I affirm

Resolved: The United States is justified in intervening in the internal political processes of other
countries to attempt to stop human rights abuses.

Observations
1. Definitions:
Justified - to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded. (Dictionary.com)

Wokoro. Towards A Model For African Humanitarian Intervention. Regent Journal of International Law. 2008. Defines Human Rights
Intervention as:
Emeka

the justifiable use of force for the purpose of protecting the inhabitants of another state from
treatment so arbitrary and persistently abusive as to exceed the limits within which the sovereign
is presumed to act with reason and justice.
There are 2 conclusions that can be drawn from this definition
The first is that the nations we are intervening in are those that abuse their citizens in
an extreme manner. For example: intervening because the government does not allow
access to internet does not apply.
Second, since they are no longer bound by the constraints of sovereignty, they are no
longer considered sovereign.

The Value is Human Rights, as implied by the resolution

The Criterion will be the spread of Liberal democracy.
Forsythe, David P and Rieffer, Barbara Ann J. US Foreign Policy and Enlarging the Democratic Community. Human Rights Quarterly, Volume 22, Number 4, November
2000. Explains
when the United States speaks of support for democracy abroad, Washington means not
support for elected despots (a nice oxymoron) but rather support for liberal democracy that combines some type of popular rule
with restrictions on that rule to protect basic human rights. Essential are laws and especially
independent courts to establish meaningful civil rights to protect the individual, and in some cases groups of
individuals, from dominant repression, oppression, and persecution. The international law of human rights
follows this liberal philosophy, endorsing a political right to participation in public policy making
(which implies rule by majority or plurality) , but establishing certain civil rights that cannot be abridged no matter how popular
Presumably then,

Thus, democracy per se is insufficient to protect personal freedom; what is

required is liberal democracy. Liberal democracies are those genuinely elected governments that
combine the right of political participation with the protection of other human rights, especially the rights of
abridgement might be with dominant opinion.11

those marginalized and vulnerable within that society. Protection of minorities, however problematic they are to define, against majority tyranny is often particularly important.

The action taken by the affirmative will be intervention by use of Gramscian hegemony.
Gramscian hegemony differs from the general concept of hegemony in that it does not solely
involve a hegemon wielding power, but incorporates a silent integration of desired values.
Douglas Litowitz [Assistant Professor, Florida Coastal School of Law, Jacksonville, Florida]. Gramsci, Hegemony, and the Law. Brigham Young Law Review. May 6, 2000.
the individuals submission no longer takes the
form of simply cowering before a punitive state apparatus but instead takes the milder form of
working within the existing legal framework through everyday operations such as buying groceries, cashing a paycheck,
or leasing a car. To do these things is not to submit to the will of a dominant class but rather to perpetuate a
code that enables a dominant set of institutions and principles. The lived experience of hegemony
consists largely in a series of unreflective actions that are not perceived by the individual as
submissive; at most, the individual has merely a vague sense of injustice and an inarticulate belief that things could be better. Hegemony, then, is an extremely common but extremely
When a legal system has developed to the extent that it is not only repressive but productive,

subtle phenomenon

Note: Gramascian Hegemony and Consensual Hegemony are the same, and will be used
interchangeably.

The action of the affirmative will be the United States intervening in nations in which the states
are abusing their citizens in ways that overstep their bounds outlined by rationality and/or
sovereignty, and reforming their values by consensual hegemony.
The Thesis and Sole Contention is the United States is the best suited to spread democratic
values by use of Consensual Hegemony.
First, Consensual Hegemony is effective in spreading the ideals of the hegemonic nation.
Douglas Litowitz [Assistant Professor, Florida Coastal School of Law, Jacksonville, Florida]. Gramsci, Hegemony, and the Law. Brigham Young Law Review. May 6,
2000. Explains
Gramsci, the establishment of a ruling worldview requires the mechanisms of
universalization, naturalization, and rationalization.
By universalism, the dominant group manages to portray its parochial interests and obsessions as the
common interests of all people. 41 This can take place in subtle ways. On one level, the ruling
group may try to bring dissenting or out-groups within its umbrella, as takes place when the existing political

parties try to convince feminists, gays, environmentalists,

and others that their goals can be achieved through alliance

with the existing parties (thus obviating the need for a labor party in America). More abstractly, a dominant system of advertising, movies, and products
tends to promote consumption and atomism, lessening the chance for popular protest or cultural critique. This outlook goes hand in hand with the general sentiment that people are
naturally acquisitive and that the existing system is merely the fulfillment of that innate desire. 42

In the strategy of naturalism, a given way of life becomes reified 43 to the point where
culture is confused with nature at every turn, which induces quietism because there is
no point in fighting against nature. 44
As for the strategy of rationalization, Gramsci points out that every ruling group gives rise to a
class of intellectuals who perpetuate the existing way of life at the level of theory.
Thus, the hegemonic nation can conquer a country by subtle implantation of ideals via
Gramscian hegemony. By introducing their ideals to a set of domestic actors and allowing the
ideals to propagate, the hegemonic state can establish a new set of values within.
Second, force is necessary in order to integrate the hegemonic nations values
Fry [Assistant Professor of Law and Deputy Director of Mixed Degrees, University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law]. Legitimacy Push: Towards A Gramscian Approach To
International Law. UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs. Fall 2008. LexisNexis
James D.

instruments used by the hegemon in maintaining its dominant position as

a package of elements:The dual perspective can present itself on various levels, from the most elementary to the most complex; but these can
all theoretically be reduced to two fundamental levels, corresponding to the dual nature of Machiavelli's Centaur - half-animal and halfhuman. They are the levels of force and of consent, authority and hegemony, violence and civilization, of the individual moment and of the
Gramsci consistently saw the

universal moment ("Church" and "State"), of agitation and of propaganda, of tactics and of strategy, etc. n29

Gramsci saw hegemony as being broader than a mere coercive control of the masses, but
rather as "the "spontaneous' consent given by the great masses of the population ... ." and
"the apparatus of state coercive power which "legally' enforces discipline on those groups
who do not "consent' either actively or passively." n30 Gramsci clearly focused on these dual instruments of
hegemony, which he characterized as "domination" and "intellectual and moral
leadership," n31 when he stated that a hegemon both "dominates antagonistic groups, which it tends to "liquidate', or to subjugate perhaps even by armed force" and
"leads kindred and allied groups." n32 Examples of Gramsci's emphasis on the dual instruments of hegemony can be found throughout his writings. n33
[*314] As for Gramsci's position on the theoretical spectrum, Gramsci seems to have placed himself between liberals and actualists. n34 Indeed, Gramsci distinguished himself
from the notion of liberals who make a distinction between political society and civil society. n35 He also distinguished himself from Gentile's actualism, the notion that there is no
difference between force and consensus. n36 Instead, Gramsci appears to have taken a unique, though somewhat liberal, approach that force primarily is expressed in political
society, consensus primarily is expressed in civil society, and these two sides of hegemony are inextricably linked. n37 This formulation mixes Marxist and Weberian notions of the
state, which emphasize a monopoly of force, with Gramsci's own notions of consensus. n38 Gramsci distills the essential parts of his ideas on hegemony into one simple equation:

he sees the hegemonic state

not simply as the entity holding the monopoly on legitimate force with its police and army, but also
as being close enough to civil society through the electoral process to educate and shape
the formation of broad consensus.
"State = political society + civil society, in other words hegemony protected by the armor of coercion." n39 In essence,

There are two necessary tools for this form of hegemony

The intellectual and moral leadership of the hegemon, and coercive power
The United States is uniquely suited to the role of the hegemon, in that it possesses enough
power as a regional hegemon, and that it fundamentally possesses the desired values.

Third, The US is uniquely suited to act in the intervention of human rights violations.
Archibugi, Italian National Research Council and London School of Economics and Political Science. Cosmopolitan Guidelines for Humanitarian Intervention.Sage
Publications, Inc. 2004. JSTOR.
Daniele

Today we are dealing with

interventions carried out or supported by liberal Western states in countries of the world's South or, at
The historical context of contemporary military humanitarian interventions should, therefore, be made explicit.

any rate, in countries with much weaker political, economic, and military capabilities. The issue is not over a military intervention by Mexico to stop the death penalty in Texas or
by Cuba to guarantee fair elections in Florida: Clearly, what we are dealing with is military interventions by the liberal Western states in developing countries. This also reflects the
fact that the major violations of human rights are now occurring in the South, no longer in those countries that we label Western liberal democracies. The South-South interventions
carried out in the past, such as those of India in East Pakistan, of Vietnam in Cambodia, and of Tanzania in Uganda, are less likely to occur again, unless, that is, liberal Western

Humanitarian interventions are now the acts of power of Western

democracies in illiberal countries in an age in which the former have an indisputable
military, economic, political, and cultural hegemony over the latter. Inside the countries
of the West, the weight wielded by the United States is disproportionate.
countries are prepared to endorse them.

Further, the international balance of the global community is tied to the the US,
Elshtain, Laura Spelman Rockefeller Professor of Social and Political Ethics at the University of Chicago Divinity School, 03 (Jean Bethke, Just War Against Terrorism pg. 169)
The heavy burden being imposed on the United States does not require that the United States remain on hair-trigger alert at every
moment. But it does oblige the United States to evaluate all claims and to make a determination as to
whether it can intervene effectively and in a way that does more good than harmwith the primary objective of interdiction so that
democratic civil society can be built or rebuilt. This approach is better by far than those strategies of evasion and denial of the sort visible in Rwanda , in Bosnia, or in the sort of

the possibility of international peace and

stability premised on equal regard for all rests largely, though not exclusively, on American power.
Many persons and powers do not like this fact, but it is inescapable. As Michael Ignatieff puts it, the "most carefree and confident empire in history now
grimly confronts the question of whether it can escape Rome's ultimate fate."9 Furthermore, America's fate is tied inextricably to the
fates of states and societies around the world. If large pockets of the globe start to go
badhere, there, everywhere (the infamous "failed state" syndrome)the drain on American power and treasure will
reach a point where it can no longer be borne.
"advice" given to Americans by some of our European critics. At this point in time

Finally, democracy is an ideal that the United States has an obligation to spread.
Fukuyama, Francis. Should Democracy Be Promoted or Demoted?. The Washington Quarterly, Volume 31, Number 1. Winter 2007-08,
First and foremost, democracy provides the best
institutional form for holding rulers accountable to their people. If leaders must compete for
popular support to obtain and retain power, they will be more responsive to the preferences of the
people than rulers who do not govern on the basis of popular support. The institutions of
democracy also prevent abusive rule, constrain bad rule, and provide a mechanism for removing corrupt or
ineffective rule. Furthermore, democracy provides the setting for political competition, which in
Apart from serving U.S. strategic interests, democracy promotion is also the right thing to do.

turn drives better governance. Like markets, political competition between contending leaders, ideas, and
organizations produces better leaders, ideas, and organizations. In contrast, the absence of political competition in autocracies produces complacency and corruption and
has no mechanism for producing new leaders.

Second, democracies tend to provide more stable physical and economic welfare for their people
than do autocracies. Democracies avoid the worst threats to physical well-being, such as genocide and famine. Moreover, the old
conventional wisdom that dictators are better at economic modernization than their democratic counterparts is not supported by data.15 Democracies tend to produce slower rates
of growth than the best autocratic performers but boast steadier rates of economic development than autocracies as whole.16
For every autocracy, such as China, producing fantastic growth, there is an autocracy, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo under Mobuto, producing negative growth.

Third, the demand for and appeal of democracy as a system of government are widespread, if not
universal. Public opinion surveys of people throughout the world, including the wider Middle East,
show that majorities in most countries support democracy.17 Ideological challengers remain,
including the modernizing autocrat China and Osama bin Ladenism . Yet, compared to earlier historical periods, these opponents of democracy have
never been weaker.
The United States therefore has a moral interest in promoting democracy and a strategic interest to be on the side of moral policies.
If democracy is the [End Page 33] best system of government and demanded by the majority of people around the world, then the
United States should help promote its advance. Siding with this moral cause in turn strengthens the U.S.
image as a force for good, which in turn increases U.S. influence in international politics more generally.
U.S. leaders constantly face situations in which immediate security interests require cooperation with autocratic regimes, but such policies should not be defended on moral or ethical grounds.