Gonzaga Debate Institute 2010

I-Law Adv. – Impact – Self-Determination

International law prompts self-determination

Naqvi 96 (Feisal Hussain, associate at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, “People’s Rights or Victim’s Rights: Reexamining the Conceptualization of Indigenous Rights in International Law,” Indiana Law Journal, Summer, pg.- l/n)

The proposal here though is to look at the right to self-determination not just from the perspective of to what "peoples" are entitled, but in light of Hohfeld's observation that "one person's right must mean another person's duty." ³⁵⁸ The question is who has the duty to provide the right to self-determination. In a classical context, this "duty" is basically the obligation of the colonial state to dismember itself. However, widening the concept of self-determination in turn widens the scope of state obligations to protect the right of self-determination by granting some limited degree of autonomy to parties deserving it. The right to self-determination envisioned here, at an irreducible minimum, encompasses both the right of all ethnic and indigenous communities to continue to exist, in Anaya's words, as "distinct units of human interaction," 359 and the duty of host states to protect that distinct status.

Though international law cannot attempt to freeze the process of cultural change, "it can attempt to locate processes of change in the general context of human rights, so that members of groups can play a part in the development of their heritage and choose the basis on which their culture can adapt to the world." 360 Recognition of this right imposes a duty on the state to accomodate and preserve particular communities. Even if a community is too small to demand realistically even the most limited degree of partial autonomy, the right to self-determination -- that is, the right of a community to choose the basis on which its culture changes -- must still be preserved and exercised on its behalf by the host state as part of its obligations to that community.
Self determination fuses democracy and group autonomy, while protecting distinctive cultures.

Binder 1993 (Guyora professor of law at S.U.N.Y. at Buffalo, “The Kaplan Lecture on Human Rights: The Case for Self-Determination,” Stanford Journal of International Law, Winter, pg. – l/n)

My argument against reducing group self-determination claims to instruments for the protection of individual autonomy will proceed in three steps. First, I will show that one important benefit of group autonomy, the protection of distinctive cultures, must be seen as a collective good, not just a benefit to individuals. Second, I will argue that devotion to any moral end gives us reason to create a distinctive culture and embody it in an autonomous political institution. It follows that respecting the moral autonomy of individuals entails respecting the autonomy of the groups through which they pursue their moral ends. Third, I will show how this argument for group autonomy integrates the universalist and nationalist components of self-determination. On the one hand, building and sustaining democracy requires the  [*250]  nurturing of a distinctive culture. On the other hand, groups best realize the moral autonomy of individuals if they are democratically governed.

I conclude that the original romantic ideal of self-determination rightly fused democracy with group autonomy. Democracy depends upon group autonomy, while the autonomy rights of groups depend upon their democracy. These two aspirations are not, in the end, separable components of the principle of self-determination, but inextricable skeins of a single fabric.

I-Law Adv – A2: Link Takeouts

PMC’s violate international law – your authors assume they are civilian contractors

Cameron 7 (Lindsey, Teaching Assistant at the University of Geneva, International Review of the Red Cross 88(863)JFS

Some of the newest armed non-state parties operating in unstable states and conflict situations come from an unusual source: the private sector. Ever since the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, with Coalition forces buoyed by the presence of upwards of 20,000 individuals employed by private military companies (PMC’s), the role, status, accountability and regulation of those companies has been hotly debated. States are vitally aware of the need to address the proliferation of private military companies – impelled as much by concerns about losing control of their monopoly over the use of violence and the impact of that industry on national military policy as by a willingness to uphold their obligations under international law. Two incidents in particular have driven the discourse.1 First, the killing and mutilation of four employees of the private military company Blackwater and the following assault on Fallujah in April 2004 using ‘‘over-whelming force’’ have led to questions about the relationship of the military to these contractors and the accuracy of calling them ‘‘civilian’’ contractors. Second, the implication of civilian contractors of the private military company CACI in the torture of internees at the Abu Ghraib detention facility has drawn attention to the qualifications of such contractors for the tasks they are performing, as well as to their accountability for human rights abuses they may commit.2 Although some US military personnel have been tried in courts-martial for their actions at Abu Ghraib, none of the private contractors allegedly involved has been brought to court on criminal charges.3 To a great extent the debates around private military companies fall within wider debates about the privatization of government functions.4 The myriad policy decisions that the rise of this industry demands are best left to others; this article does not seek to judge or condemn these companies but merely to provide a picture as to how international humanitarian law applies to them, for when it comes to the status of private military company employees, confusion abounds. Governments repeatedly assert that PMC employees are ‘‘civilian contractors’’, implying that they do not perceive these individuals as combatants. A minority of the international community treats all PMC’s as bands of criminal mercenaries,5 yet employees of some PMC’s are attempting to benefit from combatant status to protect themselves against civil lawsuits brought in the United States for their role in torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison.6 In the burgeoning academic literature on the subject, many authors consider and reject the possibility that individuals employed by private military companies are mercenaries, but fail to elucidate what their status is if they are not mercenaries.7 This paper therefore seeks to set the record straight as to the legal status of PMC’s and their employees under international humanitarian law. This exercise is essential, as it is only when their status is understood and accepted that they can be regulated effectively. After an outline of the PMC industry, a brief overview will be provided of the law on mercenaries in international law and international humanitarian law, drawing on examples from Iraq. The question as to whether private military company employees are combatants or civilians according to accepted legal definitions will then be discussed. A word on their existing accountability for violations of international humanitarian law is also appropriate.8 The starting point is that it is patently incorrect to state that ‘‘these [private military companies] act in a void, virtually free from legal restraints’’.9 The paper will conclude with recommendations and considerations that states may wish to take into account when developing regulatory schemes for private military companies.