R5 MICHIGAN AP NEG V.
GEORGETOWN LM
[REDUNDANT – IMPLEMENTATION
KEY]
TRIPS suspension solves the aff and creates a model for smaller countries—key to
WTO legitimacy and IPR harmonization
Basheer 2010 – Ministry of HRD Professor in Intellectual Property Law, NUJS, Kolkata
(Shamnad, The Law and Development Review, 3.2, “Turning Trips on Its Head: An "IP Cross
Retaliation" Model for Developing Countries”, DOI: 10.2202/1943-3867.1063)
VIII. CONCLUSION
The US-Antigua Gambling case, which has pitted one of the WTO’s tiniest economies against its
biggest, is seen as a test of whether the global trade body's dispute settlement system is equitable and
fair. Such “fairness” will depend in some part, on how successful Antigua is with its threat to
implement the cross retaliation authorization. Whilst the notion of IP “cross-retaliation” has
been doing the rounds for a while, there is considerable uncertainty regarding how this
concept will be operationalized and implemented. Developing countries urgently need to work out an
optimal model that helps assess losses to the foreign IP owner in a reasonably objective way—this way there is no time lost between the procuring
of a favorable order from the WTO sanctioning cross-retaliation and the actual cross- retaliation itself. The lack of a credible domestic
model has no doubt caused Antigua’s threat of cross retaliation to be taken less seriously by the US. This
paper seeks to fill this lacuna by proposing a tiered suspension mechanism as a viable option. That the model
lacks technical precision in terms of computing losses to IP owners accurately is not fatal since the current WTO framework only requires
a broadly objective model that does not reek of arbitrariness. Further, the aim of this paper is to evolve a model that
will help in securing compliance or a settlement. Given that the IP lobbies in countries such as the US and the EU are
powerful, the likelihood of a settlement or compliance is very strong. Particularly, since the model advocates an
automatic compulsory license after the offending measures have been removed. In other words, the likelihood of a country having to operationalize the
IP suspension model is very remote. Any infirmities
in the model ought to be evaluated, bearing this overarching assumption
WTO framework only requires that broad equivalence be achieved and not
that the retaliating state compute the losses to suspended IP owners in a technically accurate
manner. Lastly, this paper highlights a paradox, albeit an obvious one. Cross-retaliation is often positioned as an exception to traditional
retaliation, which often involves a simple imposition of tariffs on imports. In most cases concerning developing countries,
cross-retaliation is a more effective remedy than traditional retaliation. Not least because a credible
in the model. Further, the current
cross-retaliatory model will place the right kind of pressures on developed countries to comply, as the IP lobbies in these countries are quite powerful.
Also, at a conceptual level, prominent
free trade scholars remain skeptical of the imposition of minimum
standards through TRIPS and the linkage between TRIPS and the WTO. To these free trade scholars who view
traditional retaliatory techniques are somewhat antithetical to the very purpose of the free trade agreements, crossretaliation by suspending TRIPS obligations sits much better—and in fact, may be desirable to offset
the negative impact of TRIPS. As noted earlier, the bargain between the developed and the developing countries could be
viewed as a give and take-where the developed countries offered to open their markets to developing country goods such as textiles and agriculture and
the developing countries promised to implement minimum standards in IP so that developed country entities could extract rents from these countries.
194 Given
the framework of this bargain, it is only fair that TRIPS obligations be suspended by
developing countries, when developed countries fail to live up to their commitment to open up their
markets. This paper therefore prescribes that cross-retaliation ought to be conferred with the status of a mainstream
retaliatory technique, as opposed to a secondary one. Such a paradigmatic shift will go a long way
towards making the WTO framework more meaningful to a large number of developing
countries that continue to see it as representing an inequitable bargain. 195
We give the DSB sharper teeth by showing how cross-retaliation works—Antigua’s
key so try or die flips neg
Basheer 2010 – Ministry of HRD Professor in Intellectual Property Law, NUJS, Kolkata
(Shamnad, The Law and Development Review, 3.2, “Turning Trips on Its Head: An "IP Cross
Retaliation" Model for Developing Countries”, DOI: 10.2202/1943-3867.1063)
This paper therefore seeks to work out a detailed IP suspension model that could help countries such as
Antigua. It proposes a “Tiered IP suspension model”, where certain kinds of IP are targeted first for suspension
before others, depending on the ease of objectively ascertaining the value of IP and thereby the harm
caused by the unauthorized use of such IP and/or the potential to induce compliance by the defaulting state. Illustratively,
copyrights over sound recordings that have established rates for public performance are targeted first. If working
with this tier of IP subject matter does
not yield desired results, then the complaining state moves on to
other IP where it is relatively more difficult to compute the loss caused to the IP owner (such as pharmaceutical patents) but
which may prove a more powerful tool to induce compliance.
Such a model could be useful for a large number of developing countries such as India
and Brazil, that often find that, despite WTO victories, economically powerful developed countries such as
the US and EU fail to comply. Towards this end, this paper offers a very concrete “development” oriented international trade
law remedy.
This paper will also demonstrate that cross-retaliation fits conceptually better within the world trading system and what it
stands for. To this extent, it needs
to be positioned as the primary retaliatory mechanism for
a
paradigmatic shift will go a long way towards preserving the “fairness” and legitimacy of the
WTO.
Although this paper specifically names the US, EU, Antigua, Brazil and India in its various examples, one could,
as easily, substitute the name of any other WTO member. In other words, the models/strategies enunciated in this
paper could apply to any WTO member state, though they are more likely to be used by developing country members
developing countries and not just a secondary resort. Since developing countries constitute the majority at the WTO, such
against developed country members that erect WTO inconsistent market barriers.
No backlash – US fears are rooted in concerns about the lack of a regulatory
mechanism – we provide that
Basheer 2010 – Ministry of HRD Professor in Intellectual Property Law, NUJS, Kolkata
(Shamnad, The Law and Development Review, 3.2, “Turning Trips on Its Head: An "IP Cross
Retaliation" Model for Developing Countries”, DOI: 10.2202/1943-3867.1063)
In the US – Gambling (22.6 Arbitration) 79 , the US expressed some concern and requested the
Arbitrator to require Antigua to specify how it would ensure that any suspension of
concessions or other obligations did not exceed the level of nullification and impairment found by the
Arbitrator. In particular, the US argued that Antigua's request did not place any value on GATS and TRIPS
concessions and did not explain what mechanisms Antigua intended to use to ensure that the
level of suspension did not exceed the level of nullification and impairment. The US feared that
without strict supervision by the Government of Antigua, there would be no basis to calculate the
level of suspension, or to determine whether the operators were abusing the authorization to suspend TRIPS concessions by
offering pirated intellectual property in jurisdictions outside Antigua. 81 It bears reiteration that Antigua has not yet
changed its domestic IP laws to authorize such retaliation.
Our ev assumes theirs but not vice versa—tiered suspension solves all their
concerns
Basheer 2010 – Ministry of HRD Professor in Intellectual Property Law, NUJS, Kolkata
(Shamnad, The Law and Development Review, 3.2, “Turning Trips on Its Head: An "IP Cross
Retaliation" Model for Developing Countries”, DOI: 10.2202/1943-3867.1063)
VI. A TIERED SUSPENSION MODEL FOR IP “CROSS-RETALIATION”
Notwithstanding the grant of authorizations to cross retaliate, neither Antigua nor Ecuador have
exercised this right or specified as to how they would implement such authorization. As far as Brazil is
concerned, a proposed bill to implement cross retaliation authorizations is slowly making the rounds. 115 Absent an enabling
law to effectively implement a WTO cross retaliation authorization, a domestic entity within the retaliating state cannot
really avail itself to the WTO authorization. Illustratively, the government of Antigua came down heavily
on Carib Media, a local company that wished to exploit US copyrights by offering cheap downloads of US
music and movies through its website, zookz.com. The government publicly announced that that the zookz website “…is not
operating under the authority or with the knowledge of the Government..”. The emphatic stance taken by the government of
Antigua was no
doubt fuelled in large part by its settlement talks with the US. 117 However, a credible
cross retaliation model ready to be implemented domestically and availed of by companies like Carib Media may
have increased the prospects of a quick and favorable settlement. Once a WTO panel determines the level of
impairment (e.g. USD 21 million in the case of Antigua), it cannot then question Antigua on the precise nature of IP rights proposed
to be suspended and whether such suspension will result in an equivalent “loss” to the US. However, such evaluation to determine
“equivalence” may become important, if the defaulting state complains that the retaliation has exceeded the level of nullification or
impairment. 118 Unless a complaining state works out a credible and transparent model in this regard, the resulting uncertainty may
be exploited by the defaulting state. A comment from a trade lawyer 119 is illustrative in this regard:
“Even if Antigua goes ahead with an act of piracy or the refusal to allow the registration of a trademark, the question still
remains of how much that act is worth. The Antiguans could say that’s worth USD 50,000, and then
the US 116 might say, that’s worth USD 5 million—and I can tell you that the US is going to dog them on
every step of the way.”
A model that might work reasonably well and entails a somewhat objective evaluation is considered
below. For ease of reference, the section below uses the specific context of India and discusses the various Indian laws/regulations.
TRIPS provides for the mandatory protection of the following kinds of intellectual property rights:
Section 1: Copyright and related rights
Section 2: Trademarks
Section 3: Geographical Indications
Section 4: Industrial Designs
Section 5: Patents
Section 6: Layout-Designs (Topographies) of Integrated Circuits (hereafter
“semiconductor chip protection”)
Section 7: Protection of undisclosed information.120
Depending on the kind of industries that are prevalent in the defaulting and the complaining states, one or more of the above
categories could be suspended (hereafter “suspended IP”). The aim is to ensure that the targeted retaliation proves an effective
threat and induces compliance or an amicable settlement within the shortest possible time. Notably, in the US – Gambling (22.6
Arbitration), 121 Antigua requested that the following categories be suspended in relation to US nationals: copyrights,
trademarks, designs, patents and undisclosed information. Contrast this with the EC – Bananas III
(Ecuador), 122 where Ecuador asked that the following be suspended: copyright and related rights;
geographical indications (GI’s) and industrial designs. 123 The inclusion of geographical indications should
come as no surprise, given the relatively high importance of GIs to the EU. 124 The fact that patents have been excluded might be an
indication of Ecuador’s low technological base that might have prevented an effective exploitation of suspended patent rights. This
paper recommends that while requesting the right to retaliate, the complaining state include all categories of IP, since an initially
excluded category might turn out to be important later on. Besides, given that complaining states are relieved of any requirement to
precisely demonstrate the nature and kind of suspensions to an Article 22.6 panel, member states can opt for an all-pervasive
inclusion of IP categories in their retaliatory basket. However, at the time of actual retaliation, this paper proposes a
“tiered suspension” 125 model, whereby certain kinds of IP goods/services are suspended before the
others, so as to aid i) a relatively more objective determination of the harm that ensues from the retaliation;
and ii) a more effective compliance inducing mechanism. Some aspects of this model are visually represented in
Annexure B. Preference would be given to those IP works, in respect of which there already exists a “licensing” rate. These could
be statutorily established rates under the various compulsory licensing provisions, or voluntary rates
carved out by copyright collecting societies (such as rates for public performance of sound recordings), patent pools and the like or
rates that are present in existing licensing arrangements. If working with this kind of IP does not yield any
results within 3 months of the suspension, then the government permits the suspension of other
works/inventions, for which there are no established royalty rates. Lastly, if the working of the second tier
also for another three months (six months in total) does not yield desired results, the
government permits the suspension of trademarks and geographical indications .
TRIPS suspension avoids all the problems with normal retaliation—and it solves
the case by providing adequate compensation
Mitchell 2011 – PhD, University of Cambridge; LLM, Harvard University; Graduate Diploma
in International Law, LLB (Hons.), B. Com. (Hons.), Melbourne, Australia; Associate Professor,
Melbourne Law School (Andrew Mitchell and Constantine Salonidis, Journal of World Trade,
45.2: 457-488, “David's Sling: Cross-Agreement Retaliation in International Trade Disputes”,
ProQuest)
Developed countries were the main advocates of the TRIPS Agreement, a system mainly designed to provide
institutional protection of comparative advantage in technological innovation and the production of high-tech
goods. Slater explains what a suspension of TRIPS obligations could entail in practice:
A retaliating government could, for example, amend its domestic copyright statute to stop providing national treatment
... to foreign authors. Alternatively, the government could stop
providing methods for foreign right holders to
enforce their intellectual property rights domestically. The retaliating government could also issue compulsory licenses on
patented pharmaceuticals, allowing domestic companies to manufacture and sell generic versions of drugs still under patent
protection "without the permission of the patent holder. Similar compulsory licenses could be issued for the
reproduction of New York Times bestselling books, Hollywood movies, Microsoft computer software, and so on.
In principle, the suspension of protection of intellectual property (IP) rights under the TRIPS Agreement would not
trigger the adverse welfare effects associated with trade retaliation. Increased
availability of medicine, access to knowledge, entertainment products, and information services could produce a significant
welfare-enhancing effect and '"compensate" for the loss of trade opportunities caused by the
challenged protectionist measure'. Grosse Ruse-Khan highlights a more systemic welfare-enhancing effect of the suspension of
TRIPS obligations:
[Cross-retaliation under TRIPS] has the potential to cause positive welfare effects if it is utilized to correct access-failures caused by
over-protection or to temporarily increase policy space for adopting intellectual property protection responsive to the domestic
comparative advantage in the innovationimitation ? aradigm .
WTO strength directly depends on plaintiffs’ willingness to use retaliatory
measures—try or die for the CP and proves parties look to the plaintiff, not the
defendant
Ruse-Khan 2008 – Senior Research Fellow, Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property,
Competition and Tax Law, Munich; revised and updated version of separate papers presented at
the 7th BIICL/IIEL WTO Conference in London, May 2007 and at the Inaugural Conference of
the New Zealand Centre for International Economic Law in Wellington, December 2007 (4/14,
Henning Grosse, Journal of International Economic Law 11(2), 313–364, “A PIRATE OF THE
CARIBBEAN? THE ATTRACTIONS OF SUSPENDING TRIPS OBLIGATIONS”,
doi:10.1093/jiel/jgn015)
According to Article 3.7 of the DSU, the
central aim of the dispute settlement mechanism in the WTO is to ‘secure
a positive solution to the dispute’ – if possible in form of a mutually acceptable solution which is equally consistent with the
WTO Agreements. Article 3.7 DSU goes on and states that in the absence of a solution mutually accepted by the parties, ‘the first
objective of the dispute settlement mechanism is usually to secure the withdrawal of the measures concerned if they are found to be
inconsistent with the provisions of the covered agreements’. In case the WTO Member concerned is unable or
unwilling to withdraw the measure and further compensation cannot be agreed, the DSU foresees the option
of (temporarily) suspending the application of concessions or other obligations under the WTO Agreements against the
non-complying Member as the last resort. This ‘compelling reason to comply’ 61 with the decisions of the
WTO dispute settlement apparatus has been pointed out as one of the key features of a
mechanism which is considered to have ‘teeth’ in comparison to disputes resolution in other fora. 62
Compliance in the WTO thus seems to be enforceable. At the same time, one must keep in mind that in the WTO dispute settlement
system ‘in essence, sanctions, just like compliance, must come from sovereign actions of the WTO’s Members’. 63 The
perceived strength of the WTO system is therefore dependant on the willingness and ability
of the complainant to use the DSU response mechanisms as well as the willingness and ability of the
respondent to comply. Against this background, the effectiveness of the WTO’s last resort in the resolution
of trade disputes –
the suspension of WTO concessions and other obligations in general and of IP protection under
TRIPS in particular – depends on what is perceived as its objective. 60
Foregrounding IP retaliation as a remedy is key to broader WTO legitimacy
Basheer 2010 – Ministry of HRD Professor in Intellectual Property Law, NUJS, Kolkata
(Shamnad, The Law and Development Review, 3.2, “Turning Trips on Its Head: An "IP Cross
Retaliation" Model for Developing Countries”, DOI: 10.2202/1943-3867.1063)
From the above, it
is clear that cross-retaliation is a more effective remedy for developing countries
than traditional retaliation. Therefore, this ought to be made the main mode of
retaliation, without countries having to go through the trouble of demonstrating each time why they cannot resort to
“traditional retaliation” under the same agreement/sector. Given that the decks are stacked against
developing countries in WTO dispute resolution, making it easier to avail of effective remedies
such as cross-retaliation will go a long way towards ensuring the credibility and
legitimacy of the WTO. 101 The Brazil example is illustrative in this regard. Despite the arbitrator’s finding that
Brazil could “effectively” retaliate under normal traditional sectors, an IP cross retaliation would have proved a more
optimal tool for inducing compliance, given the economic disparities 102 between these countries and the
power of the IP lobbies 103 in the US. Paradoxically, at the stage of the adoption of the Dunkel draft (which was the first document
to provide for cross-retaliation), a cross-retaliatory mechanism was perceived as furthering developed country interests. 104
Developing countries were concerned about obligations under TRIPS and the prospects of retaliation by developed countries. Since
traditional retaliation for breach of intellectual property commitments would not have made sense (developing countries own very
little intellectual property in developed countries), it was thought that developed countries would resort to cross-retaliation by
suspending obligations in areas that mattered to developing countries such as agriculture, and textiles. Consequently, developing
countries thought it beneficial to restrict the efficacy of cross-retaliation. 105 This might have accounted for the relegation of
crossretaliation to the status of a mere secondary remedy.
CP
1NC
Counterplan: The Government of Antigua should enforce its legal right to crossretaliate under TRIPS by recourse to a tiered intellectual property suspension
model.
TRIPS suspension solves the aff and creates a model for smaller countries—key to
WTO legitimacy and IPR harmonization
Basheer 2010 – Ministry of HRD Professor in Intellectual Property Law, NUJS, Kolkata
(Shamnad, The Law and Development Review, 3.2, “Turning Trips on Its Head: An "IP Cross
Retaliation" Model for Developing Countries”, DOI: 10.2202/1943-3867.1063)
VIII. CONCLUSION
The US-Antigua Gambling case, which has pitted one of the WTO’s tiniest economies against its
biggest, is seen as a test of whether the global trade body's dispute settlement system is equitable and
fair. Such “fairness” will depend in some part, on how successful Antigua is with its threat to
implement the cross retaliation authorization. Whilst the notion of IP “cross-retaliation” has
been doing the rounds for a while, there is considerable uncertainty regarding how this
concept will be operationalized and implemented. Developing countries urgently need to work out an
optimal model that helps assess losses to the foreign IP owner in a reasonably objective way—this way there is no time lost between the procuring
of a favorable order from the WTO sanctioning cross-retaliation and the actual cross- retaliation itself. The lack of a credible domestic
model has no doubt caused Antigua’s threat of cross retaliation to be taken less seriously by the US. This
paper seeks to fill this lacuna by proposing a tiered suspension mechanism as a viable option. That the model
lacks technical precision in terms of computing losses to IP owners accurately is not fatal since the current WTO framework only requires
a broadly objective model that does not reek of arbitrariness. Further, the aim of this paper is to evolve a model that
will help in securing compliance or a settlement. Given that the IP lobbies in countries such as the US and the EU are
powerful, the likelihood of a settlement or compliance is very strong. Particularly, since the model advocates an
automatic compulsory license after the offending measures have been removed. In other words, the likelihood of a country having to operationalize the
IP suspension model is very remote. Any infirmities
in the model ought to be evaluated, bearing this overarching assumption
WTO framework only requires that broad equivalence be achieved and not
that the retaliating state compute the losses to suspended IP owners in a technically accurate
manner. Lastly, this paper highlights a paradox, albeit an obvious one. Cross-retaliation is often positioned as an exception to traditional
retaliation, which often involves a simple imposition of tariffs on imports. In most cases concerning developing countries,
cross-retaliation is a more effective remedy than traditional retaliation. Not least because a credible
in the model. Further, the current
cross-retaliatory model will place the right kind of pressures on developed countries to comply, as the IP lobbies in these countries are quite powerful.
Also, at a conceptual level, prominent
free trade scholars remain skeptical of the imposition of minimum
standards through TRIPS and the linkage between TRIPS and the WTO. To these free trade scholars who view
traditional retaliatory techniques are somewhat antithetical to the very purpose of the free trade agreements, crossretaliation by suspending TRIPS obligations sits much better—and in fact, may be desirable to offset
the negative impact of TRIPS. As noted earlier, the bargain between the developed and the developing countries could be
viewed as a give and take-where the developed countries offered to open their markets to developing country goods such as textiles and agriculture and
the developing countries promised to implement minimum standards in IP so that developed country entities could extract rents from these countries.
194 Given
the framework of this bargain, it is only fair that TRIPS obligations be suspended by
developing countries, when developed countries fail to live up to their commitment to open up their
markets. This paper therefore prescribes that cross-retaliation ought to be conferred with the status of a mainstream
retaliatory technique, as opposed to a secondary one. Such a paradigmatic shift will go a long way
towards making the WTO framework more meaningful to a large number of developing
countries that continue to see it as representing an inequitable bargain. 195
The aff takes that remedy off the table by ending the dispute—suspending TRIPS
spills over to improve global IPR governance
Hamann 09 – their article’s conclusion
GEORGIA L. Hamann is an associate in Lewis, Roca, Rothberger’s Litigation Practice Group,
J.D. from Vanderbilt University Law School, May 2009, “Replacing Slingshots with Swords:
Implications of the Antigua-Gambling 22.6 Panel Report for Developing Countries and the
World Trading System”, http://www.vanderbilt.edu/jotl/manage/wpcontent/uploads/hamann-cr_final_final.pdf
C. EC-Bananas III Offers Strategies to Minimize Unfettered Piracy Although the 22.6 arbitration decision does not address problems of
implementation, 218 the arbitrators refer in a footnote to the extensive analysis set out by the arbitrators in EC-Bananas III to answer certain questions
about the mechanics of the TRIPS suspension remedy. 219 Because
the EC-Bananas III panel considered the TRIPS
remedy as a question of first impression, basic questions had to be answered in order to advise the
countries involved and to legitimately authorize the remedy. 220 The EC-Bananas III panel, addressing the question
suspension
of scope, asserted that the suspension remedy could only apply to the work of a national of the target country. 221 The arbitrators suggested that the
TRIPS privileges be suspended only for property wholly owned by persons of the relevant nationality to avoid infringing the rights of non-affected
TRIPS signatories. 222 The decision pointed to treaties associated with the TRIPS agreement, particularly those setting out the definitions of “scope,”
as relevant to determining whose nationality mattered in the context of retaliation. 223 The
strongest argument against TRIPS
suspension is that violations sanctioned in one country will spread widely with the dissemination of the
unauthorized copies of the “objects of piracy” (that is, the copyrighted or patented material). 224 Antigua makes such veiled threats
with language that at least implies that Antigua seeks to capitalize on American producers’ fear
of widespread piracy. 225 However, the EC-Bananas III arbitrators attempted to address this argument by pointing out that the
duties of all the other parties to TRIPS are not suspended 226 and that one of those duties is to
prevent circulation of materials copied without proper permission. 227 The arbitrators further indicated that TRIPS suspension authorized
through the WTO is not an acceptable substitute for proper permission to copy obtained through TRIPS-approved means: An authorization of a
suspension requested by Ecuador does of course not entitle other WTO Members to derogate from any of their obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.
Consequently, such DSB authorization to Ecuador cannot be construed by other WTO Members to
reduce their obligations under Part III of the TRIPS Agreement in regard to imports entering their customs territories. 228 Accordingly,
the EC-Bananas III decision indicated that the suspension would only be authorized within Ecuador’s domestic market. 229 This safeguard certainly
does not give U.S. rights holders can treat suspension lightly. Yet, countries theoretically would be able to keep “distortions in third-country markets”
230 in check if TRIPS signatories were diligent in satisfying their TRIPS obligations with regard to goods coming from Antigua. If Antigua was required
to keep very close track of each of its copyright violations, the monitoring system that the country used to identify their “legitimate piracy” could make
it easier to track those same copyrighted goods and make sure they stayed within domestic borders. Monitoring and enforcement systems are,
unfortunately, untested territory because Ecuador settled instead of suspending TRIPS. 232 However, Ecuador’s
proposed
mechanism is an indication that viable options exist. 233 In EC-Bananas III, the decision noted “with
approval” 234 that Ecuador had proposed to implement a coherent and likely effective structure for
monitoring and calculating the value of continued violations, in addition to the “actual impact” of initial violations. 235 If it
were to suspend TRIPS, Ecuador intended to establish a licensing system whereby companies or individuals
who wanted to produce materials with an EC copyright would instead apply for a license from the Ecuadorian government. 236 The licensing system
would “[limit] the suspension of concessions in terms of quantity, value, and time.” 237 The government would use a specified “‘related right value’ of a
new . . . sound recording,” with the value 231 calculated by an international institution. 238 The EC-Bananas III decision further explained, The
Ecuadorian government would reserve its right to revoke these licen[s]es at any time. . . . A certain proportion of this value would represent the
performer's share and another, larger part would represent the producer's share. If the level of suspension thus calculated were to risk reaching
(together with authorized suspension in other sectors and/or under other agreements, if any) the level of nullification and impairment suffered by
Ecuador, the authorization scheme would be stopped. Ecuador believes that the chances that this would happen are very close to nil. 239 Although
Antigua proposed no such structure and merely sought the right to suspend TRIPS, 240 the specific reference
241 to the EC-Bananas III arbitration by the Anitigua-Gambling arbitrators hints that the WTO would require a similar
system for developing countries in subsequent arbitration that actually implements the TRIPS suspension remedy. Forcing
developing countries seeking retaliation under TRIPS to demonstrate effective
monitoring and enforcement of the authorized IP suspensions could also lead to
more effective monitoring and enforcement of regular TRIPS protections. Weak TRIPS
enforcement in developing countries is primarily attributed to “institutional weaknesses and the lack of resources,” as well as a lack of “the political will
to curb ‘piracy.’” 243 Whereas
the incentives to develop systems to enforce TRIPS protections are currently
relatively low, 244 authorization of the TRIPS suspension remedy increases those
incentives. The U.S., or any similarly situated developed country, would watch for signs that the retaliating country lost control of the remedy.
The developing country would have an incentive to avoid expensive and exhausting disputes over the scope of retaliation and attempts by the
developing economy to maximize the value of suspensions—that is, the 242 developing
country would develop “the
political will to curb ‘piracy.’” 245 In addition to this newfound will, the developing country
would also correct “institutional weaknesses” by developing effective means of monitoring
pirates and protecting information. 246 Other developed countries, though not directly entangled
in the dispute, would nevertheless have an interest in ensuring that the suspensions did not affect their protected material. 247
Increased interest in maintaining protection would increase the pressure on the developing state to
increase TRIPS enforcement across the board and perhaps would lead to assistance in
creating enforcement regimes. Such assistance would go far to increase TRIPS compliance. In the event that developed countries
harbor fear that the monitoring system outlined by Ecuador would never work in practice, such countries should take heart in the oft-expressed
mandate of the WTO to keep remedies strictly equal to the original violation. Previous decisions on retaliation have emphasized “equivalence” and
“compensation,” explicitly repudiating remedies that go outside the bounds of strict fairness. 250 Not
only does this suggest that the
arbitrators knew what they were agreeing to do when they endorsed Antigua’s (and Ecuador’s) use of
TRIPS suspension, but also it suggests that developed countries that can demonstrate that
retaliation has spiraled out of control will receive WTO support in response to demand for stronger levels of
monitoring. The aforementioned existing safeguards within the TRIPS agreement should also help to hedge against the
asymmetry of the remedy and provide some assurance the WTO is not overtly encouraging
unrestrained piracy. 251 Settlement pressure, while still 248 249 high because of software companies have a great deal to lose should the safeguards
be ignored, 252 may be less skewed as further applications of the TRIPS safeguards are extrapolated and tested. V.
CONCLUSION The WTO has taken a significant step toward addressing an important problem: the impracticality of existing
trade retaliation measures for smaller developing economies against noncompliant developed economies. When the WTO decided to extend the
availability of TRIPS suspension as a retaliation option, it gave developing nations a powerful weapon. The trading system has reason to be
apprehensive about the full implications of possible retaliation under the untested TRIPS suspension system. Nevertheless, the decision made in
Antigua-Gambling represents a positive step in the evolution of the international
trading system—a move towards a system that can better accommodate the needs of all its members. Ultimately, the
availability of TRIPS suspension as a remedy for developing countries seems to be beneficial to the international trading
system. While the difficulty of calculation and the possibility of unfair expansion of the retaliatory effects should be considerations for the WTO as it
contemplates the mechanics of the remedy, the ultimate effect of having
TRIPS suspension on the table is more
consistent with WTO goals than any plausible alternative. Regardless of the credibility—or lack thereof—of
its calculation of losses, Antigua ultimately offers a persuasive argument that demonstrates the
impossibility of effective punishment using straightforward suspension in similar sectors . 254 For
Antigua and other developing economies, TRIPS suspension represents a remedy that carries weight
and meaning. 253
IPR harmonization is key to biotech
Kerle 2007 (Clemens – research fellow at the Institute for Public International Law and
International Relations at the Johannes Kepler University of Linz, International IP Protection
for GMO – a Biotech Odyssey, Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, p. Lexis-Nexis)
3.1.2. The persuasiveness of pro-harmonization arguments in the GMO context The above alleged
disadvantages are, in the case of IPR harmonization for GMOs, arguably almost negligible. Furthermore, the disadvantages that do
exist are principally, at least to some extent offset by "dynamic" advantages. Three main benefits will be identified here, n162 which
are particularly significant with regard to GMOs. First, stronger IPRs provide more incentives for
inventors, both locally and regionally. It is often argued that IP as an incentive for innovation does not
work in the developing world, as these countries simply lack the "stock of local inventors." n163 Unquestionably, R&D
capacities are generally disproportionately larger in the developed world. But contrary to many
other areas such as pharmaceutical research, the differences [*179] are smaller and a
significant amount of sophisticated agricultural research has been conducted locally,
mainly within public institutions, since the end of World War II. n164 So far, little has been achieved with regard to GMOs, but
local scientific competence, or at least a basis for such, seems to exist. n165 And the picture slowly begins to change.
Alliances between local researchers and multinational firms are emerging, conducting research
towards GM rice and wheat for the developing world. n166 A factor that would likely contribute to the further
foundation of such collaborations is the role of IPRs in the creation and recognition of (intellectual) assets, which, again, is of
particular relevance in the biotechnological sector. n167 Merges illustratively defines IPRs as the "crown jewels" n168 of many small
firms. If entrepreneurs in the developing world would acquire these valuable assets, they would
become more attractive partners, and more influential in a partnership. Cooperation would be
the only way for international players to share in the profit from such local intellectual assets . The
importance of local incentives for research on new plant varieties apt for the tropics is underlined by Abbott; n169 analogous
conclusions for the creation of GMOs can arguably be drawn. Therefore, "it must be recognized that biotechnology . . . will
not evolve without IPRs, unless there is much more public sector research than seems plausible . . . IP protection
is thus a necessary component of a global trade regime in a high technology era;" n170 Investigating
the implausibility of sufficiently large spending on public research is beyond the scope of this paper. Nevertheless, it is worth noting
one convincing reason for this, elucidated by Scotchmer: IPR
protection abroad encourages private investors to
undertake research in products in order to earn profits also in foreign markets. As public sponsors are
mainly concerned with domestic welfare, they spend too little overall. Therefore, "the expanded [IP] rights are a partial remedy to
the fact that R&D spending is [*180] suboptimal in a fragmented world." n171 Overall, the pace of progress would likely
increase through private investment if incentives were raised and IPR-protected assets were
created locally. n172 International IP protection is an essential prerequisite for sufficient
innovation. This is even more so with regard to inventions with geographically confined applicability. Without the
possibility of profits stemming from sales to other countries in that area, they will not be
developed privately (to a satisfactory extent). Second, stronger IP standards can encourage foreign direct
investment. While the general ability of stronger IPRs to attract additional FDI must be regarded as ambiguous, n173 some
empirical studies suggest that IP regimes have this effect in "Mansfield"-sectors, n174 where
the industry relies heavily on IPRs due to simple reproducibility and the necessity of large
investments in product development. n175 Biotechnology can be classified as such. For existing
products, weak IPR systems increase the risk of copying, reproduction or imitation. They also provide the
IP owner with little ability to prevent a (potential) licensee from entering direct competition if he breaches the license. Therefore,
should the respective firm aim to profit from a market with weak IPRs, it would prefer to
establish local distributional systems for (irreproducible) end products, rather than invest in
local production. FDI is thus to some extent replaced by exports. n176 As far as possible, this
would also be the case for GMOs and derived products. As for future research, the fact that the specific
conditions (e.g., climate, soil) for which a new GMO will be invented are only found in the developing
world provides a significant comparative cost advantage. It would require large efforts to
artificially recreate similar environments in temperate climates, particularly if field trials are taking place. If
foreign investors want to profit from market opportunities for transgenic [*181] organisms in
developing markets, this fact encourages them to direct their investments to these regions, and
pursue the necessary research locally. Third, effective IPRs can encourage technology
transfer. Fink and Braga show that in order to reap benefits, even from radical
biotechnological innovation, by marketing a downstream product, internationally active firms
will rely on technology licensing with local firms, as these breakthrough inventions require
adaptation to regional conditions. Adequate IPRs will arguably enforce such cooperation and
increase the number of biotechnological research partnerships. n177 While other factors such
as public support to strengthen local research capacities are at least equally important, effective patents must be
regarded as essential. As shown above, firms will be reluctant to license valuable knowledge
otherwise. All the arguments made so far indicate that strengthening GMO patents would increase
innovative activity, and consequently, the number of patent applications and awarded patents. The resulting
publication of highly sophisticated technological knowledge would disseminate this
information. n178 As mentioned above, a fairly advanced research framework focusing on traditional agricultural
biotechnology already exists in many of these countries. What is perhaps currently lacking is the knowledge necessary for the
creation of useful GMOs. But as soon as more GMO patents are published, local scientists should be able to appropriate some of this
knowledge and become more inventive in this field themselves, ultimately without their northern partners.
Solves food volatility
Zilberman and Hochman ’08 – Professor @ UC Berkeley in Agricultural & Resource
Economics department, fellow of the American Agricultural Economics Association and the
Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Ph.D @ Berkeley in Agricultural and
Resource Economics ; visiting scholar at UC Berkeley’s Department of Agricultural and
Resource Economics, (David, Gal, “The Economics of Biofuel Policy and Biotechnology”,
Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization Volume 6 2008 Article 8, )
Agricultural biotechnology also unambiguously reduces the impacts of biofuel production on food
supply because it permits more efficient production of staple crops. Since the mid-1990s, agricultural
biotechnology has been shown to reduce the concavity of the food production function and cause the marginal productivity of food
production to decline less than it would absent innovation. Biotech accomplishes this by genetically altering plants to induce either
pest resistance or herbicide resistance. The technology, applied to cotton, rice, and—notably—corn,
increases yield per acre while also reducing pesticide applications (e.g., Qaim and Zilberman 2003).
The productivity gains provided by this technology lessen the loss of food supply caused by
biofuels by allowing greater yields per unit of land. Agricultural biotechnology in food
production can, therefore, represent a complimentary technology whose adoption alongside
biofuel technology is consistent with goals of increasing renewable fuel production and relieving
upward pressure on food prices. We depict the impacts of biofuel and food production innovations in the same partial
equilibrium setting, beginning with cellulosic biofuels. 5.1 Second Generation Biofuels Second generation biofuels reduce biofuel
demand for staple crops, shifting the total demand curve in to D4 in Figure 6. The price falls while food consumption increases to C4
at home and C* 4 abroad. Total production of staple crops declines to Q4 (<Q2). The amount of crop diverted for biofuel uses also
declines (Q4 – C4 < Q2 – C2). Biotechnology increases supply; it reduces commodity prices and
increases food consumption, both for country H and country F (see Figure 6). The impact of biotechnology, given a
mandate, is depicted in Figure 7 in green. Consumption in country H and country F increases to C3 (>C2) and C* 3 (>C* 2),
respectively. In this respect, investment in agricultural biotechnology reduces the risk of food crisis
and
can serve as a response to food security concerns. To the extent biofuels induce upward pressure
on food prices, agricultural biotechnology is a complimentary technology. 5.3 Inherent Iinstability,
Biofuel, and Technical Innovation Biotechnology, as well as second-generation biofuel, alleviate the tension
between food and energy. Whereas biotechnology not only affects yield – a multiplicative effect – but also reduces cost
(damage control), it makes the supply curve more elastic. Second-generation biofuel, on the other hand, reduces
demand for staple crops and makes the staple crop demand curve less elastic. The impact of
these innovations on prices, then, depends on demand and supply elasticities. Agricultural production
is characterized by uncertainty, but agricultural biotechnology can reduce some of the
uncertainty by mitigating the damage from stochastic events like pest infestation and drought.
Existing biotech crops reduce pest damage and future genetically-modified crops will be tolerant
to drought and other weather variables. Technical change, therefore, can also reduce price
shocks, which impact not just food markets but also induce boom and bust in the biofuel
industry. Less elastic demand for staple crops, however, will mean fluctuations in output induce
greater price variability.
Extinction
Plumb 8 [George, Environmental Researcher, May 18, “Was Malthus just off a few decades?”
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI
D=/20080518/FEATURES05/805180310/1014/FEATURES05]
Once again the world's food situation is bleak. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the price
of wheat is more than 80 percent higher than a year ago, and corn prices are up by 25 percent. Global cereal stocks have fallen to
their lowest level since 1982. Prices have gone so high that the United Nations World Food Program ,
which aims to feed 73 million people this year, reported
it might have to reduce rations or the number of
people it will help. Food riots are happening in many countries and threaten to bring down some
countries as starving people demand better from their government. However, this time the problem will not
be so easy to solve. There are some 75 million more people to feed each year! Consumption of meat and other high-quality foods —
mainly in China and India — has boosted demand for grain for animal feed. Poor harvests due to bad weather in this country and
elsewhere have contributed. High energy prices are adding to the pressures as some arable land is converted from growing food
crops to biofuel crops and making it more expensive to ship the food that is produced. According to Lester Brown, president of the
World Policy Institute, "This troubling situation is unlike any the world has faced before. The challenge
is not simply to deal with a temporary rise in grain prices, as in the past, but rather to quickly alter those trends whose
cumulative effects collectively threaten the food security that is a hallmark of civilization. If food
security cannot be restored quickly, social unrest and political instability will spread and the
number of failing states will likely increase dramatically, threatening the very stability of
civilization itself."
AT: PERM DO BOTH
Still links—our arg is that we should keep our current laws so Antigua can resort to
WTO-approved retaliation. Legalization ends the dispute, so Antigua would lack
both means and motive to suspend TRIPS. 1nc Hamann says leveraging that
remedy is key to the spillover benefits—perm takes it off the table. We are an
impact turn to cross-retaliation.
The aff makes cross-retaliation illegal
Slater 2009 – JD, Georgetown (Gabriel L., The Georgetown Law Journal, “The Suspension of
Intellectual Property Obligations Under TRIPS: A Proposal for Retaliating Against TechnologyExporting Countries in the World Trade Organization”, 97 Geo. L.J. 1365 2008-2009,
HeinOnline)
Article 22.8 of the DSU
provides that:
The suspension of concessions or other obligations shall be temporary and shall
only be applied until such
time as the measure found to be inconsistent with a covered agreement has been removed, or
the Member that must implement recommendations or rulings provides a solution to the nullification or
impairment of benefits, or a mutually satisfactory solution is reached.
Any regime of suspended IP rights must therefore cease if and when: (1) the violating state comes
into compliance; (2) the violating state remedies the nullification or impairment of benefits; or (3) the parties reach a mutually
satisfactory solution. 60 Uncertainty about when or even if any of these three events will occur creates risks for any business that
seeks to take advantage of suspended IP obligations.
2NC OVERVIEW
The counterplan solves the aff and straight turns the WTO with an external IPRs
net benefit—I’ll explain the basic mechanics here:
We fiat a mechanism for Antigua to implement the remedy they won in their WTO
case, which involves suspending intellectual property obligations under the TRIPS
agreement. Cross-retal was affirmed by the DSB, but Antigua never used it because
the lack a regulatory mechanism opens them to recrimination from the US. 1nc
Basheer says a tiered suspension model resolves this concern and provides a
template for developing countries to feasibly resort to cross-retaliation.
The aff, on the other hand, resolves the case by changing gambling laws. This
removes Antigua’s right to retaliate without providing a template for smaller
countries in future trade disputes—means their only model is one-time
benevolence. Our Hamann ev is comparative—3 implications:
1. Turns trade—the aff does nothing to increase confidence in the system because
parties can’t rely on “fiat” in future disputes. Our ev says actually suspending
TRIPS is key to flesh out a viable model for countries who rely on US imports.
We give the DSB sharper teeth by showing how cross-retaliation works—Antigua’s
key so try or die flips neg
Basheer 2010 – Ministry of HRD Professor in Intellectual Property Law, NUJS, Kolkata
(Shamnad, The Law and Development Review, 3.2, “Turning Trips on Its Head: An "IP Cross
Retaliation" Model for Developing Countries”, DOI: 10.2202/1943-3867.1063)
This paper therefore seeks to work out a detailed IP suspension model that could help countries such as
Antigua. It proposes a “Tiered IP suspension model”, where certain kinds of IP are targeted first for suspension
before others, depending on the ease of objectively ascertaining the value of IP and thereby the harm
caused by the unauthorized use of such IP and/or the potential to induce compliance by the defaulting state. Illustratively,
copyrights over sound recordings that have established rates for public performance are targeted first. If working
with this tier of IP subject matter does
not yield desired results, then the complaining state moves on to
other IP where it is relatively more difficult to compute the loss caused to the IP owner (such as pharmaceutical patents) but
which may prove a more powerful tool to induce compliance.
Such a model could be useful for a large number of developing countries such as India
and Brazil, that often find that, despite WTO victories, economically powerful developed countries such as
the US and EU fail to comply. Towards this end, this paper offers a very concrete “development” oriented international trade
law remedy.
This paper will also demonstrate that cross-retaliation fits conceptually better within the world trading system and what it
stands for. To this extent, it needs
to be positioned as the primary retaliatory mechanism for
a
paradigmatic shift will go a long way towards preserving the “fairness” and legitimacy of the
WTO.
Although this paper specifically names the US, EU, Antigua, Brazil and India in its various examples, one could,
as easily, substitute the name of any other WTO member. In other words, the models/strategies enunciated in this
paper could apply to any WTO member state, though they are more likely to be used by developing country members
developing countries and not just a secondary resort. Since developing countries constitute the majority at the WTO, such
against developed country members that erect WTO inconsistent market barriers.
2. IPRs net benefit—TRIPS retaliation requires a regulatory and monitoring
regime to make threats credible, so expanding the remedy increases global IPRs by
creating incentives to curb piracy. Our ev says this mitigates current problems
with TRIPS and strengthens norms. That’s key to biotech innovation that solves
food security—Plumbs says supply volatility risks extinction.
Also turns China – their advantage is based on China using DSB to stave off
protectionist demands – if we access better dispute resolution on IP then we flip
the aff because that’s the only escalatory dispute
Ji 2011, Legal advisor @ the Chinese Mission to the WTO in Geneva, and Huang, Associate
Prof, college of Public Administration, Zheijiang University, 2011 “China’s Experience in
Dealing with WTO Dispute Settlement: A Chinese Perspective”
http://www.csiel.org/upfj/doc.pdf
It was not surprising that China — Intellectual Property Rights, once filed, immediately attracted the attention of Members,
journalists, industries, and scholars around the world because of the historical wrangling between China and the US on IPR
protection issues. For decades, both long before China's WTO accession and also thereafter, the US
government, almost at all levels and in
all forums, blamed the Chinese Government for its lax
enforcement of IPR laws and the widespread existence of pirated and counterfeit products in China. China has
constantly refuted these allegations. The fiery exchange between China and die US on IPR
protection on more than one occasion has nearly led to bilateral trade wars, e.g. unilateral
sanctions by the US against China under section 301 of the US trade law and tit-for-tat
retaliation from China, particularly in the 1990s. After China joined the WTO in 2001, calls by US
intellectual property industries to impose unilateral sanctions on China gradually evolved into strong
advocacy for a WTO lawsuit
against China. At the same time, China and the US officially established certain bilateral channels to discuss IPR protection and
cooperation issues, for instance, at the annual meetings of the Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT). Even so, the Bush
administration, although claiming a preference to use bilateral channels, became more aggressive in the face of domestic political
pressure. Eventually, the Bush team initiated formal WTO dispute settlement proceedings against China. Speaking objectively, from
a Chinese perspective, the US got tangible benefits from the use of bilateral channels in the sense that China from time to time made
concessions and commitments, which might also have helped China's IPR development, in response to US requests on IPR-related
issues during the annual JCCT meetings. Partly because of this, the initiation by the US of this case at the
WTO irritated the Chinese side because it simply proved that China's cooperation was not
appreciated by the US side. For their part, the US side may have felt that China did not make real efforts
to protect US IPRs. China's then Vice Premier Wu Yi, who was in charge of Sino-US trade
relations for a long period, said the China — Intellectual Property Rights case would seriously
undermine bilateral cooperation on IPR under the JCCT framework and that "|w|e will not cower away'.45 As
a result, Sino-US bilateral IPR cooperation came to a halt until the end of the WTO litigation. Some may
argue that China's decision to cut off bilateral IPR cooperation was not an appropriate response and revealed China's inexperience.
However, from the authors' point of view and as proven by the final result of this case (which was not unfavourable from a Chinese
perspective), the US government filed this not-so-strong case mainly as a result of political pressure from the US Congress and
certain industries; there was no reason then why China could not exert counter pressure on the US
government. Indeed, when a dispute is pending at the WTO, it is simply logical and not unreasonable to stop bilateral
discussions on the same issue until the outcome of the WTO legal proceedings is known.
Turns econ
Abbott 5 [Alden F. Abbott-Associate Director for Policy and Coordination Bureau of
Competition Federal Trade Commission, September 8, 2005, “The Harmonization of
Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Policy: A Unified Approach to Economic
Progress”, Before the APEC High-Level Symposium on IPR Xiamen, People’s Republic of China,
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/international/docs/abbottipchina.pdf]
This symposium on intellectual
property rights is very timely, as intellectual property has a critical role in
furthering economic progress and the welfare of the world’s citizens. The reason is simple. Intellectual
property typically is both a key input into and a byproduct of successful innovation, which is a principal factor in fostering a
dynamic, growing economy. Innovation promotes consumer welfare and economic efficiency in a
number of ways. It drives down costs through the development of more efficient production and distribution techniques. It
stimulates economic growth by bringing to market new products desired by consumers and the business community. And
it can limit the creation and exercise of market power by fostering the development of new technologies that permit new entrants to
leapfrog the advantages and entry barriers enjoyed by entrenched dominant firms. Intellectual property, therefore, is a highly valued
asset, and it has been granted substantial legal protection by the nations of the world. It is important that we preserve those
protections. Intellectual property rights increasingly are implicated in standard setting and licensing arrangements. For example,
standards that enable the interoperability of products or services, such as the telecommunications network or your mobile phone
system, often incorporate multiple technologies protected by intellectual property rights, often held by more than one person or
entity. The licensing of intellectual property rights may substantially influence the way in which new
technologies are disseminated and, in turn, affect the introduction of new products and services in the marketplace. IPR
licensing arrangements frequently are associated 16ith the introduction of standards. In short, standard-setting and IPR
licensing policies may greatly affect the development of new goods and services, future
innovation, and the competitiveness of markets.
AT: DANISH/SAY NO
1. This ev is about the squo—the US already threatened Antigua and those threats
are priced into our evidence—the only question is whether Antigua rises to the
challenge by following through on its own threat—our ev says that’s key to
sustainable trade because it signals that the US can’t get away with bullying—the
plan does nothing to address the terms of the original threat.
2. US will comply—only contemporary study
Mitchell 2011 – PhD, University of Cambridge; LLM, Harvard University; Graduate Diploma
in International Law, LLB (Hons.), B. Com. (Hons.), Melbourne, Australia; Associate Professor,
Melbourne Law School (Andrew Mitchell and Constantine Salonidis, Journal of World Trade,
45.2: 457-488, “David's Sling: Cross-Agreement Retaliation in International Trade Disputes”,
ProQuest)
EU recalcitrance resulted in the initiation of Article 21.5 DSU compliance proceedings, which concluded that the implementation
measures taken by the EU to comply with recommendations of the DSB were not fully compatible with its WTO obligations.
However, Ecuador did not immediately seek authorization to retaliate, preferring instead to enter into negotiations with the EU.
After negotiations broke down, Ecuador requested authorization from the DSB to retaliate in the
amount of US Dollar (USD) 450 million under the TRIPS Agreement, GATT, and GATS. The EU thereupon requested
arbitration pursuant to Article 22.6 DSU. On 2 March 2000, the arbitral panel sets the level of suspension at USD 201.6 million
annual value, of which a large portion was potentially suspension of obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. The DSB authorized
the suspension on 18 May 2000. However, Ecuador did not proceed with implementation of the authorized suspension,
as a mutually agreed solution was reached in June 2001. Nonetheless, the dispute was revived, owing to the EU's
continuous failure to implement the 2001 Agreement in a WTO-consistent manner. Having constituted one of the world's longest
running trade battles, the matter appears to have finally been resolved in late 2009, as the EU agreed to significantly reduce import
tariffs on bananas from a number of Latin American countries, including Ecuador, in return for their dropping their case.
Arguably, the threat of cross-agreement retaliation was instrumental in facilitating a negotiated
outcome during the first phase of the dispute. A contemporary study supports the theory that the threat of
cross-retaliation in TRIPS enhanced Ecuador's leverage in subsequent negotiations leading to a compromise solution that
incorporated most of Ecuador's core demands. However, the revival of the dispute affirms that by itself the threat of cross-retaliation
is not the decisive motivator of compliance.
In U S- Gambling, the Appellate Body held that the cumulative effect of various US measures amounted to a ban on cross-border
supply of online gambling and betting services, which was inconsistent with its market access commitments under GATS. Although
the violation was provisionally justified as necessary to protect public morals or to maintain public order under Article XIV (a)
GATS, the contested measures had been applied in a discriminatory manner contrary to the chapeau of Article XIV. After the expiry
of the reasonable period of time for the United States to implement the D SB' s recommendations and rulings, a compliance panel
established under Article 21.5 DSU determined that the United States had failed to do so. * Antigua initially requested authorization
from the DSB to suspend concessions in other GATS sectors and under the TRIPS Agreement; it later modified its request to seek
suspension of concessions and other obligations solely under the TRIPS Agreement. The Article 22.6 arbitrators granted to
Antigua the right to request authorization to retaliate by suspending obligations relating to copyright,
trademarks, industrial designs, patents, and trade secrets. They set the level of retaliation at the amount of USD 21
million annually.152
And, it straight turns the aff—WTO is doomed without a stronger model for crossretaliation—only we give teeth to the DSB
Danish 13 – their article’s conclusion
Danish, Fourth Year, B.A. LL.B.(H) National University of Advanced Legal Studies, India,
Westminster Law Review, October 2013, vol. 3, iss. 1, “WTO Dispute Resolution and Cross
Retaliation under Trips: Is it Sanctioned Piracy of Intellectual Property? A Case Study of the US
- Gambling (Antigua) Case”, http://www.westminsterlawreview.org/wlr16.php
6. Conclusion
The remedy of cross-retaliation is rarely given and has never been put into effect until now. The
two nations that were authorised to use it, namely Ecuador and Antigua, did not do so. In the
case of the former, the mere leveraging power it provided was sufficient to wrangle a substantially
better compensation settlement from the EC, while the latter is still holding out in the hope of compliance
from the US. Traditional trade retaliation has always suffered from various problems with
effectiveness of the actions against errant nations. However, suspension of intellectual property obligations
under the TRIPs Agreement is relatively free of such constrains. The value of intellectual property is
significant for vast corporations and conglomerates, which are based mostly in highly industrialised countries and
hold considerable economic and political sway. Many developing countries have undertaken
serious commitments on the TRIPs Agreement from which large, multinational corporations stand to benefit
enormously. For this reason, even the threat or minimal retaliation by developing countries in the
area of intellectual property rights is seen as likely to generate a significant lobbying response placing
industrialised governments under considerable political pressure to comply.78
One of the major drawbacks of the entire WTO Dispute Settlement
is the lack of authority to
impose punitive sanctions such as those possessed by the UN Security Council. In this regard, the WTO
Dispute Settlement Understanding is more diplomatic in its approach than judicial. While mutually acceptable solutions are always
preferable to adjudicatory procedures, the lack of punitive options in the latter renders the point moot. Without the threat of
sanctions being imposed on a global scale, most errant countries tend to simply ignore its
recommendations or make facile changes, especially when they are developed economies. Most
cases that come to the WTO take a long time to be resolved through its arbitrative approach and
by the time the resolution comes about, severe harm might have already been committed to the
economy of the complaining nations, especially if it is a developing or a least – developed nation. The question of
effective enforcement of DSB rulings is a definite lacuna in the otherwise well functioning dispute
settlement mechanism. It is therefore suggested that in cases where the defendant does not comply with the recommendations of the
DSB, and the complainant does not have the economic muscle to impose traditional trade sanctions without harming its own
interests, then the WTO should create a system which would allow the imposition of sanctions on behalf of the complainant at a
global or near – global level.
The Cross-Retaliation Model under Article 22 has induced a greater degree of compliance, especially when the retaliation is sought
under the TRIPs Agreement. However, this remedy is not foolproof and has its own peculiar predicaments. The length of the dispute
and its resolution are formidable obstacles that a complaining country must contend with. While the extended delay might assure a
large payout at the time of resolution, the economic harm being caused in the meanwhile still has to be suffered by the complainant.
The DSU procedures do not have any provisional measures (interim relief) for successful complainants. This is a serious drawback
that can be best addressed by the creation of a consolidated fund where the non compliant nation must deposit the amount due.
Considering past precedent, it is highly probable that many countries would settle with the complainants than have to pay the
amount and go through more legal costs.
Secondly, the non tangible costs that a complainant has to bear for fighting such disputes should be added to the compensation due
to them. Especially in cases such as US – Gambling, where Antigua has to put up with the slander of being called pirates, there
should be some kind of relief provided to them by the WTO. This would ensure better standards of decorum from the disputing
parties and prevent a media circus of unsubstantiated allegations. While it seems that the view of infringement as theft is largely
concentrated in the US, the application of labels such as pirates is a vicious offensive by any defaulting nation. It is therefore, in the
interest of all WTO Members that such acts have the harshest penalties and sanctions imposed upon the nation falsely insinuating
such charges.
As of today, cross retaliation under TRIPs is the best remedy available to small
economies against developed nations, especially given that many such countries are highly dependent on the
upholding of their intellectual property rights for revenue purposes. The denigration of this remedy as piracy of
intellectual property is an affront to the entire system of DSU and should be punished with
international trade sanctions. However, suspension of obligations under TRIPs is a last resort
solution, with wide ramifications, and care should be taken to use it as sparingly as possible. The rights
of the lesser developed nations have to be respected if the WTO intends to remain relevant as a
“forum for negotiating agreements aimed at reducing obstacles to international trade and ensuring a level playing field for all, thus
contributing to economic growth and development.”79 This will only be achieved if the WTO disproves the
conventional wisdom that the dispute settlement mechanism is “a waste of time and money for
developing countries to invoke the WTO’s dispute settlement procedures against industrialised countries.”80
Especially for gambling—their warrant is industry pressure—if Antigua holds firm
that energy will be directed toward US policy
Slater 2009 – JD, Georgetown (Gabriel L., The Georgetown Law Journal, “The Suspension of
Intellectual Property Obligations Under TRIPS: A Proposal for Retaliating Against TechnologyExporting Countries in the World Trade Organization”, 97 Geo. L.J. 1365 2008-2009,
HeinOnline)
A. HOW SUSPENDING TRIPS OBLIGATIONS CAN INDUCE COMPLIANCE
The suspension of IP obligations has the potential to effectively induce compliance. To do this, the
retaliating state wants to place maximum pressure on domestic export interests within the violating
state, which will then lobby their government to bring itself into compliance. 2 4 In the United States, IP right
holders are highly sensitive to any precedent that jeopardizes their exclusive rights. The Motion Picture
Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) have monitored
US-Gambling and have lobbied both Congress and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to settle
the dispute before Antigua takes any action against their members' copyrights. 2 5 The MPAA argues that the real economic harm
from any suspension would vastly exceed the $21 million in annual retaliation authorized by the Article 22.6 arbitration. 26 The
MPAA also expressed concerns about movies uploaded to the Internet and the resulting suppression of DVD sales in the United
States and around the world, "costing an incalculable amount of money to the [motion picture] industry .... ,27 More generally, the
industry groups must be concerned about any precedent allowing legal, unauthorized "piracy. ' 28
3. US compliance isn’t key to our CP—the symbolic impact of Antigua-Gambling is
availability of TRIPS retaliation for developing countries—only we cement that—
their author
Hamann 09
GEORGIA L. Hamann is an associate in Lewis, Roca, Rothberger’s Litigation Practice
Group, J.D. from Vanderbilt University Law School, May 2009, “Replacing Slingshots
with Swords: Implications of the Antigua-Gambling 22.6 Panel Report for Developing
Countries and the World Trading System”,
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/jotl/manage/wp-content/uploads/hamanncr_final_final.pdf
Voluntary compliance with WTO rules and procedures is of the utmost importance to the international trading system.100 Given the
increasingly globalized market, the coming years will see an increase in the importance of the WTO as a cohesive force and arbiter of
disputes that likely will become more frequent and injurious.101 The work of the WTO cannot be overstated in a nuclear-armed
world, as the body continues to promote respect and even amity among nations with opposing philosophical goals or modes of
governance.102 Demagogues in the Unites States may decry the rise of China as a geopolitical threat,103 and extremists in Russia
may play dangerous games of brinksmanship with other great powers, but trade keeps politicians’ fingers off “the button.”104 The
WTO offers an astounding rate of compliance for an organization with no standing army and no real power to enforce its decisions,
suggesting that governments recognize the value of maintaining the international construct of the WTO.105 In order to promote
voluntary compliance, the WTO must maintain a high level of credibility.106 Nations must perceive the WTO as the most reasonable
option for dispute resolution or fear that the WTO wields enough influence to enforce sanctions.107 The arbitrators charged with
performing the substantive work of the WTO by negotiating, compromising, and issuing judgments are keenly aware of the
responsibility they have to uphold the organization’s credibility.108 [Footnote 106 begins here] 106. See Rufus Yerxa, supra note
100, at 4 (“The WTO System works only to the extent Members want it to work, and only if they decide that compliance is in their
overall economic interest. It therefore rests on the credibility of the rules, and also on the credibility of the dispute settlement
decisions.”); see also DEBRA P. STEGER, PEACE THROUGH TRADE: BUILDING THE WTO 290–91 (2004) (linking issues of the
WTO’s “external legitimacy” to the effectiveness of the institutional decision). 107. The goal of the WTO is to prevent unilateral
decisions as to the justifiability of trade retaliation, a goal which can only be upheld by global adherence to the WTO and
condemnation of unilateral retaliation outside it. See Gabrielle Marceau, Consultations and the Panel Process in the WTO, in KEY
ISSUES IN WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT: THE FIRST TEN YEARS, supra note 17, at 29, 30–31; see also Marcelo de Paiva Abreu,
Trade in Manufactures: The Outcome of the Uruguay Round and Developing Country Interests, in THE URUGUAY ROUND AND
THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, supra note 12, at 59, 69 (discussing the importance of “the WTO’s capacity to create a level
playing field among contracting parties of different sizes and heterogeneous bargaining power”). [Footnote 107 ends here]
Credibility is lost where a supranational organization appears irredeemably partisan or where nations lack a sense of obligation to
give effect to the organization’s judgments.109 GATT, the precursor to the WTO, could not approach the level of effectiveness of the
WTO due to the system’s close ties to the interests of the developed nations.110 Developing nations saw no advantage associated
with participation in GATT.111 Thus, a secondary organizational goal of the WTO was to create a system to accurately reflect the
changing nature of economic development.112 To some extent, developed economies may feel a sense of responsibility to help
developing and less-developed nations who desire material prosperity;113 however, WTO compliance and participation need not rest
on humanitarian considerations alone— the rise of previously imperiled economies such as India demonstrates the continual flux of
the global economy and the correlating incentives.114 Although developed nations frequently feel a sense of responsibility to nations
whose people live in poverty, developed nations also recognize the advantages of incorporating developing economies into the global
trade system and encouraging peaceful trade within and among such economies.115 [Footnote 115 begins here] 115. Ruggiero, supra
note 101, at 17 (noting that, absent inclusion in the trading system, rising nations such as India and China will develop preferential
trading agreements along potentially questionable lines). [Footnote 115 ends here] Accordingly, the interests of developing nations
have garnered a considerable amount of attention within the organization116 and the critical literature surrounding the
undertakings of the WTO.117 The participation of developing nations has increased, but not sufficiently.118 The global trading
system (both the WTO as an institution and the countries with an economic stake in a smoothly-functioning global economy) must
work to encourage these nations to utilize the availability of WTO proceedings as a means of resolving economic disputes.119 The
decision in Antigua-Gambling has an impact analogous to a marketing campaign—promoting incentives for developing countries to
join the WTO.120 If Antigua can successfully challenge the U.S. refusal to comply with WTO arbitration,121 and if there are
mechanisms in place to enable Antigua to effect meaningful change in U.S. economic,122 then the WTO truly is a forum where each
member nation can expect a fair remedy.
[AFF CARD ENDS]
However, the WTO cannot compromise fairness and disregard precedent in the interest of
sending a signal to developing economies.123 Balancing a multitude of factors and competing
interests means that few, if any, WTO decisions can be characterized as a reversal of policy or
even a watershed moment.124 Instead, change progresses slowly and incrementally. 125 The
Antigua-Gambling decision does not spring from the ether, but builds up on the
groundwork laid in the 22.6 arbitration decision in European Communities—Regime for the
Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas (EC-Bananas III). 126 Why, then, is AntiguaGambling a particularly significant case? It is important because the case cements the
EC-Bananas III remedy, which authorizes intellectual property violations for nations
seeking to retaliate effectively against a more powerful developed economy. Furthermore, as set
out in the 22.6 Arbitrator’s decision, the general standards necessary to support retaliation
under TRIPS are not difficult for a developing economy to prove. 128 The decision in AntiguaGambling may indicate that the TRIPS retaliation remedy on course to become the remedy
of choice for developing nations seeking to enforce judgments against much larger economies
for whom they do not provide particularly important goods or services. Additional subtleties of
the opinion could be interpreted as signals to developing countries that the WTO sympathizes
with the difficulty of obtaining a remedy and stands ready to modify the system. The decision
includes a dissenting opinion —an unprecedented move by a body that has resolutely
maintained an appearance of agreement among the arbitrators. 131 Altogether, the implications
of the decision indicate an important transitional step in the evolution of the global trading
system. Thus, despite the potentially disappointing pecuniary impact of the decision, developing
countries should view the Antigua-Gambling decision as encouraging. Despite the benefits of
sending signals in support of developing countries, the decision is not ultimately beneficial to
the stability of international trade if the specific remedy it authorizes is misguided and harmful.
Thus, the next Part centers on the implications of suspension of TRIPS obligations: To what
extent does the decision increase the likelihood that TRIPS suspension will become a standard
130 127 129 remedy? Further, what are the implications for the trading system arising from the
availability of such a remedy?
4. No backlash – US fears are rooted in concerns about the lack of a regulatory
mechanism – we provide that
Basheer 2010 – Ministry of HRD Professor in Intellectual Property Law, NUJS, Kolkata
(Shamnad, The Law and Development Review, 3.2, “Turning Trips on Its Head: An "IP Cross
Retaliation" Model for Developing Countries”, DOI: 10.2202/1943-3867.1063)
In the US – Gambling (22.6 Arbitration) 79 , the US expressed some concern and requested the
Arbitrator to require Antigua to specify how it would ensure that any suspension of
concessions or other obligations did not exceed the level of nullification and impairment found by the
Arbitrator. In particular, the US argued that Antigua's request did not place any value on GATS and TRIPS
concessions and did not explain what mechanisms Antigua intended to use to ensure that the
level of suspension did not exceed the level of nullification and impairment. The US feared that
without strict supervision by the Government of Antigua, there would be no basis to calculate the
level of suspension, or to determine whether the operators were abusing the authorization to suspend TRIPS concessions by
offering pirated intellectual property in jurisdictions outside Antigua. 81 It bears reiteration that Antigua has not yet
changed its domestic IP laws to authorize such retaliation.
Our ev assumes theirs but not vice versa—tiered suspension solves all their
concerns
Basheer 2010 – Ministry of HRD Professor in Intellectual Property Law, NUJS, Kolkata
(Shamnad, The Law and Development Review, 3.2, “Turning Trips on Its Head: An "IP Cross
Retaliation" Model for Developing Countries”, DOI: 10.2202/1943-3867.1063)
VI. A TIERED SUSPENSION MODEL FOR IP “CROSS-RETALIATION”
Notwithstanding the grant of authorizations to cross retaliate, neither
Antigua nor Ecuador have
they would implement such authorization. As far as Brazil is
concerned, a proposed bill to implement cross retaliation authorizations is slowly making the rounds. 115 Absent an enabling
law to effectively implement a WTO cross retaliation authorization, a domestic entity within the retaliating state cannot
really avail itself to the WTO authorization. Illustratively, the government of Antigua came down heavily
on Carib Media, a local company that wished to exploit US copyrights by offering cheap downloads of US
exercised this right or specified as to how
music and movies through its website, zookz.com. The government publicly announced that that the zookz website “…is not
operating under the authority or with the knowledge of the Government..”. The emphatic stance taken by the government of
Antigua was no
doubt fuelled in large part by its settlement talks with the US. 117 However, a credible
cross retaliation model ready to be implemented domestically and availed of by companies like Carib Media may
have increased the prospects of a quick and favorable settlement. Once a WTO panel determines the level of
impairment (e.g. USD 21 million in the case of Antigua), it cannot then question Antigua on the precise nature of IP rights proposed
to be suspended and whether such suspension will result in an equivalent “loss” to the US. However, such evaluation to determine
“equivalence” may become important, if the defaulting state complains that the retaliation has exceeded the level of nullification or
impairment. 118 Unless a complaining state works out a credible and transparent model in this regard, the resulting uncertainty may
be exploited by the defaulting state. A comment from a trade lawyer 119 is illustrative in this regard:
“Even if Antigua goes ahead with an act of piracy or the refusal to allow the registration of a trademark, the question still
remains of how much that act is worth. The Antiguans could say that’s worth USD 50,000, and then
the US 116 might say, that’s worth USD 5 million—and I can tell you that the US is going to dog them on
every step of the way.”
A model that might work reasonably well and entails a somewhat objective evaluation is considered
below. For ease of reference, the section below uses the specific context of India and discusses the various Indian laws/regulations.
TRIPS provides for the mandatory protection of the following kinds of intellectual property rights:
Section 1: Copyright and related rights
Section 2: Trademarks
Section 3: Geographical Indications
Section 4: Industrial Designs
Section 5: Patents
Section 6: Layout-Designs (Topographies) of Integrated Circuits (hereafter
“semiconductor chip protection”)
Section 7: Protection of undisclosed information.120
Depending on the kind of industries that are prevalent in the defaulting and the complaining states, one or more of the above
categories could be suspended (hereafter “suspended IP”). The aim is to ensure that the targeted retaliation proves an effective
threat and induces compliance or an amicable settlement within the shortest possible time. Notably, in the US – Gambling (22.6
Arbitration), 121 Antigua requested that the following categories be suspended in relation to US nationals: copyrights,
trademarks, designs, patents and undisclosed information. Contrast this with the EC – Bananas III
(Ecuador), 122 where Ecuador asked that the following be suspended: copyright and related rights;
geographical indications (GI’s) and industrial designs. 123 The inclusion of geographical indications should
come as no surprise, given the relatively high importance of GIs to the EU. 124 The fact that patents have been excluded might be an
indication of Ecuador’s low technological base that might have prevented an effective exploitation of suspended patent rights. This
paper recommends that while requesting the right to retaliate, the complaining state include all categories of IP, since an initially
excluded category might turn out to be important later on. Besides, given that complaining states are relieved of any requirement to
precisely demonstrate the nature and kind of suspensions to an Article 22.6 panel, member states can opt for an all-pervasive
inclusion of IP categories in their retaliatory basket. However, at the time of actual retaliation, this paper proposes a
“tiered suspension” 125 model, whereby certain kinds of IP goods/services are suspended before the
others, so as to aid i) a relatively more objective determination of the harm that ensues from the retaliation;
and ii) a more effective compliance inducing mechanism. Some aspects of this model are visually represented in
Annexure B. Preference would be given to those IP works, in respect of which there already exists a “licensing” rate. These could
be statutorily established rates under the various compulsory licensing provisions, or voluntary rates
carved out by copyright collecting societies (such as rates for public performance of sound recordings), patent pools and the like or
rates that are present in existing licensing arrangements. If working with this kind of IP does not yield any
results within 3 months of the suspension, then the government permits the suspension of other
works/inventions, for which there are no established royalty rates. Lastly, if the working of the second tier
also for another three months (six months in total) does not yield desired results, the
government permits the suspension of trademarks and geographical indications .
TRIPS suspension avoids all the problems with normal retaliation—and it solves
the case by providing adequate compensation
Mitchell 2011 – PhD, University of Cambridge; LLM, Harvard University; Graduate Diploma
in International Law, LLB (Hons.), B. Com. (Hons.), Melbourne, Australia; Associate Professor,
Melbourne Law School (Andrew Mitchell and Constantine Salonidis, Journal of World Trade,
45.2: 457-488, “David's Sling: Cross-Agreement Retaliation in International Trade Disputes”,
ProQuest)
Developed countries were the main advocates of the TRIPS Agreement, a system mainly designed to provide
institutional protection of comparative advantage in technological innovation and the production of high-tech
goods. Slater explains what a suspension of TRIPS obligations could entail in practice:
A retaliating government could, for example, amend its domestic copyright statute to stop providing national treatment
... to foreign authors. Alternatively, the government could stop
providing methods for foreign right holders to
enforce their intellectual property rights domestically. The retaliating government could also issue compulsory licenses on
patented pharmaceuticals, allowing domestic companies to manufacture and sell generic versions of drugs still under patent
protection "without the permission of the patent holder. Similar compulsory licenses could be issued for the
reproduction of New York Times bestselling books, Hollywood movies, Microsoft computer software, and so on.
In principle, the suspension of protection of intellectual property (IP) rights under the TRIPS Agreement would not
trigger the adverse welfare effects associated with trade retaliation. Increased
availability of medicine, access to knowledge, entertainment products, and information services could produce a significant
welfare-enhancing effect and '"compensate" for the loss of trade opportunities caused by the
challenged protectionist measure'. Grosse Ruse-Khan highlights a more systemic welfare-enhancing effect of the suspension of
TRIPS obligations:
[Cross-retaliation under TRIPS] has the potential to cause positive welfare effects if it is utilized to correct access-failures caused by
over-protection or to temporarily increase policy space for adopting intellectual property protection responsive to the domestic
comparative advantage in the innovationimitation ? aradigm .
5. No impact to backlash—fiat solves and no risk of WTO damage
Siyu, 2013 Ye, Master of Advanced Studies in European Law, “The Legal Analysis of the Cross-Retaliation Under the WTO
Framework” http://lib.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/002/061/021/RUG01-002061021_2013_0001_AC.pdf
The primary objective of the WTO is to promote international trade by ‘substantial reduction of tariffs and other barriers to trade
and to the elimination of discriminatory treatment in international trade relations’.133 (emphasis added) Scholars point out
that the retaliation is a discriminatory trade remedy opposite to that objective and the cross-retaliation
deviates from that objective even more far away. Marco Bronckers and Naboth van den Broek also expressed their
concern that ‘trade retaliation amounts to trade contraction, and therefore goes against the very trade liberalizing
principles the GATT/WTO system stands for’.134 This sort of view does not go beyond reasonableness, but in practice they
fail to realize that ‘the WTO is not just about liberalizing trade, and in some circumstances its
rules support maintaining trade barriers’135. The cross-retaliation falls into that
justifiable category, because its purpose is to induce compliance and it is necessary to have this
strong remedy, given that the violating Member usually does not have incentives to comply at all. Moreover, the
authorization of the cross-retaliation in theory is subject to multilaterally control, despite being almost
‘automatically’ approved. Lastly, the cross-retaliation is a seldom-used remedy with temporary
nature, thanks to a high rate of compliance with rulings in practice.136 Therefore, the exceptional
authorization of the cross-retaliation will not fundamentally damage but better serve the
objective of the WTO.
That’s offense—cross retal prevents broader trade war
Galantucci, 2013 Rob, PhD PoliSci Candidate @ University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, “Antigua’s WTO-Authorized
Retaliation Against U.S. Copyrights” http://ipeatunc.blogspot.com/2013/01/antiguas-wto-authorized-retaliation.html
Some have suggested that the WTO’s approach is absurd, likening “authorized retaliation” to a two-wrongs-make-a-right mentality
(see, e.g., here). First of all, though, cross-retaliation is not rare in the WTO. Many countries, including the
U.S., have resorted to WTO-sanctioned retaliation when they prevailed in a WTO suit and the other
party failed to satisfactorily implement the Appellate Body’s ruling. The U.S. itself has done it before, and will do
it again. In fact, ironically, U.S. negotiators were among those initially pushing for crossretaliation as a potential avenue for recourse (see here). In any case, I think the anti-retaliation point of view often
doesn’t fully appreciate the role of measured retaliation. Sure, it seems silly to “allow” one country to breach an international
obligation because another has, but at least the conflict can be reasonably contained. By letting the WTO
determine the amount of retaliation that is appropriate (i.e., an economic value commensurate with the
economic disruption caused by the offending measure) we are more likely to avoid having a situation
where domestic forces end up creating a trade war. I’d rather have a WTO body determine the
appropriate level of retaliation than a bunch of parliamentarians.
No escalation or counter-retaliation
Siyu, 2013 Ye, Master of Advanced Studies in European Law, “The Legal Analysis of the Cross-Retaliation Under the WTO
Framework” http://lib.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/002/061/021/RUG01-002061021_2013_0001_AC.pdf
Some pessimists
hold the view that for developing countries, the cross-retaliation is very likely to trigger a
counter-retaliation, even a trade war, by which they will simply find themselves get burned. As far as the author
concerned, this argument is not accurate at all. The cross-retaliation is an authorized remedy in
response to a continuing breach of WTO rules; by contrast, any ‘retaliation against retaliation’ is a
deviation from WTO rules and is not permitted. In case of that situation, the retaliating country could bring
the violator to the WTO adjudicatory bodies for relief.141 Moreover, developed countries are usually subject to the
principle of good faith and under public scrutiny. Such counter-retaliation could make them face
condemnation and ruin their image before the entire international community. In general, the
author takes the view that the concern with regard to the counter-retaliation is groundless. The right to cross-retaliate does not
necessarily involve implementing the suspension. In fact, it mainly contributes to enhancing the bargaining leverage of developing
countries – a good bargaining strategy could yield benefits that would not otherwise have been easily obtainable. Indeed, developing
countries should keep in mind that, in most cases, a ‘screaming hostage’ (threaten to cross-retaliate) is valuable more than a ‘dead
hostage’ (cross-retaliated).
IP REVERSE CAUSAL
TRIPS suspension makes the IP regime more effective across the baord—it’s a
paradox, fool
Ruse-Khan 2008 – Senior Research Fellow, Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property,
Competition and Tax Law, Munich; revised and updated version of separate papers presented at
the 7th BIICL/IIEL WTO Conference in London, May 2007 and at the Inaugural Conference of
the New Zealand Centre for International Economic Law in Wellington, December 2007 (4/14,
Henning Grosse, Journal of International Economic Law 11(2), 313–364, “A PIRATE OF THE
CARIBBEAN? THE ATTRACTIONS OF SUSPENDING TRIPS OBLIGATIONS”,
doi:10.1093/jiel/jgn015)
Such a
country should therefore be entitled to allow the necessary degree of imitation – and should
not be bound by a global system of IP protection which is tailored to the demands of R&D intensive,
innovative industries and thereby inevitably imposes obligations beyond the level suited to its
comparative advantage. Applied to the question of the most appropriate international regime for maximizing global welfare,
the insights above point to a fundamental difference between the theoretical case for trade liberalization on the one hand and strong
IP protection on the other: While trade theory suggests that further liberalization will always be beneficial for domestic as well as
global economic welfare, continuous strengthening of IP protection merely serves the interests of countries
with a comparative advantage in innovation and reduces economic welfare
in others focusing on imitation. 118 A
global regime of IP protection such as TRIPS should therefore, in order to fulfil its self set
objective of conducing social and economic welfare, 119 allow sufficient policy space to take
account of different comparative advantages with regard to intellectual goods. 120 Against this
background, the ability to suspend TRIPS obligations can create positive welfare effects – if
the suspension is utilized to make (temporary) policy space in areas where TRIPS imposes
obligations beyond the level suited for the domestic comparative advantage of the retaliating country. For
example, (temporarily) suspending the constraints in Article 30 and 31 TRIPS on patent exceptions and
compulsory licenses could be used to enable access to and (experimental) use of patented technology
from the non-complying WTO Member in a way which facilitates the development of value added products, other
follow on innovations or merely the process of technological learning.
It has been argued however that suspending IP protection and especially the WTO authorization for such
action undermines the normative value of TRIPS provisions. 121 In a similar manner, TRIPS suspensions
are said to ‘weaken intellectual property protection, and would therefore run counter to the principles of the
TRIPS/WTO system’. 122 Considering the analysis on comparative advantage in regulating IP and the related welfare effects
however, these arguments are flawed: A TRIPS norm obliging a country to provide protection
beyond what is best for its technological development and overall welfare does not need to be
protected against being (temporarily) withdrawn. As long as the suspension regime is used to boost domestic
innovation (by allowing imitation) or facilitate access to and use of public goods and so further global welfare, it may well put
a spotlight on the normative flaws of some TRIPS provisions. 123 This should not be
understood as a call for legalizing IP ‘piracy’ across the board – the core issue is to realize that IP
suspension can be used to correct (in relation to the noncomplying state) some of the mistakes made in TRIPS.
Whether Antigua has good options to do so – or whether it is limited to granting its private economic actors a temporary competitive
advantage by abolishing the legal duty to pay rents for the use of US IP assets – will be examined in more detail in section V
subsequently.
All these general observations suggest that a withdrawal of TRIPS obligation can serve as an effective
enforcement- and re-balancing tool. Above that, it may offer (temporary) opportunities for positive domestic welfare
effects. On this basis, it has been hailed as the perfect ‘retaliatory weapon in trade disputes’ 124 for developing countries and small
economies. Therefore it seems worth to analyse further under which legal requirements in WTO law such retaliation is possible.
WTO strength directly depends on plaintiffs’ willingness to use retaliatory
measures—try or die for the CP and proves parties look to the plaintiff, not the
defendant
Ruse-Khan 2008 – Senior Research Fellow, Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property,
Competition and Tax Law, Munich; revised and updated version of separate papers presented at
the 7th BIICL/IIEL WTO Conference in London, May 2007 and at the Inaugural Conference of
the New Zealand Centre for International Economic Law in Wellington, December 2007 (4/14,
Henning Grosse, Journal of International Economic Law 11(2), 313–364, “A PIRATE OF THE
CARIBBEAN? THE ATTRACTIONS OF SUSPENDING TRIPS OBLIGATIONS”,
doi:10.1093/jiel/jgn015)
According to Article 3.7 of the DSU, the
central aim of the dispute settlement mechanism in the WTO is to ‘secure
a positive solution to the dispute’ – if possible in form of a mutually acceptable solution which is equally consistent with the
WTO Agreements. Article 3.7 DSU goes on and states that in the absence of a solution mutually accepted by the parties, ‘the first
objective of the dispute settlement mechanism is usually to secure the withdrawal of the measures concerned if they are found to be
inconsistent with the provisions of the covered agreements’. In case the WTO Member concerned is unable or
unwilling to withdraw the measure and further compensation cannot be agreed, the DSU foresees the option
of (temporarily) suspending the application of concessions or other obligations under the WTO Agreements against the
non-complying Member as the last resort. This ‘compelling reason to comply’ 61 with the decisions of the
WTO dispute settlement apparatus has been pointed out as one of the key features of a
mechanism which is considered to have ‘teeth’ in comparison to disputes resolution in other fora. 62
Compliance in the WTO thus seems to be enforceable. At the same time, one must keep in mind that in the WTO dispute settlement
system ‘in essence, sanctions, just like compliance, must come from sovereign actions of the WTO’s Members’. 63 The
perceived strength of the WTO system is therefore dependant on the willingness and ability
of the complainant to use the DSU response mechanisms as well as the willingness and ability of the
respondent to comply. Against this background, the effectiveness of the WTO’s last resort in the resolution
of trade disputes – the suspension of WTO concessions and other obligations in general and of IP protection under
TRIPS in particular – depends on what is perceived as its objective. 60
Foregrounding IP retaliation as a remedy is key to broader WTO legitimacy
Basheer 2010 – Ministry of HRD Professor in Intellectual Property Law, NUJS, Kolkata
(Shamnad, The Law and Development Review, 3.2, “Turning Trips on Its Head: An "IP Cross
Retaliation" Model for Developing Countries”, DOI: 10.2202/1943-3867.1063)
From the above, it
is clear that cross-retaliation is a more effective remedy for developing countries
than traditional retaliation. Therefore, this ought to be made the main mode of
retaliation, without countries having to go through the trouble of demonstrating each time why they cannot resort to
“traditional retaliation” under the same agreement/sector. Given that the decks are stacked against
developing countries in WTO dispute resolution, making it easier to avail of effective remedies
such as cross-retaliation will go a long way towards ensuring the credibility and
legitimacy of the WTO. 101 The Brazil example is illustrative in this regard. Despite the arbitrator’s finding that
Brazil could “effectively” retaliate under normal traditional sectors, an IP cross retaliation would have proved a more
optimal tool for inducing compliance, given the economic disparities 102 between these countries and the
power of the IP lobbies 103 in the US. Paradoxically, at the stage of the adoption of the Dunkel draft (which was the first document
to provide for cross-retaliation), a cross-retaliatory mechanism was perceived as furthering developed country interests. 104
Developing countries were concerned about obligations under TRIPS and the prospects of retaliation by developed countries. Since
traditional retaliation for breach of intellectual property commitments would not have made sense (developing countries own very
little intellectual property in developed countries), it was thought that developed countries would resort to cross-retaliation by
suspending obligations in areas that mattered to developing countries such as agriculture, and textiles. Consequently, developing
countries thought it beneficial to restrict the efficacy of cross-retaliation. 105 This might have accounted for the relegation of
crossretaliation to the status of a mere secondary remedy.
AT: FOOD THUMPERS
We can concede these—their ev says inevitable conditions like weather and climate
will cause price spikes—proves extinction’s inevitable in the status quo and only
biotech can make crops resilient—Zilberman explicitly makes a resilience
argument and says biotech insulates production from those fluctuations. In any
case, we prevent the worst crises that jeopardize global stability.
Biotech solves the most vulnerable farmers
Plaue ’12 [Noah Plaue, Graduate from Cornell University in History and English,
Correspondent for Business Insider, Genetically Modified Crops Are Good For Poor Farmers In
India, http://www.businessinsider.com/genetically-modified-crops-poor-farmers-in-india2012-7#ixzz2awDlofsJ]
There is a pretty heated debate going on over the use of genetically modified crops.¶ The disagreements tend to focus on the longterm implications.¶ But in the short-term, one thing seems to be true: genetically modified crops give dirt-poor farmers across
the world a chance at a better life.¶ In a new report published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, researchers at the
Georg-August-University of Goettingen tracked the use of genetically modified cotton by smallholder farmers in India over the
course of six years.¶ They found that farmers using the genetically enhanced Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton
increased their cotton yields by 24 percent and their overall profits by 50 percent. They also saw an 18
percent increase in household consumption (meaning small farmers spent about $321 more per year). ¶ The study
disputes a common argument that genetically modified crops will hurt small-scale farmers who eventually won't be able to pay for
the crops that were grown on their own land. ¶ In fact, in 2011, 90 percent of Indian cotton fields, the majority of which are owned by
small farmers, were growing Bt cotton.¶ According to the study, both government intervention in seed prices and increases in
competition for the new technology help to boost the profit lines for these farmers. Both factors, therefore, must be encouraged in
order for genetically mutated crops to make sense on a larger scale. ¶ While the use of GMOs in agriculture remains a contentious
issue — there are innumerable environmental, health and socio-economic issues — one thing is clear: genetically mutated crops
can mean a brighter future for poor farmers across the world.
Outweighs their warrants
Trewavas, 2000 (Anthony – Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology at the University of
Edinburgh, GM is the Best Option We Have)
But these are foreign examples; global warming is the problem that requires the UK to develop GM technology. 1998 was the
warmest year in the last one thousand years. Many think global warming will simply lead to a wetter climate and be benign. I do not.
Excess rainfall in northern seas has been predicted to halt the Gulf Stream. In this situation, average UK temperatures would fall by
5 degrees centigrade and give us Moscow-like winters. There are already worrying signs of salinity changes in the deep oceans.
Agriculture would be seriously damaged and necessitate the rapid development of new crop varieties to secure our food supply. We
would not have much warning. Recent detailed analyses of arctic ice cores has shown that the climate can switch between stable
states in fractions of a decade. Even if the climate is only wetter and warmer new crop pests and rampant disease will be the
consequence. GM technology can enable new crops to be constructed in months and to be in the fields
within a few years. This
is the unique benefit GM offers. The UK populace needs to much more positive about GM or
535A.D. a volcano near the present Krakatoa exploded with the force of 200
million Hiroshima A bombs. The dense cloud of dust so reduced the intensity of the sun that for at least
two years thereafter, summer turned to winter and crops here and elsewhere in the Northern hemisphere
failed completely. The population survived by hunting a rapidly vanishing population of edible animals. The aftereffects continued for a decade and human history was changed irreversibly. But the planet recovered.
we may pay a very heavy price. In
Such examples of benign nature's wisdom, in full flood as it were, dwarf and make miniscule the tiny modifications we make upon
our environment. There are apparently 100 such volcanoes round the world that could at any time
unleash forces as great. And even smaller volcanic explosions change our climate and can easily
threaten the security of our food supply. Our hold on this planet is tenuous. In the present day an
equivalent 535A.D. explosion would destroy much of our civilisation. Only those with
agricultural technology sufficiently advanced would have a chance at survival.
Colliding asteroids are another problem that requires us to be forward-looking accepting that
technological advance may be the only buffer between us and annihilation.
Key to food security—Allouche is about resource wars not instability
Pinstrup-Anderson, 3/2/2006 (Per – professor at Cornell University, The Impact of
Technological Change in Agriculture on Poverty and Armed Conflict, Charles Valentine Riley
Memorial Lecture Series, p. http://intlag.tamu.edu/images/riley06.pdf)
According to Borlaug (2004), “we cannot build world peace on empty stomachs.” And, I would
argue, we cannot fill stomachs without agricultural science and technology. There is no
doubt that without the contributions of past agricultural research and technology, a large share
of the current world population would not have survived. But does empty stomachs or, if you like,
poverty, hunger, and food insecurity really contribute to instability? Intuitively, the answer is yes. Poverty, hunger
and food insecurity, together with a very unequal distribution of incomes, land, and other material goods, generate
anger, hopelessness, and a sense of unfairness and lack of social justice. This, in turn, provides a
fertile ground for conflict which can be exploited by individuals and groups with a desire to cause conflict—
whether it is armed rebellion, civil war, revolution, or national or international terrorism. This is not to
say that poor and hungry people are terrorists. Rather, the point is that the existing human misery and perceived
unfairness serve as a moral and political foundation for those who, for whatever reasons, wish to
promote armed conflict and terrorism. People with nothing to lose may also be willing to
be recruited to execute violent acts if they are convinced that it would contribute to justice for the population group of
interest or it would serve a higher goal, including those promoted by religion and politics. Armed conflict is a major deterrent to
economic development and poverty alleviation in many developing countries. Spillovers from these national
conflicts contribute to conflicts in neighboring countries and international terrorism,
particularly if they occur in failed states. Given the very high costs of armed conflict and terrorism in both economic
and humanitarian terms, it is critically important to find ways to end current conflicts and reduce the
probability of new ones. Unfortunately, the explanation of why armed conflicts occur has tended to focus on symptoms, such
as religious or tribal differences or political rivalry, rather than the underlying causes. In fact, the understanding of the underlying
causes is very limited and research that has been done on the matter has not resulted in anything close to a consensus. There is, for
example, no agreement on whether poverty and related human misery contribute to armed conflict and terrorism. Since
agricultural research and technology plays a critical role in reducing poverty and food
insecurity, it may also play an important role in reducing armed conflicts and terrorism, if
poverty— as I will argue in this paper—is an important contributor to conflict and terrorism. A simplified illustration of my
hypothesis is shown in Figure 1.
Extinction
TI 7 [Transnational Institute, report prepared by: The African Studies Centre, Leiden, The
Transnational Institute, Amsterdam, The Peace Studies Group (CES, University of Coimbra),
and The Peace Research Center- CIP/FUHEM, Madrid “Failed and Collapsed States in the
International System,” April]
In the malign scenario of global developments the number of collapsed states would grow significantly. This would mean that several
more countries in the world could not be held to account for respecting international agreements in 33 various fields, be it
commercial transactions, debt repayment, the possession and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the use of the
national territory for criminal or terrorist activities. The increase in failed states would immediately lead to an
increase in international migration, which could have a knock-on effect, first in neighbouring countries which,
having similar politicoeconomic structures, could suffer increased destabilization and collapse as well.
Developments in West Africa during the last decade may serve as an example. Increased international migration would, secondly,
have serious implications for the Western world. In Europe it would put social relations between the population and immigrant
communities under further pressure, polarizing politics. An increase in collapsed states would also endanger the security of Western
states and societies. Health conditions could deteriorate as contagious diseases like Ebola or Sars would
spread because of a lack of measures taken in collapsed areas. Weapons of mass destruction could come into the
hands of various sorts of political entities, be they terrorist groups, political factions in control of part of a collapsed state
or an aggressive political elite still in control of a national territory and intent on expansion. Not
only North Korea springs to mind; one could very well imagine such states in (North) Africa. Since the multilateral system of control
of such weapons would have ended in part because of the decision of the United States to try and check their spread through
unilateral action - a system that would inherently be more unstable than a multilateral, negotiated regime - one could be
faced with an arms race that would sooner or later result in the actual use of these weapons. In the
malign scenario, relations between the US and Europe would also further deteriorate, in questions of a military nature as well as
trade relations, thus undercutting any possible consensus on stemming the growth of collapsed states and the introduction of stable
multilateral regimes towards matters like terrorism, nuclear weapons and international migration. Disagreement is already rife on a
host of issues in these fields. At worst, even the Western members of the Westphalian system - especially those bordering on
countries in the former Third World, i.e. the European states - could be faced with direct attacks on their national security
Biotech key to environment
EuropaBio ’11 [EuropaBio is a board of management made up of member companies,
represented through national Associations Council and horizontal SME Platform of 1800+
SMEs at a Member State Level, 3/14/11, Biodiversity – GM crops help reduce the impacts of
agriculture on biodiversity, http://www.europabio.org/agricultural/positions/biodiversity-gmcrops-help-reduce-impacts-agriculture-biodiversity#sthash.eRcH7M6G.dpuf]
A new peer-reviewed literature review on the impacts of GM crops on biodiversity revealed that they can help reduce the impacts of
agriculture. “Impacts of GM crops on biodiversity,” by Janet E. Carpenter, was published in the scientific journal, GM Crops. ¶ In the
article, Carpenter describes research that shows that GM crops can help farmers increase their yields, leaving more
land for biodiversity to thrive. They also help to decrease tillage, which preserves soil and moisture.
Without GM crops, an additional 2.64 million hectares would be needed for agriculture globally, researchers estimate. Moreover,
mounting evidence shows that GM crops do not have significant adverse effects for non-target
organisms, such as soil organisms, non-target herbivores, and bees.In addition, GM crops can help suppress pests on
neighbouring farms where conventional crops are grown.¶ Following a thorough review of 155 peerreviewed articles, Carpenter found that “commercialised GM crops have reduced the impacts of agriculture on biodiversity,
through enhanced adoption of conservation tillage practices, reduction of insecticide use and use of more environmentally benign
herbicides, and increasing yields to alleviate pressure to convert additional land into agricultural use.”¶ The top findings include:¶
1. By increasing yields on existing farmland, biotech crops help preserve natural habitats and our¶ world’s biodiversity.¶ 2. Biotech
crops help facilitate conservation tillage practices, preserving soil and moisture.¶ 3. Biotech crops have not decreased
crop diversity.¶ 4. Plant biotechnology is a powerful tool to help feed a growing world, sustainably.¶ 5. Bt crops can
provide area-wide target pest suppression, reducing crop losses and the need for pest¶ control measures.¶ 6.
Mounting evidence shows that biotech crops have no significant adverse effects on non-target¶ organisms.¶ KEY FINDINGS AND
EXAMPLES¶ 1. By increasing yields on existing farmland, biotech crops help preserve natural habitats and¶ our world’s
biodiversity.¶ • A large and growing body of literature has shown that the adoption of biotech crops has¶ increased yields. A recent
study of peer-reviewed literature comparing yields of biotech and¶ conventional crops found that:¶ – 74 percent of results
showed positive results for adopters of biotechnology versus nonadopters.¶ When just developing countries are
compared, this figure rises to 82 percent.¶ 2¶ – The average yield increases for farmers range from 16 to 30 percent in
developing¶ countries, and up to seven percent in developed countries.¶ • Researchers estimate that 2.64 million hectares of land
would probably be brought into grain¶ and oilseed production if biotech traits were no longer used.¶ 2. Biotech crops help facilitate
conservation tillage practices, preserving soil and moisture.¶ • In the U.S., herbicide-tolerant crops made it easier and less risky to
adopt conservation tillage¶ and no-till. Between 1996 and 2008, adoption increased from 51 to 63 percent of planted¶ soybean
acres.¶ • A survey of 610 soybean growers across 19 U.S. states found that growers of glyphosateresistant¶ soybeans made 25 percent
fewer tillage passes than growers of conventional¶ soybeans.¶ • In Argentina, the introduction of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans
increased no-till adoption from¶ about 1/3 of soybean acreage in 1996 to over 80 percent in 2008.¶ 3. Biotech crops have not
decreased crop diversity.¶ • The impact of the introduction of biotech crops on crop diversity has not been thoroughly¶ studied.¶
However, the small number of studies that have been done found that the introduction of¶ biotech crops has not decreased crop
diversity.¶ • From a broader perspective, biotech crops may actually increase crop diversity by enhancing¶
underutilized alternative crops, making them more suitable for widespread domestication.¶ 4. Plant
biotechnology is a powerful tool to help feed a growing world, sustainably.¶ • Biotech crops can continue to decrease the pressure on
biodiversity as global agricultural¶ systems expand to feed a world population that is expected to continue to increase for the next¶
30 to 40 years.¶ • In addition to the potential benefits of expanded adoption of current technology, several¶ pipeline¶ technologies
offer additional promise of alleviating the impacts of agriculture on biodiversity.¶ For example:¶ – Bt eggplant, which is expected to
increase yield and reduce insecticide applications, is¶ currently under¶ consideration by Indian regulators.¶ – Drought and salinity
tolerance technologies would alleviate the pressure to convert high¶ biodiversity areas into agricultural use by enabling crop
production on suboptimal soils.¶ 3¶ 5. Bt crops can provide area-wide target pest suppression, reducing crop losses and the¶ need for
pest control measures.¶ • Evidence of regional suppression of European corn borer and corn earworm was gathered¶ from an area of
Maryland, where Bt corn adoption was over 60 percent.¶ • Populations of European corn borer have also declined in the Midwestern
U.S. stemming from¶ long-term plantings of Bt corn. Researchers found that the majority of pest suppression benefits¶ of Bt corn
adoption accrued to non-Bt corn growers in the area.¶ • In a 10 year study in Arizona, researchers concluded that Bt cotton
suppressed pink bollworm,¶ a major pest, with densities declining only in regions where Bt cotton was abundant.¶ • In China,
analysis from 1992 to 2007 indicated that the planting of Bt cotton was associated¶ with a significant decrease in regional outbreaks
of cotton bollworm in multiple crops.¶ 6. Mounting evidence shows that biotech crops have no significant adverse effects on¶ nontarget organisms.¶ • The potential impact of Bt crops on soil organisms is well studied, however few or no effects¶ on soil organisms
have been reported.¶ • Studies of the potential impact of Bt crops on non-target herbivores and beneficials have not¶ detected
significant adverse effects, and no evidence of landscape-level effects.¶ • Field studies have confirmed that the abundance and
activity of parasitoids and predators are¶ similar in Bt and non-Bt crops.¶ • In a Canadian study, no differences in bee larval survival,
adult recovery and pupal weight
Extinction
Science Daily 11 ("Biodiversity Key to Earth's Life-Support Functions in a Changing World,"
Cites Albert-Ludwigs-Universitat Freiburg, August 11,
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110811084513.htm)
The biological diversity of organisms on Earth is not just something we enjoy when taking a walk through a blossoming meadow in spring; it is also the
basis for countless products and services provided by nature, including food, building materials, and
medicines as well as the self-purifying qualities of water and protection against erosion. These so-called
ecosystem services are what makes Earth inhabitable for humans. They are based on ecological
processes, such as photosynthesis, the production of biomass, or nutrient cycles. Since biodiversity is on the decline, both on a global and a local scale, researchers are asking the
question as to what role the diversity of organisms plays in maintaining these ecological processes and thus in providing the ecosystem's vital products and services. In an
international research group led by Prof. Dr. Michel Loreau from Canada, ecologists from ten different universities and
research institutes, including Prof. Dr. Michael Scherer-Lorenzen from the University of Freiburg, compiled findings from numerous
biodiversity experiments and reanalyzed them. These experiments simulated the loss of plant species and attempted to determine the consequences for
the functioning of ecosystems, most of them coming to the conclusion that a higher level of biodiversity is accompanied by an increase in ecosystem processes. However, the findings were
always only valid for a certain combination of environmental conditions present at the locations at which the experiments were conducted and for a limited range of ecosystem processes. In a
study published in the current issue of the journal Nature, the research group investigated the extent to which the positive effects of diversity still apply under changing environmental
conditions and when a multitude of processes are taken into account. They found that 84 percent of the 147 plant species included in the experiments promoted ecological processes in at least
The more years, locations, ecosystem processes, and scenarios of global change -- such as global warming or land
use intensity -- the experiments took into account, the more plant species were necessary to guarantee the
functioning of the ecosystems. Moreover, other species were always necessary to keep the ecosystem
processes running under the different combinations of influencing factors. These findings indicate that
much more biodiversity is necessary to keep ecosystems functioning in a world that is changing ever
faster. The protection of diversity is thus a crucial factor in maintaining Earth's life-support functions.
one case.
Food shortages cause nuclear world war 3
FDI 12, Future Directions International, a Research institute providing strategic analysis of
Australia’s global interests; citing Lindsay Falvery, PhD in Agricultural Science and former
Professor at the University of Melbourne’s Institute of Land and Environment, “Food and Water
Insecurity: International Conflict Triggers & Potential Conflict Points,”
http://www.futuredirections.org.au/workshop-papers/537-international-conflict-triggers-andpotential-conflict-points-resulting-from-food-and-water-insecurity.html
There is a growing appreciation that the conflicts in the next century will most likely be
fought over a lack of resources.¶ Yet, in a sense, this is not new. Researchers point to the French and
Russian revolutions as conflicts induced by a lack of food. More recently, Germany’s World War Two
efforts are said to have been inspired, at least in part, by its perceived need to gain access to more food.
Yet the general sense among those that attended FDI’s recent workshops, was that the scale of the problem in the future could
be significantly greater as a result of population pressures, changing weather, urbanisation, migration, loss of arable land and other
farm inputs, and increased affluence in the developing world. ¶ In his book, Small Farmers Secure Food, Lindsay Falvey, a participant in FDI’s
March 2012 workshop on the issue of food and conflict, clearly expresses the problem and why countries across the globe are starting to
take note. .¶ He writes (p.36), “…if people are hungry, especially in cities, the state is not stable – riots, violence,
breakdown of law and order and migration result.”¶ “Hunger feeds anarchy.”¶ This view is also shared by Julian Cribb, who in his book, The
Coming Famine, writes that if “large regions of the world run short of food, land or water in the decades that lie ahead,
then wholesale, bloody wars are liable to follow.” ¶ He continues: “An increasingly credible
scenario for World War 3 is not so much a confrontation of super powers and their allies, as a festering, selfperpetuating chain of resource conflicts.” He also says: “The wars of the 21st Century are less likely to be global conflicts with
sharply defined sides and huge armies, than a scrappy mass of failed states, rebellions, civil strife, insurgencies, terrorism and genocides, sparked by
bloody competition over dwindling resources.Ӧ As another workshop participant put it, people do not go to war to kill; they go to war over resources,
either to protect or to gain the resources for themselves.¶ Another observed that hunger results in passivity not conflict. Conflict is over resources, not
because people are going hungry.¶ A
study by the International Peace Research Institute
indicates that where food security is an issue, it is more likely to result in some form of conflict.
Darfur, Rwanda, Eritrea and the Balkans experienced such wars. Governments, especially in developed
countries, are increasingly aware of this phenomenon. ¶ The UK Ministry of Defence, the CIA, the US Center for Strategic and
International Studies and the Oslo Peace Research Institute, all identify famine as a potential trigger
for conflicts and possibly even nuclear war.
1NR EXTRA—KEY TO BIOTECH
IPR enforcement is key to attracting biotech investment
ROY ZWAHLEN 05/29/2013 Manager of Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer
policy at Biotechnology Industry Organization “IP in Latin America: Growing Recognition of the
Importance of IP to Innovation” http://www.biotech-now.org/public-policy/patentlybiotech/2013/05/ip-in-latin-america-growing-recognition-of-the-importance-of-ip-toinnovation-2#
The Inter-American Dialogue’s daily Latin America Advisor recently asked the question “How
American countries protect IP rights?”
seriously do Latin
The editors asked various stakeholders about the U.S. Trade Representative’s
Special 301 Report and its evaluation of Latin America’s protection of IP rights. BIO’s Director for International Affairs, Meredith
Fensom, commented on the growth of the innovative biotechnology sectors in Latin America and the critical role intellectual
property plays. ”The presence of more than 60 countries during BIO’s recent International Convention indicates a growing
recognition that the biotechnology industry has a bright future. Countries throughout the Americas
have identified the development of their innovative biotechnology sectors as a national priority.
The policy environment in each country is of paramount importance as biotechnology research and
development requires significant investments of time and financial resources
and countries are competing to attract this investment. Effective protection and enforcement of
intellectual property rights are essential ingredients.
2NR AT: TOO SMALL
Even minor suspension creates pressure to comply and enhances the overall
credibility of DSM
Mitchell 2011 – PhD, University of Cambridge; LLM, Harvard University; Graduate Diploma
in International Law, LLB (Hons.), B. Com. (Hons.), Melbourne, Australia; Associate Professor,
Melbourne Law School (Andrew Mitchell and Constantine Salonidis, Journal of World Trade,
45.2: 457-488, “David's Sling: Cross-Agreement Retaliation in International Trade Disputes”,
ProQuest)
Public choice theory analysis submits that for retaliation threats to be credible, economic interests with a strong incentive to seek
state protection in the claimant country must view the prospect of retaliation as beneficial; this significantly increases the likelihood
that the government of the claimant country will seek actively retaliatory action should the circumstance arise. The re-
balancing and potentially welfare- enhancing effects of retaliation in the TRIPS Agreement are obviously
appealing to protectionist interests in the retaliating country; hence, the credibility of the threat of TRIPS
suspension will be enhanced. Furthermore, depending on the economic circumstances of the dispute, these effects may
create the reasonable expectation by the non-complying party that the net welfare losses of dispute
settlement exceed the cost of ex ante compliance. Hudec notes: '[The] ripple effects of even
small-scale denial of intellectual property protection could cause considerably more political
discomfort than the usual small-scale case of trade retaliation'.
To further enhance the credibility of the threat, the non- complying member would also need to believe that the DSB (pursuant to an
arbitration award under Article 22.6 DSU) would entertain the complaining country's request for authorization to retaliate under the
TRIPS Agreement. Considering that developing countries have sought authorization to suspend TRIPS obligations only in the
context of cross-agreement retaliation requests, the likelihood of authorization is examined in that context in the following sections.
Arbitrators acting under Article 22.6 DSU need not adhere unconditionally to previous rulings, as no formal system of stare decisis
operates in the WTO dispute settlement system. In addition, arbitral awards under Article 22.6 DSU are not subject to appellate
review, which further reduces their 'persuasive' force. However, previous reports create 'legitimate expectations' for WTO members
and should be taken into account where they are relevant. The following precedent enhances the security and
predictability of the dispute settlement system, which has been interpreted to mean that absent cogent reasons
WTO tribunals will resolve the same legal question in the same way in a subsequent case. In practice and aside from theoretical
enquiries as to whether the same rules of precedent as applicable to panel and Appellate Body reports apply to Article 22.6 arbitral
awards, arbitrators have generally agreed with prior determinations in the interpretation and application of the terms of Article 22.3
DSU.
TRADE ADV
1NC TRADE
Other non-compliance thumps
Daniel J. Ikenson 13, director of Cato’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, MA
in economics from George Washington University, “Protectionist Antidumping Regime Is a Pox
on America’s Glass House,” www.cato.org/publications/commentary/protectionistantidumping-regime-pox-americas-glass-house
U.S. policies have been the subject of more World Trade Organization disputes (119, followed by the EU with 73,
then China with 30) and have been found to violate WTO rules more frequently than any other
government’s policies. No government is more likely to be out of compliance with a final WTO
Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) ruling — or for a longer period — than the U.S. government. To this day, the United States remains out
of compliance in cases involving U.S. subsidies to cotton farmers, restrictions on Antigua’s provision
of gambling services, country of origin labeling requirements on meat products, the so-called
Byrd Amendment, a variety of antidumping measures, and several other issues, some of
which were adjudicated more than a decade ago. In some of these cases, U.S. trade partners have either retaliated, or been
authorized to retaliate, against U.S. exporters or asset holders, yet the non-compliance continues as though the United States considers itself above the
rules.
No impact to GATS
Thornberg and Edwards 2011 (Christopher [PhD] and Frances [JD]; Failure of Trade
Liberalization: A Study of the GATS Negotiation; Journal of International Business and Law
Volume 10 | Issue 2; kdf)
The very existence of scheduling by itself created a sort of transparency in that it created a
knowledge of which members were and were not willing to negotiate in good faith. The GATS
can at least be seen as a starting point for the opening of markets to the international trade in
services. However, without a formal requirement tying the GATS to the GATT-not just for the
purposes of negotiation, but also for the purposes of uniformity in treatment and approach-and
without any enforcement mechanism by which to encourage more active participation by
member nations of the WTO, it may be that the progressive liberalization of trade in services
through the GATS will be muddled and slow at best. The end result may be that nations may
find themselves no better off than if they had simply negotiated with other nations independent
of the WTO, and may be made even worse off if the necessary provision of Most Favored Nation
status to non-committing members actively discourages some nations from removing barriers to
international service trade. To date, negotiations under the GATS and the GATT still remain
separated. Despite the obvious problems with the GATS, the WTO held to a commitment not to
link the GATS and the GATT. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
secretariat noted that the GATS negotiations have not created the hoped-for balance of the
obligations and rights of member nations and there has been little headway in assisting
developing countries to increase service exports.53 One review by Choike indicated that "any
claim that the GATS protects public services must be met at least with some skepticism." 54 It is
further noted that GATS regulations and negotiations "must undergo a radical transformation if
they are to benefit the world's poorest citizens. The GATS, it is argued, is not a "'developmentfriendly agreement'. . . but rather an instrument wielded by the industrialized world to steadily
curb the chances of development of the poorest countries, through successive rounds of
negotiations."5 5
NO US COMPLIANCE
Other non-compliance overwhelms – takes out their internal links but not ours
and proves it’s just a question of effective retaliation – Ikenson says we violate
more rules, including DSB ones, than any other nation. Gives a laundry list.
Tons of cases where US flouts the DSB
Codd 07
Kathryn Codd is a Litigation Attorney in Arlington, VA with 6 years of experience, William and
Mary Law Review, 2007, vol. 27, iss. 9, “Betting on the Wrong Horse: The Detrimental Effect of
Noncompliance in the Internet Gambling Dispute on the General Agreement on Trade in
Services (GATS) “,
http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1133&context=wmlr&seiredir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fq%3Dantigua%2Bwto%2
Bgambling%2Bdispute%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%252C9%26as_ylo%3D2006%26as_yhi%
3D#search=%22antigua%20wto%20gambling%20dispute%22
D. Specific Issues with U.S. Compliance A
number of cases are still pending in which the United States
has failed to bring itself into compliance with a WTO ruling. These cases include U.S.-Section
110(5)(b) Copyright Act; U.S.-Section 211 Appropriation Act; U.S.-Hot-Rolled Steel; U.S.-Offset Act (Byrd Amendment);
and, of course, the instant case regarding Internet gambling.96 Notably, each of these cases requires a
legislative fix to achieve compliance. 1. U.S.-Byrd Amendment Dispute The Byrd Amendment dispute is
one of the most often-cited examples of U.S. reluctance to comply with a DSB
recommendation. In this dispute, a number of countries initiated a complaint with the DSB with regard to the Byrd
Amendment to the U.S. Offset Act;9 the Amendment provided that domestic producers who supported petitions to investigate
antidumping or countervailing duty violations could receive part of the duties imposed as a result of the investigations.9" The
complainants asserted that the Amendment violated U.S. obligations under GATT 1994 and other
WTO agreements, and the Appellate Body report, issued in 2003, largely agreed.99 The United States
failed to bring the Act into conformity with its obligations within the reasonable period of time
set by the DSB, however, and retaliatory sanctions were authorized.' 0 It was not until early 2006 that Congress
approved the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act, which may have finally brought the United States into compliance with
the recommendations of the DSB in this dispute,10 1 subject to evaluation and acceptance by the WTO. 102 2. U. S.-Hot-Rolled Steel
Dispute A similarly contested DSB decision occurred in the hot-rolled steel case. The United States had
imposed antidumping measures on Japanese imports of certain hot-rolled steel products.0 3
Japan argued that such measures violated U.S. obligations under GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping
Agreement.' 4 Ultimately, the Appellate Body agreed with the Panel that the U.S. measure was
inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and ordered that the United States bring its
measures into conformity."' 0 With Japan's approval, the United States was granted a number of
extensions to the reasonable period of time in which to conform to DSB recommendations ,
originally from November 23, 2002 until July 31, 2005.106 Japan also agreed not to resort to the suspension of
concessions or other obligations in exchange for agreement by the United States to continue in its efforts
to achieve compliance.0 7 In its most recent status report, however, the only offering made by the United States was
that legislation had been introduced in May of 2005 that would bring the United States into
conformity with DSB recommendations, and that the administration would continue to work with Congress to pass the
legislation. 1 8 The case is still pending, more than five years after its initiation. 3. U.S.-Section 211 Dispute In the U.S.Section 211 Appropriations Act dispute, the European Communities (EC) claimed that Section 211 of the Omnibus
Appropriations Act1"9 prohibited Cuban nationals from registering or renewing any trademarks
that were confiscated as part of the Cuban Revolution.110 The EC asserted that this measure violated the
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, which also falls under the purview of the WTO dispute
settlement framework.' The Appellate Body eventually held that certain parts of Section 211 were
inconsistent with TRIPS and ordered the United States to bring the measure into conformity
with the agreement." 2 Much like the Hot-Rolled Steel dispute, the United States expressed its intention to
conform with the DSB's recommendations but is currently still "working with ... Congress" to pass the
appropriate legislation. 3 4. U.S.-Section 110(5)(b) Dispute In a final example of U.S. noncompliance, in 1999 the EC alleged
violations of the TRIPS with regard to § 110(5)(b) of the United States Copyright Act." 4 The EC alleged that
amended sections of the Act, which exempted certain establishments below a particular size and
equipment level from paying royalties to copyright holders when music was played,1'5 were
violations of the TRIPS duty to protect copyright.' 6 The Panel agreed, and it ordered the United
States to pay royalties to copyright holders and bring the measure into conformity with TRIPS ."'
The United States made the royalty payments, but, as in the above three disputes, Congress has yet to pass legislation
to amend the noncompliant sections of the Act.118
A wave of ag litigation will wreck the DSM—countries were holding off because of
Doha, but Doha stalemate means they’re going to flood the DSM with complaints
Meltzer 11, Fellow Global Economy and Development at Brookings, 2011 Joshua, “The
Challenges to the World Trade Organization: It’s All About Legitimacy”
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2011/4/19%20world%20trade%20o
rganization%20meltzer/0419_world_trade_organization_meltzer.pdf
The WTO's dispute settlement mechanism is arguably the most widely used and effective international
tribunal today. Since its inception in 1995, 405 complaints have been filed, leading to
approximately 130 panel decisions, of which about half have been appealed to the WTO appellate
body. Most of these decisions have also been complied with. Under the WTO's dispute settlement
mechanism, governments can challenge whether another member has breached its WTO
commitments. The decisions of a panel or the appellate body are in effect automatically binding on the disputing parties as
these decisions are adopted by the WTO unless all members (including the winning party) vote against it. While the WTO dispute
settlement mechanism was established to allow trade disputes to be settled accord- ing to the rule of law, it was not
designed to resolve issues that should be subject to international negotiations. Nevertheless,
many countries are using the dispute settlement mechanism to do exactly that. For example, under the so-called
peace clause, WTO member countries agreed to exercise restraint in litigating agricultural subsidies cases at
the WTO since these issues were still subject to negotiations in the Doha Round. However, the
failure to conclude the Doha Round has led many countries to use the WTO dispute settlement mechanism to
challenge subsidies, like the U.S. subsidy on cotton and the European Union subsidy on sugar. Increased use
of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism also highlights the binding nature of decisions and
the limited flexibility that members have to alter a decision that is politically unsustainable. When
compared with domestic systems, where judicial decisions can be overturned by legislation, the WTO's so-called negative
consensus rule requires all WTO members (including the winning party) to agree to overturn an
appellate body decision.
NO GATS
No impact to GATS – even if the US complies, the only relevant question for trade
war is other countries having recourse to US non compliance – GATS itself is a
useless artifact because Thornberg says it’s not formally tied to the WTO and has
no enforcement mechanism.
They don’t solve it anyway – US announced withdrawal in like 06 – if GATS hasn’t
collapsed, proved they’re not key AND that they don’t solve because they don’t
change the US’ mind on GATS
Root cause is inability to enforce – same logic from CP on inability to change US
strategy applies
Alfrod 2010 (Roger; GATT/GATS and the General Exceptions Quandry;
opiniojuris.org/2010/04/27/gattgats-and-the-general-exceptions-quandry/; kdf)
When I teach International Trade, one of my favorite parts of the class is the discussion of trade linkages. How does a state balance
competing concerns such as labor, the environment, and human rights? Typically the WTO accommodates those concerns through
the General Exceptions that permit a state to violate the WTO rules if doing so is, say, “necessary” to protect “human health or life.”
One of the more curious aspects of the WTO General Exceptions is the differences the WTO has established for trade in services
versus trade in goods. The regime for trade in goods allows a state to violate WTO rules if the measure
“relates to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources.” Not so for trade in services. Thus, a
state could prohibit the trade in products that contain CFCs because they cause ozone depletion, an exhaustible resource. It could
also prohibit the importation of shrimp caught without devices that exclude endangered sea turtles. But a state could not, say, easily
impose limits on the landing rights of jumbo jets because they contribute to global warming. Nor could Chile easily prohibit the
docking of cruise ships at Cape Horn because they drop high-sulfer “bunker” fuel in the Antarctic Ocean. Instead, Chile would have
to meet the more stringent requirement of proving that such restrictions are “necessary” to protect human, animal, or plant life or
health. It seems that when it comes to the environment and trade in services, all concerns about natural resources are derivative. On
the other hand, trade in services can be restricted in order to protect public order, but trade in goods
cannot. (Trade in goods must somehow offend a more value-laden public morals exception). China could, for example, have
an easier time restricting Internet services that disrupt public order–such as pro-democracy websites, but
have a harder time justifying its ban on the importation of pro-democracy T-shirts because their sale would disturb the peace. Or
even more radical, if one takes the working language of the WTO seriously, then the GATS seems to
have incorporated a general public policy exception (ordre public in French) for trade in services, but
not for trade in goods. I have yet to discover a satisfactory explanation for the disparate treatment that the WTO drafters
have given to the general exceptions in GATT versus GATS.
Empirically worthless
Thornberg and Edwards 2011 (Christopher [PhD] and Frances [JD]; Failure of Trade
Liberalization: A Study of the GATS Negotiation; Journal of International Business and Law
Volume 10 | Issue 2; kdf)
The second failure of the GATS was in regard to the actual results that emerged from the initial
round of negotiation. Overall the average level of participation was very small, with each nation
only entering positive commitments in 25% of the total number of service sectors. The WTO
claimed that this was due in part to the relatively short time period available for negotiation
available to participants in the initial round.51 However the results are not significantly different
for the financial and telecommunication sectors for which the participating nations did have a
longer period of negotiation available. Rather than nations pursuing policies that would most
benefit their economies, the data seem to have indicated that special interests inside each nation
almost completely dictated the degree of liberalization to which nations committed. The nations
who committed to the greatest degree of liberalization of service imports were those that
possessed a comparative advantage in the production of the service goods. In other words, the
nations that would most benefit from liberalizing the import of services (those nations with a
comparative disadvantage in the production of services) liberalized the least, while those who
would benefit the least (those already with a comparative advantage in the production of
services and who would be exporting these services if there was free trade) liberalized the most.
This pattern was consistent across all sectors. Nations that possessed a large stock of human
capital liberalized more than those nations with a relatively small stock. Nations with a large
stock of physical capital liberalized more in capital intensive telecommunications sector, but less
in labor intensive business and other service sectors. Nations already possessing a significant
trade surplus in services liberalized more than those with a trade deficit in services. The
influence of special interests cannot be underestimated. This was most openly reflected in the
demonstrations and riots that occurred in Seattle during the start of the 2000 WTO talks.
However, true influence was not always wielded by those as vocally or as clearly in the public's
eyes as these Seattle demonstrators. As a commentary stated regarding these talks, while "world
leaders may not show up [for] the conference ... up to 100 members of Congress and
representatives of many of America's largest corporations will be holed up at the hotels of
Seattle, trying to influence the outcome of the talks."52
TISA thumps
Global Research News 2014 (The “Secret Trade in Services Agreement (TISA)”: The
Financial Services Annex Released by Wikileaks; Jun 19; www.globalresearch.ca/the-secrettrade-in-services-agreement-tisa-the-financial-services-annex-released-by-wikileaks/5387676;
kdf)
Today, WikiLeaks released the secret draft text for the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) Financial
Services Annex, which covers 50 countries and 68.2%1 of world trade in services. The US and the EU are the
main proponents of the agreement, and the authors of most joint changes, which also covers cross-border data flow. In a
significant anti-transparency manoeuvre by the parties, the draft has been classified to keep it
secret not just during the negotiations but for five years after the TISA enters into force. Despite the
failures in financial regulation evident during the 2007-2008 Global Financial Crisis and calls for improvement of relevant
regulatory structures2, proponents of TISA aim to further deregulate global financial services markets. The draft Financial Services
Annex sets rules which would assist the expansion of financial multi-nationals – mainly headquartered in New York, London, Paris
and Frankfurt – into other nations by preventing regulatory barriers. The leaked draft also shows that the US is
particularly keen on boosting cross-border data flow, which would allow uninhibited exchange
of personal and financial data. TISA negotiations are currently taking place outside of the General
Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) framework. However, the Agreement is being
crafted to be compatible with GATS so that a critical mass of participants will be able to pressure remaining WTO members to sign
on in the future. Conspicuously absent from the 50 countries covered by the negotiations are the BRICS countries of Brazil, Russia,
India and China. The exclusive nature of TISA will weaken their position in future services negotiations. The draft text comes from
the April 2014 negotiation round – the sixth round since the first held in April 2013. The next round of negotiations will take place
on 23-27 June in Geneva, Switzerland. Current WTO parties negotiating TISA are: Australia, Canada, Chile, Chinese Taipei
(Taiwan), Colombia, Costa Rica, Hong Kong, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Liechtenstein, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan,
Panama, Paraguay, Peru, South Korea, Switzerland, Turkey, the United States, and the European Union, which includes its 28
member states Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain,
Sweden, and the United Kingdom. China and Uruguay have expressed interest in joining the negotiations but so far are not included.
INTERNET/PREDICTIONS ADV
AT: PREDICTION MARKETS
No policy spill up or fundamental insight—leading statisticians agree
Gelman and Loken 2014 (Andrew [statistician, professor of statistics and political science,
and director of the Applied Statistics Center at Columbia University.] and Eric [Penn State U];
The AAA tranche of subprime science;
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/ChanceEthics10.pdf; kdf)
Would prediction markets (or something like them) help? It’s hard to imagine them working out in
practice. Indeed, the housing crisis was magnified by rampant speculation in
derivatives that led to a multiplier effect. Allowing people to bet on the failure of other
people’s experiments just invites corruption, and the last thing social psychologists want to worry about is a point-
shaving scandal. And there are already serious ways to bet on some areas of science. Hedge funds, for instance, can short the stock of
biotech companies moving into phase II and phase III trials if they suspect earlier results were overstated and the next stages of
research are thus underpowered. More importantly, though, we believe that what many researchers in social science in particular are
more likely to defend is a general research hypothesis, rather than the specific empirical findings. On one hand, researchers are
already betting—not just money (in the form of research funding) but also their scientific reputations—on the validity of their
research. On the other hand, published claims are vague enough that all sorts of things can be consid-
ered as valid confirmations of a theory (just as it was said of Freudian psychology and Marxian
economics that they can predict nothing but explain everything). And scientists who express great confidence in a given
research area can get a bit more cautious when it comes to the specifics. For example, our previous ethics column, “Is It Possible to
Be an Ethicist Without Being Mean to People,” considered the case of a controversial study, published in a top journal in psychology,
claiming women at peak fertility were three times more likely to wear red or pink shirts, compared to women at other times during
their menstrual cycles. After reading our published statistical criticism of this study in Slate, the researchers did not back down;
instead, they gave reasons for why they believed their results (Tracy and Beall, 2013). But we do not think that they or others really
believe the claimed effect of a factor of 3. For example, in an email exchange with a psychologist who criticized our criticisms, one of
us repeatedly asked whether he believed women during their period of peak fertility are really three times more likely to wear red or
pink shirts, and he repeatedly declined to answer this question. What we think is happening here is that the authors of this study and
their supporters separate the general scientific hypothesis (in this case, a certain sort of connection between fertility and behavior)
from the specific claims made based on the data. We expect that, if forced to lay down their money, they would bet that, in a
replication study, women in the specified days in their cycle would be less than three times more likely to wear red or pink,
compared to women in other days of the cycle. Indeed, we would not be surprised if they would bet that the ratio would be less than
two, or even less than 1.5. But we think they would still defend their hypothesis by saying, first, that all they care about is the
existence of an effect and not its magnitude, and, second, that if this particular finding does not replicate, the non-replication could
be explained by a sensitivity to experimental conditions. In addition, betting cannot be applied easily to
policy studies that cannot readily be replicated. For example, a recent longitudinal analysis
of an early childhood intervention in Jamaica reported an effect of 42% in earnings (Gertler et al.,
2013). The estimate was based on a randomized trial, but we suspect the effect size was being
overestimated for the usual reason that selection on statistical significance induces a positive
bias in the magnitude of any comparison, and the reported estimate represents just one possible comparison that
could have been performed on these data (Gelman, 2013a). So, if the study could be redone under the same conditions, we would bet
the observed difference would be less than 42%. And under new conditions (larger-scale, modern-day interventions in other
countries), we would expect to see further attenuation and bet that effects would be even lower, if measured in a controlled study
using pre-chosen criteria. Given the difficulty in setting up such a study, though, any such bet would be
close to meaningless. Similarly, there might be no easy way of evaluating the sorts of estimates that
appear from time to time in the newspapers based on large public-health studies.
Prediction markets fail
Economist 12
(“Betting on the future,” http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/07/predictionmarkets)
In what ways do prediction markets fail? The paper provides some discouraging answers. First,
they struggle when there is a high degree of insider information. On the question, "Will the
mandate be struck down", for instance, only the Chief Justice himself could say for sure, and so
the market was likely to be wrong. There must be information to aggregate. "Will there be
WMDs in Iraq?" was the basis of one contract. But which Iraqi arms tattletale is trading
predictions contracts? None, so the market was mistaken.¶ But if markets need information to
predict accurately—as these two criteria entail—then so much is off limits. Who has information
on next year's GDP? So much can change; so many things could happen. Sure, a merchant may
have an idea, he may take a guess. But is that guess as reasonable as one's guess on WMDs? Is
the future as foreign a realm as the far-off sands of Iraq? The thinking behind a market is that
trading creates an incentive for players to develop the best possible information, to come up
with new statistical models of the economy and place bets on their basis, for instance. The more
dumb money in a market, the richer the pot for smart money, which should entice such money
in and move the price in the right direction. But the very best processing of available
information may still be wildly offbase where future events are concerned.¶ The third failure is
a behavioural one. Individuals tend to overestimate low probabilities and underestimate high
ones. (The former explains why so many play the lottery; the latter is just an inverse of the
former.) But this means we have to rule out so many estimates as unreliable.
US traders aren’t even key—most aff careds cite Intrade as the model
Authers 2013 (John; Why prediction markets still have a future; Mar 11;
www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9e282b2a-8a48-11e2-9da4-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3EjbhJiqG; kdf)
More broadly, the concept is too useful to too many people to go away. Intrade
had successfully established
itself as the best-known prediction market, but it is not hegemonic. Others will attempt to fill
its place, and alter its model. Mr Wolfers himself took to Twitter to say that he would now be following
Betfair.com, which has deeper markets even if it does not have US traders (it currently puts the odds of
Hillary Clinton winning the presidency in 2016 at 29 per cent). Meanwhile, Intrade’s odds as of the trading pause remain frozen on
its website. They are as interesting as ever. For the record, it saw the papal conclave as a wide open race, with no overall favourite.
The frontrunners were Peter Turkson of Ghana (18 per cent) just behind Italy’s Cardinal Angelo Scola, with 25 per cent. Those
odds, we can assume, will never be updated. It also put the Democrats’ chance of holding the White House in 2016 at 56.5 per cent,
with the Conservatives’ chance of an overall majority at the next UK general election in 2015 at only 16.5 per cent. Both those
whether it is Intrade or someone else, prediction
markets will be around to fine-tune those odds as the elections approach.
numbers accord with common sense. And
1NC INTERNET
No balkanization – it’s posturing
Tim Maurer and Robert Morgus 2-19-2014; Tim Maurer focuses on international affairs and Internet policy at the New
America Foundation's Open Technology Institute. Robert Morgus is a researcher at New America's Open Technology Institute.Stop
Calling Decentralization of the Internet “Balkanization”
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/02/19/stop_calling_decentralization_of_the_internet_balkanization.html
It’s the end of the Internet. That was the headline of the prominent Swiss newspaper NZZ on Feb. 9. And Tim
Berners-Lee, the creator of the World Wide Web, recently called for a re-decentralization, declaring, “I want a Web that’s open,
works internationally, works as well as possible, and is not nation-based.” These are the latest voices in the growing
chorus over the “balkanization” of the Internet and the emergence of “splinternets”—networks that are
walled off from the rest of the Web. This is an important debate, one that will affect the future of the Internet. And with a major
global conference on this topic taking place in Brazil in April and the World Summit on the Information Society +10 scheduled for
2015, it is high time to bring more clarity and nuance to it. Unfortunately, the term balkanization itself creates
problems. Depending on whom you ask, balkanization can be a positive or negative process. For
some, the term represents a move toward freedom from oppression. For others, it is a reminder
of centuries of bloody struggle to hold together a region that ultimately ended in violent
fragmentation, which makes use of the word offensive to some. Fragmentation of the Internet
is the term we’ll use, but maybe a creative mind somewhere will find a better, more evocative way to describe it. The question
is: What does fragmentation mean, exactly? Is it the end of the Internet if domain names can no
longer only be written using the Roman alphabet? If so, the Internet ended in 2009, when
ICANN approved alternative alphabet domain names. Is it fragmentation if people around the
world using Weibo and Yandex in lieu of Google and Twitter? Or is it data localization and national
routing – subjecting data transfers to national boundaries? This debate is a lot more complex
than most headlines suggest. The Internet is more than Facebook and it is more than the Web itself—more than the content people
access every day. However, popular discussion tends to lump these various dimensions together. It obscures the
fragmentation efforts that truly undermine the openness and interoperability of the network.
Yes alt causes –
Gelb, 1ac article in 10
(Prof-Business & Economic-UH, “Getting Digital Statecraft Right,” Foreign Affairs, 7/28,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66502/betsy-gelb-and-emmanuel-yujuico/gettingdigital-statecraft-right)
All these cases share the same fallacy -- that U.S.-directed methods can spur development in
other nations. But U.S. policies seeking to extend freedom through technology can be successful
-- if the United States refrains from acting in ways that seem less than sincere, and if it adopts
a gradual, rather than transformative, approach. U.S. protests against censorship
would seem more convincing if it were not for its own policies restricting Internet
freedom. Consider, for example, the United States' questionable prohibition of crossborder trade in Internet gambling. In 2004, the World Trade Organization ruled in favor
of Antigua and Barbuda against the United States when the United States banned online
gambling services emanating from the twin-island nation. The United States appealed the case
and lost, but in the meantime, Antigua's online gambling industry was virtually destroyed. The
United States still has not yet satisfactorily resolved this ruling and should do so by conforming
to it.
[1ac CARD ENDS]
The United States' sincerity has also been called into question due to its strong advocacy for
the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which is currently being negotiated with
several other countries. This proposal is not a conventional free-trade agreement but rather one
that would establish stricter legal frameworks for intellectual-property-rights enforcement
outside of existing international organizations such as the World Intellectual Property
Organization and the WTO.
As many see it, however, the ACTA would strengthen intellectual-property laws at the expense of
the Internet community's well-being. According to the Program on Information Justice and
Intellectual Property, which represents prominent academics and activists worldwide, the
agreement would encourage Internet service providers to police users and disconnect
them without due process. In so doing, innovation and competition would be stifled. The
agreement is thus fueling widespread concern that Washington cares more about the
commercial interests of its major copyright holders than about nurturing the creative potential
of Internet users.
ITU fails—too late to solve
Violet Blue 2-5-2012; investigative tech reporter at CNET, Zero Day, ZDNet, and CBS News; FCC to Congress: U.N.'s ITU
Internet plans 'must be stopped' http://www.zdnet.com/fcc-to-congress-u-n-s-itu-internet-plans-must-be-stopped-7000010835/
The FCC Commissioner ominously warned Congress that what happened at WCIT-12 "ended the
era of an international consensus to keep inter-governmental hands off of the Internet in dramatic fashion." The
WCIT-12 summit was where the U.N.'s telecommunications arm, the International Telecommunications Union
(ITU), facilitated changes to a global telecommunications treaty. The U.N. debacle prompted a
widespread online outrage, an unprecedented unanimous U.S. House of Representatives vote
in opposition, and a collective refusal from 55 member states to sign the ITU's treaty.
No internal link between online gambling and leadership at Busan – their burden
to prove it would even be discussed. This is a shitty dip cap advantage and should
be treated as such.
Not key to the economy
Lowrey 2011 (Annie; Freaks, geeks, and the GDP; Mar 8;
www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/03/freaks_geeks_and_gdp.html; kdf)
If you have attended any economists' cocktail parties in the past month or so—lucky you!—then you have probably heard chatter about Tyler Cowen's ebook, The Great Stagnation. The book seeks to explain why in the United States median wages have grown only slowly since the 1970s and have actually
declined in the past decade. Cowen points to an innovation problem: Through the 1970s, the country had plenty of "low-hanging fruit" to juice GDP
growth. In the past 40 years, coming up with whiz-bang, life-changing innovations—penicillin, free universal kindergarten, toilets, planes, cars—has
proved harder, pulling down growth rates across the industrialized world. But wait! you might say. In the 1970s, American businesses started pumping
out amazing, life-changing computing technologies. We got graphing calculators, data-processing systems, modern finance, GPS, silicon chips, ATMs,
cell phones, and a host of other innovations. Has
the Internet, the most revolutionary communications technology advance since Gutenberg
nothing for GDP growth? The answer, economists broadly agree, is:
Sorry, but no—at least, not nearly as much as you would expect. A quarter century ago, with new technologies
rolled out the printing press, done
starting to saturate American homes and businesses, economists looked around and expected to find computer-fueled growth everywhere. But signs of
increased productivity or bolstered growth were few and far between. Sure, computers
and the Web transformed thousands
of businesses and hundreds of industries. But overall, things looked much the same. The GDP
growth rate did not tick up significantly, nor did productivity. As economist Robert Solow put it in 1987: "You
can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics." An overlapping set of theories emerged to explain the phenomenon, often
termed the "productivity paradox." Perhaps the new technologies advantaged some firms and industries and disadvantaged others, leaving little net
gain. Perhaps computer systems were not yet easy enough to use to reduce the amount of effort workers need to exert to perform a given task.
Economists also wondered whether it might just take some time—perhaps a lot of time—for the gains to show up. In the past, information technologies
tended to need to incubate before they produced gains in economic growth. Consider the case of Gutenberg's printing press. Though the technology
radically transformed how people recorded and transmitted news and information, economists have failed to find evidence it sped up per-capita income
or GDP growth in the 15th and 16th centuries. At one point, some economists thought that an Internet-driven golden age might have finally arrived in
the late 1990s. Between 1995 and 1999, productivity growth rates actually exceeded those during the boom from 1913 to 1972—perhaps meaning the
Web and computing had finally brought about a "New Economy." But that high-growth period faded quickly. And some studies found the gains during
those years were not as impressive or widespread as initially thought. Robert Gordon, a professor of economics at Northwestern, for instance, has found
that computers and the Internet mostly helped boost productivity in durable goods manufacturing—that is, the production of things like computers and
semiconductors. "Our central theme is that computers and the Internet do not measure up to the Great Inventions of the late nineteenth and early
twentieth century, and in this do not merit the label of Industrial Revolution," he wrote. Gordon's work leads to another theory, one espoused by Cowen
himself. Perhaps the Internet is just not as revolutionary as we think it is. Sure, people might derive endless pleasure from it—its tendency to improve
people's quality of life is undeniable. And sure, it might have revolutionized how we find, buy, and sell goods and services. But that still does not
necessarily mean it is as transformative of an economy as, say, railroads were. That is in part because
the Internet and computers
tend to push costs toward zero, and have the capacity to reduce the need for labor. You are, of course,
currently reading this article for free on a Web site supported not by subscriptions, but by advertising .
You probably read a lot of
news articles online, every day, and you probably pay nothing for them. Because of the decline in
subscriptions, increased competition for advertising dollars, and other Web-driven dynamics,
journalism profits and employment have dwindled in the past decade. (That Cowen writes a freely distributed
blog and published his ideas in a $4 e-book rather than a $25 glossy airport hardcover should not go unnoted here.) Moreover, the Web- and computerdependent technology sector itself does not employ that many people. And it does not look set to add workers: The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates
that employment in information technology, for instance, will be lower in 2018 than it was in 1998. That
the Internet has not
produced an economic boom might be hard to believe, Cowen admits. "We have a collective historical
memory that technological progress brings a big and predictable stream of revenue growth
across most of the economy," he writes. "When it comes to the web, those assumptions are turning out to be wrong or misleading. The
revenue-intensive sectors of our economy have been slowing down and the big technological gains are coming in revenue-deficient sectors." But
revenue is not always the end-all, be-all—even in economics. That brings us to a final explanation: Maybe it is not the growth that is deficient. Maybe it
is the yardstick that is deficient. MIT professor Erik Brynjolfsson * explains the idea using the example of the music industry. "Because
you
and I stopped buying CDs, the music industry has shrunk, according to revenues and GDP. But we're not listening to
less music. There's more music consumed than before." The improved choice and variety and availability of music must be worth something to us—even
if it is not easy to put into numbers. "On paper, the way GDP is calculated, the music industry is disappearing, but in reality it's not disappearing. It is
disappearing in revenue. It is not disappearing in terms of what you should care about, which is music." As more of our lives are lived online, he
wonders whether this might become a bigger problem. "If everybody focuses on the part of the economy that produces dollars, they would be
increasingly missing what people actually consume and enjoy. The disconnect becomes bigger and bigger." But providing an alternative measure of
what we produce or consume based on the value people derive from Wikipedia or Pandora proves an extraordinary challenge—indeed, no economist
has ever really done it. Brynjolfsson says it is possible, perhaps, by adding up various "consumer surpluses," measures of how much consumers would
be willing to pay for a given good or service, versus how much they do pay. (You might pony up $10 for a CD, but why would you if it is free?) That
might give a rough sense of the dollar value of what the Internet tends to provide for nothing—and give us an alternative sense of the value of our
technologies to us, if not their ability to produce growth or revenue for us. Of course, if our most radical and life-altering technologies are not improving
incomes or productivity or growth, then we still have problems. Quality-of-life improvements do not put dinner on the table or pay for Social Security
benefits. Still, even
Cowen does not see all doom and gloom ahead, with incomes stagnating endlessly
as we do more and more online and bleed more and more jobs and money. Who knows what awesome
technologies might be just around the bend?
2NC INTERNET
Their impact claims are hyperbolic
Seagal Oct 21 (Adam [Maurice R. Greenberg Senior Fellow for China Studies and Director of
the Digital and Cyberspace Policy Program]; Holding the multistakeholder line at the ITU;
www.cfr.org/internet-policy/holding-multistakeholder-line-itu/p33644?cid=rss-fullfeedholding_the_multistakeholder_l-102114; kdf)
Washington would also be pleased to see the ITU act as a facilitator, helping developing
countries find and participate in forums that already exist to address cybersecurity challenges.
The Messaging, Malware and Mobile Anti-Abuse Working Group, for example, is a coalition of
Internet service providers, mobile network operators, and telecommunications companies in
Asia, Europe, and North and South America fighting spam, phishing, denial-of-service attacks,
and other abuses. The ITU could help African countries participate. The most undesirable
outcomes for the United States will be any resolutions that create new cybersecurity bodies
under the aegis of the ITU or that directly affect the domain-name registration system. In order
to prevent these outcomes, the United States may have to make some compromises, such as
dropping its opposition to another WCIT in 2015. The most likely outcome is what one industry
analyst called "not a lot better, but also not much worse." The ITU will continue to expand its
reach into the Internet, but will have little impact on the technical underpinnings of the
networks. The United States and its allies will push the multistakeholder model at a wide range
of bilateral and multilateral forums (the proliferation of which led one Internet analyst to create
the acronym YAIGI: "yet another Internet governance initiative"). The conflict over the
governance of the Internet will move on to the next international venue.
ACTA thumps-no protests over gambling
Malcom and Sutton Oct 3 (Jeremy and Maria; EU-US Trade Negotiations Continue Shutting
out the Public—When Will They Learn?; https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/10/eu-us-tradenegotiations-continue-shutting-out-public-when-will-they-learn; kdf)
Negotiators from across the Atlantic met this week in Chevy Chase, Maryland to continue discussing the terms of the EU-US trade
agreement, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). This is the seventh round of secretive meetings, and not
much is known about the exact issues that are on the negotiating table. However a press release issued today confirms that
“intellectual property” (IP) rights were one of four areas given focus in this round of negotiations. Given how notoriously captured by
corporate interests IP discussions in trade negotiations are, this has us very worried. The TTIP negotiations have been rife with
controversy. Leaders from both regions rightly fear that they will face the same huge opposition
from the public as they did with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) two years ago. Tens of
thousands of protestors across Europe headed to the streets and pressured their
representatives to reject ACTA, and succeeded in defeating the agreement when the EU voted down its ratification. EU
and US trade officials may have finally realized that Internet users will not let them get away with including draconian copyright
provisions in omnibus treaties. But as they try to allay fears and claim that they no longer seek to include
such copyright terms in TTIP, they still have not learned the more important lesson from ACTA—
shutting out the public from seeing or participating in a given policymaking venue only guarantees that the public will see those
resulting policies as illegitimate.
EVERYTHING ELSE
1NC VAGUENESS
The word “legalize” in the plan is meaningless
Boire, 95 - Richard Glen Boire holds a Doctorate of Jurisprudence from the University of
California Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law. (Entheogen Law Reporter - quarterly newsletter
produced by attorney Richard Glen Boire in the 1990s, Issue 7,
https://www.erowid.org/library/periodicals/journals/telr/telr_7.pdf)
On the date of his speech, Solomon introduced HR 1453 which would amend the federal tax code to deny tax exempt status to any
organization "if any portion of the activities of such organization consists of promoting the legalization of any controlled substance."
I have long argued that the term "legalization" means very different things to different people, and' hence
is vague to the point of being incomprehensible absent specific details of the plan. What is
not unclear, however, is Solomon's intent to censure those with opposing viewpoints.
So is ‘the United States’
McFerran 5 - began his career working as a feature writer and contributing editor for the New
American, a journal committed to topics of social, political, and economic interests. He has
published numerous articles on historical events, politics, and current affairs and served as the
national director of Tax Reform Immediately (TRIM). Dedicated to the American dream of
prosperity, McFerran writes to generate increased awareness and appreciation for the
Constitution of the United States
(Warren, “Political Sovereignty: The Supreme Authority in the United States,” p. 147)
True, Calhoun conceded, the Preamble of (he Constitution reads that "We the people of the United States" ordain and establish the
new government. But this phrase proves nothing, he said. The term "United States" had been used earlier to
designate the thirteen States in Congress assembled, even though the Articles of Confederation specifically recognized the
sovereignty of the separate States. Here was a mere problem of semantics, Calhoun thought (though, of course, he did not use that
word; it had not yet been invented). The phrase "the people of the United States" could be ambiguous, for
it was sometimes used in a territorial or geographical sense. "In this sense, the people of the United States may
mean all the people living within these limits, without reference to the States or Territories in which they may reside, or of which
they may be citizens," Calhoun admitted. But he said the phrase, in its political sense, refers to "the States
united, which in- version alone, without further explanation, removes the ambiguity." There was, strictly speaking, no United
States. There were only the States United.
VOTE NEG – Absent specification, the range of definitions is infinite
1. GROUND – it’s key to neg strategy – otherwise the aff can shift against DAs and
permute all counterplans – we need to be able to impact turn strategies of
legalization
2. EDUCATION it’s necessary to spell out what legalization means – otherwise it
undermines the purpose of the debate
Goode 97 – Professor @ State University Stony Brook, Ph.D. in sociology from Columbia
University
(Erich, “Between Politics and Reason,” http://www.druglibrary.org/special/goode/bpr.htm)
In the end, I am forced to remain a staunch proponent of a harm reduction policy. While the current system desperately needs fixing, I strongly
believe that outright legalization would be a catastrophe. (In any case, there is quite literally no chance of implementing such a proposal any time soon;
at the present time, discussing it remains little more than an interesting intellectual exercise.) Moreover, as I explain, different observers mean very
different things when they use the term "legalization." Some imagine that the Netherlands, or the United Kingdom (or Canada, I have been told, or
Sweden!), pursues a policy of legalization. Far from it! Hence, I've
found it necessary to spell out just what different
observers mean when they so glibly discuss what they imagine to be "legalization." I heartily
endorse some of their proposals; some others would produce results that even those who
propose them would have to agree are worse than our current conditions. Still, let's be clear on this:
Many observers on both sides of the debate use the issue of harm versus harm reduction as window dressing. For them, the main issue is the triumph of
one ideology or worldview over another. The victims be damned! In the face of such arguments, I cannot help but be a staunch pragmatist and
utilitarian.
Let us explore, then, you and I, the world of drugs and drug use, drug abuse and drug control, drug criminalization and drug legalization, to
determine what we should do about these pressing, disturbing issues. The
answers are far from obvious, despite what many
the issues are
combatants in this debate claim; all too often, they attribute their opponents' views to stupidity or villainy. In my view,
complex and are filled with painful dilemmas. We are inevitably forced to accept the least bad of an array of very bad options,
a single mix of results that range from poisonous to somewhat less poisonous. And those of us who do nothing will be forced, willy-nilly, to take a stand
one way or another, since, if we do nothing, someone else will do it for us. We
need to be armed with facts, a clarity of vision, a logical
frame of mind, courage, and an awareness of how these issues fit in with the big picture. I hope that this book provides some of
these things, and enables the reader to draw his or her own conclusions concerning some of the more urgent questions of our day.
And, “United States” matters –comparative analysis is the difference between
effective ideas and footnotes
Austin and Schang 4 – Environmental Law Institute Senior Attorneys (Jay Austin and Scott
Schang, September/October 2004, “Fundamentalist Federalism,”
http://www.thecre.com/pdf/20111206_Environmental%20Forum.pdf)
There is a need for serious, continuing public dialogue about the proper balance of power
between the federal and state governments in implementing environmental protections. History shows that this
federal-state relationship has no setpoint, but instead ebbs and flows as the issues and times demand. Now that a concerted
effort to advance fundamentalist federalist principles in the courts has to some degree
succeeded, the very language and argument of federal environmental cases reflect an ongoing dispute over
these principles’ validity. We would all benefit from a more public debate of the appropriate
roles of activism at the bar and within the judiciary in overseeing the environmental federalism created, but not always fully
defined, by the elected branches.
So far, most courts have opted to continue deferring to the balance jointly established by Congress and state legislatures, and to
uphold our system of cooperative federalism that for almost 35 years has supported federal jurisdiction concurrent with state
jurisdiction. Tellingly, the cries protesting this system by and large are not coming from the states themselves, but from economic
interests, legal theorists, and political activists who have undertaken a concerted effort to advance an antiregulatory agenda through
the courts. As the composition of the federal judiciary continues to shift, time will tell whether their fundamentalist
ideology will reach critical mass and significantly reorder federal environmental law, or whether it is
simply a burst of “judicial activism,” destined to become a footnote in legal textbooks.
1NC POLITICS
Iran deal is a top priority - PC key
Solomon & Lee, 10/23/14 (Jay Solomon And Carol E. Lee, The Wall Street Journal Online,
“White House Seeks Support from Allies, Congress for Potential Iran Deal; Late November Is
the Deadline for Agreement,” Factiva, JMP)
WASHINGTON—The Obama administration is promoting a possible nuclear agreement with
Iran to allies, Congress and U.S. policy makers in an effort to win support ahead of a late
November deadline.
Significant divisions remain between Tehran and global powers in negotiations that seek to
constrain Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for an easing of Western sanctions, senior officials
stressed in interviews this week. But these officials also said important progress has been
made in recent talks in Vienna and New York.
The White House has subsequently decided to begin more aggressively outlining to various
partners the contours of a prospective deal with Tehran, and its potential merits, they said.
“This is a period of heightened activity. And it’s a chance to level-set people on where we are,”
said a senior U.S. official working on Iran. “There’s a stepped-up effort to show people what this
deal might look like.”
Among the administration’s point people in this effort is Undersecretary of State Wendy
Sherman, the U.S. chief nuclear negotiator with Iran. On Thursday, Ms. Sherman gave her most
expansive address on the status of the negotiations since taking her post and stressed the need
for Iran to seize on the diplomacy to end its international isolation.
“We have made impressive progress on issues that originally seemed intractable,” she told a
gathering at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. “We
have cleared up misunderstandings and held exhaustive discussions on every element of a
possible text. However, like any complicated and technically complex diplomatic initiative, this
is a puzzle with many interlocking pieces.”
U.S., Iranian and European officials have said in recent weeks that the main barriers to a deal
remain focused on the future size of Tehran’s nuclear-fuel production capacity and the pace of
the potential lifting of Western sanctions in the case of an agreement.
The Obama administration initially demanded a complete dismantling of the nearly 20,000
centrifuges Iran has amassed to enrich uranium for the production of nuclear fuel. Tehran said
it would ultimately need up to at least five times that number to have enough fuel to power the
country’s reactors.
Iran denies it is seeking nuclear weapons and says its activities are for peaceful purposes only,
such as the production of energy.
Signs of a potential compromise have emerged in recent days with Iranian state media
reporting that Tehran and its negotiating partners, the five permanent members of the United
Nations Security Council along with Germany—a diplomatic bloc known as the P5-+1—focused
on a number of 4,000 centrifuges.
U.S. officials have neither confirmed nor denied the numbers. Outside experts said the
number could be acceptable to the P5+1 and to Congress because it would place
constraints on Iran’s ability to produce weapons-usable fuel.
“It’s not as simple as saying X-number of centrifuges, because it has to be taken as a whole
package,” said another senior U.S. official. “We’re looking at all of the ways that we can basically
block off any potential combination that they could think of how to get to a weapon.”
The White House’s outreach to Congress will be critical to sealing an agreement
with Iran. The issue of Congress’s role is a contentious one.
The White House is arguing that an agreement wouldn’t be a formal treaty, and, therefore,
wouldn’t require congressional approval. Leading U.S. lawmakers are threatening to
impose new sanctions if a deal isn’t seen as doing enough to roll back Tehran’s nuclear
capabilities.
Pro-Israel lawmakers have voiced concern and are demanding the White House seek
congressional approval to forge an agreement with Tehran.
“It’s tough to see a solid agreement when Congress—which was critical to putting in the strong
sanctions that got negotiators to this point—is so clearly sidelined,” said Rep. Ed Royce (R.,
Calif.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Administration officials expect consultations to ramp up significantly in coming
weeks, as President Barack Obama tries to head off a confrontation over the easing of
sanctions—an issue that not only draws criticism from Republicans but also divides his own
Democratic Party.
The White House is looking at a deal that would have a probation period of sorts for Iran, where
sanctions would be in abeyance until Tehran has demonstrated its adherence to the terms of the
agreement over a set amount of time.
Only after that would sanctions be lifted. One senior administration official said that time period
is likely to be more than two years.
“There are going to be conditions on moving forward with this,” the second official said. “As part
of an overall comprehensive agreement, there will be a mix of legislative and executive actions,
but at what point those different actions come in we’re not in position to say because there’s no
deal.”
The U.S. is only looking at lifting nuclear-related sanctions, not others such as those related to
human rights concerns. But officials acknowledged that many of those sanctions are entwined,
making it difficult to separate out the nuclear-related ones.
Mr. Obama, for whom a nuclear deal with Iran is a top priority, is regularly briefed on the
talks, the senior administration official said. He is expected to become even more closely
involved as the deadline nears.
“We will need every single minute of the time through Nov. 24. The goal is to have an
agreement by then but it’s unclear whether that will come to pass,” a senior administration
official said.
Legalization will be a fight --- especially in an election year
O’Brien, 12 --- J.D. Candidate at the University of Notre Dame (2012, Kerry, Journal of
Legislation, “NOTE: THE GREAT WILDCARD: HOW 2011 SHOOK THE ONLINE POKER
WORLD AND BECAME A GAME-CHANGER IN THE BATTLE FOR LEGALIZATION,” 38 J.
Legis. 295, Lexis, JMP)
As previous trial and error has proven, pro-gaming legislation is a difficult sell in
Congress. Morality and regulatory concerns plague any all proposals brought to light. For this
reason, Barton's H.R. 2366 stands a better chance of becoming law than Campbell's H.R. 1174.
Barton's bill limits its scope to online poker, which has earned a certain social acceptance denied
to all other forms of Internet gambling. This general acceptance, coupled with persuasive
arguments that poker is a game of skill rather than of chance, makes legalized web poker an
easier pill to swallow than all-inclusive legalized Internet gambling.
However, Barton's bill is far from "slam dunk" legislation. Though the Congressman may well
have significant silent support from Republicans, that support could dwindle in election
year 2012. Even normally supportive Democrats might be hesitant to support
legislation on such a controversial topic when political control is at stake.
Additionally, if the legislation does manage to pass the House, it may not gain crucial support
from Harry Reid once it gets to the Senate due to AGA [*311] opposition over the lack of
penalties for UIGEA violators.
Currently, Nevada is developing a licensing and regulatory system for its legalized intrastate
poker program. n161 Congress will probably take a wait-and-see approach to its own legislation
while observing the effectiveness of the Nevada scheme. While legalized online poker does
indeed seem an inevitability, it will likely come about once individual states have shown that
their software technology can prevent underage users from gambling online and that
governmental entities can safely and effectively run Internet poker rooms. Nevada's program is
due to be up and running in mid-to-late 2012. If the program is implemented in a timely manner
and proves successful, new poker-based legislation proposed in 2013 or 2014 will have a far
more likely chance of passage than either H.R. 1174 or H.R. 2366.
Obama’s capital is key to successfully block sanctions that will scuttle negotiations
--- failure will trigger war
Winsor, 10/2/14 (Ben, “A Coalition Is Working Furiously Behind The Scenes To Support
Obama's Iran Talks,” http://www.businessinsider.com/rag-tag-iran-coalition-backingdiplomacy-2014-10, JMP)
Since November 2013, the Obama administration has engaged with Iran in tense, drawn-out
nuclear negotiations which optimists hope could bring an end to decades of hostility and
mistrust.
Throughout it all, Congress has threatened to play the spoiler, with a tough sanctions bill
passing the House and looming in the Senate which would almost certainly scuttle the fragile
talks over the Iranian nuclear program.
Now, as the deadline for the end of the talks approaches, a coalition of legislators, advocacy
groups, and White House officials are working to hold Congress back from the brink of
thwarting what they see as a historic window of opportunity. They're fighting against
legislators and conservative groups like The Heritage Foundation and The Free Enterprise
Institute who are pushing for the US to take a hawkish stance.
Legislators, led by Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison, have been maneuvering quietly
behind the scenes in Congress to keep the talks alive. At the same time, officials from the
White House have been leaning heavily on Senate Democrats to refrain from
bringing a sanctions bill to the floor.
On the outside, a diverse range of pro-diplomacy groups, led by organisations like the National
Iranian American Council (NIAC) and the liberal Jewish organization J Street, have found a
common cause and rallied together to lobby for restraint. Even the Quakers are energized.
“This is a do-or-die moment, either we succeed, or we go in a much more negative direction,”
said NIAC co-founder Trita Parsi at the group’s annual conference last weekend.
Parsi sees the negotiations as a historic moment during a narrow window of opportunity.
Presidents on both sides have sunk significant time and energy into the talks and
Parsi believes the current leadership in both countries is more likely to make a deal than those
who came before — or might come after.
“The next president, whatever political party they’re in, is not going to spend precious political
capital battling Congress… [Obama] is the guy,” Parsi said.
Supporters fear that failure of the talks could trigger increased sanctions, the rise of hardliners
in Iran, and relations spiraling toward military confrontation.
Goes nuclear
Reuveny, 10 – professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana
University (Rafael, “Unilateral strike could trigger World War III, global depression” Gazette
Xtra, 8/7, - See more at: http://gazettextra.com/news/2010/aug/07/con-unilateral-strikecould-trigger-world-war-iii-/#sthash.ec4zqu8o.dpuf)
A unilateral Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would likely have dire consequences,
including a regional war, global economic collapse and a major power clash.
For an Israeli campaign to succeed, it must be quick and decisive. This requires an attack that
would be so overwhelming that Iran would not dare to respond in full force.
Such an outcome is extremely unlikely since the locations of some of Iran’s nuclear facilities are
not fully known and known facilities are buried deep underground.
All of these widely spread facilities are shielded by elaborate air defense systems constructed not
only by the Iranians but also the Chinese and, likely, the Russians as well.
By now, Iran has also built redundant command and control systems and nuclear facilities,
developed early warning systems, acquired ballistic and cruise missiles and upgraded and
enlarged its armed forces.
Because Iran is well-prepared, a single, conventional Israeli strike—or even numerous strikes—
could not destroy all of its capabilities, giving Iran time to respond.
Unlike Iraq, whose nuclear program Israel destroyed in 1981, Iran has a second-strike capability
comprised of a coalition of Iranian, Syrian, Lebanese, Hezbollah, Hamas, and, perhaps, Turkish
forces. Internal pressure might compel Jordan, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority to join the
assault, turning a bad situation into a regional war.
During the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, at the apex of its power, Israel was saved from defeat by
President Nixon’s shipment of weapons and planes. Today, Israel’s numerical inferiority is
greater, and it faces more determined and better-equipped opponents. After years of futilely
fighting Palestinian irregular armies, Israel has lost some of its perceived superiority—bolstering
its enemies’ resolve.
Despite Israel’s touted defense systems, Iranian coalition missiles, armed forces, and terrorist
attacks would likely wreak havoc on its enemy, leading to a prolonged tit-for-tat.
In the absence of massive U.S. assistance, Israel’s military resources may quickly dwindle,
forcing it to use its alleged nuclear weapons, as it had reportedly almost done in 1973.
An Israeli nuclear attack would likely destroy most of Iran’s capabilities, but a crippled Iran and
its coalition could still attack neighboring oil facilities, unleash global terrorism, plant mines in
the Persian Gulf and impair maritime trade in the Mediterranean, Red Sea and Indian Ocean.
Middle Eastern oil shipments would likely slow to a trickle as production declines due to the war
and insurance companies decide to drop their risky Middle Eastern clients. Iran and Venezuela
would likely stop selling oil to the United States and Europe.
From there, things could deteriorate as they did in the 1930s. The world economy would head
into a tailspin; international acrimony would rise; and Iraqi and Afghani citizens might fully
turn on the United States, immediately requiring the deployment of more American troops.
Russia, China, Venezuela, and maybe Brazil and Turkey—all of which essentially support Iran—
could be tempted to form an alliance and openly challenge the U.S. hegemony.
Russia and China might rearm their injured Iranian protege overnight, just as Nixon rearmed
Israel, and threaten to intervene, just as the U.S.S.R. threatened to join Egypt and Syria in 1973.
President Obama’s response would likely put U.S. forces on nuclear alert, replaying Nixon’s
nightmarish scenario.
Iran may well feel duty-bound to respond to a unilateral attack by its Israeli archenemy, but it
knows that it could not take on the United States head-to-head. In contrast, if the United States
leads the attack, Iran’s response would likely be muted.
If Iran chooses to absorb an American-led strike, its allies would likely protest and send
weapons but would probably not risk using force.
While no one has a crystal ball, leaders should be risk-averse when choosing war as a foreign
policy tool. If attacking Iran is deemed necessary, Israel must wait for an American green light.
A unilateral Israeli strike could ultimately spark World War III.
1NC K
The 1ac romanticizes an orderly gaming marketplace—this accelerates cycles of
consumption that alienate consumers and enact biopolitical violence
Reith 13—school of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow
(Gerda, “Techno economic systems and excessive consumption: a political economy of ‘pathological’ gambling”, The British Journal
of Sociology Volume 64, Issue 4, pages 717–738, December 2013, dml)
In addition, new forms of consumption are increasingly based on intensive experiences rather than the
consumption of tangible commodities (Nealon 2002). This is part of what Hardt and Negri (2000) describe as a shift, within late capitalism, towards
the intensification of existing resources rather than the discovery or production of new ones. As they put it: ‘ capitalism no longer looks outside
but rather inside its domain, and its expansion is thus intensive rather than extensive’ (Hardt and Negri 2000: 272). The ‘domain’ of consumption is
likewise intensified: speeded
up, extended and reliant on ‘expanded reproduction’ (Hardt and Negri 2000: 272) to
generate ever-more thrilling experiences. This is the landscape of megamalls and supercasinos; of ever-larger SUVs and
supersized fast foods; of instant messaging and miniaturized personal technologies. A number of theorists have coined different terms to write about
this trend. Juliet Schor (2008) for example used the phrase ‘turbo’ consumption to describe the squeezing of consumption into shorter, more intense
timeframes, while George Ritzer (1993) described the
‘hyper’ consumption of immaterial signs and spectacles in
virtual environments such as Las Vegas – environments that, for some, have been transcended altogether
in the intensive simulacrum of new forms of reality (Baudrillard 1983).
Technology is the motor of this intensification. It has increased the rate of consumption,
speeding resources and commodities across increasingly border-less spaces in ever faster cycles
(Virilio 1977). The techno-economic developments described earlier have what can be described as an elective affinity with the conditions of late
modernity, whereby globally connected financial markets and advanced digital networks create instant communication, overcoming separation in space
and time by what Giddens (1991: 14) describes as the processes of ‘disembedding’ – the removal of events from their local time-frame. Such
conditions create new types of spatiality which the French anthropologist Marc Auge (1995) calls ‘non-places’: the transient
spaces of supermodernity, characterized by pure circulation and consumption in which ‘the
habitué of supermarkets, slot machines and credit cards communicates wordlessly, through gestures, with an
abstract, unmediated commerce’ (1995: 63). Within these transient spaces of dematerialized
consumption, the systems of credit, fashion and advertising act as mechanisms of intensification,
encouraging the acceleration of production, the planned obsolescence of commodities and the
generation of continually renewed desires.
These structural features generate a range of negative impacts which we will turn to in the final section. However,
they are also productive of specific subjectivities, which in turn work to intensify
consumption. In particular, modern individuals have been conceived as ‘desiring subjects’ (Turner
2008), created and sustained by a culture that is based on the generation of a state of constant,
free-floating desire. As Colin Campbell (1987) points out, consumer capitalism does not aim to satisfy, but
rather to maintain a state of longing in which fantasies are projected onto the consumption of, as
yet, unknown experiences in the future. In this, modern consumers are characterized by ‘an
insatiability which arises out of a basic inexhaustibility of wants themselves’ (Campbell 1987: 104).
Gambling is an archetypal form of this consumption; an activity that is based on the experiential
thrills of risk taking and driven by the intensive circulation of money in repeated cycles of
loss. Along with industries based on, for example, fast food, fashion and credit, it is a business that explicitly celebrates an ‘ethic
of consumption’, urging players to spend, to indulge in pleasure and fulfill their desires, while
nevertheless keeping fulfillment – winning – constantly out of reach. It is provided by an
industry that encourages conspicuous consumption and glorifies excess, embodying both in spectacular
architecture, most notably in the casinos of Las Vegas and Macau. In his essay on Excess, George Bataille (1985) noted that gambling, along with
gift giving and luxury, was a practice that wasted or squandered wealth in a form of pure consumption or, what he termed
‘unproductive expenditures’. More recently Jeffrey Nealon described Las Vegas in similar terms as a site which produces
‘hypnotic states of excess, loss and expenditure’ or, as he puts it, ‘intensities’, so making it a ‘privileged
site in the emergence of the newest American economy’ (2002: 79).
At this point we can note a productive convergence between the operation of finance capital
which, as we saw earlier, is based on the intensification of money through speculation, and the logic of
gambling as a similarly intensified form of consumption.
To explore this in more detail, we will briefly return to Jameson who noted that late
capitalism had revealed ‘the ultimate
structure of the commodity to be addiction itself (or, if you prefer, ha[d] produced the very concept of addiction in all its
metaphysical richness)’ (2004: 52). Gambling unravels some of the meanings of this statement, since it is
based on what can perhaps be seen as the ultimate commodity. It was Marx who first noted that the commodity itself is ‘a
very mysterious thing, abounding in metaphysical niceties’ (1976 [1867]: 163), and whose value lies in an abstraction; namely
exchange. This is especially so in the case of gambling, where it is not immediately obvious what
the commodity, or product, actually is. At first sight, it appears to be the bet or wager that is purchased by
the consumer in exchange for money. But then the question as to what the bet itself involves arises. It is here that the
abstract or dematerialized nature of gambling becomes clearer, for most gamblers play simply to
experience play itself (Reith 1999; Schull 2012). Their primary aim revolves not around winning money but
around having enough to stay in the game. Money – or rather, its representations, in
credit, chips or virtual currencies – is devalued and becomes the medium of play rather than an end
in itself. It becomes the means to enter what has been described as ‘the zone’ (Schull 2012): a peculiar
subjective state in which individuals lose their sense of self through immersion in intense
consumption, described by Livingstone (2005) as a ‘stream of indeterminacy’.
The role of money in gambling is what Viviana Zelizer (2011) would describe as an instance of ‘special monies’: that which is detached from
the ‘traditional utilitarian model of market money’ and ‘is profoundly shaped by cultural and social structural factors’ (2011: 100). This is a
different ‘type’ of money, whose value is subjective, non-pecuniary and non-fungible, and whose
meanings are qualitatively different from the ‘market monies’ used for other, more standard kinds of consumption. The value of these
alternative monies are generated through, and productive of, the cultural and social conditions
of commercial gambling environments. This perspective brings us back to Marx who, as we have seen, noted that the value of the
commodity form lies in an abstraction: that is, the practice of exchange. Its value therefore resides in that which is invisible,
immaterial; in that which can be emptied out of particularity and exchanged for anything else
(1976 [1867]: 163–5). As Stallybrass (1998) put it, the commodity achieves its purest form when ‘most emptied out of particularity and thingliness’
(1998: 183) Gambling
is similarly abstract, for here, the source of value lies in the continual turnover
of money, endlessly repeated in order to continue play itself. It is through this dynamic that the industry derives
profit, since players' losses are its gains in a version of the formula M-M′, in which money is ‘directly intensified – made greater or smaller – rather
than being transformed’ (Nealon 2002: 79). And so, in place of the consumption of tangible goods with which to realize and express the self – as in the
neoliberal ideal – here, gambling
represents an intensive, dematerialized form of consumption based on
the pure circulation of money in a process that exemplifies the intensified logic at the heart of
late modern capitalist societies.
It is at this point that we encounter a central contradiction of neoliberal consumer capitalism.
Along with the cultural signals that exhort individuals to consume and the political-economic
environment that enables it, there is a corresponding expectation that consumption is controlled
and above all ‘responsible’ (Reith 2004). Not only is consumption central to the expression and
realization of self identity, it is also an obligation in such systems, and individuals have a
duty to consume in culturally specific ways. The very notion of personhood in
neoliberal societies is predicated on behaviour that is rational, self-limiting and based on
informed and prudent decision-making and controlled consumption (O'Malley 1996; Rose 1999): all
attributes which are rejected by ‘pathological’ gamblers.3 Indeed, in such players we can see the
inversion of many of the central tenets of modern western value systems: namely the valorization of
money, the role of consumption in the creation of the self, and even the logic of market based
exchange itself. We will return to some of the ramifications of this in our Discussion section, but first will move on to consider the role of
technology in the development of a gambling economy, as well as the discursive creation of ‘pathological’ gamblers within it.
Gambling technology
Castells (1996) has pointed out that technology
always develops in relation with the state. In this instance, the
deregulatory state policies that allowed the expansion of gambling markets reviewed in the previous section
have been shaped and driven by technological innovation.
Capitalism itself is characterized by ‘its relentless expansion, always trying to overcome the
limits of time and space’ (Castells 1996: 101). In gambling technology, we can see a highly successful
exemplar of this, for the industry has harnessed technology in the interests of capital. An
intersection between gambling and financial technologies has increased the speed of gambling and expanded its
reach across time and space. All sectors of the industry have invested in systems that enable
remote playing through wireless, cable and satellite networks, facilitating wagering on distant events,
such as sports and racing, and speeding up the financial transactions between players and games. The
result, argues the anthropologist Natasha Dow Schull, is that the gaming industry ‘has established itself as an
engine for experimentation and innovation with emergent digital capabilities producing
military-grade surveillance and networks, sophisticated systems of accounting and sleek
gaming machinery’ (Schull 2005: 66)
Commercial games of chance exemplify the conditions of disembedding and acceleration, noted
earlier, since gambling technology creates a vast, global stage in which gamblers can bet, along
with countless, anonymous others, on the outcomes of distant games. Digital and financial
technologies increase the speed of consumption and encourage the devaluation of money and
loss of a sense of time, dislocating gamblers from their immediate surroundings and linking them into networks
of betting technology.
The largest and fastest growing sectors of the gambling industry are electronic gaming machines which are
continually updated and modified with ever-more sophisticated game designs to appeal to carefully targeted markets (Woolley and Livingstone 2010).
High resolution imagery and sound, state of the art animation and games that are designed to respond to player movements maximize what is known in
industry circles as ‘time on device’ – an increase in the duration of playing a particular game or machine, as well as the pace of play itself (Schull 2012).
Games themselves exploit a form of operant conditioning (Skinner 2004), whereby variable intermittent reinforcement
schedules create a situation of constant uncertainty and random rewards Machines are deliberately calibrated in order to provide the experiences of
‘near misses’ (Reid 1986), or the more nuanced innovation described as ‘losses disguised as wins’ (Dixon et al. 2010), which encourage the sensation
that players are always almost winning, so prolonging consumption and encouraging maximum expenditure. It is these features that make
games highly attractive to players or, in bio-medical discourses, highly ‘addictive’. However, it is our argument that such
features are not an aspect of individual pathology, but rather a deliberate part of gambling
machine design that creates an intense, highly compelling consumer experience. The focus on
irrational cognitions and biomedical deficits seen earlier, in fact, acts as a discursive device that
works to detract attention from these technological features.
A significant trend in the expansion of games of chance has involved their dispersal into increasingly diverse and non gambling-specific locations, such
as bars, restaurants, hotels, grocery stores and airports. Technology
has enabled the diffusion of gambling
throughout the spaces and communities of late modern societies, creating a phenomenon that has been described
as ‘McGambling’ (Goodman 1995) or ‘convenience’ gambling (NGISC 1999). These monikers describe a situation in which gambling becomes
increasingly normalized, ubiquitous, and constantly available though for example, the flickering monitor of a
computer at work, an interactive networked television set, a mobile phone or a machine in a bar or club. As a result, it is
increasingly easy for individuals to encounter opportunities to gamble as part of the fabric of
everyday life, as entire environments become saturated with high tech, random number generators.
Their absorption into the ‘non-places’ of such networks and systems may render individual gamblers
invisible to each other, but they also render them highly visible to the corporations whose products they
consume, most of whom utilize sophisticated ‘tracking technologies’ to amass detailed
information on their customers' activities (Schellinck and Schrans 2008). Financial, behavioural, personal
and biometric information is gathered through gamblers' interaction with machines – as one industry
insider put it, tracking ‘every click of the mouse’ (Reith: personal communication, June 2011) – and used to tailor games to suit
players' changing tastes, so stimulating desire in order to increase ‘time on device’. The latest
innovation in EGM technology, for example, is personalized ‘customer service panels’ that allow gaming operators to tailor
interactive promotions and marketing directly to customers at the point of play. Cashback offers, free
meals, information about up-coming events: all are streamed directly to players for instant feedback as they
sit at their machines. Crucially, this feature provides information on players themselves, allowing
operators direct access to their customers while they play. As the trade publication, Global Gaming Business Magazine
puts it:
Operators can formulate different messages to players to discover even more about them . … The
casino gets to know about you. They may find out you like golf and tell you about an upcoming tournament. They may discover you
like country music and send you information about a Toby Keith concert. (Global Gaming Business Magazine 2012: 3).
The result? As Tom Boyle, Vice President for Bally's Technologies puts it, ‘time on machine and play has increased 10–
30 per cent’ (in Global Gaming Business Magazine 2012: 3).
Such technologies go far beyond the panopticon-style design of casinos, with their ubiquitous cameras
and security, to create networks of surveillance across a range of ‘gambling spaces’, from casinos and bars to
shopping malls and the Internet. These circuits of surveillance typify the shift to Deleuze's (1995) environments of
‘control’ that operate through the intensification and extension of disciplinary technologies to
exert a more pervasive ‘continuous control’ through interconnected networks of instant
communications. Far more sophisticated than the data gleaned from prevalence surveys or clinical records, a continual feedback
loop of information between gamblers' behaviour, finances and demographics and the machines they interact with is maintained,
creating a means of ‘knowing’, and so monitoring, individual players. Such intensive, continual
surveillance of the habits, behaviour and bodies of gamblers not only accelerates consumption,
it establishes standards for ‘normal’ and ‘responsible’ versus ‘excessive’ or ‘pathological’ play, so creating a
set of standard measurements and with it, a detailed bio-politics of the gambling population.
The impact is extinction—short term reforms aimed at stabilizing the system only
cause harder landing
Robinson 14—professor of sociology, global and international studies, and Latin American
studies, at the University of California-Santa Barbara
(William, “Global Capitalism: Crisis of Humanity and the Specter of 21st Century Fascism”, The World Financial Review, May-June
2014, dml)
This crisis of humanity shares a number of aspects with earlier structural crises but there are also
several features unique to the present:
1. The system is fast reaching the ecological limits of its reproduction. Global capitalism now
couples human and natural history in such a way as to threaten to bring about what would be the sixth mass
extinction in the known history of life on earth.3 This mass extinction would be caused not by a natural
catastrophe such as a meteor impact or by evolutionary changes such as the end of an ice age but
by purposive human activity. According to leading environmental scientists there are nine
“planetary boundaries” crucial to maintaining an earth system environment in which humans
can exist, four of which are experiencing at this time the onset of irreversible environmental
degradation and three of which (climate change, the nitrogen cycle, and biodiversity loss) are at “tipping points,”
meaning that these processes have already crossed their planetary boundaries.
2. The magnitude of the means of violence and social control is unprecedented, as is the
concentration of the means of global communication and symbolic production and circulation in the
hands of a very few powerful groups. Computerised wars, drones, bunker-buster bombs, star
wars, and so forth, have changed the face of warfare. Warfare has become normalised and
sanitised for those not directly at the receiving end of armed aggression. At the same time we have
arrived at the panoptical surveillance society and the age of thought control by those who
control global flows of communication, images and symbolic production. The world of Edward Snowden is
the world of George Orwell; 1984 has arrived;
3. Capitalism is reaching apparent limits to its extensive expansion. There are no longer any new
territories of significance that can be integrated into world capitalism, de-ruralisation is now well
advanced, and the commodification of the countryside and of preand non-capitalist spaces has
intensified, that is, converted in hot-house fashion into spaces of capital, so that intensive
expansion is reaching depths never before seen. Capitalism must continually expand or
collapse. How or where will it now expand?
4. There is the rise of a vast surplus population inhabiting a “planet of slums,”4 alienated from the
productive economy, thrown into the margins, and subject to sophisticated systems of social control and
to destruction to a mortal cycle of dispossession-exploitation-exclusion. This includes prison-industrial and immigrantdetention complexes, omnipresent policing, militarised gentrification, and so on;
5. There is a disjuncture between a globalising economy and
a nation-state based system of
political authority. Transnational state apparatuses are incipient and have not been able to play
the role of what social scientists refer to as a “hegemon,” or a leading nation-state that has
enough power and authority to organise and stabilise the system. The spread of weapons of
mass destruction and the unprecedented militarisation of social life and conflict across the globe
makes it hard to imagine that the system can come under any stable political authority that
assures its reproduction.
Global Police State
How have social and political forces worldwide responded to crisis? The
crisis has resulted in a rapid political
polarisation in global society. Both right and left-wing forces are ascendant. Three responses seem to be in
dispute.
One is what we could call “reformism from above.” This elite reformism is aimed at stabilising the system,
at saving the system from itself and from more radical responses from below. Nonetheless, in the
years following the 2008 collapse of the global financial system it seems these reformers are unable (or unwilling) to
prevail over the power of transnational financial capital. A second response is popular, grassroots
and leftist resistance from below. As social and political conflict escalates around the world there
appears to be a mounting global revolt. While such resistance appears insurgent in the wake of 2008 it is spread very
unevenly across countries and regions and facing many problems and challenges.
Yet another response is that I term 21st century fascism.5 The ultra-right
is an insurgent force in many
to fuse reactionary political power with transnational capital
and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of the global working class –
such as white workers in the North and middle layers in the South – that are now experiencing heightened
insecurity and the specter of downward mobility. It involves militarism, extreme
masculinisation, homophobia, racism and racist mobilisations, including the search for
scapegoats, such as immigrant workers and, in the West, Muslims. Twenty-first century fascism
evokes mystifying ideologies, often involving race/culture supremacy and xenophobia, embracing an
idealised and mythical past. Neo-fascist culture normalises and glamorises warfare and social violence,
indeed, generates a fascination with domination that is portrayed even as heroic.
The need for dominant groups around the world to secure widespread, organised mass social control of the
world’s surplus population and rebellious forces from below gives a powerful impulse to
projects of 21st century fascism. Simply put, the immense structural inequalities of the global political
economy cannot easily be contained through consensual mechanisms of social control. We have been
witnessing transitions from social welfare to social control states around the world. We have entered a period of great
upheavals, momentous changes and uncertainties. The only viable solution to the crisis of global
capitalism is a massive redistribution of wealth and power downward towards the poor
majority of humanity along the lines of a 21st century democratic socialism, in which humanity
is no longer at war with itself and with nature.
countries. In broad strokes, this project seeks
Vote neg to express political dissent beyond the grasp of globalization’s regulatory
framework—the act of criticism is what makes democracy effective
Roland Bleiker 2, professor of international relations at the University of Queensland, Politics
After Seattle: Dilemmas of the Anti-Globalisation Movement, conflits.revues.org/1057
46 While engendering a series of problematic processes, globalisation
has also increased the possibility to engage
political issues. Before the advent of speed, for instance, a protest event was a mostly local issue. But the presence of global
media networks has fundamentally changed the dynamics and terrains of dissent. Political activism no
longer takes place solely in the streets of Prague, Seoul or Asuncion. The Battle for Seattle, for instance, was above all a media spectacle, a battle for the
hearts and minds of global television audiences. Political
activism, wherever it occurs and whatever form it
takes, has become intrinsically linked with the non-spatial logic of speed. It has turned into a
significant transnational phenomena.¶ 47With the exploration of new terrains of dissent, global activists also face a series of
political dilemmas. This essay has addressed two of them : the tension between violent and nonviolent means of resistance, and the issue of unequal
representation, the question of who can speak for whom. Rather than suggesting that these issues can be understood and solved by applying a preexisting body of universal norms and principles, the essay has drawn attention to the open-ended and contingent nature of the puzzles in question.
Protest acts against the key multilateral institutions of the world economy will continue, and so will debates about
the nature of globalisation and the methods of interfering with its governance. Keeping these debates alive, and seeking to
include as many voices, perspectives and constituencies as possible, is a first step towards something that may one day
resemble globalisation with a human face.¶ 48But making global governance more humane, more transparent and more
democratic is no easy task. Principles of transparency and democracy have historically been confined to the territorial boundaries of the sovereign
nation state. Within these boundaries there is the possibility for order and the rule of law. But the space beyond is seen as threatening and anarchical that is, lacking a central regulatory institution. The standard realist response to these perceptions is well know : protect sovereignty, order and civility at
the domestic level by promoting policies that maximise the state's military capacity and, so it is assumed, its security.68 It is questionable to what
extent realist policies remain adequate - and ethical for that matter - at a time when process of globalisation have lead to a fundamental transformation
of political dynamics.¶ 49The Battle for Seattle, and the media spectacle that issued form it, may well demonstrate that the
struggle for
power takes place in a realm that lacks a central regulatory institution. But realist interpretations
make the mistake of embarking on a fatalistic interpretation of this political realm, constituting conflict as an inevitable element of the system's
structure. It may be more adequate - and certainly more productive - to characterise the international system in the age of globalisation and
transnational dynamics not as anarchical, but as rhizomatic. For Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari a rhizome is a multiplicity that has no coherent and
bounded whole, no beginning or end, only a middle from where it expands and overspills. Any point of the rhizome is connected to any other. It has no
fixed points to anchor thought, only lines, magnitudes, dimensions, plateaus, and they are always in motion.69 How,
then, is one to
reach a moral position in a world of webs, multitudes and multiplicities ? Are the lines, dimensions
and plateaus of the rhizome so randomly arranged that we are no longer able to generate the kind of
stable knowledge that is necessary to advance critique and, indeed, dissent ? Is the very notion
of political foundations still possible at a time when social consciousness gushes out of five-second sound-bites and the
corresponding hyperreal images that flicker over our television screens ? Are there alternatives to realist approaches that protect domestic order by
warding off everything that threatens it from the outside ? Answers
to such questions do, of course, not come easy.
And they may not be uniform either. But an adequate response will need to engage in one way or
another with the search for political engagements beyond the territorial boundaries of the
nation state.¶ 50 An extension of democratic principles into the more ambiguous international
realm is as essential as it is difficult. It will need to be based on a commitment to democracy that
goes beyond the establishment of legal and institutional procedures. William Connolly has
pointed in the right direction when arguing for a democratic ethos. The key to such cultural
democratisation, he believes, "is that it embodies a productive ambiguity at its very centre, always resisting
attempts to allow one side or the other to achieve final victory."70 Such a model is, of course, the antithesis of prevailing
realist wisdom, and perhaps of modern attitudes in general, which seek to achieve security and
democracy through the establishment of order and the repression of all ambiguity.71¶ 51Rather than posing a
threat to human security, the rhizomatic dimension of the international system may well be a
crucial element in the attempt to establish a democratic ethos that can keep up with the pace of
globalisation. Some aspects of democratic participation can never be institutionalised. Any political
system, no matter how just and refined, rests on a structure of exclusion. It has to separate right from wrong, good from evil, moral from immoral. This
separation is both inevitable and desirable. But to
remain legitimate the respective political foundations need to
be submitted to periodic scrutiny. They require constant readjustments in order to remain adequate and fair.
It is in the struggle for fairness, in the attempt to question established norms and
procedures, that global protest movements, problematic as they are at times, make an
indispensable contribution to democratic politics.¶ 52 The political significance of protest
movments is located precisely in the fact that they cannot be controlled by a central regulatory
force or an institutional framework. They open up possibilities for social change that are
absent within the context of the established legal and political system.72 The various
movements themselves are, of course, far from unproblematic. The violent nature of recent actions against neo-liberal governance may well point
towards the need for greater
political awareness among activists. But such awareness can neither be imposed by
legal norms or political procedures. It needs to emerge from the struggle over values that takes
place in civil society. The fact that this struggle is ongoing does not detract from the positive
potential that is hidden in the movement's rhizomatic nature. These elements embody the very ideal of productive ambiguity
that may well be essential for the long-term survival of democracy.
AT: MCDOWELL
McDowell is all rhetoric—but the things he says ARE necessary involve new
appointments, changing our stance in Busan, and Congressional resolutions
McDowell, 13
(Chair-FCC, 2/15, “Commissioner McDowell Congressional Testimony,”
http://www.fcc.gov/document/commissioner-mcdowell-congressional-testimony)
Thank you Chairman Upton, Ranking Member Waxman, Chairman Royce, Ranking Member Engel, Chairman Walden, Ranking
Member Eshoo, Chairman Poe, Ranking Member Sherman, Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Bass. It is an honor to be before
you during this rare joint hearing. Thank you for inviting me. It is a privilege to testify before such a rare meeting of three
subcommittees and beside such a distinguished group on this panel. Ladies and gentlemen, the Internet is under
assault. As a result, freedom, prosperity and the potential to improve the human
condition across the globe are at risk. Any questions regarding these assertions are now settled. Last year’s
allegations that these claims are exaggerated no longer have credibility. In my testimony today, I will make five fundamental points:
1) Proponents of multilateral intergovernmental control of the Internet are patient and persistent incrementalists who will never
relent until their ends are achieved; 2) The recently concluded World Conference on International Telecommunications (“WCIT”)
ended the era of an international consensus to keep intergovernmental hands off of the Internet in dramatic fashion, thus radically
twisting the one-way ratchet of even more government regulation in this space; 3) Those who cherish Internet freedom
must immediately redouble their efforts to prevent further expansions of government
control of the Internet as the pivotal 2014 Plenipotentiary meeting of the International
Telecommunication Union (“ITU”)1 quickly draws nearer; 4) Merely saying “no” to any changes is – quite obviously – a
losing proposition; therefore we should work to offer alternate proposals such as improving the longstanding and highly successful,
non-governmental, multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance to include those who may feel disenfranchised; and 5) Last
year’s bipartisan and unanimous Congressional resolutions clearly opposing expansions of international powers over the Internet
reverberated throughout the world and had a positive and constructive effect. I. Proponents of multilateral intergovernmental
control of the Internet are patient and persistent incrementalists who will never relent until their ends are achieved. First, it is
important to note that as far back as 2003 during the U.N.’s Summit on the Information Society (“WSIS”), the U.S. found itself in
the lonely position of fending off efforts by other countries to exert U.N. and other multilateral control over the Internet. In both
2003 and 2005, due to the highly effective leadership of my friend Ambassador David Gross – and his stellar team at the
Department of State – champions of Internet freedom were able to avert this crisis by enhancing the private sector multistakeholder governance model through the creation of entities such as the Internet Governance Forum (“IGF”) where all
stakeholders, including governments, could meet to resolve challenges. Solutions should be found through consensus rather than
regulation, as had always been the case with the Internet’s affairs since it was opened up for public use in the early 1990’s.2
Nonetheless, countries such as China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and scores of their allies never
gave up their regulatory quest. They continued to push the ITU, and the U.N. itself, to regulate
both the operations, economics and content of the Net. Some proposals were obvious and specific while others
were insidious and initially appeared innocuous or insignificant. Many defenders of Internet freedom did not take these proposals
seriously at first, even though some plans explicitly called for: • Changing basic definitions contained in treaty text so the ITU would
have unrestricted jurisdiction over the Internet;3 • Allowing foreign phone companies to charge global content and application
providers internationally mandated fees (ultimately to be paid by all Internet consumers) with the goal of generating revenue for
foreign government treasuries;4 • Subjecting cyber security and data privacy to international control, including the creation of an
international “registry” of Internet addresses that could track every Internet-connected device in the world;5 • Imposing
unprecedented economic regulations of rates, terms and conditions for currently unregulated Internet traffic swapping agreements
known as “peering;”6 • Establishing ITU dominion over important non-profit, private sector, multistakeholder functions, such as
administering domain names like the .org and .com Web addresses of the world;7 • Subsuming into the ITU the functions of multistakeholder Internet engineering groups that set technical standards to allow the Net to work;8 • Centralizing under international
regulation Internet content under the guise of controlling “congestion,” or other false pretexts; and many more.9 Despite these
repeated efforts, the unanimously adopted 1988 treaty text that helped insulate the Internet from international regulation, and make
it the greatest deregulatory success story of all time, remained in place. Starting in 2006, however, the ITU’s member states
(including the U.S.) laid the groundwork for convening the WCIT.10 The purpose of the WCIT was to renegotiate the 1988 treaty. As
such, it became the perfect opportunity for proponents of expanded regulation to extend the ITU’s reach into the Internet’s affairs.
In fact, in 2011, thenRussian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin summed it up best when he declared that his goal, and that of his allies,
was to establish “international control over the Internet” through the ITU.11 Last month in Dubai, Mr. Putin largely achieved his
goal. II. December’s WCIT ended the era of international consensus to keep intergovernmental hands off of the Internet in dramatic
fashion. Before the WCIT, ITU leadership made three key promises: 1) No votes would be taken at the WCIT; 2) A new treaty would
be adopted only through “unanimous consensus;” and 3) Any new treaty would not touch the Internet.12 All three promises were
resoundingly broken.13 As a result of an 89-55 vote, the ITU now has unprecedented authority over the economics and content of
key aspects of the Internet.14 Although the U.S. was ultimately joined by 54 other countries in opposition to the new treaty language,
that figure is misleading. Many countries, including otherwise close allies in Europe, were willing to vote to ensnare the Internet in
the tangle of intergovernmental control until Iran complicated the picture with an unacceptable amendment. In short, the U.S.
experienced a rude awakening regarding the stark reality of the situation: when push comes to
shove, even countries that purport to cherish Internet freedom are willing to surrender. Our
experience in Dubai is a chilling foreshadow of how international Internet regulatory policy
could expand at an accelerating pace. Specifically, the explicit terms of the new treaty language give the ITU policing
powers over “SPAM,” and attempt to legitimize under international law foreign government inspections of the content of Internet
communications to assess whether they should be censored by governments under flimsy pretexts such as network congestion.15
The bottom line is, countries have given the ITU jurisdiction over the Internet’s operations and
content. Many more were close to joining them. More broadly, pro-regulation forces succeeded
in upending decades of consensus on the meaning of crucial treaty definitions that were
universally understood to insulate Internet service providers, as well as Internet content and
application providers, from intergovernmental control by changing the treaty’s definitions.16
Many of the same countries, as well as the ITU itself,17 brazenly argued that the old treaty text from 1988 gave the ITU broad
jurisdiction over the Internet.18 If these regulatory expansionists are willing to conjure ITU authority
where clearly none existed, their control-hungry imaginations will see no limits to the ITU’s
authority over the Internet’s affairs under the new treaty language. Their appetite for regulatory
expansionism is insatiable as they envision the omniscience of regulators able to replace the
billions of daily decisions that allow the Internet to blossom and transform the human condition
like no other technology in human history. At the same time, worldwide consumer demand is
driving technological convergence. As a result, companies such as Verizon, Google, AT&T, Amazon, Microsoft,
Netflix, and many more in the U.S. and in other countries, are building across borders thousands of miles of
fiber optics to connect sophisticated routers that bring voice, video and data services more
quickly to consumers tucked into every corner of the globe. From an engineering perspective, the technical
architecture and service offerings of these companies look the same. Despite this wonderful convergence, an international
movement is growing to foist 19th Century regulations designed for railroads, telegraphs and vanishing analog voice phone
monopolies onto new market players that are much different from the monoliths of yore. To be blunt, these dynamic
new
wonders of the early 21st Century are inches away from being smothered by innovation-crushing
old rules designed for a different time. The practical effect of expanded rules would be to
politicize engineering and business decisions inside sclerotic intergovernmental bureaucracies.
If this trend continues, Internet growth would be most severely impaired in the developing
world. But even here, as brilliant and daring technologists work to transform the world, they could be forced to seek bureaucratic
permission to innovate and invest. In sum, the dramatic encroachments on Internet freedom
secured in Dubai will serve as a stepping stone to more international regulation of
the Internet in the very near future. The result will be devastating even if the United States does not ratify these
toxic new treaties. We must waste no time fighting to prevent further governmental
expansion into the Internet’s affairs at the upcoming ITU Plenipotentiary in 2014.
Time is of the essence. While we debate what to do next, Internet freedom’s foes around the
globe are working hard to exploit a treaty negotiation that dwarfs the importance of the WCIT by
orders of magnitude. In 2014, the ITU will conduct what is literally a constitutional convention,
called a “plenipotentiary” meeting, which will define the ITU’s mission for years to come. Its
constitution will be rewritten and a new Secretary General will be elected. This scenario poses both a threat and an
opportunity for Internet freedom. The outcome of this massive treaty negotiation is uncertain,
but the momentum favors those pushing for more Internet regulation. More immediately, the World
Telecommunications Policy/ICT Forum (“WTPF”), which convenes in Geneva this May, will focus squarely on Internet governance
and will shape the 2014 Plenipotentiary. Accordingly, the highest levels of the U.S. Government must make this cause a top priority
and recruit allies in civil society, the private sector and diplomatic circles around the world. The effort should start with
the President immediately making appointments to fill crucial vacancies in our diplomatic ranks. The
recent departures of my distinguished friend, Ambassador Phil Verveer, his legendary deputy Dick Beaird, as well as WCIT
Ambassador Terry Kramer, have left a hole in the United States’ ability to advocate for a constructive – rather than destructive –
Plenipot. America and Internet freedom’s allies simply cannot dither again. If we do, we will fail, and global freedom and prosperity
will suffer. We should work to offer constructive alternative proposals, such as improving the highly
successful multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance to include those who feel
disenfranchised. As I warned a year ago, merely saying “no” to any changes to the multistakeholder Internet governance model has recently proven to be a losing proposition.19
Ambassador Gross can speak to this approach far better than can I, but using the creation of the IGF as a model, we should
immediately engage with all countries to encourage a dialogue among all interested parties,
including governments, civil society, the private sector, non-profits and the ITU, to broaden the
multi-stakeholder umbrella to provide those who feel disenfranchised from the current structure with a meaningful role in
shaping the evolution of the Internet. Primarily due to economic and logistical reasons, many developing
world countries are not able to play a role in the multi-stakeholder process. This is unacceptable
and should change immediately. Developing nations stand to gain the most from unfettered
Internet connectivity, and they will be injured the most by centralized multilateral control of its
operations and content. V. Last year’s bipartisan and unanimous Congressional resolutions clearly
opposing expansions of international powers over the Internet reverberated around the world
and had a positive and constructive effect, but Congress must do more. In my nearly seven years of service
on the FCC, I have been amazed by how closely every government and communications provider on
the globe studies the latest developments in American communications policy . In fact,
we can be confident that this hearing is streaming live in some countries, and is being blocked by government censors in others.
Every detail of our actions is scrutinized. It is truly humbling to learn that even my statements have been read in Thailand and
Taiwan, as well as translated into Polish and Italian. And when Congress speaks, especially when it speaks with
one loud and clear voice, as it did last year with the unanimous and bipartisan resolutions
concerning the WCIT, an uncountable number of global policymakers pause to think. Time and
again, I have been told by international legislators, ministers, regulators and business leaders that last year’s resolutions had a
positive effect on the outcome of the WCIT. Although Internet freedom suffered as a result of the WCIT, many even more corrosive
proposals did not become international law in part due to your actions.20 IV. Conclusion. And so, I ask you in the strongest terms
possible, to take action and take action now. Two years hence, let us not look back at this moment and lament how we
did not do enough. We have but one chance. Let
us tell the world that we will be resolute and stand strong
for Internet freedom. All nations should join us. Thank you for having me appear before you today. I look forward to your
questions.
A) We won’t change our hardline stance at Busan—takes out solvency
Scola 10/20 (Nancy; Here’s how the U.S. plans to avoid a U.N. vote on the future of the
Internet; Oct 20; www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/20/heres-how-theu-s-plans-to-avoid-a-u-n-vote-on-the-future-of-the-internet/; kdf)
The latest battle over who should run the Internet will be waged in the South Korean port city of Busan
over the next three weeks. For U.S. officials headed to the United Nation's International Telecommunication Union's Plenipotentiary
Conference, the goal is simple: prevent a vote. In short, the State Department's approach is
this: Convince the representatives of the other 192 member countries attending the conference that the 150-year-old
U.N. technical body is the wrong forum for existential questions about how the Internet should work.
That could buy time to improve the current "multi-stakeholder" model that has been used to
govern the Internet's operations for years, and make it better able to handle the knottiest questions, from e-mail spam to
government-conducted digital surveillance. "It is our hope that there will not be votes," said the U.S.'
delegation's leader, Ambassador Daniel Sepulveda, who previewed the strategy at a roundtable at the Foreign Press Club in Washington,
D.C., last week. The debate on the fate of the Internet is setting up a fascinating diplomatic dance, made thornier for U.S. officials by lingering foreign
suspicion of U.S. surveillance efforts in the wake of Edward Snowden's revelations. Taking a step back, U.S.
officials see the potential
wrangling in Busan as part of the desire of some governments, Russia and China chief among
them, to gain greater latitude to block content, turn off the Internet and otherwise exercise more
control over the online world. "Countries want to be able to legitimize their own decisions about
censorship," Under Secretary of State Catherine Novelli said at the roundtable, "and that's why these proposals are put
forward." But others argue that revelations about digital surveillance programs at U.S. intelligence agencies, including on foreign governments,
prove that the U.S. is abusing its long-time role as semi-official steward of the Internet. That sets up an interesting subtext in Busan. What the State
Department is attempting is tricky. They'll argue that the United States does not dominate the multi-stakeholder system, in which engineers,
academics, civil society and government representatives — what Sepulveda describes as "anyone who cares" about the Internet — all have a voice. But
that case is arguably weakened by the fact that the United States is making it the loudest. And so, the U.S. officials' best bet, State Department officials
say, is to win hearts and minds before any formal voting can take place. Their approach is two-fold. First, prove to other countries that the Californiabased Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, is capable of ably handling what's known as naming and numbering — the
nuts and bolts of Web site names and the numerical addressing system that powers the Internet. And second, to convince other countries that the ITU
is the wrong forum for adjudicating privacy and related concerns. Sepulveda distilled the pitch for addressing proposals that "try to leverage" the
Snowden disclosures: "This is a gathering of communications ministers whose focus is connectivity to communications, not on how states or
individuals can use those communications." That said, making the delegation's efforts more difficult is that proposals that could weaken ICANN's
position will likely be cloaked in jargon and nuance. Said Under Secretary Novelli: "It's not that there's just one proposal saying, 'Okay, let's abandon
the multi-stakeholder system and put it all on the ITU.' " And so, in South Korea, the U.S. delegation is on the lookout for piecemeal propositions that
quietly shift responsibilities from the multi-stakeholder model to the ITU. Those might be changes to technical definitions that push certain
technologies under the United Nations' umbrella.
B) Congressional resolutions already solve
KATHERINE MAHER 3-19-2014 Katherine Maher is advocacy director for the digital rights group Access
(accessnow.org) and a fellow with the Truman National Security Project.No, the U.S. Isn’t ‘Giving Up Control’ of the Internet
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/control-of-the-internet-104830_Page2.html#.VDK3nxYnNHs
In its announcement, the NTIA made it clear that it would abide by Congress’s will. Although
its critics have short
memories, Congress responded to the last scare over global Internet control with concurrent
resolutions in late 2012 in which both houses affirmed their commitment to “preserve and
advance the multistakeholder governance model under which the Internet has thrived,” rejecting
stewardship by another government or intergovernmental body.
AT: MINTON
Reject their authors—Gardner is from a gaming services website—Black Friday
was over 3 years ago and the internet hasn’t collapsed.
Minton is writing for Breitbart which is some bullshit
Source Watch no date – accessed 10/12 (Center for Media and Democracy,
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Andrew_Breitbart#Sourcewatch_resources)
Race baiting
Breitbart was behind the July 2010 attempt to smear Department of Agriculture employee Shirley
Sherrod by heavily editing a video of a speech she gave to make it appear she was confessing to
being racist. The story she told, in its entirety, was exactly the opposite -- it was a story of redemption in
which Sherrod explained how she had overcome feelings of racism to realize everyone needed to be treated equally.
Media Matters described the episode this way:
In a July 19 BigGovernment.com post -- headlined "Video Proof: The NAACP Awards Racism -- 2010" -- Breitbart purported to
provide "video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient." The heavily edited video clip
Breitbart posted shows Shirley Sherrod, then the USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, speaking at an NAACP Freedom
Fund dinner in Georgia, and stating that she didn't give a "white farmer" the "full force of what I could do" because "I was struggling
with the fact that so many black people have lost their farmland, and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their
land." Breitbart characterized Sherrod's comments as her "describ[ing] how she racially discriminates against a white farmer."
Full video vindicates Sherrod, destroys Breitbart's accusations of racism. On July 20, the NAACP posted the full video of
Sherrod's remarks, exposing how the clip Breitbart posted had taken Sherrod out of context. The heavily edited clip included her
statements that she initially did not help the farmer, but removed her statements indicating that she ultimately did help him save his
farm and learned that "it's not just about black people, it's about poor people."
Immediately prior to the portion of Sherrod's speech included in Breitbart's clip, Sherrod says that she originally made a
"commitment" "to black people only," but that "God will show you things and he'll put things in your path so that you realize that the
struggle is really about poor people." Immediately following the portion of the video included in the clip, Sherrod detailed her
extensive work to help the farmer save his farm. She then said, "working with him made me see that it's really about those who have
versus those who don't," adding "they could be black, and they could be white, they could be Hispanic. And it made me realize then
that I needed to work to help poor people -- those who don't have access the way others have." She later added, "I couldn't say 45
years ago, I couldn't stand here and say what I'm saying -- what I will say to you tonight. Like I told, God helped me to see that its not
just about black people, it's about poor people. And I've come a long way."
Breitbart portrayed Sherrod as a member of the Obama administration when she made the comments, which wasn't the case. The
video of her speech was made in 1986, many years prior to the Obama Administration.[3][4]
Distortion
Breitbart was also behind the coordinated release of heavily edited undercover videos that
misrepresented the activities of the community group ACORN. Media Matters writes,
On September 10, 2009, conservative activist and videographer James O'Keefe posted an entry to BigGovernment.com in which he
revealed that he and fellow activist Hannah Giles had posed as a pimp and prostitute at a Baltimore ACORN Housing office and
secretly filmed their meetings with ACORN staffers. As O'Keefe wrote, their intention was to take "advantage of ACORN's regard for
thug criminality by posing the most ridiculous criminal scenario we could think of and seeing if they would comply -- which they did
without hesitation," the "scenario" being the "trafficking of young helpless girls and tax evasion." O'Keefe would later release similar
recordings of their interactions with ACORN and ACORN Housing employees at several other ACORN offices nationwide.
Breitbart authored a separate September 10 BigGovernment.com post "introducing" O'Keefe and making it
clear that he and BigGovernment.com would play a central role in the distribution of O'Keefe and Giles' videos. But as Breitbart,
O'Keefe, and Giles released and promoted the "heavily edited" videos, their
allegations about ACORN and its employees were
undermined by numerous falsehoods and distortions. Subsequent investigations revealed no pattern of
intentional, illegal misconduct by ACORN, and no criminality by ACORN personnel. It did, however, find the videos had been
heavily edited to cast ACORN in a negative light. [5]