reflection and a troubling abundance of zealotry in the human rights community. This vision of
the "good society" must be vigorously questioned”
[Mutua, Makau. 2001. “Savages, Victims, and Saviors: The Metaphor of Human Rights.” Harvard
International Law Journal. Winter.]
22
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 23
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
DEFINITIONAL ANALYSIS
When Forced to Choose
The interesting part of this clause is not the definitional meaning, which is mundane.
Rather, it is the constraints created by this clause on examples which are relevant under the
resolution which will be of greatest interest to debaters. The only examples or situations which
are fungible within such a framework are one’s where a forced choice exists between acting to
protect universal human rights and protecting the national interest (presumably of the nation
undertaking the action). The first significant implication of this is that “chicken/egg” debates –
where one side attempts to capture the impact of the other side by claiming their advocacy
“solves” it – become highly problematic. Consider the following example. If I make an
Affirmative argument that we ought to protect human rights on moral grounds and you answer
that by doing so I lose a valuable opportunity to increase American prestige (and safety)
worldwide, I might be tempted to answer by reading evidence form Professor Joseph Nye
claiming that rights protections increases U.S. soft power, which is very much in our national
interest. Is my argument, in a sense, “too good?” If that claim is true, isn’t it the case that no
conflict situation exists, making the argument now no longer germane to the specific
construction of the resolution? In this case, it still advantages the Affirmative to make this claim
– they are merely playing defense against a national prestige argument; they are ultimately happy
to see that argument dismissed as non-germane. However, this same problem can play out on
questions which are non-theoretical, where specific examples are being debated. In such cases, it
seems highly possible that an argument might be “too good” for its own good.
Since we are considering the issue of which conflict situations are relevant under the
limiting phrasing of the resolution, this seems an opportune time to consider the range of
examples both sides might consider deploying. Certainly any number of examples of
humanitarian intervention might be considered by both sides. Likely Affirmative examples of
such interventions include Nazi Germany, Rwanda, and Libya. Likely Negative examples
include Somalia, Haiti, and various disastrous U.N. peacekeeping operations. Beyond
humanitarian intervention, the submission of the U.S. to the authority of the International
Criminal Court, as well as other mechanisms of international law, seems a prime example of
where, at least by the eye of the U.S. government, national interest would be sublimated to a
notion of universal human rights. In addition, the discussion thus far has been framed as a
23
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 24
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
domestic v. international question. However, it can also be understood as a question of purely
domestic policy. For example, the U.S. Patriot act calls upon Americans to surrender what are
regarded by some (perhaps many) as universal human rights (to privacy, property, expression,
etc.) in the name of a significant national interest in enhancing domestic security. Of course, we
have only considered U.S. based examples. The resolution in no way limits analysis to U.S.
examples and, if this were any tournament other than NFL Nationals, this briefing would be
chock full of non-U.S. examples. However, given the nature of that particular competition, a
competitor might be well advised to hew toward examples familiar to their audience.
Forced: “done or brought about by force; not voluntary”
(Webster’s New World Dictionary. Third College Edition. 1988)
Choose: “to decide or prefer”
(Webster’s New World Dictionary. Third College Edition. 1988)
A Just Government
This is the nexus phrase of the resolution. It is very possible that this value criteria
phrase will determine the outcomes of a great many rounds at NFL Nationals. The reason is
simple. If the Negative can win a limited, domestic oriented conception of the social contract as
the definition of a just government, they are in an extraordinarily advantageous position. At that
point, the Negative definition of “just government” renders the resolution almost tautological.
However, the Affirmative can also easily claim a similarly strong advantage by winning that
justness in the context of a government concerns morality and ethical obligations. Regardless,
this will be the definition most likely to be contested during rebuttals in most debates.
Just: “1) right or fair, 2) righteous, upright, 3) deserved, merited, 4) legally right, lawful, 5)
proper, fitting, 6) well founded, reasonable”
(Webster’s New World Dictionary. Third College Edition. 1988)
Government: “an established system of political administration by which a nation, state,
institution, etc. is governed.”
(Webster’s New World Dictionary. Third College Edition. 1988)
24
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 25
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
Ought to Prioritize
This topic phrasing is not unfamiliar to LD debaters. The only wrinkle is that if one
defines ought in moral terms, then to define “just” in moral terms as well might create a
redundancy which is syntactically incoherent. However, “ought” can be defined either in broad
or narrow terms – the success of that debate will depend upon the relative skill of the debaters,
not an appeal to definitional truth. “Prioritize” merely functions to emphasize the desire to the
framers to consider only situations where claim of national interest and universal human rights
are mutually exclusive.
Ought: “1) to be compelled by obligation or duty; 2) to be expected or likely”
(Webster’s New World Dictionary. Third College Edition. 1988)
Prioritize: “to arrange in order or priority”
(Webster’s New World Dictionary. Third College Edition. 1988)
Universal Human Rights
This phrase has been discussed at length, across five pages, earlier in this topic analysis.
Some standard definitions will be provide below, but debaters should either A) use academic
definitions, similar to those offered in the Topic in Brief section, from Professors such as Singer
or Appiah, or B) utilize an accepted contextual definition from an international framework
agreement, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). That text can be found
at: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
Universal: “not limited or restricted”
(Webster’s New World Dictionary. Third College Edition. 1988)
Rights: “1) A power belonging to a person to bring about a change in a moral or legal situation,
2) Permissibility…in combination with prohibition of interference.”
(Dictionary of Philosophy. Second Edition. Penguin Books. 1996)
It’s National Interest
Similar to the case with “universal human rights,” the notion of “national interest” is
discussed at length earlier in this topic analysis. The most interesting thing to note about the
syntax of this phrase is its possessive nature. The national interest cannot be that of another
25
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 26
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
nation or a mere abstract appeal to the notion of national sovereignty. The pursuit of universal
human rights must come at a cost to national interest in order for the example or situation under
consideration to be relevant within the confines of the resolution.
National: “1) of or having to do with a nation or the nation, 2) affecting a (or the) nation as a
whole”
(Webster’s New World Dictionary. Third College Edition. 1988)
Interest: “1) a right or claim to something,…3) advantage; welfare; benefit”
(Webster’s New World Dictionary. Third College Edition. 1988)
26
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 27
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
AFFIRMATIVE POSITIONS
Based on our focus group testing of potential arguments on this topic, our staff members have
found that these four affirmative positions have significant potential and resonate with judges
ranging from lay judges to non-expert but educated professionals.
States ought to never violate human rights.
Generally, rights are conceived of as something that is due to a person. This creates both
a claim that an individual can assert, while, at the same time, creating a duty on the part of some
other entity to respect that claim. Rights are distinct from privileges. While a privilege may be
conditionally given to a person, no one is guaranteed to receive that privilege, and no one is
obligated to provide it.
Thus, if rights are to have a meaning, they must serve as a trump when they conflict with
other social goods, like the protection of the national interest. This view of rights is upheld in
other areas – just societies allow for freedom of speech, even if it might offend some people in
the community. Since the resolution implies an inherent forced conflict between human rights
and the national interest, the trump of human rights must take priority.
Human rights ought to take precedence over the national interest because it is more
consistent with the purpose of a just government.
Just governments derive their legitimacy from the people. Because people give up rights
to the government, they only have the power that the people give up to them. Since individuals
do not have the legitimate authority to violate the human rights of others, they cannot give the
power to their government to take a similar action. Additionally, just governments are valuable
because they respect the rights and inherent dignity of people. If a just government decided to
violate human rights, it would lose its moral force as a legitimate state. By sacrificing the
principles of human rights for self-preservation, governments would be sustaining a system not
worth saving. Thus, when forced to choose, states should prioritize human rights because that
stance is more consistent with the legitimacy of a just government.
International law justifies prioritizing human rights over the national interest.
After World War II, the international community faced the troubling issue of how to deal
with systematic abuses of people by governments. In order to make sure similar atrocities never
occurred again, the global community was in a unique place to create as broad of an international
consensus as possible to promote basic human dignity and freedom. The end result of that
compromise was the creation and ratification of a number of human rights documents, including
the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
In addition to creating a binding obligation on the governments that agreed to these
norms, human rights norms also create customary international law concerning appropriate state
behavior. It is important to enforce these international norms because they create a positive
climate for human rights as a whole in the international community. If states chose to violate
human rights for the national interest, they undermine the norms of human rights that benefit all
people.
27
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 28
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
The national interest is too arbitrary and vague to take precedence over human rights.
When deciding whether to promote human rights or the national interest, the substantive
meaning of both human rights and the national interest must be examined. Human rights, as
previously mentioned, are not only internationally codified by a variety of treaties and
declarations, but they also prevent the state from directly abusing people. Even if there is some
disagreement as to the relative importance of a few specifically codified human rights, the
international community largely agrees on what those rights are and why those rights are
important.
On the other hand, the substantive outcomes promoted by the national interest are not
always clearly known, and are likely to vary from state to state. The national interest is likely to
vary from state to state because different states have different goals and may face different
challenges based on the hostility of their neighbors, their geography, etc. While some may say
that things like security need to be pursued by all states, the relative importance of security and
what steps really need to be taken to achieve that security will also vary greatly from state to
state. This means that human rights ought to be prioritized because they provide the same, clear
benefits to all people instead of the vague doctrine of the national interest.
28
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 29
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
NEGATIVE POSITIONS
Based on our focus group testing of potential arguments on this topic, our staff members have
found that these four negative positions have significant potential and resonate with judges
ranging from lay judges to non-expert but educated professionals.
Necessity justifies placing the national interest above human rights.
While generally human rights require respect by state actors, human rights, like other
rights, are not absolute. When rights come in to conflict, some rights must be prioritized over
others. Some rights the government provides for when promoting the national interest are
fundamental rights, like safety and freedom from foreign aggression. If it is legitimate for
individuals to violate the rights of others to provide for their basic protection through selfdefense, states ought to be able to do the same thing to protect the country as a whole. If states
are forced to choose between security and human rights, then they must prioritize safety.
Governments must prioritize their own citizens’ needs above human rights.
Governments are formed to protect their people. The people surrender some of their
rights for the promise of protection of the rest of their rights. They also pay taxes to support their
government’s ability to accomplish particular ends. Thus, the most basic obligation of the
government is to protect the people by promoting their interests.
Similarly, no one would have any reason to join or support a particular state if that state
did not owe specific allegiance to the people that created it and continue to allow it to exist. If
states prioritized the human rights of non-citizens above the national interests required by its own
citizens, governments would serve no purpose. Since there is no world government, people must
rely on their national government to promote their interests, which requires putting national
needs above universal human rights.
Role morality justifies placing the national interest above human rights.
Different moral standards apply to different actors based on their particular ethical
responsibilities. For example, it is generally impermissible for drivers to exceed the speed limit,
but police officers are not only permitted to speed, it may be morally required of them to prevent
a crime in progress. Similarly, the moral rules that apply to individuals more broadly do not
apply to the state. It is broadly accepted that the state is able to do things that individuals do not
have the authority to do, like levying taxes. Similarly, while it may generally be in the
government’s interest to protect human rights, the government has a unique role to protect the
people. If governments did not prioritize the interests of their people first, they would be
breaching the duty of the role that they have taken on to serve the peoples’ interests.
Human rights are not intrinsically valuable.
The universal nature of “universal human rights” is not fully agreed to by many
countries. While there are documents that claim to outline what universal human rights concerns
are, there are substantive disagreements in the international community as to what human rights
are the most important, as well as how to implement those rights. Some may also argue that
29
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 30
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
human rights are also not intrinsically valuable because they impede on cultural selfdetermination, and are too focused on the individual instead of the community.
The national interest, on the other hand, is necessary for the state to pursue all other
culturally specific goods. If the security of the state is threatened, and it is questionable as to
whether or not the state will continue to exist, then it would be unable to fulfill any of its
obligations to the people. So when states are forced to choose between a nebulous set of human
rights and its concrete obligations to its people, it ought to prioritize the national interest.
30
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 31
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
SELECTED PRINT RESOURCES
Agamben, Giorgio. 1998. Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Appiah, Kwame. 2006. Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. New York: W.W.
Norton & Company.
Beitz, Charles. 1979. Political Theory and International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Bowden, Brett. 2003. “Nationalism and Cosmopolitanism: Irreconcilable Differences or
Possible Bedfellows?” National Identities. 5:3.
Brilmayer, Lea. 1995-6. “The Moral Significance of Nationalism.” Notre Dame Law Review.
71:7.
Buergenthal, Thomas. 1997. “The Normative and Institutional Evolution of International Human
Rights.” Human Rights Quarterly. 19:4.
Callahan, Daniel. 1973. The Tyranny of Survival and Other Pathologies of Civilized Life, New
York: Macmillan Publishing.
De Greiff, Pablo. 2002. “Habermas on Nationalism and Cosmopolitanism.” Ratio Juris. 15:4.
Donnelly, Jack. 2003. Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Donnelly, Jack. 1984. “Cultural Relativism and Universal Human Rights.” Human Rights
Quarterly, vol. 6.
Forsythe, David. 2006. Human Rights in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Freiwald, Susan. 2004. “Online Surveillance: Remembering the Lessons of the Wiretap Act.
Alabama Law Review. 56:9.
Glendon, Mary Ann. 1991. Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse. New
York: Macmillan Publishing.
Gomberg, Paul. 1990. “Patriotism is like Racism.” Ethics. 101:1.
Gross, Emanuel. 2004. “"The Struggle of a Democracy Against Terrorism-Protection of Human
Rights: The Right to Privacy Versus the National Interest-The Proper Balance," Cornell
International Law Journal. vol. 37.
31
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 32
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
Holzgrefe, J.L. and Robert Keohane. (ed.) 2003. Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal,
and Political Dilemmas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hopgood, Stephen. 2000. “Reading the Small Print in Global Civil Society: The Inexorable
Hegemony of the Liberal Self.” Millennium: The Journal of International Studies. 29:1.
Ignatieff, Michael. 2001. Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Kant, Immanuel. 1983. Perpetual Peace and Other Essays. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett
Publishing Company.
Kymlicka, Will and Christine Straehle. 1999. “Cosmopolitanism, Nation-States, and Minority
Nationalism: A Critical Review of Recent Literature.” European Journal of Philosophy. April.
Luban, David. 1980. “The Romance of the Nation-State.” Philosophy and Public Affairs. 9:4.
Maxwell, Mary. 1990. Morality among Nations: An Evolutionary View. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Mayall, James. 1999. “Sovereignty, Nationalism, and Self-Determination.” Political Studies.
47:3.
Mayer, Ann. 1993-94. “Universal versus Islamic Human Rights: A Clash of Cultures Or Clash
With A Construct.” Michigan Journal of International Law. 15:307.
Mearsheimer, John. 2003. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company.
Mutua, Makau. 2001. “Savages, Victims, and Saviors: The Metaphor of Human Rights.”
Harvard International Law Journal. Winter.
Mutua, Makau. 1996. “The Ideology of Human Rights.” Virginia Journal of International Law.
vol. 36.
Nye, Joseph. 1999. “Redefining the National Interest.” Foreign Affairs. 78:22.
Pollis, Adamantia. 1996. “Cultural Relativism Revisited: Through a State Prism.” Human
Rights Quarterly. 18:2.
Power, Samantha. 2002. “A Problem from Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide. New
York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Rorty, Richard. (ed) 1998. “Human Rights, Rationality, and Sentimentality.” Truth and
Progress: Philosophical Papers, Volume 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 33
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
Saito, Natsu. 2002. “Whose Liberty? Whose Security? The USA PATRIOT Act in the Context of
COINTELPRO and the Unlawful Repression of Political Dissent” Oregon Law Review. 81:4.
Schell, Jonathan. 2003. The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the
People. New York: Holt Paperbacks.
Singer, Peter. 2002. One World: The Ethics of Globalization. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Snyder, Glenn. 2002. “Mearsheimer’s World: Offensive Realism and the Struggle for Security.”
International Security. 27:1. 149-173
Teson, Fernando. 1984/85. “International Human Rights and Cultural Relativism.” Virginia
Journal of International Law. vol. 25.
Turner, Bryan. 2002. “Cosmopolitan Virtue, Globalization, and Patriotism.” Culture and
Society. April.
Turner, Bryan. 1993. “Outline of a Theory of Human Rights.” Sociology. 27:3.
Vincent, R.J. 1986. Human Rights and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Von Clausewitz, Carl. 1986. On War. London: Penguin Books.
Walzer, Michael. 1977. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations.
New York: Basic Books
SELECTED ONLINE RESOURCES
Websites:
There are hundreds of websites that are relevant to this L-D debate topic. The sources
listed below were carefully selected and indicate an “editor’s pick” for best selection.
Shashi Tharoor, “Are Human Rights Universal?,” World Policy Journal, vol. XVI, no. 4, 1999/2000.
URL: http://www.worldpolicy.org/tharoor.html
This well-argued essay raises important questions about the fundamental premises upon which universal
human rights are based. Tharoor points out that many non-Western cultures are based on philosophical
tenets that are incompatible with the concept of universal human rights.
33
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 34
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
SELECTED QUOTATIONS ON THE TOPIC
AFFIRMATIVE QUOTATIONS
Human rights stem from human equality.
Jack Donnelly, “Human Rights and Asian Values; A Defense of “Western” Universalism”, The East
Asian Challenge for Human Rights, Eds. Joanne Bauer and Daniel Bell. Cambridge University Press.
1999.
To claim that there are human rights is to claim that all human beings, simply because they are human,
have rights in this sense. Such rights are universal, held by all human beings. They are equal: One is or is
not human, and thus has or does not have (the same) human rights, equally. And they are inalienable: One
can no more lose these rights than one can stop being a human being, no matter how inhuman the
treatment one may be forced to endure.
Human rights express ultimate moral concerns.
Thomas Pogge, “The International Significance of Human Rights”, The Journal of Ethics, Volume 4,
2000.
The concept of a human right has certain central elements that any plausible understanding of human
rights must incorporate. First, human rights express ultimate moral concerns: Persons have a moral duty
to respect human rights, a duty that does not derive from a more general moral duty to comply with
national or international legal instruments. (In fact, the opposite may hold: Conformity with human rights
is a moral requirement on any legal order, whose capacity to create moral obligations depends in part on
such conformity.) Second, human rights express weighty moral concerns, which normally override other
normative considerations. Third, these moral concerns are focused on human beings, as all of them and
they alone have human rights and the special moral status associated there with. Fourth, with respect to
these moral concerns, all human beings have equal status: They have exactly the same human rights, and
the moral significance of these rights and their fulfillment does not vary with whose human rights are at
stake.1 Fifth, human rights express moral concerns that are unrestricted, i.e., they ought to be respected by
all human agents irrespective of their particular epoch, culture, religion, moral tradition or philosophy.
Sixth, these moral concerns are broadly shamble, i.e., capable of being understood and appreciated by
persons from different epochs and cultures as well as by adherents of a variety of different religions,
moral traditions and philosophies. The notions of unrestrictedness and broad sharability are related in that
we tend to feel more confident about conceiving of a moral concern as unrestricted when this concern is
not parochial to some particular epoch, culture, religion, moral tradition or philosophy.2
Human rights must be pragmatically implemented.
Robert D. Sloane, “Outrelativizing Relativism: A Liberal Defense of the Universality of International
Human Rights”, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Volume 34, 2001.
In 1993 at the Second World Conference on Human Rights, national delegates from around the globe
adopted the Vienna Declaration: “all human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and
interrelated. . . .”[2] Like most rhetoric—in particular, rhetoric that surrounds human rights discourse—
the Declaration’s compelling language veils acute problems that emerge the moment one strives to bring
its abstract claims to bear upon real world affairs and normative claims. [3] But precisely this aspiration
makes the human rights movement worthwhile. Should the discourse of human rights remain in
theoretical limbo, solely the subject of armchair philosophy, then the very concept of human rights law
34
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 35
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
becomes quixotic. Only insofar as human rights discourse enacts, or maintains the potential to enact,
concrete changes in the behavior of international actors does the human rights movement retain its value.
Human rights are pre-institutional.
Charles Beitz, “What Human Rights Mean”, Daedalus, Volume 132, Number 1, 2003.
But why should human rights be conceived as pre-institutional? Natural rights theories, at least in the
more liberal variants such as Locke's, were primarily attempts to formulate constraints on the use of a
government's monopoly of coercive power. They were theoretical devices by which legitimate and
illegitimate uses of power could be distinguished, and they make sense only against a background
assumption that a central problem of political life is the protection of individual liberties against a
predictable threat of tyranny or oppression. This is not the nature of the human rights of the Declaration,
which describes "a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations." If natural rights are
about guaranteeing individual liberty against infringement by the state, human rights are about this and
more : to put it extravagantly, though I think not wrongly, inter national human rights, taken as a pack
age, are about establishing social conditions conducive to the living of dignified human lives. These rights
represent an assumption of moral responsibility for the public sphere that was missing.
Human rights are necessarily held against the state.
Jack Donnelly, “Human Rights and Asian Values; A Defense of “Western” Universalism”, The East
Asian Challenge for Human Rights, Eds. Joanne Bauer and Daniel Bell. Cambridge University Press.
1999.
Against whom are such rights held and exercised? Conceived as rights in rem - that is, rights to particular
things that hold against all possible duty bearers - every person and group would have human rights
obligations to every human being. Although logically plausible, and in some ways morally attractive, this
has not been the standard interpretation. Throughout their history, human rights have been seen to hold
primarily against the state and society of which one is a member. Human rights require the state to
provide certain protections, goods, services, and opportunities to every citizen.
Human rights are inalienable.
Jack Donnelly, “Human Rights and Human Dignity: An Analytic Critique of Non-Western Conceptions
of Human Rights”, The American Political Science Review, Volume 76, Number 2, 1982.
Since they are grounded in human nature, human rights are generally viewed as inalienable, at least in the
way in which one's nature is inalienable. Inalienability is a particularly difficult concept to analyze.
However, at the minimum what is suggested is that in some moral sense one cannot fully renounce,
transfer, or otherwise alienate one's human rights. To do so would be to destroy one's humanity, to denature oneself, to become other (less) than a human being and thus it is viewed as a moral impossibility.
Human rights must trump policy considerations.
Robert D. Sloane, “Outrelativizing Relativism: A Liberal Defense of the Universality of International
Human Rights”, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Volume 34, 2001.
Theoretically, universal human rights imply, at a minimum, some set of “morally weighty” social norms
that preempt, under all but the most exigent circumstances, other cultural value priorities.[7] “Rights,” as
Jack Donnelly argues, “are ‘interests’ that have been specially entrenched in a system of justifications and
35
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 36
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
thereby substantially transformed, giving them priority, in ordinary circumstances, over, for example,
utilitarian calculations, mere interests, or considerations of social policy . . . which otherwise would be
not only appropriate, but decisive, reasons for public or private action.”
Natural rights are timeless.
Charles Beitz, “What Human Rights Mean”, Daedalus, Volume 132, Number 1, 2003.
When we say that human rights are universal, we might mean that all human beings at all times and
places would be justified in claiming them. Natural rights were supposed to have this kind of
timelessness, and this might encourage someone to believe that human rights should too.
Lockean philosophy justifies human rights.
Jack Donnelly, “Human Rights and Asian Values; A Defense of “Western” Universalism”, The East
Asian Challenge for Human Rights, Eds. Joanne Bauer and Daniel Bell. Cambridge University Press.
1999.
Natural or human rights entered the mainstream of Western political theory and practice in the
seventeenth century. John Locke's Second Treatise of Government (1688) is conventionally, and with
some justification, seen as the first fully developed natural rights theory consistent with later human rights
ideas.5 In addition to natural law injunctions to rule justly, Locke saw rulers as bound by the natural rights
of their citizens to life, liberty, and estates.
National interest is ambiguous.
Luke Glanville, “How are we to Think About the ‘National Interest’?”, Australian Quarterly, Volume 77,
Number 4, 2005.
Those, such as Morgenthau, who describe the national interest as logically deductive could argue that
these examples are aberrations and that, usually, states act to preserve their vital interests. However,
Wolfers notes that even this claim is ambiguous. He observes that the vital interests that some scholars
describe usually do not tell us much about a nation's foreign policy. He observes the limited usefulness of
broad categories of 'security' or 'territorial and political integrity', suggesting that even these core
objectives are rarely uniform in scope or character and must be treated as significant variables.32 While
some states exaggerate the threat to their security that they face, others under estimate it. The highly
divergent policies that can be interpreted as policies of security renders claims that a state will pursue
'security' ambiguous at best.33
A failure to implement human rights requires intervention.
Charles Beitz, “What Human Rights Mean”, Daedalus, Volume 132, Number 1, 2003.
Putting these two ideas together, we might say that human rights are the basic requirements of global
justice. They describe conditions that the institutions of all domestic societies should strive to satisfy,
whatever a society's more comprehensive aims. And their violation identifies deficiencies that, if not
made good locally, should command the attention and resources of the international community. If a
country failed to satisfy these conditions even though it were equipped to fulfill them, that country would
become susceptible to outside corrective interference. If the failure were due to a lack of local resources,
this could justify a requirement on others to assist.23
36
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 37
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
Many people have no access to human rights.
Francis M. Deng, professor of international law at Johns Hopkins University, “Section Three:
International Processes: Divided Nations: The Paradox of National Protection”, The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 2006.
The principle of state responsibility to guarantee the protection and general welfare of its citizens and all
those under state jurisdiction poses practical problems in countries experiencing sharp cleavages with
differentiated identities based on race, ethnicity, religion, language, or culture. The worst affected are
minority or marginalized groups in conflict with the dominant group. Instead of being protected and
assisted as citizens, members of these groups tend to be identified as part of the enemy, neglected and
even persecuted. For them, citizenship becomes of little more than paper value. Disconnected from the
enjoyment of the rights normally associated with the dignity of being a citizen, their marginalization
becomes tantamount to statelessness.
Governments are only legitimate if they protect human rights.
Jack Donnelly, “Human Rights and Asian Values; A Defense of “Western” Universalism”, The East
Asian Challenge for Human Rights, Eds. Joanne Bauer and Daniel Bell. Cambridge University Press.
1999.
Government thus can be considered legitimate insofar as it furthers the effective enjoyment of the human
rights of its citizens. And citizens are entitled to such a government. They hold rights against the state and
society - in extreme cases, even a right to revolution.
Human rights sufficiently preserve cultural autonomy.
Robert D. Sloane, “Outrelativizing Relativism: A Liberal Defense of the Universality of International
Human Rights”, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Volume 34, 2001.
The justification for valuing tolerance and autonomy, as Will Kymlicka has convincingly shown,[22] is
inextricably tied to the distinctive liberal conception of the individual or the “self” as agent.
Consequently, absent some alternative—nonliberal— justification, any assertion that cultural groups or
political entities also merit tolerance and respect for their autonomy is necessarily derivative of—not
independent of—the rationale for respecting individual autonomy. Of course, a cultural or state elite
remains free to repudiate this value and its concomitant rationale. But it cannot then demand tolerance or
respect for “cultural autonomy” as a rhetorical device to deflect criticism of its human rights practices.
The implementation of human rights can take many forms.
Charles Beitz, “What Human Rights Mean”, Daedalus, Volume 132, Number 1, 2003.
Part of the answer depends on the con tent of the idea of global justice, and part depends on the nature of
the remedial rights and responsibilities that flow from human rights violations. The first question is
interesting and points to a large, unresolved set of philosophical issues. But I think the second one is more
important practically. Here the key point is that the ideas of corrective interference and requirement to
assist could each encompass many kinds of action. Interference, for example, could mean military
intervention (as in Kosovo) but could also involve nonviolent forms of intervention (like making foreign
aid conditional on upholding human rights). Similarly, assistance might consist of direct transfers (as in
development aid), but it might also entail less direct forms of help (like reforming discriminatory trade
practices). Indeed, human rights violations could command international attention in a meaningful way
37
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 38
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
even if neither corrective interference nor tangible assistance were feasible - for example, by triggering
advocacy or cross-border political action by NGOs.
Human rights prevent the privileging of certain groups.
Jack Donnelly, “Human Rights and Asian Values; A Defense of “Western” Universalism”, The East
Asian Challenge for Human Rights, Eds. Joanne Bauer and Daniel Bell. Cambridge University Press.
1999.
Once the claim of equal and inalienable rights held by all had been advanced, however, the burden of
proof shifted to those who would deny these rights to other members of the species Homo sapiens.
Privilege could be defended by appeals to racial superiority, the natural rational infirmities of women, or
superior acquired virtue. It was protected through force. But dominant elites found it increasingly difficult
to evade the egalitarian logic of human rights.
Human rights are ethically justified.
Elizabeth M. Zechenter, “In the Name of Culture: Cultural Relativism and the Abuse of the Individual”,
Journal of Anthropological Research, Volume 53, Number 3, 1997
Until the second world war, the protection of human rights of individuals was seen as a sovereign
prerogative of the state and therefore as a domestic rather than an international concern. The atrocities of
the Second World War provided the impetus to change that status quo. In the discussion that ensued, most
scholars and politicians agreed that individuals are far too vulnerable if left at the mercy of domestic legal
systems and that individuals need more protection against abuses suffered at the hand of the state. This
agreement was most fully expressed in the creation of the United Nations and the enactment of the
complex international regime of universal human rights. This new international legal regime was
grounded as much in the empirical evidence of widespread abuses as in the following ethical and
philosophical beliefs: (1) no state can be entrusted with an absolute power over its own citizens because
of the tendency of states to abuse absolute power; (2) an international regime of human rights protection
is needed to protect individuals against states and other supralevel organizations; (3) all individuals are
entitled, by virtue of their common humanity, to a basic modicum of human dignity; (4) certain human
rights are universal, fundamental, and inalienable, and thus they cannot and should not be overridden by
cultural and religious traditions; and (5) the accident of birth into a particular social group or culture is not
an ethically relevant circumstance and thus has no bearing on that individual's intrinsic human worth and
her or his entitlement to be treated as a human being.
Human rights stem from our humanity.
Jack Donnelly, “Human Rights and Human Dignity: An Analytic Critique of Non-Western Conceptions
of Human Rights”, The American Political Science Review, Volume 76, Number 2, 1982.
Human rights are conceived as naturally inhering in the human person. They are neither granted by the
state nor are they the result of one's actions. In Hart's (1955) well-known categorization, they are general
rights, rights that arise from no special undertaking beyond membership in the human race. To have
human rights one does not have to be anything other than a human being. Neither must one do anything
other than be born a human being.
38
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 39
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
International treaty obligations justify human rights.
Elizabeth M. Zechenter, “In the Name of Culture: Cultural Relativism and the Abuse of the Individual”,
Journal of Anthropological Research, Volume 53, Number 3, 1997
The modern system of international human rights treaties—which have been ratified by all nations—
reflects these universalist notions. For example, the Charter of the United Nations reaffirms a "faith in
fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and
women" (United Nations Charter, Preamble, 1945) and states that the goal of the United Nations is to
promote universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without
distinctions of race, sex, language, or religion (United Nations Charter, Articles 1(3) and 55). Both UN
Covenants— the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—state that "equal and inalienable rights of all members of the
human family [are] the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world" and proclaim that human
rights have their origin in the "inherent dignity of the human person"
Human rights help check the bias of the state.
Jack Donnelly, “Human Rights and Asian Values; A Defense of “Western” Universalism”, The East
Asian Challenge for Human Rights, Eds. Joanne Bauer and Daniel Bell. Cambridge University Press.
1999.
There is no obvious reason why this should be possible, let alone desirable. Some cultural legacies are
incompatible with any plausible idea of human rights. For example, racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism
were for many centuries - many would argue still are - deeply entrenched elements of the cultural and
political legacy of the West. One of our principal human rights achievements has been precisely to
challenge, in theory and in practice, this legacy and to help to create another. The equal and inalienable
rights of all people, simply because they are human - human rights - is a distinctive principle of social and
political organization. Human rights are compatible with only a limited range of practices. They are not,
and should not be, neutral with respect to political forms or cultural traditions.
Human rights are a legitimate source of political authority.
Elizabeth M. Zechenter, “In the Name of Culture: Cultural Relativism and the Abuse of the Individual”,
Journal of Anthropological Research, Volume 53, Number 3, 1997
Rationalism replaces the divine origins of universal human rights found in the natural law theory with the
idea that human rights are held by each human being, in an individual capacity, due to the universal
capacity of all humans to think rationally. Both rationalism and natural law theory are often combined in
the modern human rights discourse and take the form of claims that universal human rights exist
independent of culture, ideology, or value systems. In this view, universal human rights are a class of
rights each individual possesses by virtue of being a human. They are the rights of final resort, typically
invoked when all else has been tried and has failed, and are therefore moral and ethical rights of the
highest order. They are also extracultural and are meant to challenge and change the existing norms,
practices, and institutions and to subvert oppressive customs (Donnelly 1989,1990).
39
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 40
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
Human rights as trumps preserve human dignity.
Robert D. Sloane, “Outrelativizing Relativism: A Liberal Defense of the Universality of International
Human Rights”, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Volume 34, 2001.
A liberal conception of “rights as trumps” against the demands of the community or the state finds its
justification in two interrelated ideas: First, that everyone must “have the resources and liberties needed to
lead their lives in accordance with their beliefs about value . . .;” and second, that individuals also need
the information and liberty to “question those beliefs, to examine them in light of . . . an awareness of
different views about the good life” and, if warranted, to revise them.[235] Human rights, as one peculiar
subset of rights generally, seek to protect human dignity by preserving each person’s ability to choose
among the diverse conceptions of ultimate value that different cultures embrace.
Legal positivism justifies human rights.
Elizabeth M. Zechenter, “In the Name of Culture: Cultural Relativism and the Abuse of the Individual”,
Journal of Anthropological Research, Volume 53, Number 3, 1997
Positivism, on the other hand, justifies the existence of universal human rights by noting the worldwide
acceptance and ratification of human rights instruments. According to positivists, universal human rights
norms have been created by and are embodied in the international treaties and customary international
law (Higgins 1994). Positivists observe that cultural differences notwithstanding, all Western and nonWestern nations have signed and ratified the vast majority of human rights treaties and agreements, a fact
which attests to the worldwide acceptance of the human rights principles set forth in these treaties and
agreements. This uniform worldwide acceptance provides, therefore, a legitimate basis for adherence to
such universal human rights and other standards underlying these treaties and agreements.
States do not need to purely pursue power.
Luke Glanville, “How are we to Think About the ‘National Interest’?”, Australian Quarterly, Volume 77,
Number 4, 2005.
Those who subscribe to an objective national interest typically do not acknowledge that their own values
can influence the substantive content that they propose. Rather, they assert that states in a Hobbesian state
of nature must necessarily pursue power and this serves as the basis for ranking values. However, the
concept of power is ambiguous. To cumulate the components of power, one must refer to the goals that
power is trying to serve in order to assess the relative importance of each component. In doing so, one
inevitably inputs their own values into their judgement.26 Smith reminds us that even the realists who
advocated an objective national interest, such as Morgenthau, Neibuhr, Kennan and, Henry Kissinger,
were themselves, at times, unable to agree on the specific content of the national interest defined in terms
of power.27 Moreover, the empirical evidence suggests that not all states lust for power. Arnold Wolfers,
himself a realist, makes the important observation that some states lust for power while other states are
relatively indifferent.
40
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 41
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
Relativism does not dejustify human rights.
Elizabeth M. Zechenter, “In the Name of Culture: Cultural Relativism and the Abuse of the Individual”,
Journal of Anthropological Research, Volume 53, Number 3, 1997
Cultural relativism has many flaws. Most formulations of it are contradictory; others are tautological. As
a whole, relativism is based on a static conception of culture. It shows a bias toward functionalism and
tends to justify the dysfunctional beliefs and customs of non-Western cultures while marginalizing
nondominant voices within those societies. It overemphasizes the rights of a group over the rights of
individuals. It forces us to abandon any meaningful discussion about other cultures. However, the most
troubling aspect of cultural relativism is its application to the international human rights legal regime
because of its potential consequences. At a minimum, if relativism were to undermine the universalist
foundations of modern international human rights law, all meaningful dialogue about human rights abuses
would end. Instead, all sorts of culturally sanctioned violations of individuals would be legitimized, and
individuals would be left unprotected against rulers, governments, and others in power
The national interest is only a matter of necessity.
Jack Donnelly, “Human Rights and Asian Values; A Defense of “Western” Universalism”, The East
Asian Challenge for Human Rights, Eds. Joanne Bauer and Daniel Bell. Cambridge University Press.
1999.
If the denial of political rights will bring physical survival, a free people may choose survival (although
even this is not entirely obvious). But to reduce human rights to a guarantee of mere survival is a perverse
betrayal of any plausible conception of human dignity. A state forced to make such a choice acts under a
tragic necessity. Its policies represent, at best, triage. And if after more than forty years in power, a
regime must still rely on arguments of mere survival, it is hard not to conclude that the poor are being
forced to suffer doubly for the poverty to which their government has condemned them.
Cultural relativism in the context of human rights is self-contradictory.
Elizabeth M. Zechenter, “In the Name of Culture: Cultural Relativism and the Abuse of the Individual”,
Journal of Anthropological Research, Volume 53, Number 3, 1997
Logical scrutiny reveals that most applications of cultural relativism to human rights are selfcontradictory. On the one hand, relativists subscribe to the proposition that there are no universal laws or
principles, yet on the other hand they also insist that one must be tolerant of the cultural practices of
others, thus making tolerance a de facto universal principle. If it is true that there are no universal rules,
be they ethical or moral, then cultural relativists commit an error by demanding that, as a matter or
principle, no cultural practice should ever be judged by other cultures or by outsiders. So long as we
recognize at least one universal principle, we should carefully consider which principles deserve to be
applied universally and which do not. A good case can be made that other values, such as justice and
fundamental fairness, are far more worthy of being promoted as universal rather than the principle of
tolerance where tolerance is defined not as avoidance of hasty judgments but rather as an avoidance of
any extracultural judgment irrespective of circumstances.
41
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 42
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
Human rights allow for the preservation of cultural values.
Robert D. Sloane, “Outrelativizing Relativism: A Liberal Defense of the Universality of International
Human Rights”, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Volume 34, 2001.
But at the same time, human rights do not compel any one particular set of values.[238] Within
constraints delineated by the autonomy principle, international human rights provide an overarching
political and legal framework that permits individuals and cultural units relatively broad latitude to
structure their social circumstances and to pursue their values as they see fit. International human rights
therefore prove far more inclusive of diverse conceptions of cultural value than alternative functional
concepts for promoting human dignity. Most non-rights-based conceptions of human dignity insist upon a
singular substantive conception of the good; they therefore demand adherence to specific values,
ideologies, and attendant behaviors. The human rights tradition is unique in that it does not demand
adherence precisely because the universal human rights tradition, far from denying pluralism and far from
denying diverse conceptions of cultural value, is animated by the distinctively liberal presumption of
reasonable value pluralism.
Human rights are needed to check group violence.
Elizabeth M. Zechenter, “In the Name of Culture: Cultural Relativism and the Abuse of the Individual”,
Journal of Anthropological Research, Volume 53, Number 3, 1997
The growing conflicts between rights of individuals and group-sanctioned violence are only likely to
intensify in the near future. In particular, the impact of culture and tradition on the treatment of women
must be carefully evaluated by analyzing who benefits from the tradition versus who bears the cost of the
tradition and by looking at class and power distribution in the society, as well as the politics of the socalled traditions. International human rights norms offer a useful framework for resolving conflicts
between women's rights and traditional customs that harm and dehumanize women. Universal human
rights standards act as limits on the excesses of culture- and religion-based violence. They ensure that
culture is not used as an excuse to limit and impair women's de jure and de facto rights. Ultimately, the
rights of individuals and groups must be balanced by evaluating the nature and significance of cultural
practices, their effects on the weakest members of the society, the degree to which the conflicting rights
interfere with each other, the cumulative effects of potential restrictions on either's rights, and the
proportionality of the restriction (Sullivan 1992). The extent to which women will be able to exercise
their rights within various cultures and succeed in minimizing violence and gender-based inequalities will
be ultimately linked to these women's abilities to share in the interpretation of their cultural traditions.
Communal rights do not trump human rights.
Jack Donnelly, “Human Rights and Asian Values; A Defense of “Western” Universalism”, The East
Asian Challenge for Human Rights, Eds. Joanne Bauer and Daniel Bell. Cambridge University Press.
1999.
The rights of the community, whatever priority we give to them, are not human rights (any more than the
sovereignty rights of the state are human rights). Active enjoyment of individual human rights will be
greatly fostered by a healthy social environment and supportive social institutions. But if society is the
source of all individual rights, such an individual has no human rights. The Chinese claim at Vienna that
"individuals must put the states rights before their own"51 is incompatible with any plausible conception
of human rights. An individual may often be legitimately asked, even required, to sacrifice or defer the
exercise or enjoyment of her rights. But there have been many states whose rights merited little respect
42
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 43
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
from individuals, and sometimes it is society that must give way to the basic rights of individuals. "No
one is entitled to put his individual right above the interest of the state, society, and others. This is the
universal principle of all civilized society."52 This is roughly equivalent to having no rights at all. And a
society in which self must always be categorically subordinated to other simply cannot be considered
"civilized" in the late twentieth century.
The criticism of human rights as Western is unfounded.
Elizabeth M. Zechenter, “In the Name of Culture: Cultural Relativism and the Abuse of the Individual”,
Journal of Anthropological Research, Volume 53, Number 3, 1997
Contrary to the assertions and fears of relativists, human rights universalism does not take away decisionmaking powers from individual cultures, nor does it have demoralizing and homogenizing effects. Nor is
there any evidence to show that universalism is merely a form of uncritical ethnocentric Western
conspiracy designed to undermine non-Western cultures. It may well be that universal human rights ideals
were first recognized and developed in the West, but that does not mean such ideals are alien to nonWestern cultures. Similarly, while the development of international human rights law during the last forty
years was primarily spearheaded by Western nations, it does not mean that the resulting international
human rights regime is ethnocentric and unjust.
Natural law justifies human rights.
Jack Donnelly, “Human Rights and Human Dignity: An Analytic Critique of Non-Western Conceptions
of Human Rights”, The American Political Science Review, Volume 76, Number 2, 1982.
It is clear that the Western tradition of natural or human rights, which goes back at least to Locke, has
conceived of human rights in this way.' In fact it is precisely this conception that distinguishes this
modern tradition from the Greek, medieval, and Stoic natural law theories and competing modern theories
such as utilitarianism.' The guarantees of life, liberty, and property (and increasingly, since the late
eighteenth century, beginning with Paine, guarantees of such rights as education and social security) are
treated as more than merely right in the sense of what is right, more than simply the righteous demands of
God, morality, conscience, or social policy. Rather, they are viewed as the rights of man, as human rights.
Human rights protect individuals from a variety of coercion.
Robert D. Sloane, “Outrelativizing Relativism: A Liberal Defense of the Universality of International
Human Rights”, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Volume 34, 2001.
Which mechanism for promoting human dignity responds most appropriately to the threats to human
dignity posed by contemporary social and historical contingencies? Jack Donnelly, Rhoda Howard, and
other scholars have observed that international human rights are peculiarly well-suited to protect persons
from the threats to human dignity posed by the modern nation-state, market economies, and
industrialization. These conditions do not exist to the same degree in all regions of the world. But today,
they penetrate virtually every state, culture, and society, Western and non-Western alike.
43
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 44
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
Universal rights are needed to create a minimum of human respect.
Elizabeth M. Zechenter, “In the Name of Culture: Cultural Relativism and the Abuse of the Individual”,
Journal of Anthropological Research, Volume 53, Number 3, 1997
The main objective of the existing universal human rights regime is not to impose a jacket of arbitrary and
homogenizing uniformity among diverse cultural traditions. Instead, the goal of universalism is to create a
floor below which no society can stoop in the treatment of its citizens. Conversely, universalism has never
aspired to establish an upper ceiling of what the ideal or maximum level of human rights should be,
leaving such improvements and enhancements to each individual culture in accordance with its resources
and abilities. All major international instruments and treaties, such as the United Nations Charter, the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, together with its two binding Covenants, and all major
international conventions such as the convention against torture, slavery, and genocide, are attempts at
universalizing only the minimum standards of treatment of all individuals.
Human rights are universally valid
Thomas Pogge, “The International Significance of Human Rights”, The Journal of Ethics, Volume 4,
2000.
The crucial thought here is this: Once we view human rights as moral claims on global institutions, there
simply is no attractive, tolerant and pluralistic alternative to conceiving them as valid universally. While
the world can contain societies that are structured in a variety of ways, some liberal and some not, it
cannot itself be structured in a variety of ways. If the Algerians want their society to be organized as a
religious state and we want ours to be a liberal democracy, we can both have our way.38 But if the
Algerians want global institutions to be designed on the basis of the Koran and we want them to render
secure the objects of human rights for all, then we cannot both have our way. With respect to our global
institutional order, one conception will necessarily prevail - through reason or force. There is no room for
accommodation here, and, if we really care about human rights, then we must be willing to support the
global order they favor, even against those who, perhaps by appeal to other values, support an alternative
world order in which the objects of human rights would be less secure.
Human rights are the best mechanism to check government practices.
Jack Donnelly, “Human Rights and Asian Values; A Defense of “Western” Universalism”, The East
Asian Challenge for Human Rights, Eds. Joanne Bauer and Daniel Bell. Cambridge University Press.
1999.
Human rights, in contrast to traditional (Eastern and Western) political practices, provide clear and
powerful mechanisms for ascertaining whether rulers' claims about popular preferences are true. For all
their shortcomings, free and open periodic elections carried out in an environment with few restrictions on
freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and association do provide a relatively reliable gauge of popular
political preferences. Alternative schemes based on duty, deference, or hierarchy often do not. Consider,
for example, the argument of Indonesia's Foreign Minister at the Vienna Conference. "When it comes to a
decision by a Head of State upon a matter involving its {the State's] life, the ordinary rights of individuals
must yield to what he deems the necessities of the moment."64 But what if the people disagree with their
ruler's judgment of the necessities of the moment? Electoral accountability provides at least some sort of
test once the (alleged) crisis has passed. Individual rights to freedom of political speech provide a
mechanism for immediate dissent. Traditional mechanisms of remonstrance, by contrast, have little
relevance in a world of powerful, intrusive, centralized states and modern political parties. Party cadres
44
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 45
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
are hardly analogous to traditional Confucian bureaucrats.
There are endless definitions of national interest.
Luke Glanville, “How are we to Think About the ‘National Interest’?”, Australian Quarterly, Volume 77,
Number 4, 2005.
The reality is that different states do pursue different ends. While the realist may be able to logically
deduce how states will usually define their interests, the empirical evidence demonstrates that this is
neither consistent over time nor is it universal. Michael J. Smith suggests that the national interest is a
value, 'itself defined by different - albeit sometimes characteristic - hierarchies of other values. How one
defines the national interest depends on the values he espouses and the way he ranks them'. James
Rosenau concurs arguing that the cumulation of national interests into a single complex of values 'is
bound to be as variable as the number of observers who use different value frame works'.
Human rights check abuses of the national interest.
Robert D. Sloane, “Outrelativizing Relativism: A Liberal Defense of the Universality of International
Human Rights”, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Volume 34, 2001.
Absent a transcendental justification, which is both undesirable and dangerous, resort to the liberal
principle of autonomy to vindicate the universality of human rights does not provide a philosophicallyhermetic rebuttal to the relativist’s charge that human rights “impose” foreign norms. But one must
appraise this challenge, not in isolation, but in context and by reference to its logical alternative—an
international laissez-faire system that permits elites (often those who control the military) to impose their
conception of the good upon subordinate groups and individuals, armed with the machinery of the state.
Human rights are an extension of natural rights.
Jack Donnelly, “Human Rights and Human Dignity: An Analytic Critique of Non-Western Conceptions
of Human Rights”, The American Political Science Review, Volume 76, Number 2, 1982.
Finally, human rights are conceived as being held primarily in relation to society and particularly to
society in the form of the state. As the natural rights of persons, they are seen as logically and morally to
take precedence over the rights of the state and society, which are viewed as major contributors to the
realization of these rights but also the greatest potential violators of basic human rights.
Sovereignty does not matter if human rights are violated.
Francis M. Deng, professor of international law at Johns Hopkins University, “Section Three:
International Processes: Divided Nations: The Paradox of National Protection”, The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 2006.
A pragmatic basis for dialogue is to postulate sovereignty positively as a concept of state responsibility to
protect and assist its citizens in need. Where lack or inadequacy of resources and operational capacities
necessitates, they are expected to invite or at least welcome international assistance to complement their
efforts. n7 An implicit assumption of accountability lies behind the concept of responsibility. This means
that where the needs of sizeable populations are unmet under the exercise of sovereignty, and large
numbers suffer extreme deprivation and are threatened with death, humanitarian intervention becomes
imperative. The best guarantee for sovereignty is therefore for states to discharge minimum standards of
responsibility, if need be with international cooperation.
45
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 46
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
Human rights are fundamental.
Elizabeth M. Zechenter, “In the Name of Culture: Cultural Relativism and the Abuse of the Individual”,
Journal of Anthropological Research, Volume 53, Number 3, 1997
Due to a minimalist approach to standard setting, modern international human rights law is fully
compatible with cultural diversity and moral diversity found around the world. Under universalism, each
state and culture retains sovereign power over its own cultural development albeit within the limits
delineated by international law. Although the limitations imposed by international human law are
minimal, they provide important protections for individuals who would otherwise be entirely at the mercy
of the state or the group in power. These protections include such basic rights as the right to bodily
integrity; the right to be free from torture and physical and psychological abuse; the right to be free from
arbitrary courts, imprisonment, and police coercion; the right to be free from slavery and genocide; the
right to free speech; and the right to choose to be associated with, or be free of, any religion, culture,
ethnicity, and language.
Human rights are sound from a public policy perspective.
Robert D. Sloane, “Outrelativizing Relativism: A Liberal Defense of the Universality of International
Human Rights”, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Volume 34, 2001.
But universal human rights law also claims two affirmative policy justifications. First, it is maximally
inclusive. Within limits dictated by the autonomy principle, international human rights law accommodates
the greatest diversity of alternative cultural conceptions of human dignity; in other words, it is the most
tolerant of cultural pluralism. Second, international human rights law is the uniquely appropriate
mechanism to counterbalance the threats to human dignity posed by the nation-state, its offshoots, and its
instrumentalities. To acknowledge the universality of human rights, then, is not to deny cultural pluralism
or the relativity of value. It is to recognize the normative force of the system of international human rights
in the face of cultural relativist challenges—which, in the end, appear to state little more than demands for
international legal tolerance of intolerance.
Human rights must serve as a trump on national interest.
Jack Donnelly, “Human Rights and Human Dignity: An Analytic Critique of Non-Western Conceptions
of Human Rights”, The American Political Science Review, Volume 76, Number 2, 1982.
Furthermore, rights, especially basic rights, have a special priority where they come into conflict with
other action-justifying principles. This is nicely captured in Dworkin's simile of rights as trumps. (1978,
pp. xi, 81-105 and passim) Rights are not just one type of social or moral goal co-equal with others;
rather, in ordinary circum-stances, rights have prima facie priority over utilitarian calculations or
considerations of social policy. In fact, one of the basic purposes of rights would seem to be to insulate
right-holders from claims based on such principles, which otherwise would be not only appropriate but
decisive reasons for political and even individual action.
46
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 47
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
The national interest is self-contradictory.
Miroslav Nincic, “The National Interest and Its Interpretation”, The Review of Politics, Volume 61,
Number 1, 1999.
A related reason why it is difficult to agree on how the national interest is involved, as one moves beyond
the direct threats to accepted needs, is that the more one has of a good relative to another, the less
tolerable does the gap between the two become, as their respective marginal utilities are compared.48
And the less acceptable these attainment gaps, the more likely are social conflicts about desirable
priorities. If, for example, the pursuit of national security involves ever increasing military outlays,
growth in the civilian economy may be stifled by the inflationary pressures and high interest rates
associated with expansive government spending.49 As the trade-off between security and prosperity
becomes more and more stark, those with a vested interest in military strength will view the choices quite
differently from those to whom the health of the civilian economy matters more than the added increment
of defense preparedness (although both groups might agree on the need for additional military growth at
lower levels of military strength).
All violations of human rights are immoral.
Thomas Pogge, “The International Significance of Human Rights”, The Journal of Ethics, Volume 4,
2000.
We might, of course, understand human rights as a standard for assessing only national (institutions and)
governments and then accept that other states use other such standards. But such "modesty" is pointless,
For we cannot behave neutrally with regard to the future development of the global institutional order.
Our political and economic decisions will certainly co-determine its development. It is, for the future of
humankind, the most important and most urgent task of our time to set this development upon an
acceptable path. It would be entirely irresponsible to deprive ourselves of any moral basis for the
assessment and reform of our global order. And the only such basis that could be both plausible and
capable of wide international acceptance today is a conception of human rights.
Human rights apply to all states.
Thomas Pogge, “The International Significance of Human Rights”, The Journal of Ethics, Volume 4,
2000.
This is one way of saying that human rights in our time have global normative reach: A person's human
rights entail not merely moral claims on the institutional order of her own society, which are claims
against her fellow citizens, but also analogous moral claims on the global institutional order, which are
claims against her fellow human beings. Our responsibilities entailed by human rights are engaged by our
participation in any coercively imposed institutional order in which some persons avoidably lack secure
access to the objects of their human rights, and these (negative) responsibilities are extended, then,
through the emergence of a global institutional order in whose coercive imposition we collaborate.20
47
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 48
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
The national interest is too vague to explain state behavior.
Miroslav Nincic, “The National Interest and Its Interpretation”, The Review of Politics, Volume 61,
Number 1, 1999.
Unlike most perspectives, his seems intended to help decide what to consider the national interest for
research purposes, not to determine what ought to be pursued in its name-it is a datum, not a standard.
Consequently, the approach is of no help in distinguishing a good foreign policy from a bad one. If our
purpose is explanatory (to account for certain policies by rooting them in the national interest), then
clearly we are presented with a circular reasoning. If, however, normative implications are to be imputed
to the national interest (i.e., if it is to have a commendatory meaning), then this conception leads to the
untenable position that, as long as the government pursues what it deems to be general societal objectives
and does so long enough, it can never act contrary to the national interest.
Global values justify human rights.
Thomas Pogge, “The International Significance of Human Rights”, The Journal of Ethics, Volume 4,
2000.
Attaining such a common standard for assessing shared social institutions does not presuppose
thoroughgoing agreement on all or even most moral issues. It may merely demand that global institutions
be so designed that, as far as possible, everyone has secure access to a few goods that are vital to all
human beings. Now it is true that designing social institutions with an eye to a few key values will have
collateral effects on the prevalence of other values. Global institutions designed to encourage the
fulfillment of human rights may affect the cultural life in various societies or the popularity of the various
religions. But this problem of collateral effects is simply unavoidable: Any institutional order can be
criticized on the grounds that some values do not optimally thrive in it. Yet, we can mitigate the problem
by choosing our moral standard in such a way that the institutional order it favors will allow a wide range
of values to thrive locally. The standard of human rights meets this condition, because it can be fulfilled
in a wide range of countries that differ greatly in their culture, traditions and national institutions.
Human rights must be prohibitions on actions to be meaningful.
Jack Donnelly, “Human Rights and Human Dignity: An Analytic Critique of Non-Western Conceptions
of Human Rights”, The American Political Science Review, Volume 76, Number 2, 1982.
Having a right places one in a protected position. To violate someone's right is not merely to fail to do
what is right but also to commit a special and important personal offense against the right-holder by
failing to give him his due, that to which he is entitled. To violate a right goes well beyond merely falling
short of some high moral standard.
The drive for national power at all costs is empirically denied.
Miroslav Nincic, “The National Interest and Its Interpretation”, The Review of Politics, Volume 61,
Number 1, 1999.
Moreover, and whether or not one accepts this empirical generalization, it is impossible to neglect those
nations whose foreign policies cannot reasonably be described as quest for, or exercise of, power. For
example, power drives have but the most incidental relevance to the foreign policies of Sweden, Uruguay,
Sri Lanka, or Ghana. And even those countries that are central participants in the contests of power
politics occasionally act contrary to what this drive would suggest. Much, for instance, in Woodrow
48
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 49
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
Wilson's or Jimmy Carter's foreign policies diverged from what calculations of national power would
have led us to anticipate, and, as Arnold Wolfers pointed out, even acts of "selfabnegation" sometimes
inject themselves into the conduct of international affairs. If geography and history allow some nations to
escape the pressures that appear to govern the drives of others, and if even those nations that are most
prominently part of international power competitions sometimes act in a manner inconsistent with what
presumably propels their behavior, then power cannot be regarded as an inexorable drive that is its own
end. If the global system does have many anarchic qualities, it seems more useful to view this as
something that is true by fact of the absence of supranational government, rather than as a consequence of
national power drives.
Relentless pursuit of national interest is not necessary for most countries.
Miroslav Nincic, “The National Interest and Its Interpretation”, The Review of Politics, Volume 61,
Number 1, 1999.
Much that is unconvincing about realism in its traditional form remains unconvincing in its neorealist
incarnation. We have seen that most nations do not, in fact, show evidence of security fears, suggesting
that the assumed implications of anarchy affect but some nations some of the time. Waltz skirts this
objection by reasoning that "so long as the major states are the major actors, the structure of international
relations is defined in terms of them."32 Plainly, international power structures are largely determined by
the distribution of capabilities among major powers; nevertheless their concerns do not seem to affect the
majority of the international system's members. As the post-cold war period suggests, anxiety about
security is not even a permanent condition of major powers.
Human rights must continue to play a role in limiting conflicts across the globe.
Francis M. Deng, professor of international law at Johns Hopkins University, “Section Three:
International Processes: Divided Nations: The Paradox of National Protection”, The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 2006.
Since the Millennium Declaration was adopted by heads of state and government in September 2000,
significant developments have taken place in the world. The cause of peace has progressed in a number of
countries. Humanitarian response to crises continues to receive focused attention, and millions of people
around the world are receiving assistance and a degree of international protection. But conflicts persist in
many parts of the world. The statistics of those forcefully displaced within the borders of their countries
and therefore within the war zone, have remained at 25 million. Overwhelmingly, these vulnerable people
are women, children, and the elderly. Allegations of genocide continue to challenge the slogan of "never
again."
International anarchy does guarantee a lack of order.
Miroslav Nincic, “The National Interest and Its Interpretation”, The Review of Politics, Volume 61,
Number 1, 1999.
Anarchy, as Helen Milner points out, is not a concept with simple and straightforward implications,19
and insecurity is not its inevitable, possibly not even very frequent, consequence of the absence of
supranational government. Just as a number of nations show little interest in power politics, so many do
not feel besieged by external security threats-despite the relative international anarchy within which they
must operate. As Roger Masters has documented, significant parallels exist between primitive, stateless,
political orders and the international system, but neither can accurately be likened to a Hobbesian state of
nature. And although the operation of deterrence and power balancing are part of the reason why a social
49
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 50
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
system without a government may resemble an "ordered anarchy," power-based mechanisms are by no
means the only mechanisms of achieving a measure of international order.
The national interest is not clearly unified.
J. Martin Rochester, “The ‘National Interest’ and Contemporary World Politics”, The Review of Politics,
Volume 40, Number 1, 1978.
The twofold assumption which appears to be embedded in the concept of "national interest" is that ( 1)
there exists an objectively determinable collective interest which all individual members within a given
national society share equally and (2) this collective interest transcends any interests that a particular
subset of those individuals may share with individuals in other national societies. The traditional critique
of the concept has focused on the first assumption, in particular the problems that arise once one goes
beyond positing elementary values such as physical survival, freedom, and economic well-being. The
caveat here is that certain definitions of the "national interest" tend to coincide with the interests of some
sub-national groups more than others (e.g., the argument that a $100- million B-1 bomber benefits an
individual on the welfare rolls less than it benefits, say, a Rockwell International employee). Various
subnational groups, so the critique goes, whether they are located within the governmental machinery or
outside it, recognize the potentially disparate impacts of different definitions of the "national attempt to
have official definitions (i.e., policies) 1 are consistent with their particular interests. Thus, according to
this line of reasoning, the concept of "national interest" and the associated treatment of nation-states as
unitary, purposeful, rational actors responding exclusively to stimuli from the inter-national environment
is a distortion of reality which ignores the degree of domestic dissent that operates in national societiesboth democratic and nondemocratic-and that drives foreign policy at least as much as external forces.
It is not true that all states must pursue power at all costs.
Miroslav Nincic, “The National Interest and Its Interpretation”, The Review of Politics, Volume 61,
Number 1, 1999.
Some portion of the traditional realist approach could be salvaged by expanding the list of foreign policy
objectives beyond the maximization of security, and by extending the definition of power beyond its
coercive expression. But even this would be of limited analytical value. The difficulties of equating the
national interest with a finite set of specific interests are discussed in the next section (dealing with the
enumerative approach). Moreover, if power is viewed as no more than a high probability of having one's
preferences prevail when they clash with those of others, and if it may be exercised in any manner
ranging from armed coercion to diplomatic persuasion, then the statement that all states pursue power as a
condition of promoting their objectives is true in a very trivial sense. As an approach to illuminating the
concept of national interest it is virtually useless.
50
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 51
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
Negative Quotations
Human rights are never absolute side constraints.
John Alan Cohan, “Torture and the Necessity Doctrine”, Valparaiso University Law Review, Volume 41,
Number 4, 2007
In effect, this Article argues that there cannot be an absolutist position taken with respect to any rights,
not even fundamental rights. Under this view, the universal norm against torture is not absolute, just as
the right of free speech and the right to be free from being intentionally killed by another are not absolute.
If the prohibition against intentional homicide, for instance, were absolute, then self defense or killing to
prevent someone from killing a third party, or to prevent a suspected felon from escaping, would be
impermissible. In fact, the law regards these acts as not only permissible, but justifiable.
The international system justifies the prioritization of the national interest.
Felix E. Oppenheim, “National Interest, Rationality, and Morality”, Political Theory, Volume 15, Number
3, 1987
The concept of practical necessity will be helpful to an understanding of international politics in our
historical era of international anarchy This characterization does indeed apply to our world of independent
states, given that "between nations, there is no impartial Leviathan or absolute sovereign capable of
impartial enforcement of agreements."' However, interdependence theorists often claim "that it is wrong
to conceptualize international relations as a Hobbesian state of nature."' They interpret the Hobbesian
theory of international politics as implying that "there are no reliable expectations of reciprocal
compliance by the actors with the rules of cooperation in the absence of a superior power capable of
enforcing these rules."' Yet, so they argue, nations do not always seek "power after power" without regard
to other states. It seems to me that this view of Hobbes is not implied by Hobbes's own model.
Governments "in the state and posture of gladiators" often consider it in their own interest to cooperate
with other governments or to participate in international "regimes,"' and such policies are often rational,
as we shall see
The national interest should guide policy decisions.
Michael G. Roskin, National Interest: From Abstraction to Strategy, May 1994.
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubid=356
Clausewitz also contributes to the national-interest approach. All state behavior is motivated by its need to
survive and prosper. To safeguard its interests the state must rationally decide to go to war; there should
be no other reason for going to war. Unlimited war, however, is foolish, for it serves no national interest.3
By this time, concepts of raison d’etat or Staatsraison were long and firmly embedded in European
thinking.
51
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 52
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
War may require violating human rights.
Hans Morgenthau, “The Twilight of International Morality”, Ethics, Volume 58, Number 2, 1948.
Mass armies supported by the productive effort of the majority of the civilian population have replaced
the relatively small armies of previous centuries whose support consumed but a small portion of the
national product. Since the success of the civilian population in keeping the armed forces supplied may be
as important for the outcome of the war as the military effort itself, the defeat of the civilian population,
that is, the breaking of its ability and will to produce, may be as important as the defeat of the armed
forces, that is, the breaking of their ability and will to resist. Thus the character of modern war, drawing
its weapons from a vast industrial machine, blurs the distinction between soldier and civilian. The
industrial worker, the farmer, the railroad engineer, and the scientist are not innocent bystanders cheering
on the armed forces from the sidelines; they are as intrinsic and indispensable a part of the military
organization as the soldiers, sailors, and airmen. While thus a modern nation at war must wish to disrupt
and destroy the productive processes of its enemy, the modern technology of war provides the means for
the realization of that desire. The importance of civilian production for modern war and the interest in
affecting it adversely were already generally recognized in the first World War. While then, however, the
technological means of affecting the civilian productive processes directly were only in their infancy, the
belligerents had to resort to indirect means, such as blockades and submarine warfare, and attempted to
interfere directly with civilian life through air at-tacks and long-range bombardment only sporadically and
with indifferent results.
The national interest is a legitimate moral goal.
Michael G. Roskin, National Interest: From Abstraction to Strategy, May 1994.
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubid=356
Actually, Morgenthau, a friend and collaborator of theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, was deeply moral. His
theory was, at bottom, a normative one, a philosophical argument for how states ought to behave. He
argued that if states pursue only their rational self-interests, without defining them too grandly, they will
collide with other states only minimally. In most cases, their collisions will be compromisable; that is the
function of diplomacy. It is when states refuse to limit themselves to protection of their rational selfinterests that they become dangerous. They define their interests too broadly, leading to a policy of
expansionism or imperialism, which in turn must be countered by the states whose interests are infringed
upon, and this can lead to war. When states make national interest the guide of their policy, they are being
as moral as they can be. We can’t know what is good for the whole world or for country X; we can only
know what is good for us.
Survival is the most important role of the state.
Frederick Schuman, “International Ideals and the National Interest”, Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, Volume 280, 1952.
It is therefore the obligation of every statesman to pursue power rather than virtue. Under anarchy the
virtuous who lack power succumb, while the powerful who lack virtue often survive. For states no less
than for individuals, survival is the first law of life.
52
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 53
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
The national interest need not be egoistic.
Luke Glanville, “How are we to Think About the ‘National Interest’?”, Australian Quarterly, Volume 77,
Number 4, 2005.
Not only is it a meaningful term for analysis, but the constructed nature of the national interest refuses to
allow statesmen to use it as a blanket term which justifies action. Certainly, the national interest is
constructed via interpretation of the social environment but this does not allow states to engage in an
abdication of moral judgement. States exist and act within a structure but are also agents who participate
in the construction of their social environment and the shaping of its norms and values. Given this, we
need not draw determinist conclusions about the interests that states are able to construct. Only the most
structuralist of constructivists would deny that states have broad scope for defining the substantive
content of their national interest.37 Constructivists inform us that there is nothing in the nature of states
that compels them to define their national interests in egoistic ways.38
Rational national interests justify the pursuit of power.
Michael G. Roskin, National Interest: From Abstraction to Strategy, May 1994.
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubid=356
Morgenthau supposed he had an objective standard by which to judge foreign policies: were they
pursuing the national interest defined in terms of power?9 That is, was the statesman making decisions
that would preserve and improve the state’s power, or was he squandering power in such a way that
would ultimately weaken the state? The statesman asks, “Will this step improve or weaken my power?”
The foreign policy of any state—no matter what its “values”—can thus be judged rationally and
empirically. It matters little whether the national values are Christianity, Communism, Islam, or
vegetarianism. Only one question matters: is the statesman acting to preserve the state and its power? If
so, his policy is rational.
International norms constantly change, so the national interest is a primary concern.
W. David Clinton, “The National Interest: Normative Foundations”, The Review of Politics, Volume 48,
Number 4, 1986.
No one should argue that these changes are indistinguishable from disinterested justice. But they do show
that international society evolves, even if it does not always progress. Because the ultimate power of
effective action rests with states, national statesmen cannot abdicate their responsibility for moral choice
to this world opinion. Sometimes, when the issue is vital, they must act even in the teeth of it. But they
should be very sure of their ground before they do so. In not every case is the fallibility of the
international community as clear as in the General Assembly's solemn declaration that Zionism is a form
of racism. Policy founded on interests can counteract tendencies to national self-righteousness and give
due weight to Madison's guide, "the presumed or known opinion of the impartial world."
53
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 54
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
Human rights are too broad to protect.
Bob Barr, “Protecting National Sovereignty in an Era of International Meddling: An Increasingly
Difficult Task”, Harvard Journal on Legislation, Volume 39, 2002.
Beyond the conflict between U.N. power and individual state independence, the U.N. has also
overstepped its humanitarian role. The Economic and Social Counsel ("ECOSOC") acts as a U.N.
gatekeeper by determining which Non-Governmental Organizations ("NGO") will be granted recognition
by the General Assembly, and therefore granted U.N. access and resources. n46 The ECOSOC and other
U.N. entities have shown [*307] continued biases, by deferring recognition of pro-life and pro-Second
Amendment groups in favor of pro-abortion and gun-control groups. n47 Furthermore, NGOs recognized
by the ECOSOC demonstrate a definite bias towards "family planning" in Third World member
countries. n48 In allowing Third World countries a disproportionate voice in this process the U.N. has
rarely, if ever, served United States interests. This evidence of the U.N.'s advocacy of one moral position
over another should not be tolerated but almost always is by both United States presidents and
Congresses, even as they pay lip service to United States sovereignty and constitutional provisions. These
types of decisions are essential to a nation's exercise of its own sovereignty via formulation of its
domestic policy, and U.N. infringement upon these choices ipso facto jeopardizes the nation's
sovereignty.
States should not be obligated to undermine their interests.
Michael G. Roskin, National Interest: From Abstraction to Strategy, May 1994.
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubid=356
There are times when the statesman must move decisively to engage his armed forces in the threat or
practice of war. When the borders or existence of the state are threatened by an expansionist or imperialist
neighboring state, one must arm and form alliances, and it is best to do so earlier rather than later.
Accordingly, one of the great tasks of the statesman is to scan the horizon for expansionist or imperialist
threats. Any state engaged in expanding its power is pursuing a “policy of imperialism,” wrote
Morgenthau. A state merely intent on preserving itself and conserving its power is pursuing a “policy of
the status quo.” The statesman is able to tell one from the other despite the imperialist’s claim to be for
the status quo. When you see a Hitler on the march, arm yourself and form alliances. Do not wait for him
to flagrantly violate some point of international law, such as the invasion of Poland, for that might be too
late. Britain and France, more intent on the details of international law, failed to understand the
imperialist thrust behind German moves in the late 1930s.
Sovereignty must be preserved to prevent anarchy.
Frederick Schuman, “International Ideals and the National Interest”, Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, Volume 280, 1952.
This relative flexibility of moral norms, allowed to all politicians, is most marked in matters having to do
with foreign relations. This is the case precisely because the society of sovereign states is not a united
community or an ordered and organized polity possessed of a government capable of enforcing a code of
law. International organization does not have these attributes, nor is international law anything more than
a set of rules which sovereigns habitually ob-serve out of calculations of convenience and expediency.
The society of sovereignties, lacking effective government and enforceable law, is a society in anarchy,
wherein, as Hobbes put it, life tends to be "poor, solitary, nasty, brutish, and short," and wherein force,
rather than fraud or favors, is the ultimate determinant of the distribution of influence, indulgences, and
deprivations.
54
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 55
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
Not consistently promoting the national interest is dangerous.
Michael G. Roskin, National Interest: From Abstraction to Strategy, May 1994.
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubid=356
Potentially the most dangerous policy is one of declaring certain interests to be vital but then not backing
up your words with military power. This is a policy of bluff and tends to end badly, in one of two ways:
either your adversary sees that you are bluffing and continues his conquests, or you belatedly attempt to
back up your words, in which case you may have to go to war to convince him that you were not bluffing.
One horrifying example is the U.S. policy of angry words at Japan in the 1930s over its conquest of
China, words unsupported by military power or any inclination to use it. Tokyo simply could not believe
that China was a vital U.S. interest; the Americans were bluffing. Was not poker, the game of bluff, the
Americans’ favorite card game? Something similar occurred in Bosnia: many strong words from the
United States and the West Europeans, unsupported by military power or the intent to use it. Quite
reasonably, the Serbs concluded we were bluffing. They changed their minds only when U.S.-backed
Croatian and Bosnian forces rolled back their conquests in 1995. Always back your interests
with adequate power. If you don’t have the power, don’t declare something distant to be your interest.
Thou shalt not bluff.
The national interest checks potentially harmful behaviors.
W. David Clinton, “The National Interest: Normative Foundations”, The Review of Politics, Volume 48,
Number 4, 1986.
The national interest is the statesman's prime responsibility, but conceiving his role as one of advancing
narrower state interests reminds him that there are other players on the field with their own interests to
protect, punctures undue tendencies toward national self importance, may serve to restrain enthusiastic
adventures, and calls attention to the shared framework of an international society within which the
measured contest over interests can be carried out.
The national interest promotes national security.
Felix E. Oppenheim, “National Interest, Rationality, and Morality”, Political Theory, Volume 15, Number
3, 1987
The concept of national interest refers to welfare goals of national governments on the international level,
such as the preservation of political independence and territorial integrity' "The formula of the national
interest has become practically synonymous with the formula of national security," and I shall use the two
expressions interchangeably Governments often adopt foreign policy objectives, such as the promotion of
human rights, national liberation, or religious fundamentalism. As we shall see, such goals may or may
not be compatible with a nation's own security It is, therefore, important to distinguish between such,
possibly conflicting, ends. Like the general concept of interest, "national interest" must exclude
commitments to nonwelfare goals in order to retain its usefulness for analytic purposes.
55
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 56
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
Sacrificing short-term human rights interest for long-term national interest is wrong.
Michael G. Roskin, National Interest: From Abstraction to Strategy, May 1994.
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubid=356
Additionally, Realists distinguish between temporary and permanent interests,12 specific and general
interests, 13and, between countries, complementary and conflicting interests.14 Defense of human rights
in a distant land, for example, might be permanent, general, and secondary; that is, you have a long-term
commitment to human rights but without any quarrel with a specific country, certainly not one that would
damage your overall relations or weaken your power. Morgenthau would think it absurd for us to move
into a hostile relationship with China over human rights; little good and much harm can come from it. A
hostile China, for example, offers the United States no help in dealing with an aggressive, nuclear-armed
North Korea. Which is more important, human rights in China or restraining a warlike country which
threatens U.S. allies? More often than not, political leaders must choose between competing interests.
International human rights demands are hypocritical.
Bob Barr, “Protecting National Sovereignty in an Era of International Meddling: An Increasingly
Difficult Task”, Harvard Journal on Legislation, Volume 39, 2002.
For example, in recent months, the United Nations has pursued global gun control in the name of human
rights; n1 investigated the inadequacies of America's prison system through a Human Rights
Commission, [*300] which includes among its members such flagrant human rights violators as Cuba
and Sudan, but which ousted the United States from membership; n2 and crafted international treaties that
injure America's national defense and subrogate its domestic policies. These initiatives are occurring at a
time when the United States continues to bear a disproportionate burden in member dues and
responsibility, even as other member nations such as China continue to violate international standards of
freedom and human rights with impunity and arrogance. Historic notions of sovereignty are being
subjugated to self-anointed "intellectually progressive" and vague concepts of international
responsibilities and control. For those of us who believe fundamental principles of sovereignty form the
cornerstone of national power, the threat of this particular "new world order" is very real and very serious.
Excessive focus on world interest justifies excessive intervention.
Michael G. Roskin, National Interest: From Abstraction to Strategy, May 1994.
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubid=356
National-interest thinking also has been misused by idealistic interventionists who wish to expand U.S.
interests so that they include some kind of “world interest.” They would like to use U.S. power to right
wrongs the world over. A “crusade” may be thus defined as the use of one’s power in causes unrelated to
the national interest. In our day, for example, one hears many prominent people, in and out of
government, claim that slaughter of civilians in a distant war is a vital U.S. interest, for if allowed to
spread such behavior will eventually threaten U.S. interests. They often use Nazi Germany and Munich as
analogies. In defining national interest so broadly, however, they turn it into altruism: “By helping the
victims of aggression, we make the world a safer, more stable place, and that redounds to our benefit,”
they argue. An altruist has been called someone who defines his self-interest so broadly that it includes
everybody’s interest. On such a basis, Morgenthau would argue, the United States could be engaged
permanently in a half dozen wars around the globe, a frittering away of U.S. power that could come to no
good end.
56
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 57
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
The national interest checks wars of morality.
Frederick Schuman, “International Ideals and the National Interest”, Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, Volume 280, 1952.
But more commonly the consequence of this confusion is a firm resolve to fight sin, by force if need be,
in order that virtue may be vindicated-in a spirit of rashness, self-righteousness, and fanatical intolerance.
The customary result is exemplified in "Holy Wars," the so-called "Wars of Religion," and the
increasingly frenzied ideological "crusades" of our own times -for "democracy" or "Greater East Asia" or
"liberty" or "Aryan race purity" or "the dictatorship of the proletariat" or "freedom" or "anti-imperialism"
or some other abstraction having no practical relevance to the concrete interests of nations or the actual
lives of men, but capable of stirring them to mighty exertions in mutual butchery.
All states prioritize the national interest.
W. David Clinton, “The National Interest: Normative Foundations”, The Review of Politics, Volume 48,
Number 4, 1986.
Particular state interests serve as the common currency for dealings among states; more than that, by
setting all states on a level, with all standing on the same ground and none holding a monopoly on virtue,
they may encourage a certain modesty of outlook that may lead to tolerance and cooperation. Policy
based on the national interest stands as testimony that the nation forms a true community. Policy directed
toward attaining various state interests is a result of the fact that there exists no comparable world
community possessed of a solidarity that could demand comparable sacrifices in the world's interest.
Nevertheless, when states bargain with one another over interests instead of attempting to destroy one
another in ideological struggles, they are acting within the confines of a tentative community, whose
authority in determining the legitimacy of claims pressed by states grows or diminishes along with the
sense of unity felt by its members.
National interest is not an ideal abstraction.
Michael G. Roskin, National Interest: From Abstraction to Strategy, May 1994.
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubid=356
True national-interest thinking is rather tightly limited to one’s own nation. It is a constant temptation to
expand your thinking beyond your nation’s interest to include many nations’ interests or the world’s
interest, and under certain circumstances you may wish to do this, but please do not call it “the national
interest.” If you do, you may soon be “fighting for peace” in many spots around the globe. The great
utility of national-interest thinking is to tap the statesman on the shoulder and ask, “Is this proposed effort
for the good of your country or to carry out an idealistic abstraction?”
The national interest is tempered by prudence and moderation.
W. David Clinton, “The National Interest: Normative Foundations”, The Review of Politics, Volume 48,
Number 4, 1986.
Tocqueville may have underestimated the strength of community in even the individualistic American
political culture and understated its ability to call forth self-sacrifice and the display of even
"extraordinary virtues." But "interest rightly understood" accurately describes the comparative frailty of
the international community and the limited extent of the demands it can make on its members. It entails a
measure of self-restraint on private demands so that the realm in which they are made can continue to
57
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 58
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
exist. A willingness to devote some of one's time to preserving the polity and its liberties on the national
level corresponds to a willingness to act according to interest and not sheer cupidity on the international.
A policy grounded in the protection of state interests is not a "lofty" doctrine, but if it teaches statesmen
temperance, moderation, foresight, and self-command, it will have raised the ethical level of international
behavior.
Greater interdependence does not disprove the importance of the national interest.
Felix E. Oppenheim, “National Interest, Rationality, and Morality”, Political Theory, Volume 15, Number
3, 1987
As mentioned before, the growth of international cooperation and of international organizations does not
refute the Hobbesian model. Concluding conventions and alliances, and abiding by them, conforming to
rules of international law, and joining international organizations are often in a nation's self-interest,
because such policies are likely to yield net gains, at least in the long run, from the point of view of its
national security. However, states may find themselves in Prisoner's Dilemma situations: If they have
good reasons to distrust other states' intentions to cooperate, defection may be the rational, or even the
practically necessary, policy.
Attempting to be moral in foreign policy breeds resentment.
Michael G. Roskin, National Interest: From Abstraction to Strategy, May 1994.
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubid=356
Further, remember that objectively any country’s expansion of its power is a policy of imperialism. If you
are expanding your power—even for the noblest of causes, to save the world or to save country X—other
nations, even friendly ones, still see it as imperialism. Once we have sufficient power to stabilize
conflicts, prevent aggression, and stop nuclear proliferation, we will have accumulated so much power
that we are de facto king of the world. For some curious reason, other nations resent this; they can’t
understand that our power will be used only for good. This is the story of U.S. power both during the
Cold War (e.g., French resentment) and after it (e.g., Russian resentment).
Just governments may violate rights for the national interest if they are transparent.
Adam Raviv, “Torture and Justification: Defending the Indefensible”, George Mason Law Review,
Volume 13, 2004.
The Economist, in an editorial, notes that "Though many authoritarian regimes use torture, not one of
even these openly admits it." n75 The editorial makes this observation to illustrate just how strong the
taboo against torture is in this world. This is the wrong conclusion to draw. The fact that these regimes do
all they can to keep their practices secret illustrates how the United States and other civilized countries
have put themselves on a par with these authoritarian regimes by not being honest about what they are
doing. The way we can distinguish ourselves from the brutal methods of totalitarian regimes is by being
absolutely forthright when we find it necessary to torture a suspect. The regimes in Tehran, Damascus,
and Pyongyang can never be honest about the torture they commit because the reasons for the torture are
so utterly unjustified. If the FBI was ever hot on the trail of terrorists plotting another 9/11, and the U.S.
government later made public the fact that it had been able to stop this plot after torturing a terrorist
plotter or two, would this act receive the same international condemnation that, say, the Burmese
government would receive if it publicly admitted that it tortured political dissidents? n76 More importantly,
should it? [*154]
58
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 59
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
Role morality justifies the prioritization of the national interest.
George F. Kennan, “Morality and Foreign Policy”, Foreign Affairs, Volume 64, Number 2, 1985.
Second, let us recognize that the functions, commitments and moral obligations of governments are not
the same as those of the individual. Government is an agent, not a principal. Its primary obligation is to
the interests of the national society it represents, not to the moral impulses that individual elements of that
society may experience. No more than the attorney vis-a-vis the client, nor the doctor vis-a-vis the patient,
can government attempt to insert itself into the consciences of those whose interests it represents.
W. David Clinton, “The National Interest: Normative Foundations”, The Review of Politics,
Volume 48, Number 4, 1986.
States governed by leaders who keep this primary responsibility in mind are islands of peace, stability,
and justice in a disorderly and conflict-ridden world. Within them, concrete meaning may be given to the
general dictates of morality, but if statesmen neglect their duty to the national interest, even these
bulwarks will disappear. So, too, will any protection from random international violence, for states
preserve the order within which the search for justice goes on. A state whose leaders and people forget or
dismantle the ties that bind them into a community with a recognized national interest does more than run
the risk of an internal "war of every man against every man." As the recent example of Lebanon and the
American hostages makes clear, it also becomes a danger to any international ties, since its inability to
maintain civil order allows internal violence to spill over into the outside world and threaten innocent
third parties. What international society there is relies on states to undergird it by safeguarding their own
national interest as functioning communities. Therefore, they must remain the final judges of the
individual state interests that are necessary to maintain the national society.
Utilitarianism justifies prioritization of the national interest.
John Alan Cohan, “Torture and the Necessity Doctrine”, Valparaiso University Law Review, Volume 41,
Number 4, 2007
The utilitarian idea is that certain illegal conduct ought not be punished because, due to the special
circumstances of the situation, a net benefit to society has resulted. This utilitarian rationale is sometimes
criticized as “ends-justifying-the-means” because the doctrine allows that, within certain limits, it is
justifiable to break the letter of the law if doing so will produce a net benefit to society.94
Personal morality does not apply to states.
Frederick Schuman, “International Ideals and the National Interest”, Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, Volume 280, 1952.
The dichotomy between "international morality" and "national interest" is not the fruit of moral or mental
confusion. It is an inescapable imperative of effective political action in every system of sovereignties in
which statesmen must be concerned with calculations of power while moralists and laymen, be-witched
with the legal fiction that "states" are "persons," are no less concerned with the precepts of ethics. Since
other powers feeling themselves threatened by an expanding power will at some point resist its further
aggrandizement, relentless pursuit of power spells war-which is the ultimate negation of all morality. But
relentless pursuit of ethical ideals, in the usual form of fighting sin, also spells war, since we live in a
world of inescapable diversity in which populous nations and formidable powers can always be counted
upon to reject, to the death if need be, any particular definition of virtue sought to be imposed upon them
by the power of others.
59
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 60
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
World opinion should not check the national interest.
W. David Clinton, “The National Interest: Normative Foundations”, The Review of Politics, Volume 48,
Number 4, 1986.
First, one may say that the national interest is all that a statesman can really be expected to know and
hope to serve. The traditions, the accumulated wisdom, even, in Burke's term, the prejudices, that guide
leaders toward the common good are the product of the shared experiences of a community conscious of
its basic unity, which remembers its common past and looks forward to a shared future. What serves the
national interest must take precedence over any duties to a gauzy interstate society, at least in the
responsibilities of statesmen, because the national interest has a depth and solidity that cannot be matched
by any broader community that pretends to pass judgment on state actions. With their grounding in
historical memories as well as expectations, national communities have a reality that an insubstantial
"world opinion" cannot match.
The national interest overrides philosophical concerns.
George F. Kennan, “Morality and Foreign Policy”, Foreign Affairs, Volume 64, Number 2, 1985.
Let me explain. The interests of the national society for which government has to concern itself are
basically those of its military security, the integrity of its political life and the well-being of its people.
These needs have no moral quality. They arise from the very existence of the national state in question
and from the status of national sovereignty it enjoys. They are the unavoidable necessities of a national
existence and therefore not subject to classification as either "good" or "bad." They may be questioned
from a detached philosophic point of view. But the government of the sovereign state cannot make such
judgments. When it accepts the responsibilities of governing, implicit in that acceptance is the assumption
that it is right that the state should be sovereign, that the integrity of its political life should be assured,
that its people should enjoy the blessings of military security, material prosperity and a reasonable
opportunity for, as the Declaration of Independence put it, the pursuit of happiness.
Necessity justifies the prioritization of the national interest.
John Alan Cohan, “Torture and the Necessity Doctrine”, Valparaiso University Law Review, Volume 41,
Number 4, 2007
The doctrine of necessity, with its inevitable weighing of choices-of evil, may be stretched to the outer
limits in the context of torture. The doctrine holds that certain conduct, though it violates the law and
produces a harm, is justified because it averts a greater evil and hence produces a net social gain or
benefit to society.91 Glanville Williams expressed the necessity doctrine this way: “some acts that would
otherwise be wrong are rendered rightful by a good purpose, or by the necessity of choosing the lesser of
two evils.”92 He offers this example: Suppose that a dike threatens to give way, and the actor is faced
with the choice of either making a breach in the dike, which he knows will result in one or two people
being drowned, or doing nothing, in which case he knows that the dike will burst at another point
involving a whole town in sudden destruction. In such a situation, where there is an unhappy choice
between the destruction of one life and the destruction of many, utilitarian philosophy would certainly
justify the actor in preferring the lesser evil.93
60
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 61
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
International norms do not constitute legitimate ethical principles.
W. David Clinton, “The National Interest: Normative Foundations”, The Review of Politics, Volume 48,
Number 4, 1986.
The very fact that the standards of international society change is evidence that they are not equivalent to
ethical principles. Interest, for all its mitigating benefits, remains a provisional, prudential guide. The
commands that prudence is to apply in concrete circumstances are to be found in prior standards of virtue,
justice, and mercy.
The state must prioritize the needs of many citizens over human rights.
Adam Raviv, “Torture and Justification: Defending the Indefensible”, George Mason Law Review,
Volume 13, 2004.
Bentham's view also finds a worthy successor in Judith Jarvis Thomson, who presents one classic case of
legal justification: the Trolley Problem. n32 In this situation, first imagined by Philippa Foot, n33 an out-ofcontrol [*143] trolley car is hurtling down a track, and five men are in its path. Bloggs is a passerby who
happens to be standing by the track next to the switch. If he throws the switch the trolley will be shunted
off to a spur. The five men will be saved, but a sixth man, who is immobilized on the spur, will be killed.
So Bloggs faces the choice: he can do nothing, in which case five men will be killed, or he can throw the
switch, saving the five men but consigning one equally innocent man to certain doom. n34 Thomson
concludes that Bloggs is morally justified, but not morally required, to throw the switch. n35 Thomson also
says that "everybody to whom I have put this hypothetical case says, Yes, it is" justified. n36 She notes that
some even say it is morally required. n37 And the moral duty to make the affirmative choice of pursuing
the path that minimizes harm falls hardest on those who have been charged with a responsibility to act for
the benefit of others. n38 Unless torturing is worse than killing, then certainly an adherent to the
Thomson/Foot moral view would allow for the torture of a suspect when it can save the lives of many
innocents.
The national interest often considers moral issues.
W. David Clinton, “The National Interest: Normative Foundations”, The Review of Politics, Volume 48,
Number 4, 1986.
Interest rightly understood is applicable to international politics because it deals with citizens in their
relations with one another, not with isolated individuals. Nor are states isolated from the outside world.
Both internal and external circumstances determine a state's "moral opportunity"-- the leeway it enjoys to
introduce ethical considerations into its actions. The scope of this opportunity depends on the extent to
which it believes its political, military, and economic position is safe-that is, the extent to which its
interests are secured. A stable international order regarded by its members as legitimate can be sustained
by national policies directed toward concrete interests - knowable claims conforming to the expectations
held by all of how states will act. At the same time, this order is a prerequisite for an international
community that widens the moral opportunity of its participants, permitting their policy to move beyond
the pure self-interest of Machiavelli to a self-interest softened by the obligations imposed by membership
in a community. The mutual expectations of states are not equivalent to universal moral duties. They are
maxims of prudence and applied political ethics; their strength and comprehensiveness depend on the
degree to which the members of the system share in a common ethical framework.
61
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 62
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
Only domestic values should check the national interest.
George F. Kennan, “Morality and Foreign Policy”, Foreign Affairs, Volume 64, Number 2, 1985.
When we talk about the application of moral standards to foreign policy, therefore, we are not talking
about compliance with some clear and generally accepted international code of behavior. If the policies
and actions of the U.S. government are to be made to conform to moral standards, those standards are
going to have to be America's own, founded on traditional American principles of justice and propriety.
When others fail to conform to those principles, and when their failure to conform has an adverse effect
on American interests, as distinct from political tastes, we have every right to complain and, if necessary,
to take retaliatory action. What we cannot do is to assume that our moral standards are theirs as well, and
to appeal to those standards as the source of our grievances.
Deontological constraints cannot be absolute limits on the national interest.
John Alan Cohan, “Torture and the Necessity Doctrine”, Valparaiso University Law Review, Volume 41,
Number 4, 2007
It is hard to say, from a legal theory standpoint, that the necessity doctrine is “correct” for practically
every conceivable felony as well as civil wrongs, but that it may not be invoked in cases of torture. That
would be theoretically and analytically improper. However, as we have seen, the pre-emption factor may
well “trump” the situation. For if there is a deontological constraint that has taken on a certain weight of
authority, as is the case in the prohibition against torture, then there is no exception to the rule (not even
necessity).
Imminent threats to national security justify the prioritization of the national interest.
John Alan Cohan, “Torture and the Necessity Doctrine”, Valparaiso University Law Review, Volume 41,
Number 4, 2007
Imminence signifies some sort of immediacy of the threat, but how immediate must be the threat to be
“imminent” in order to justify torture? What if the ticking bomb is to go off not within a day or so, but
within the month? Or a week? The imminence requirement generally means that the threatened harm is
something that is temporally quite proximate to the present moment. Bentham alludes to the imminence
factor in saying that torture “ought not to be employed but in cases which admit of no delay; in cases in
which if the thing done were not done immediately there is a certainty, at least a great probability, that the
doing it would not answer the purpose.”122 If the threat is not imminent, then there is time to employ
traditional methods of law enforcement and other reasonable legal means to uncover the pertinent facts.
However, the question of imminence must be construed in light of the gravity of the harm to be averted. If
the gravity of the threat is enormous, such as a ticking nuclear bomb that may kill many thousands of
people, the threat may be days away, but the gravity of the threat may justify extreme measures now. On
this point, a report by a national commission in Israel, known as the Landau Commission Report,
explored in Part VI.B, determined that it may be justifiable to employ torture to discover the location of a
bomb, whether it is set to explode in five minutes or five days.123
62
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 63
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
Politicians must sometimes act immorally to fulfill obligations.
Adam Raviv, “Torture and Justification: Defending the Indefensible”, George Mason Law Review,
Volume 13, 2004.
Walzer also quotes some lines by Sartre's character, the communist leader Hoerderer: "I have dirty hands
right up the elbows. I've plunged them in filth and blood. Do you think you can govern innocently?" n26
Walzer argues that for politicians, "sometimes it is right to try to succeed, and then it must also be right to
get one's hands dirty." n27 To achieve the greater good, people in positions of leadership sometimes must
do things they have major scruples about. He gives the example of the exact situation that has been
discussed above: the decision whether to torture "a captured rebel leader who knows or probably knows
the location of a number of bombs hidden in apartment buildings around the city, set to go off within the
next twenty-four hours." n28 A moral politician making the decision will authorize the torture "even
though he believes that torture is wrong, indeed abominable, not just sometimes, but always." n29 In
Walzer's view, this decision, as horrific as it is, is the correct one: "Here is the moral politician: it is by his
dirty hands that we know him. If he were a moral man and nothing else, his hands would not be dirty; if
he were a politician and nothing else, he would pretend that they were clean." n30 It is this role-specific
ethical standard that distinguishes proper behavior by the average person from proper behavior by those
who govern us.
The national interest requires nothing being off the table.
George F. Kennan, “Morality and Foreign Policy”, Foreign Affairs, Volume 64, Number 2, 1985.
One must not be dogmatic about such matters, of course. Foreign policy is too intricate a topic to suffer
any total taboos. There may be rare moments when a secret operation appears indispensable. A striking
example of this was the action of the United States in apprehending the kidnappers of the Achille Lauro.
But such operations should not be allowed to become a regular and routine feature of the governmental
process, cast in the concrete of unquestioned habit and institutionalized bureaucracy. It is there that the
dangers lie.
National interest checks political leaders’ personal wishes.
Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, Fifth Edition, Revised,
(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm
A realist theory of international politics will also avoid the other popular fallacy of equating the foreign
policies of a statesman with his philosophic or political sympathies, and of deducing the former from the
latter. Statesmen, especially under contemporary conditions, may well make a habit of presenting their
foreign policies in terms of their philosophic and political sympathies in order to gain popular support for
them. Yet they will distinguish with Lincoln between their "official duty," which is to think and act in
terms of the national interest, and their "personal wish," which is to see their own moral values and
political principles realized throughout the world. Political realism does not require, nor does it condone,
indifference to political ideals and moral principles, but it requires indeed a sharp distinction between the
desirable and the possible-between what is desirable everywhere and at all times and what is possible
under the concrete circumstances of time and place.
63
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 64
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
Being forced to chose requires the prioritization of the national interest.
John Alan Cohan, “Torture and the Necessity Doctrine”, Valparaiso University Law Review, Volume 41,
Number 4, 2007
This factor requires a showing that there is no reasonable legal alternative to avert the greater evil. In
order for torture to pass scrutiny under the necessity doctrine, other reasonable alternatives would need to
be deployed, if time permits. The legal way out factor is associated with the imminence factor—that is, if
the necessitous circumstance is truly imminent, there may be no time in which to pursue legal
alternatives. However, if the danger is not imminent, Bentham suggests that “a method of compulsion
apparently less severe and therefore less unpopular ought to be employed in preference.”141 Obviously, if
the danger to be averted is so imminent that there is no time to explore less intrusive techniques,
interrogators may determine that torture is, under the circumstances, the only reasonable means of
averting the greater evil.
The national interest justifies putting domestic lives over foreign lives.
Hans Morgenthau, “The Twilight of International Morality”, Ethics, Volume 58, Number 2, 1948.
The crucial test of the vitality of an ethical system occurs when its control of the consciences and actions
of men is challenged by another system of morality. Thus the relative strength of the ethics of humility
and self-denial of the Sermon on the Mount and of the ethics of self-advancement and power of modern
Western society is determined by the extent to which either system of morality is able to mold the actions
or at least the consciences of men in accordance with its precepts. Every human being, in so far as he is
responsive to ethical appeals at all, is from time to time confronted with such a conflict of conscience,
which tests the relative strength of conflicting moral commands. A similar test must determine the
respective strength, with regard to the conduct of foreign affairs, of the supranational ethics, composed of
Christian, cosmopolitan, and humanitarian elements to which the diplomatic language of the time pays its
tribute and which is postulated by many individual writers, and the ethics of nationalism which have been
on the ascendancy throughout the world for the last century and a half. Now it is indeed true that national
ethics, as formulated in the philosophy of reason of state of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries or in
the concept of the national interest of the nineteenth and twentieth, has in most conflict situations proved
itself to be superior to universal moral rules of conduct. This is obvious from a consideration of the most
elemental and also the most important conflict situation of this kind, the one between the universal ethical
precept, "Thou shalt not kill," and the command of a particular national ethics, "Thou shalt kill under
certain conditions the enemies of thy country." The individual to whom these two moral rules of con-duct
are addressed is confronted with a conflict between his allegiance to humanity as a whole, manifesting
itself in the respect for human life as such irrespective of nationality or any other particular characteristic,
and his loyalty to a particular nation whose interests he is called upon to promote at the price of the lives
of the members of another nation. This conflict is resolved today and has been resolved during all modern
history by most individuals in favor of loyalty to the nation.
64
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 65
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
The logic that justifies private violence in some cases justifies it for the national interest.
Adam Raviv, “Torture and Justification: Defending the Indefensible”, George Mason Law Review,
Volume 13, 2004.
Another approach to the possible ways to justify violence comes from Philosopher Jan Narveson, who
proposes six scenarios in which private violence might be justified, and ranks them in order of
acceptability. They are: (1) pure self-defense; (2) preventing immediate injury to others; (3) preventing
longer-range threats to the life of oneself or others; (4) preventing loss of liberty; (5) ensuring a
"minimally acceptable" life when no other means is possible (even when others have not clearly deprived
one of such conditions); and (6) promoting a better life for oneself or others, beyond the "minimally
acceptable" level. n39 Narveson concludes that (1) through (4) are "basically acceptable, that (6) is
definitely not acceptable, and that (5) is the hard case, but that fundamentally it must be considered
marginally acceptable [*144] if at all." n40 Torturing suspects to prevent terrorist attack would seem to fit
either situation 2 or 3, depending on the imminence of the threat. If Narveson's calculus for private
violence is correct, is this violence somehow less legitimate when it is not private but is committed under
the color of government authority? This is so especially if we accept the premise that the state has a
monopoly on the legitimate use of force, except in very limited cases.
Good motives should not drive politics.
Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, Fifth Edition, Revised,
(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978 http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm
Good motives give assurance against deliberately bad policies; they do not guarantee the moral goodness
and political success of the policies they inspire. What is important to know, if one wants to understand
foreign policy, is not primarily the motives of a statesman, but his intellectual ability to comprehend the
essentials of foreign policy, as well as his political ability to translate what he has comprehended into
successful political action. It follows that while ethics in the abstract judges the moral qualities of
motives, political theory must judge the political qualities of intellect, will, and action.
The state may not sacrifice domestic needs for other people.
Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, Fifth Edition, Revised,
(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978 | http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm
Realism maintains that universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states in their
abstract universal formulation, but that they must be filtered through the concrete circumstances of time
and place. The individual may say for himself: "Fiat justitia, pereat mundus (Let justice be done, even if
the world perish)," but the state has no right to say so in the name of those who are in its care. Both
individual and state must judge political action by universal moral principles, such as that of liberty. Yet
while the individual has a moral right to sacrifice himself in defense of such a moral principle, the state
has no right to let its moral disapprobation of the infringement of liberty get in the way of successful
political action, itself inspired by the moral principle of national survival. There can be no political
morality without prudence; that is, without consideration of the political consequences of seemingly
moral action. Realism, then, considers prudence-the weighing of the consequences of alternative political
actions-to be the supreme virtue in politics. Ethics in the abstract judges action by its conformity with the
moral law; political ethics judges action by its political consequences.
65
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 66
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
Limiting human rights for national interests does not erode the concept of human rights.
Adam Raviv, “Torture and Justification: Defending the Indefensible”, George Mason Law Review,
Volume 13, 2004.
Likewise, Emanuel Gross argues that even from a utilitarian point of view, explicitly permitting torture in
certain cases is never a good idea: "A statute that permits torture in particular circumstances will fail to
encourage people to follow a desirable morally conscientious line and the hoped-for result will not be
achieved. Legislation that permits the adoption of such tactics will only lead to a worsening of the
existing situation, such as occurred in the Middle Ages, when torture was regulated by law." n42 This
argument fails to grasp the point of legal rules that permit torture when it is justified: since only in the
rarest of cases is it truly warranted, it seems strange to argue that people's moral compasses will truly be
damaged if torture is prohibited 99.9% of the time rather than 100%. Gross argues that "the state cannot
justify torture and enable a person to be injured to achieve social good. This is because such an outcome
is not consistent with the respect that a state accords human rights." n43 However, the state can accord
great respect to human rights while still acknowledging that, just as it is sometimes necessary to deprive
people of their freedom (imprison them) [*145] in order to protect the public, sometimes it is necessary
to physically hurt people to protect the public. Just because certain human rights norms are not absolute
priorities of the state does not mean that the state has entirely lost respect for them.
66
Minh A. Luong & Company Tutorial
NFL Nationals Topic – 2011 | National Forensic League Lincoln-Douglas topic
PlanetDebate.com 67
Resolved: when forced to choose, a just government ought to prioritize universal human rights over its national interest.
About the author/editor:
Dr. Minh A. Luong is Assistant Director of International Security Studies, Associate Director of the Brady-Johnson Center in
Grand Strategy, and Director of the Ivy Scholars Program at Yale University. Dr. Luong taught under the auspices of the Forrest
Mars Sr. Visiting Professorship in Ethics, Politics, and Economics, an endowed fund that promoted teaching by leaders in the
business and policy communities, from 2000-2006; served a two-year term as International Affairs Council Fellow at the Yale
Center for International and Area Studies; and most recently was appointed as Faculty Fellow at the Yale School of Management.
Dr. Luong also holds academic appointments at Brown University as Adjunct Lecturer of Public Policy at the A. Alfred Taubman
Center for Public Policy and American Institutions, Adjunct Lecturer in Political Science, and Visiting Fellow in International
Security at the Watson Institute for International Affairs. Dr. Luong teaches courses on national and global security, public
policy, espionage and intelligence, privacy and civil liberties, crisis management, ethics and negotiations, Grand Strategy,
leadership, and international relations.
He has appeared on major television and radio news networks, has been quoted in newspapers internationally, and lectures
around the world on international security as well as intelligence issues at U.S. Government agencies and in partner countries at
the invitation of the U.S. Government.
The views expressed in this topic briefing and other open-source work are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
official policy or position of Yale University, Brown University, the U.S. Government and its agencies such as the U.S.
Department of Defense and U.S. Intelligence Community, governments of U.S. partner nations, or the United Nations, with
which the author maintains advising relationships.
For nearly a decade, Dr. Luong served as a corporate consultant and senior advisor to a number of Fortune 500 companies and
worked on critical projects for industry-leading organizations such as: AT&T, BankOne, Boston Financial, EquiServe, E*Trade,
ExxonMobil, General Motors, MediaOne (later AT&T Broadband, now Comcast), Monitor Group, and New England
Financial/Metropolitan Life.
His previous appointments include director of public speaking and debate at the University of California at Berkeley, director of
debate at San Francisco State University, and department chair and instructor of communication studies at the Pinewood School
(CA).
Dr. Luong served as the founding curriculum director at the Lincoln-Douglas debate institutes at Stanford University, University
of California at Berkeley, NFC-Austin, and the National Debate Forum. He founded and directs the Ivy Scholars Program for
High School Student Leaders at Yale University (www.yale.edu/ivyscholars) and is the volunteer director of the National Debate
Education Project, a public service organization that conducts weekend debate seminars around the country. Minh A. Luong can
be reached at <minh.a.luong@yale.edu>.
Nick Coburn-Palo, MA, doctoral candidate in political science at Brown University, provided argument and topic analysis
assistance in preparing this topic briefing.
Rick Brundage, MPA, provided argument and research assistance in preparing the strategy and quotation sections of this topic
briefing.
67