Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    Ashes92's Avatar
    Ashes92 Posts: 14, Reputation: 3
    New Member
     
    #1

    Mar 2, 2007, 09:07 AM
    What does this new debate topic mean?
    Ok I need help with the new LD debate topic for the months of march and April.

    The new topic is "Resolved: The United Nation's obligation to protect global human rights ought to be valued above its obligation to respect national sovereignty."

    I know what most of it means but I'm kind of stuck on the sovereignty part.
    If someone could explain to me what it means and possibly how to write a case on it I would be very happy. :)
    kp2171's Avatar
    kp2171 Posts: 5,318, Reputation: 1612
    Uber Member
     
    #2

    Mar 2, 2007, 09:54 AM
    Sovereignty is a nations right to govern itself and its people. For example, lets say a nation thinks its OK for children to work long hours and in dangerous conditions (extreme example, I know). Or that labor camp conditions are acceptable. As a nation, it may have the "right" to make its own rules, laws.

    The issue here is the conflict between respecting a nations right to govern itself versus the protection of basic human rights.

    So this statement, whether you agree or not, is saying the UN has a higher obligation to protect human rights, even if that means ignoring a country's right to self rule.

    Well then, what action should be taken by the UN? Economic sanctions? Military backing? When should a nation's ability to self rule be ignored in the face of human suffering?

    Easier to deal with when the country in question is "over there"... but what if it were your own country?

    There are recent claims, not tied to the UN, by people in the arctic that greenhouse gas emissions are hurting their right to livelihood. That reduced or thin ice is making hunting dangeroous and deadly, that their way of living is being destroyed, in part, by greenhouse gases... a large % of which is emitted by the US. So... in this case, should the UN impose action against the US because the actions threaten the well being of a people? I'm not advocating one position or another. I'm pointing out just another angle.

    Certainly there are easier cases to consider. Genocide, for example. Look at what was happening in yugoslavia. In cambodia. In africa now.

    Part of the talk against iraq dealt with a dictators killing of his own people, though the big push was WMD's. Again, I'm not interested in argueing the issue. I'm pointing out examples tied to the topic, so lets not get off topic here people.

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

Philosophy Debate [ 10 Answers ]

Hey all, I am currently taking a philosophy course and we have been assigned a debate assignment that is in regards to the morality of stem cell research. My group was given the task of being opposed to stem cell research. If anyone can give me any idea why people may be opposed to stem cell...

Interesting Question/Debate.. [ 24 Answers ]

Hi everyone... I wanted to raise this question, having a bit of a debate! Does anyone think there is a correlation between gender and whether you are the dumper or dumpee. What I mean is, do men walk from relationships more than women or is it vice versa? It seems to me that from what...

Private tuition [ Debate ] [ 3 Answers ]

Hey peeps, Im going to be debating the motion " Private tuition brings more disadvantages than advantages" and I'm on government. Could anyone help me out? Both pros and cons of private tutoring are welcomed!

Tax debate,NY or PA [ 1 Answers ]

What would be the better of two. I work in Salamanca,NY. Right now I live in NJ. I am moving out of NJ. Which would be better tax wise, to live in Bradford,PA or Salamanca area, NY? If my income is approx. 1K what would be the savings?


View more questions Search