Judicial Independence Bad - Accountability 1NC

Judicial independence makes judges less accountablethis is a recipe for corruption and judicial
incompetence
Krotoszynski 06 (Ronald, Professor of Law and Alumni Faculty Fellow, Washington & Lee University School of Law,
May, 104 Mich. L. Rev. 1321, lexis)
The final chapter of Judges in Contemporary Democracy addresses the problem of judicial misconduct and judicial discipline. A serious

accountability problem
arises because the independence necessary to secure the rule of law also insulates corrupt or incompetent judges from appropriate
discipline (up to, and including, removal from office). If one secures effective judicial accountability, it almost certainly comes at the price of judicial independence.
President Rodriguez Iglesias suggests that judicial independence is crucial to securing the rule of law (pp. 282-84). At the same time, however, some
form of judicial accountability must exist to counter judicial malfeasance and misbehavior. "The need to guarantee the judge's independence is difficult to
reconcile with the adoption of a proper system of judicial responsibility" (p. 284). Making judges directly accountable to political institutions risks the
politicization of the judicial task and ultimately the rule of law itself ; leaving judges free to police themselves, on the other hand, risks "corporate
solidarity" and a failure to address conduct that undermines the legitimacy of the judiciary (pp. 284-85). "The problem is that the need for judicial
independence is hard to reconcile with the creation of a system for assuring responsibility" (p. 302).

1
Property of Jessie Chen, the CEO of Asian Debate League All Copy Rights Reserved

Judicial Independence Bad Afghanistan 1NC

A. Judicial independence would result in a collapse of Afghanistans government
Rubin, PHD, Director Afghanistan studies @ NYU 3
(Barnett R. Rubin, PHD @ UChicago, Director of afghan studies @ NYU, 6-5-2003. [Presentation to Constitutional Commission of
Afghanistan www.cic.nyu.edu/archive/pdf/Presentationto.pdf
Finally, I understand that the commission is considering establishment of a constitutional court to review legislation and
acts of the government for conformity to the constitution. Afghanistan never had such judicial review in the past. Instead,
it was the responsibility of the king to assure that the government acted in accord with the constitution and the
fundamental principles (asasat) of Islam. Many new democracies have established such courts to safeguard the rights of
the people. Unfortunately, if judicial review is established in too broad a manner, it can have negative effects on the
functioning of government. If a court reviews legislation before it is enacted, such review can delay necessary
government decision-making. If a court has the power to decide if the governments decisions conform to a general idea
like the principles of Islam, it has a tremendous amount of discretion, it can misuse for political purposes. In Pakistan, for
instance, a court overturned arbitrarily the commercial code and the banking laws; on the grounds that they contradicted
Sharia with disastrous economic effects. We have seen such dangerous results in Pakistan. In the past the responsibility
for conformity to the principles of Islam remained with riyasat-i taqnin and the executive, acting on the advice of experts.
The commission might consider if this system might be sufficient for the country today as well. A number of the experts
whom we consulted suggested that the jurisdiction of the constitutional court should be limited to disputes involving
fundamental rights and relations among different parts of the government, as is done in Malaysia, where the laws also
conform to Islamic principles.

B. Collapse leads to Middle East war

The Guardian 7
(The Guardian Failure in Afghanistan risks rise in terror, say generals July 15 2007
www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/jul/15/world.afghanistan)
Britain's most senior generals have issued a blunt warning to Downing Street that the military campaign in Afghanistan is
facing a catastrophic failure, a development that could lead to an Islamist government seizing power in neighbouring
Pakistan. Amid fears that London and Washington are taking their eye off Afghanistan as they grapple with Iraq, the
generals have told Number 10 that the collapse of the government in Afghanistan, headed by Hamid Karzai, would
present a grave threat to the security of Britain. Lord Inge, the former chief of the defence staff, highlighted their fears in
public last week when he warned of a 'strategic failure' in Afghanistan. The Observer understands that Inge was speaking
with the direct authority of the general staff when he made an intervention in a House of Lords debate. 'The situation in
Afghanistan is much worse than many people recognise,' Inge told peers. 'We need to face up to that issue, the consequence
of strategic failure in Afghanistan and what that would mean for Nato... We need to recognise that the situation - in my
view, and I have recently been in Afghanistan - is much, much more serious than people want to recognise.' Inge's remarks
reflect the fears of serving generals that the government is so overwhelmed by Iraq that it is in danger of losing sight of the
threat of failure in Afghanistan. One source, who is familiar with the fears of the senior officers, told The Observer: 'If you
talk privately to the generals they are very very worried. You heard it in Inge's speech. Inge said we are failing and
remember Inge speaks for the generals.' Inge made a point in the Lords of endorsing a speech by Lord Ashdown, the
former Liberal Democrat leader, who painted a bleak picture during the debate. Ashdown told The Observer that
Afghanistan presented a graver threat than Iraq. 'The consequences of failure in Afghanistan are far greater than in Iraq,' he
said. 'If we fail in Afghanistan then Pakistan goes down. The security problems for Britain would be massively multiplied. I
think you could not then stop a widening regional war that would start off in warlordism but it would become
essentially a war in the end between Sunni and Shia right across the Middle East.' 'Mao Zedong used to refer to the
First and Second World Wars as the European civil wars. You can have a regional civil war. That is what you might begin
to see. It will be catastrophic for Nato. The damage done to Nato in Afghanistan would be as great as the damage done to
the UN in Bosnia. That could have a severe impact on the Atlantic relationship and maybe even damage the American
security guarantee for Europe.'

2
Property of Jessie Chen, the CEO of Asian Debate League All Copy Rights Reserved

Judicial Independence Bad Afghanistan 1NC

C. Middle East war goes nuclear
John Steinbach, DC Iraq Coalition, ISRAELI WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION: A THREAT TO PEACE, March
2002, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html
Meanwhile, the existence of an arsenal of mass destruction in such an unstable region in turn has serious implications for
future arms control and disarmament negotiations, and even the threat of nuclear war. Seymour Hersh warns, "Should war
break out in the Middle East again,... or should any Arab nation fire missiles against Israel, as the Iraqis did, a nuclear
escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability." and Ezar Weissman, Israel's
current President said "The nuclear issue is gaining momentum(and the) next war will not be conventional." Russia and
before it the Soviet Union has long been a major(if not the major) target of Israeli nukes. It is widely reported that the
principal purpose of Jonathan Pollard's spying for Israel was to furnish satellite images of Soviet targets and other super
sensitive data relating to U.S. nuclear targeting strategy. (Since launching its own satellite in 1988, Israel no longer needs
U.S. spy secrets.) Israeli nukes aimed at the Russian heartland seriously complicate disarmament and arms control
negotiations and, at the very least, the unilateral possession of nuclear weapons by Israel is enormously destabilizing, and
dramatically lowers the threshold for their actual use, if not for all out nuclear war. In the words of Mark Gaffney, "... if the
familiar pattern(Israel refining its weapons of mass destruction with U.S. complicity) is not reversed soon- for whatever
reason- the deepening Middle East conflict could trigger a world conflagration."

3
Property of Jessie Chen, the CEO of Asian Debate League All Copy Rights Reserved

Judicial Independence Bad - Democracy 1NC

Judicial independence ensures an insulated judiciarythis is antithetical to democracy
Re 99 (Edward, Chief Judge Emeritus of the United States Court of International Trade and Distinguished Professor of
Law, St. John's University School of Law, Summer, 14 St. John's J.L. Comm. 79, lexis)
Judicial independence was meticulously established by the framers of the Constitution and jealously guarded by all concerned with the administration
of justice. 2 Past mechanisms designed to protect that independence, however, may have created the appearance of an insulated, privileged branch
of government. Quite apart from legal considerations, the presence of such a class of persons, however small or exceptional, is an
anachronism in a modern democracy. Comparatively recent congressional efforts to provide accountability for Federal judges, without
infringing on the bounds of necessary judicial independence, culminated in the enactment of the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct
and Disability Act of 1980. 3

4
Property of Jessie Chen, the CEO of Asian Debate League All Copy Rights Reserved

Judicial Independence Bad Environment 1NC

Judicial supremacy and activist judges are the deciding cause of environmental regulation rollback
Doug Kendal et. al., Founder and Executive Director @ Community Rights Counsel, 1 [NRDC paper, Hostile Environment: How
Activist Judges Threaten Our Air, War, and Land, http://www.nrdc.org/legislation/hostile/hostile.pdf]

Our nations environmental protections constitute one of this countrys most significant
accomplishments of the second half of the twentieth century . Through years of effort, visionary leaders and
environmentalists have successfully translated public support for protecting natural resourcesour air, water, and land
into effective and far-reaching legislation. Enjoying widespread popular support and bipartisan endorsement in Congress,
these statutes have been strengthened in both Republican and Democratic administrations, and they have survived repeated,
industry-funded rollback attempts. These protections now face a grave challenge in an unlikely venue: our

nations federal courts. A group of highly ideological and activist sitting judges are already threatening
the very core of environmental law. New appointees to the bench could transform this threat into a
death sentence for many environmental protections. In the last decade, judges have imposed a gauntlet
of new hurdles in the path of environmental regulators, slammed the courthouse doors in the face of
citizens seeking to protect the environment, and sketched the outline of a jurisprudence of economic
liberties under the Takings and Commerce Clauses of the Constitution that would frustrate or repeal
most federal environmental statutes. These judgesmost of them appointed to the bench by Presidents Ronald
Reagan and George H. W. Bush are engaging in anti-environmental judicial activism . They read into the
Constitution powers of judicial oversight that courts have never previously exercised. They ignore
statutory language and intent, substituting instead their own policy preferences . Although their opinions
sometimes pay lip service to the benefits of environmental protections, their activist ideology leads them to invalidate these
safeguards. They do this despite the widespread support our environmental laws enjoy among our elected
representatives and the American people.

Biodiversity loss leads to extinction

Diner gender paraphrased 94
Military Law Review Winter 1994 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161 LENGTH: 30655 words ARTICLE: THE ARMY AND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT: WHO'S
ENDANGERING WHOM? NAME: MAJOR DAVID N. DINER BIO: Judge Advocate General's Corps, United States Army.

Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow
ecological niches. These ecosystems inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex
the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to
others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads -which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." n79 By causing widespread extinctions, humans have
artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure.
The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are
relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or
plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and
human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the
rivets from an aircraft's wings, n80 [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.
5
Property of Jessie Chen, the CEO of Asian Debate League All Copy Rights Reserved

Judicial Independence Bad Race 1NC

Judicial independence empirically bad for minorities
Richard Delgado, 99. Prof. of Law @ Univ. of Colorado. Rodrigos Committee Assignment: A Skeptical Look at
Judicial Independence,
On the subject of courage, consider courts race jurisprudence. I know you may feel differently in light of your own
experience, but history shows that judicial independence has not been of great help to minorities . Courts
sometimes hand down helpful opinions, to be sure. But some of the worst Plessy,107 Dred Scott,108
McClesky v. Kemp,109 Bowers v. Harwick 110 came down when the Court was not under great
pressure. And some of the best decisions Brown,111 Hernandez,112 and in Australia, Mabo113 were handed down
when it was. Pressure can, of course, make courts rule even more regressively than they ordinarily would consider
how right-wing pressure or Southern resistance brought about the Adarand114 decision, the reversal of Metro
Broadcasting,115 or Brown II116. Liberals who worry about judicial independence seem to assume that

without pressure, courts will do the right thing. But unpressured, business-as usual judging is the real
problem, not the pressured kind. You and I once discussed how systemic evils, like racism, that are deeply
imbedded in the fabric of society, are very hard to see and correct.117 We called it the empathic fallacy, if I recall.118

6
Property of Jessie Chen, the CEO of Asian Debate League All Copy Rights Reserved

Judicial Independence Bad SOP 1NC

A) Failure of other branches to play a proper role in interpreting the Constitution undermines Separation of Powers:

Robert J. Kaczorowski, 2005 Professor of Law at Fordham University School of Law, March 2005.
[The Fordham Law Review, Theories of taking the Constitution seriously outside the courts: popular
Constitutionalism versus justice in plain clothes: reflections from history, p.lexis]
A majority of the American public today believes that the Supreme Court should have the final authority
to interpret the Constitution. In light of history, Kramer argues, the current acceptance of judicial
supremacy "is exceedingly anomalous." The practice of judicial supremacy takes control over
fundamental law away from the people and turns it over to "a judicial oligarchy." Consequently, Kramer contends that
advocates of judicial supremacy are anti-democratic who believe "that popular politics is by nature dangerous and arbitrary; that "tyranny of the majority' is a pervasive
threat; that a democratic constitutional order is therefore precarious and highly vulnerable; and that substantial checks on politics are necessary lest things fall apart."

Kramer sees the current debate regarding judicial supremacy as the same debate over the question of
how to control an excess of democracy or popular rule that arose at the founding and again during the
middle of the nineteenth century. It is a debate between democracy and aristocracy, and aristocracy is
currently winning.
B) Flawed model of separation of powers causes global wars

Zakaria, 1997 editor of Newsweek International, 97 (Fareed, Foreign Affairs, November, LN)
When divining the cause behind this correlation, one thing becomes clear: the democratic peace is actually the liberal peace. Writing in the
eighteenth century, Kant believed that democracies were tyrannical, and he specifically excluded them from his conception of "republican" governments, which lived
in a zone of peace. Republicanism,

for Kant, meant a separation of powers, checks and balances, the rule of law,

protection of individual rights, and some level of representation in government (though nothing close to universal suffrage). Kant's other
explanations for the "perpetual peace" between republics are all closely linked to their constitutional and liberal character: a mutual respect for the rights of each other's
citizens, a system of checks and balances assuring that no single leader can drag his country into war, and classical liberal economic policies -- most importantly, free
trade -- which create an interdependence that makes war costly and cooperation useful. Michael Doyle, the leading scholar on the subject, confirms in his 1997 book
Ways of War and Peace that without constitutional liberalism, democracy itself has no peace-inducing qualities: Kant distrusted unfettered, democratic majoritarianism,
and his argument offers no support for a claim that all participatory polities -- democracies -- should be peaceful, either in general or between fellow democracies. Many
participatory polities have been non-liberal. For two thousand years before the modern age, popular rule was widely associated with aggressiveness (by Thucydides) or
imperial success (by Machiavelli) . . . The decisive preference of [the] median voter might well include "ethnic cleansing" against other democratic polities. The
distinction between liberal and illiberal democracies sheds light on another striking statistical correlation. Political scientists Jack Snyder and Edward Mansfield
contend, using an impressive data set, that over the last 200 years democratizing states went to war significantly more often than either stable autocracies or liberal
democracies. In

countries not grounded in constitutional liberalism, the rise of democracy often brings with
it hyper-nationalism and war-mongering. When the political system is opened up, diverse groups with incompatible interests gain access to
power and press their demands. Political and military leaders, who are often embattled remnants of the old authoritarian order, realize that to succeed that they must
rally the masses behind a national cause. The

result is invariably aggressive rhetoric and policies, which often drag

countries into confrontation and war. Noteworthy examples range from Napoleon III's France, Wilhelmine Germany, and Taisho Japan to
those in today's newspapers, like Armenia and Azerbaijan and Milosevic's Serbia. The democratic peace, it turns out, has little to do with democracy.

7
Property of Jessie Chen, the CEO of Asian Debate League All Copy Rights Reserved

Judicial Independence Bad Tyranny 1NC

Powerful courts inevitably become authoritarian in their rule becoming tyrants on the bench
Graglia, prof law Texas, 2000
(Lino A. Graglia, A. Dalton Cross Professor in Law at the University of Texas at Austin, Fall 2000, Harvard Journal of Law & Public
Policy, Revitalizing Democracy, 24 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 165, Lexis) [Dan Li]

The most we can or should ask of the Court on the federalism issue is that it cease its pretend review and
thus make clear that the responsibility for the growth of federal power lies solely with Congress .
Congress will undoubtedly continue to legislate freely on almost all issues, but this shows only that, at
least since the New Deal, we have had a true [*168] national government, like a "normal" country - as they say in
the Russia that is emerging from the Soviet Union n8 - and it seems very clear that, rightly or wrongly, this is what the
people want. Decentralization, to repeat, is an aid to democracy and protection against tyranny, but we
do not further democracy by having the Supreme Court take the issue out of the political process . Most
important, we contradict ourselves when we complain of the Justices' willingness to assume decisionmaking power on every issue of basic social policy only to turn around and ask them to protect us from
our elected representatives in Congress. A Court powerful enough to do that is too powerful to be
expected to uphold policies with which it disagrees and too powerful to be left free of electoral
accountability. Democracy requires protection only from, not by, the Supreme Court.
Tyranny leads to worldwide war
Doyle, 04
(Michael
W
Doyle,
22
June
2004,
Liberal
Internationalism:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/articles/doyle/index.html) [Dan Li]

Peace,

War

and

Democracy,

Peace and democracy are just two sides of the same coin , it has often been said. In a speech before the British
parliament in June of 1982, President Ronald Reagan proclaimed that governments founded on a respect for individual
liberty exercise "restraint" and "peaceful intentions" in their foreign policy. He then, perhaps unaware of the contrast,
announced a "crusade for freedom" and a "campaign for democratic development."2 In making these claims the President
joined a long list of liberal theorists (and propagandists) and echoed an old argument: the aggressive instincts of

authoritarian leaders and totalitarian ruling parties make for war. Liberal states, founded on such
individual rights as equality before the law, free speech and other civil liberties, private property, and
elected representation are fundamentally against war, this argument asserts. When citizens who bear the burdens
of war elect their governments, wars become impossible. Furthermore, citizens appreciate that the benefits of trade can be
enjoyed only under conditions of peace. Thus, the very existence of liberal states, such as the United States,

the European Union and others, makes for peace. And so peace and democracy are two sides of the
same coin.

8
Property of Jessie Chen, the CEO of Asian Debate League All Copy Rights Reserved

Judicial Independence Bad Environment Ext

Judicial supremacy has prevented congress from passing environmental regulation.

Doug Kendal et. al., Founder and Executive Director @ Community Rights Counsel, 1 [NRDC paper, Hostile Environment: How
Activist Judges Threaten Our Air, War, and Land, http://www.nrdc.org/legislation/hostile/hostile.pdf]

Certain justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as several judges presiding in various lower federal
courts, have attacked the longstanding acceptance of the Constitutions Commerce Clause as the source
of Congresss authority to enact safeguards to protect our air, water, and land . Despite the clear
connection between the subjects of environmental regulation such as commercial development or chemical
manufacturing plantsand interstate economic activity, some judges are beginning to argue that these
activities should fall within the exclusive control of states . In one recent case, a district judge in Alabama
blocked the federal governments efforts to enforce toxic waste cleanup requirements because he decided the chemical
manufacturing site was a local real estate matter, not economic activity subject to federal control.

9
Property of Jessie Chen, the CEO of Asian Debate League All Copy Rights Reserved

Judicial Independence Bad Race Ext

Judicial supremacy is bad for minorities.
Phyllis Schlafly, 2004, president of Eagle Forum, 2004, The Judges are the Problem,

The historical fact is that the supremacist decisions have been very anti-minority . The famous case, the
Dred Scott case, said that blacks have no rights that white men need to respec t. It declared
unconstitutional the congressional law that banned slavery in the territories . It was a terrible decision. The
segregation decision was also a Supreme Court decision . The minorities attain their rights through the
13th, 14th and 15th amendments, which were designed to overturn these bad Supreme Court decisions ,
and also through the civil rights law of 1964, the Voting Rights Act and other civil rights laws. Minorities got
recognition of their civil rights through constitutional amendments and through statutes. The courts
have not been their friends.

10
Property of Jessie Chen, the CEO of Asian Debate League All Copy Rights Reserved

Judicial Independence Bad- AT: Africa

African and Arab countries dont model the US not effective for them
Horowitz 12 (Jake, co-founder of PolicyMic, Why is the U.S. Constitution Losing Influence Across the World?
http://www.policymic.com/articles/3975/why-is-the-u-s-constitution-losing-influence-across-the-world)
But, my sense is that the Constitution is slipping because America has lost its power and prestige as a shining democracy due to over a
decade of constitutional excess. In particular, the Bush administration's War on Terror policies which interpreted the Constitution to permit torture, deprive suspected
terrorists of due process, sanction wire-tapping and domestic spying, and amass unprecedented power in the hands of the executive eroded the credibility of the
document and undermined our democracy. After a decade of America's imprisoning and torturing Arab citizens under the guise of the Constitution, it is no wonder that

it no longer holds any weight in newly emerging democracies like Egypt and Tunisia. Moreover, the decline in influence is also a
reflection of the all-too-often forgotten fact that American liberal democracy is not for every country . The U.S. Constitution
guarantees certain rights, like the separation of religion and state, which may not neatly fit into other countries' models of democracy. Stanford
democracy expert Larry Diamond has written often about public opinion polling of the Arab world, which indicates that although the
majority of Arabs want democracy, they also believe Islam should play a strong role in governing their society. The U.S. Constitution,
then, provides little guidance for structuring newly emerging democracies with more devout populations. Although the decline of the
Constitution is likely to unnerve the bevy of IR theorists and pundits who routinely lament America's decline, this study is not necessarily cause for concern. Rather,

that emerging democracies are adapting democracy to fit their context serves as a powerful reminder that liberal democracy cannot
be imposed from the outside , something the U.S. learned well this past decade in Iraq. It should also serve as a stark warning to President Barack
Obama, however, that the longer Guantanamo remains open, and the more the administration chips away at our civil liberties by signing bills like the NDAA, the more
U.S. influence, leadership, and credibility will wane across the globe.

African war doesnt escalate

Barrett 5 (Robert, MA in Conflict Analysis and Management, Jun 1, Understanding the Challenges of African Democratization
through Conflict Analysis, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=726162)
This is a problem, as Western nations may be increasingly wary of intervening in Africa hotspots after experiencing firsthand the
unpredictable and unforgiving nature of societal warfare in both Somalia and Rwanda. On a costbenefit basis, the West continues
to be somewhat reluctant to get to get involved in Africas dirty wars, evidenced by its political hesitation when discussing
ongoing sanguinary grassroots conflicts in Africa. Even as the world apologizes for bearing witness to the Rwandan genocide
without having intervened, the United States, recently using the label genocide in the context of the Sudanese conflict (in
September of 2004), has only proclaimed sanctions against Sudan, while dismissing any suggestions at actual intervention (Giry,
2005). Part of the problem is that traditional military and diplomatic approaches at separating combatants and enforcing
ceasefires have yielded little in Africa. No powerful nations want to get embroiled in conflicts they cannot win especially those
conflicts in which the intervening nation has very little interest.
No disease can cause human extinction they either kill their hosts too quickly or arent lethal
Posner 5 (Richard A, judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, and senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law
School, Winter. Catastrophe: the dozen most significant catastrophic risks and what we can do about them.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmske/is_3_11/ai_n29167514/pg_2?tag=content;col1)
Yet the fact that Homo sapiens has managed to survive every disease to assail it in the 200,000 years or so of its existence is a source
of genuine comfort, at least if the focus is on extinction events. There have been enormously destructive plagues, such as the Black
Death, smallpox, and now AIDS, but none has come close to destroying the entire human race. There is a biological reason. Natural
selection favors germs of limited lethality; they are fitter in an evolutionary sense because their genes are more likely to be spread if
the germs do not kill their hosts too quickly. The AIDS virus is an example of a lethal virus, wholly natural, that by lying dormant yet infectious in its host for years
maximizes its spread. Yet there is no danger that AIDS will destroy the entire human race. The likelihood of a natural pandemic that would cause the extiinction
of the human race is probably even less today than in the past (except in prehistoric times, when people lived in small, scattered bands, which would have limited the
spread of disease), despite wider human contacts that make it more difficult to localize an infectious disease. The reason is improvements in medical science.
But the comfort is a small one. Pandemics can still impose enormous losses and resist

11
Property of Jessie Chen, the CEO of Asian Debate League All Copy Rights Reserved

12
Property of Jessie Chen, the CEO of Asian Debate League All Copy Rights Reserved

Judicial Independence Bad- AT: Constitution/Rights

Judicial independence is bad congressional interpretation is better
Kramer, 2004 (Larry D., Russell D. Niles Professor of Law, New York University School of Law, Popular
Constitutionalism, circa 2004, July, 92 Calif. L. Rev. 959)
Consider, for example, the argument that judges can reason about questions of principle "better" because institutional independence insulates them from the sort of
grubby self-interest that distorts the thinking of ordinary citizens and politicians. Even granting the very questionable proposition that judges are

meaningfully insulated from self interest (as opposed to experiencing it in a different form), the argument that this is a good thing "flies in the face
of other epistemic precepts" - for example, "that decisions about rights are best taken by those who have a sufficient stake in the matter to
decide responsibly." n124 And how do we resolve that disagreement? Yet without concurrence on the necessary or proper circumstances for reaching correct
results, any argument that judges are more likely to do so either lacks foundation or begs the question: Without an epistemology - and an epistemology which is to
some extent less controversial (or at any rate differently controversial) than the knowledge claims it covers - there cannot be a theory of expertise. Thus the
epistemic inadequacy of moral realism is far-reaching: in practical matters, it deprives realists of almost everything that they might want to
say or argue for in the name of objectivity. n125 It does not follow that we must reject judicial supremacy. Uncertainty about which answers or processes are
best does not automatically point us toward any other institution to resolve disagreements either. Perhaps backers of judicial supremacy need to be less confident about
their argument, but incertitude is not the same thing as incapacity. We still must decide who should decide, and one could still choose the judiciary because one believes
(all things considered) that the judicial process still offers the best solution. Waldron recognizes this but suggests two reasons for lodging final interpretive authority
elsewhere. First, Waldron says, the unavoidable existence of disagreement and uncertainty about outcomes means that any argument based on "rightsinstrumentalism" - the

notion that this or that decision-making procedure is likely to produce more correct results - will never rest on anything
other than faith and will be decided less on the basis of hard evidence than a priori postulates about how different actors behave. n126 The turn
to judges, for example, relies on and reflects a fairly profound skepticism about the ability of politicians and ordinary citizens to handle
constitutional questions: a belief that, at its most cynical, sounds something like "legislative and electoral politics is entirely a matter of self-interest, [*996]
and ... representatives and voters never raise their minds above the sordid question, "What's in it for me?'" n127 Yet the assumption that ordinary citizens
cannot be trusted to understand or respect the principles that animate constitutional rights stands at odds with the assumption we make about why
they are entitled to those rights in the first place - which is that human individuals are thinking agents, "endowed with an ability to deliberate morally, to see
things from others' points of view, and to transcend a preoccupation with [their] own particular or sectional interests." n128 This being so, Waldron reasons, should
we not rather resolve our uncertainty about rights in favor of individual participation? How can we say we are offering someone the
respect he or she is owed as an active, thinking person entitled to rights if, at the same time, we ignore what he or she has to say about the matter?
Not that individuals will always make correct choices, either for themselves or (collectively) for others. But insofar as uncertainty will always remain about which
choices are in fact correct, the affected individuals should themselves be the ones to decide. This might be true even were we certain that "a nine man junta
clad in black robes and surrounded by law clerks" n129 would generally do a better job. But surely it seems right where we can have no basis for such confidence. This
position, Waldron explains: Embodies a conviction that these issues of principle are ours to deal with, so that even if they must be dealt with by some institution which
comprises fewer than all of us, it should nevertheless be an institution that is diverse and plural and which, through something like electoral accountability, embodies the
spirit of self-government, a body which can discern the manifest footprints of our own original consent. n130

13
Property of Jessie Chen, the CEO of Asian Debate League All Copy Rights Reserved

Judicial Independence Bad- AT: Latin America

No Latin modeling they follow Europe
Garoupa and Maldonado 11 (Nuno Professor of Law and H. Ross & Helen Workman Research Scholar, University of Illinois
College of Law, and Maria J.D. at University of Illinois, CHINA'S ASSET MANAGEMENT PLATFORMS & CLEANTECH
SECTOR: ARTICLE: THE JUDICIARY IN POLITICAL TRANSITIONS: THE CRITICAL ROLE OF U.S.
CONSTITUTIONALISM IN LATIN AMERICA, Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law, Summer, 19 Cardozo J.
Int'l & Comp. L. 593, lexis)
In Europe, the political transitions of the twentieth century also evidence creative ways of addressing the incumbent judiciary. Some
examples of such include: Germany and Italy after WWII; Portugal, Spain and Greece at the end of their authoritarian regimes in the late
1970s; and the former communist Central and Eastern European countries in the 1990s. n16 The Argentina and [*600] Chile regime transitions from military to
democratic in the early 1990s have more recently become the focus of much debate. Judicial reform in Latin America is constrained by the needs

to
address the role of the judiciary and their difficult past in terms of democratic legitimacy. n17 Unlike the U nited S tates, Europe and
Latin America have a common civil law tradition . Although subject to debate, comparative law usually includes the Latin American
countries in the French civil law family, because of Portuguese and Spanish colonial influence , whereas the German civil law stands as a
separate and distant relative. n18

US model empirically fails

Garoupa and Maldonado 11 (Nuno Professor of Law and H. Ross & Helen Workman Research Scholar, University of Illinois
College of Law, and Maria J.D. at University of Illinois, CHINA'S ASSET MANAGEMENT PLATFORMS & CLEANTECH
SECTOR: ARTICLE: THE JUDICIARY IN POLITICAL TRANSITIONS: THE CRITICAL ROLE OF U.S.
CONSTITUTIONALISM IN LATIN AMERICA, Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law, Summer, 19 Cardozo J.
Int'l & Comp. L. 593, lexis)
The essence of reputation in the Latin American judiciary has been questionable for a long time. n57 Unfortunately, the reforms imposed
by international organizations at the end of the twentieth century have largely failed to address this problem. The persistent organizational, administrative,
and managerial problems of the Latin American judiciary have been described in detail in the literature: financial and political corruption, lack of capacity and
resources, poorly organized courts, weak judicial education and training, ineffective delivery of justice, utilizing the judiciary as an arm of the government, and violence
against the judiciary. n58 These traditional problems require a profound reform of the executive and legislative powers that have been largely unaddressed. Also, as
expected, the incumbent judiciary is usually hostile to any implementation of new legal policies. A structural change requires [*616] a new judicial culture that
influences new law by adding legislation where there are gaps in the law. However ,

a new judicial culture is usually unavailable. n59 Importing U.S.

models has not worked for obvious local reasons that are generally ignored by international organizations. n60 Narrow judicial reforms
based on the view that an American-inspired judiciary would consolidate democracy have changed little and, in some cases, have
been counter-productive . n61 An unhealthy judicial organization with a serious deficit of prestige has prevailed for most of the
twentieth century to the present. n62
Instability wont escalate
Crdenas 11 (Mauricio, senior fellow and director of the Latin America Initiative at the Brookings Institution, was cabinet minister
during the Gaviria and Pastrana administrations in Colombia. Think Again Latin America, Foreign Policy,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/03/17/think_again_latin_america?page=full)
"Latin America is violent and dangerous." Yes, but not unstable. Latin American countries have among the world's highest rates of crime, murder, and
kidnapping. Pockets of abnormal levels of violence have emerged in countries such as Colombia -- and more recently, in Mexico, Central America, and some large
cities such as Caracas. With 140,000 homicides in 2010, it is understandable how Latin America got this reputation. Each of the countries in Central America's
"Northern Triangle" (Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador) had more murders in 2010 than the entire European Union combined. Violence in Latin America is
strongly related to poverty and inequality. When combined with the insatiable international appetite for the illegal drugs produced in the region, it's a noxious brew. As
strongly argued by a number of prominent regional leaders -- including Brazil's former president, Fernando H. Cardoso, and Colombia's former president, Cesar Gaviria
-- a strategy based on demand reduction, rather than supply, is the only way to reduce crime in Latin America. Although some fear the Mexican drug

violence could spill over into the southern United States, Latin America poses little to no threat to international peace or stability. The
major global security concerns today are the proliferation of nuclear weapons and terrorism. No country in the region is in possession
of nuclear weapons -- nor has expressed an interest in having them. Latin American countries, on the whole, do not have much history of

14
Property of Jessie Chen, the CEO of Asian Debate League All Copy Rights Reserved

engaging in cross-border wars. Despite the recent tensions on the Venezuela-Colombia border, it should be pointed out that Venezuela
has never taken part in an international armed conflict. Ethnic and religious conflicts are very uncommon in Latin America. Although the
region has not been immune to radical jihadist attacks -- the 1994 attack on a Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, for instance -- they have been rare. Terrorist
attacks on the civilian population have been limited to a large extent to the FARC organization in Colombia, a tactic which contributed in large part to the
organization's loss of popular support.

15
Property of Jessie Chen, the CEO of Asian Debate League All Copy Rights Reserved

Judicial Independence Bad- AT: Modeling

US supreme court decisions arent modeled the US doesnt engage in international judicial
dialogue
Harvard Law Review, 2001 (The International Judicial Dialogue: When Domestic Constitutional Courts Join the
Conversation, May, 114 Harv. L. Rev. 2049)
The Canadian court's citation in Burns to Justice Breyer's dissent, rather than to any other recent U.S. state or federal court decision regarding the death row
phenomenon, n124 suggests that Justice Breyer's willingness to look to outside jurisprudence renders his opinions more influential in foreign and supranational
jurisdictions. Conversely, the U.S. Supreme Court's failure to engage in the international judicial dialogue may cause other nations to be less
willing to rely on its rulings. The cases discussed in this Part illustrate how the dialogue among domestic and supranational courts has contributed
to the formation of legal norms for death penalty cases, and it seems likely that the international judicial conversation will similarly influence the
development of other international norms. Cases such as Burns raise the question whether the U.S. Supreme Court's reluctance to engage in
dialogue with its foreign counterparts will reduce its ability to shape the conversation about legal norms. Many constitutional courts have been
eager to engage in the international judicial dialogue and to take advantage of the opportunity to influence the development of international law, but the U.S. Supreme
Court has remained reticent. If taking part in the dialogue allows a court to influence the development of international law, it may seem surprising that the U.S. Supreme
Court would be so reluctant to join the conversation. But perhaps the willingness (or unwillingness) of constitutional courts to look to foreign or
supranational jurisprudence is explained in part by the way that particular courts view their domestic constitutions. The U.S. Supreme Court
seems to regard the [*2073] U.S. Constitution as a document with a uniquely American character, and thus, a document that should not be
informed by outside jurisprudence. Courts that have joined the international judicial dialogue, by contrast, seem to perceive their constitutions as documents
that "speak to," and listen to, the entire international community.

Foreign models cant effectively produce judicial reform

Chodosh 03 (Hiram, Professor of Law, Director of the Frederick K. Cox International Law Center, Case Western
Reserve University School of Law, 38 Tex. Int'l L.J. 587, lexis)
Exposure to foreign systems is helpful but seldom sufficient for effective reform design. Reform models are more likely to be successful if they are not
merely copied or transplanted into the system. The argument that transplants are easy and common (though based on substantial historical evidence)
profoundly undervalues the relationship between law and external social objectives. 103 Furthermore, reforms conceived as blunt
negations of [*606] the status quo are not likely to be successful. 104 Reform proposals based on foreign systems or in reaction to (or as a
negation of) recent domestic experience require careful adaptation to local circumstances and conditions . However, most communities
are not familiar with the tools of adaptation and tend to think of foreign models as package deals to accept or reject (but rarely to alter),
and alterations tend to graft one institution onto another without comprehensive consideration of the system as a whole . 105

Judicial independence alone cant produce effective constitutionalism

Prempeh 06 (Kwasi, Associate Professor of Law, Seton Hall University School of Law, March, 80 Tul. L. Rev. 1239,
lexis)
Judicial review is commonly presumed to be a check on the power and conduct of politicians. However, as Alexander Bickel has reminded us,
"judicial review means not only that the Court may strike down a legislative action as unconstitutional but also that it may validate it as
within constitutionally granted powers and as not violating constitutional limitations." 312 Thus, judicial review "performs not only a checking function
but also a legitimating [function]." 313 Therefore the mere grant of judicial review power, even under conditions of judicial independence, offers no
assurance that it will be employed to aid the cause of constitutionalism. In the end, the fate of constitutionalism will depend crucially on the
philosophic attitudes, background assumptions, and outlook that judges bring to the task of interpreting the constitutional text.

Judiciary isnt modeled new courts, no foreign citations, and diminished credibility
Liptak 8 (Adam J.D. Yale Law School, NYT Supreme Court Correspondent, U.S. Court Is Now Guiding Fewer Nations , 9/17,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/us/18legal.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)
But now American

legal influence is waning . Even as a debate continues in the court over whether its decisions should ever cite foreign law, a
diminishing number of foreign courts seem to pay attention to the writings of American justices. One of our great exports used to
be constitutional law, said Anne-Marie Slaughter, the dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton. We are losing

16
Property of Jessie Chen, the CEO of Asian Debate League All Copy Rights Reserved

one of the greatest bully pulpits we have ever had. From 1990 through 2002, for instance, the Canadian Supreme Court cited decisions of
the United States Supreme Court about a dozen times a year, an analysis by The New York Times found. In the six years since, the annual citation rate
has fallen by half , to about six. Australian state supreme courts cited American decisions 208 times in 1995, according to a recent study by
Russell Smyth, an Australian economist. By 2005, the number had fallen to 72. The story is similar around the globe , legal experts say,
particularly in cases involving human rights. These days, foreign courts in developed democracies often cite the rulings of the European Court of
Human Rights in cases concerning equality, liberty and prohibitions against cruel treatment, said Harold Hongju Koh, the dean of the Yale Law School. In those areas,
Dean Koh said, they

tend not to look to the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. The rise of new and sophisticated constitutional
courts elsewhere is one reason for the Supreme Courts fading influence , legal experts said. The new courts are, moreover, generally more
liberal than the Rehnquist and Roberts courts and for that reason more inclined to cite one another. Another reason is the diminished reputation
of the U nited S tates in some parts of the world, which experts here and abroad said is in part a consequence of the Bush administrations
unpopularity around the world. Foreign courts are less apt to justify their decisions with citations to cases from a nation unpopular
with their domestic audience. Its not surprising, given our foreign policy in the last decade or so, that American influence should be declining, said Thomas
Ginsburg, who teaches comparative and international law at the University of Chicago. Aversion to Foreign Law The adamant opposition of some
Supreme Court justices to the citation of foreign law in their own opinions also plays a role , some foreign judges say. Most justices of the
United States Supreme Court do not cite foreign case law in their judgments, Aharon Barak, then the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Israel, wrote in the
Harvard Law Review in 2002. They fail to make use of an important source of inspiration, one that enriches legal thinking, makes law more creative,
and strengthens the democratic ties and foundations of different legal systems. Partly as a consequence, Chief Justice Barak wrote, the U nited S tates
Supreme Court is losing the central role it once had among courts in modern democracies. Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court of
Australia said that his court no longer confined itself to considering English, Canadian and American law. Now we will take information from the Supreme Court of
India, or the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, or the Constitutional Court of South Africa, he said in an interview published in 2001 in The Green Bag, a legal journal.
America he added, is

in danger of becoming something of a legal backwater .

No modeling newest ev
Law and Versteeg 12 (David, Prof. of Law and Prof of PoliSci @ Washington University, St Louis, PHD @ Stanford, JD @ Harvard
Law, Mila, Assoc. Prof, U of Virginia Law, D.Phil @ Oxford, "The Declining Influence of the United States Constitution" New York
University Law Review -- Vol 87:762 -www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv2/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__journals__law_review/documents/documents/ecm_pro_072892.pdf)
There are growing suspicions, however, that Americas days as a constitutional hegemon are coming to an end. 12 It has been said that the
United States is losing constitutional influence because it is increasingly out of sync with an evolving global consensus on issues of human
rights. 13 Indeed, to the extent that other countries still look to the United States as an example, their goal may be less to imitate American
constitutionalism than to avoid its perceived flaws and mistakes. 14 Scholarly and popular attention has focused in particular upon the influence of American
constitutional jurisprudence. The reluctance of the U.S. Supreme Court to pay decent respect to the opinions of mankind 15 by
participating in an ongoing global judicial dialogue 16 is supposedly diminishing the global appeal and influence of American
constitutional jurisprudence. 17 Studies conducted by scholars in other countries have begun to yield empirical evidence that citation to U.S.
Supreme Court decisions by foreign courts is in fact on the decline . 18 By contrast, however, the extent to which the U.S. Constitution itself
continues to influence the adoption and revision of constitutions in other countries remains a matter of speculation and anecdotal impression. With the help of an
extensive data set of our own creation that spans all national constitutions over the last six decades, this Article explores the extent to which various prominent
constitutionsincluding the U.S. Constitutionepitomize generic rights constitutionalism or are, instead, increasingly out of sync with evolving global practice. A

stark contrast can be drawn between the declining attraction of the U.S. Constitution as a model for other countries and the increasing
attraction of the model provided by Americas neighbor to the north, Canada. We also address the possibility that todays constitution makers look
for inspiration not only to other national constitutions, but also to regional and international human rights instruments such as the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. Our findings do little to assuage
American fears of diminished influence in the constitutional sphere .

17
Property of Jessie Chen, the CEO of Asian Debate League All Copy Rights Reserved

Statistical analysis of citations proves

L'Heureux-Dube 98 (Honourable Claire Puisne Justice, Supreme Court of Canada, Conference on the Rehnquist Court: The
Importance of Dialogue: Globalization and the International Impact of the Rehnquist Court, Tulsa Law Journal, Fall, 34 Tulsa L.J.
15, lexis)
Despite these cautions, there

is a general perception that the Rehnquist Court's impact has declined relative to that of its predecessors. First,
this is borne out by statistical analysis , at least of the situation in Canada. An informal analysis of Canadian Supreme Court decisions since 1986 revealed
that the Rehnquist Court was cited in fewer than one-half as many cases as the Warren Court, and in just under one-third the number of Burger Court
cases. This suggests a sharp drop in influence . There is an even greater disparity if one compares the number of Rehnquist Court decisions cited by the
Canadian court to the number of its predecessors' cases cited; Burger court cases, in particular, vastly outnumber cases from the Rehnquist Court. Though I have not compiled statistics, a

similar trend is easily discernable through reading judgments from other countries. When the U.S. Supreme Court is cited, it is
usually Warren or Burger Court decisions, and sometimes older ones. The Rehnquist Court is much less frequently cited . A couple of examples will
suffice, beginning with the Indian Supreme Court decision in Rajagopal and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu. n54 Central to the case were issues of balancing freedom of expression and of
privacy, and the court relied heavily on American jurisprudence. The court devoted several pages to the cases of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, n55 Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, n56
Griswold v. Connecticut, n57 and Roe v. Wade, n58 all classic Warren and Burger Court cases. It included extensive descriptions of the facts and holdings, and provided lengthy citations from
several of these cases. The only reference to Rehnquist Court jurisprudence, however, was a one sentence [*30] comment that "though [Roe v. Wade] received a few knocks in the recent
decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), 120 L. Ed. (2d) 683, the central holding of this decision has been left untouched -- indeed affirmed." n59 This decision illustrates the trend of
focusing on Warren and Burger Court decisions, and giving less attention to Rehnquist Court judgments modifying or explaining those decisions. The contrast between the strong focus on the
reasoning of the older decisions and the passing reference to the Rehnquist Court decision is striking. Another example is the opinion of Justice Ackermann of the Constitutional Court of South
Africa in Ferreira v. Levin NO. n60 The case dealt with the right to liberty and freedom from self-incrimination. The court examined the protections of the Fifth Amendment, and referred to the
judgments in Miranda, Feldman v. United States, n61 Hoffman v. United States, n62 United States v. James, n63 Ullmann v. United States, n64 Bolling v. Sharpe, n65 Board of Regents v. Roth,
n66 and Meyer v. Nebraska, n67 quoting from several of them. Again, though the court cited a wide variety of Fifth Amendment decisions from various eras of constitutional jurisprudence, no
Rehnquist Court decisions were considered. The Ferreira decision also illustrates the declining prominence of American constitutional jurisprudence in general, since American cases were
much less prominent in this opinion than those of Canadian, German, and British Courts, as well as the European Court of Human Rights. This is true of other cases as well. Thus, though the
Rehnquist Court's impact has declined internationally, so has the influence of the United States Supreme Court in general. Therefore, though it is not scientifically demonstrable, at least not at
this stage and not without more in-depth research, a variety

of indicators show that the Rehnquist Court's international impact is smaller than that of its
predecessors, and corresponds to a general relative decline in influence of the U.S. Court, particularly on human rights issues. As a force driving the
definition of human rights around the world, the U nited S tates is not as influential as it used to be. This does not mean, however, that American decisions are not still very
prominent in human rights jurisprudence in all jurisdictions; the Rehnquist Court's jurisprudence is regularly consulted and considered. The "overseas trade" in the Bill of Rights, described by
Lord Lester, is far from being at an end. But numbers and general perceptions suggest a decline relative to previous courts. There are several reasons for this new phenomenon, particularly in
the area of human rights. Some of these are within the control of the Rehnquist Court; others are beyond its power to change.

18
Property of Jessie Chen, the CEO of Asian Debate League All Copy Rights Reserved

Judicial Independence Bad- AT: Nepal

Indo-China disputes inevitable AND wont escalate
Wagner & Agarwal 10 (Daniel, Managing Dir. Country Risk Solutions (a pol and econ risk consultancy), and Subhash, New-Delhi
based political analyst and founer India Focus, Huffington Post, The State of Indian-Sino Relations, 2010,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-wagner/the-state-of-indian-sino_b_458847.html)
Indian/Sino friction will continue in the coming decade and is likely will be based on three primary issues:

1) The disputed border: Having

never formally resolved their lingering border dispute, both countries will continue to find the absence of a resolution an irritant that will underlay and influence the
health of bilateral relations; 2) Naval rivalry in the Indian Ocean: As China seeks to project its power regionally, India's navy will continue to be the only
regional impediment to China's blue water ambitions. Other countries in the region may object to China's projection of sea power, but only India has the ability to
challenge it; and 3) Pakistan: China's continuing support of Pakistan's military, and by extension its ability to remain an irritant on the subject of Kashmir,
will remain a point of contention for India. India is of course aware that China has deftly spread its diplomatic influence globally in a very short span of time, largely
through the disbursement of overseas aid (to African and Latin American nations) and through careful nurturing of its political connections in the West. Indian business,
more than Indian diplomats, look longingly at the list of former U.S. government officials who have at some point in the past two decades acted as intermediaries and
lobbyists for Chinese business interests -- from Henry Kissinger to Alexander Haig to Cyrus Vance. India also knows that Chinese ascendancy is much more than
economic. Part of the future competition between India and China will be based on whether India can develop its military hardware and rebuild its naval muscle faster
than Chinese attempts to build cultural and diplomatic sophistication. But neither China nor India have an interest in overt or uncontrolled

hostility. Both will work for their respective long-term interests within the rules of the present global order, with China having
greater deliberation and speed than India. It is most unlikely that China will attack India, even in the Northeast. Any military action by China
towards any of its neighbors, especially a democracy like India, will erode the carefully crafted image of its "peaceful rise " and will
only serve to reignite the Tibet issue. It would also provide a diplomatic opportunity for the U.S. to justify its continued militarily
presence in Asia, as well as prompt Japan to want to expand its own military presence in the region.

19
Property of Jessie Chen, the CEO of Asian Debate League All Copy Rights Reserved

Judicial Independence Bad- AT: Sri Lanka

No chance of war from economic decline---best and most recent data
Daniel W. Drezner 12, Professor, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, October 2012, The Irony of Global
Economic Governance: The System Worked, http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/IR-Colloquium-MT12Week-5_The-Irony-of-Global-Economic-Governance.pdf
The final outcome addresses a dog that hasnt barked: the effect of the Great Recession on cross-border conflict and violence. During the initial
stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted that the financial crisis would lead states to increase their use of force as a tool for staying in power.37
Whether through greater internal repression, diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power conflict , there were genuine concerns
that the global economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflict. Violence in the Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea, and even the disruptions

aggregate data suggests otherwise , however. The Institute for Economics

average level of
peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in 2007.38 Interstate violence in particular has declined since the start of the
financial crisis as have military expenditures in most sampled countries. Other studies confirm that the Great Recession has not triggered
any increase in violent conflict ; the secular decline in violence that started with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed.39 Rogers Brubaker concludes,
the crisis has not to date generated the surge in protectionist nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might have been expected.40 None of
of the Occupy movement fuel impressions of surge in global public disorder. The

and Peace has constructed a Global Peace Index annually since 2007. A key conclusion they draw from the 2012 report is that The

these data suggest that the global economy is operating swimmingly. Growth remains unbalanced and fragile, and has clearly slowed in 2012. Transnational capital
flows remain depressed compared to pre-crisis levels, primarily due to a drying up of cross-border interbank lending in Europe. Currency volatility remains an ongoing
concern. Compared to the aftermath of other postwar recessions, growth in output, investment, and employment in the developed world have all lagged behind. But the
Great Recession is not like other postwar recessions in either scope or kind; expecting a standard V-shaped recovery was unreasonable. One financial analyst
characterized the post-2008 global economy as in a state of contained depression.41 The key word is contained, however. Given the severity, reach and

depth of the 2008 financial crisis, the proper comparison is with Great Depression. And by that standard, the outcome variables look
impressive . As Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff concluded in This Time is Different: that its macroeconomic outcome has been only the most severe global
recession since World War II and not even worse must be regarded as fortunate.42

No risk of India-Pakistan war

Mutti 9 over a decade of expertise covering on South Asia geopolitics, Contributing Editor to Demockracy journal (James, 1/5,
Mumbai Misperceptions: War is Not Imminent, http://demockracy.com/four-reasons-why-the-mumbai-attacks-wont-result-in-anuclear-war/)
Writer Amitav Ghosh divined a crucial connection between the two messages. When commentators repeat the metaphor of 9/11, they are in effect pushing the Indian government to mount a
comparable response. Indeed, Indias opposition Hindu nationalist BJP has blustered, Our response must be close to what the American response was. Fearful

of imminent war,
the media has indulged in frantic hand wringing about Indian and Pakistani nuclear arsenals and renewed fears about the Indian subcontinent being the
most dangerous place on earth. As an observer of the subcontinent for over a decade, I am optimistic that war will not be the end result of this event. As horrifying as the Mumbai attacks were,
they are not likely to drive India and Pakistan into an armed international conflict. The media frenzy over an imminent nuclear war seems the result of the media being superficially
knowledgeable about the history of Indian-Pakistani relations, of feeling compelled to follow the most sensationalistic story, and being recently brainwashed into thinking that the only way to
respond to a major terrorist attack was the American way a war. Here are four reasons why the Mumbai attacks will not result in a war: 1. For

both countries, a war would be a

disaster. India has been successfully building stronger relations with the rest of the world over the last decade. It has occasionally engaged in military muscleflexing (abetted by a Bush administration eager to promote India as a counterweight to China and Pakistan), but it has much more aggressively promoted itself as an emerging economic
powerhouse and a moral, democratic alternative to less savory authoritarian regimes. Attacking a fledgling democratic Pakistan

would not improve Indias reputation

in anybodys eyes. The restraint Manmohan Singhs government has exercised following the attacks indicates a desire to avoid rash and potentially
regrettable actions. It is also perhaps a recognition that military attacks will never end terrorism. Pakistan, on the other hand, couldnt possibly win a war against India, and Pakistans
military defeat would surely lead to the downfall of the new democratic government. The military would regain control, and Islamic militants would surely make a grab for power an outcome
neither India nor Pakistan want. Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari has shown that this is not the path he wants his country to go down. He has forcefully spoken out against terrorist groups
operating in Pakistan and has ordered military attacks against LeT camps. Key members of LeT and other terrorist groups have been arrested. One can hope that this is only the beginning,
despite the unenviable military and political difficulties in doing so. 2. Since

the last major India-Pakistan clash in 1999, both countries have made concrete
efforts to create people-to-people connections and to improve economic relations. Bus and train services between the countries have resumed for the first
time in decades along with an easing of the issuing of visas to cross the border. India-Pakistan cricket matches have resumed, and India has granted Pakistan most favored
nation trading status. The Mumbai attacks will undoubtedly strain relations, yet it is hard to believe that both sides would throw away this recent progress. With the removal of Pervez
Musharraf and the election of a democratic government (though a shaky, relatively weak one), both the Indian government and the Pakistani government have political motivations to ease
tensions and to proceed with efforts to improve relations. There are also growing efforts to recognize and build upon the many cultural ties between the populations of India and Pakistan and a
decreasing sense of animosity between the countries. 3. Both

countries also face difficult internal problems that present more of a threat to their
stability and security than does the opposite country. If they are wise, the governments of both countries will work more towards addressing these

20
Property of Jessie Chen, the CEO of Asian Debate League All Copy Rights Reserved

internal threats than the less dangerous external ones. The most significant problems facing Pakistan today do not revolve around the unresolved situation in Kashmir or
a military threat posed by India. The more significant threat to Pakistan comes from within. While LeT has focused its firepower on India instead of the Pakistani state, other militant Islamic
outfits have not. Groups based in the tribal regions bordering Afghanistan have orchestrated frequent deadly suicide bombings and clashes with the Pakistani military, including the attack that
killed ex-Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in 2007. The battle that the Pakistani government faces now is not against its traditional enemy India, but against militants bent on destroying the
Pakistani state and creating a Taliban-style regime in Pakistan. In order to deal with this threat, it must strengthen the structures of a democratic, inclusive political system that can also address
domestic problems and inequalities. On the other hand, the threat of Pakistani based terrorists to India is significant. However, suicide bombings and attacks are also carried out by Indian
Islamic militants, and vast swaths of rural India are under the de facto control of the Maoist guerrillas known as the Naxalites. Hindu fundamentalists pose a serious threat to the safety of many
Muslim and Christian Indians and to the idea of India as a diverse, secular, democratic society. Separatist insurgencies in Kashmir and in parts of the northeast have dragged on for years. And
like Pakistan, India faces significant challenges in addressing sharp social and economic inequalities. Additionally, Indian political parties, especially the ruling Congress Party and others that
rely on the support of Indias massive Muslim population to win elections, are certainly wary about inflaming public opinion against Pakistan (and Muslims). This fear could lead the

The international attention to this attack somewhat difficult to explain

is a final
obstacle to an armed conflict. Not only does it put both countries under a microscope in terms of how they respond to the terrible events, it also means
that they will feel international pressure to resolve the situation without resorting to war. India and Pakistan have been warned by the US, Russia, and others not
investigation into the Mumbai attacks to fizzle out with no resolution, as many other such inquiries have. 4.

in my opinion given the general complacency and utter apathy in much of the western world about previous terrorist attacks in places like India, Pakistan, and Indonesia

to let the situation end in war. India has been actively recruiting Pakistans closest allies China and Saudi Arabia to pressure Pakistan to act against militants, and the US has been in the
forefront of pressing Pakistan for action. Iran too has expressed solidarity with India in the face of the attacks and is using its regional influence to bring more diplomatic pressure on Pakistan.

21
Property of Jessie Chen, the CEO of Asian Debate League All Copy Rights Reserved