DEBATE LUNCHTIME. To Attack or Not to Attack: Syria, the United States, and Chemical Weapons WHERE STUDENTS TAKE THE LEAD IN THE DEBATE

Transcription

1 To Attack or Not to Attack: Syria, the United States, and Chemical Weapons Along with many other nations, the United States has accused the government of Syria of using chemical weapons against civilian populations during its ongoing civil war. These weapons, say experts, have killed more than 1,000 people, including hundreds of children. Policymakers and elected officials including those in the U.S. Congress are fiercely debating whether and how to respond. Should the world community punish Syria by carrying out military strikes against that nation? What would be the main rationale for carrying out such strikes? Does international law allow or forbid such a response? What do supporters and opponents say? And where does the debate stand today? Date: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 Time: 1:00 p.m. 1:50 p.m. Location: W402

2 The UN Security Council: An Obstacle to World Peace? Under the United Nations Charter, the Security Council is responsible for maintaining international peace and security. As part of this responsibility, its members have the power to authorize the use of force. But critics say that the veto power of the five permanent members China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States has been preventing the world community from quickly addressing international crises, and that the structure of the Security Council needs to be reformed. Has the Security Council been an effective arbiter of war and peace? Should its structure be reformed, and how so? Would other nations become permanent members and be given veto power? What do supporters and opponents of various reform efforts say? Come and debate these and other questions! Date: Thursday, November 7, 2013 Time: 1:00 p.m. 1:45 p.m. Location: W120

3 LunchTIME Debate Where students take the lead in the debate Targeted for Death: Are Drone Attacks Legal or Illegal? In its continuing fight against terrorism, the United States uses unmanned aircrafts called drones to carry out strikes against certain groups and specific individuals (even U.S. citizens) on so-called government kill lists. Using drones, say supporters, is a legal and effective way to protect America. But others argue that drone strikes violate both domestic and international law, and even undermine public support for the United States. How do those who support drone attacks justify their use? How exactly do opponents respond? Do domestic and international law allow or forbid drone strikes in both combat areas and non-combat areas? Do they address whether the United States can target both foreigners and American citizens? Where does the debate stand today? Date: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 Time: 1:00 p.m. 1:50 p.m. Location: Boardroom (W204)

4 Should nations prohibit people from insulting religions? Muslims around the world have been protesting a film called The Innocence of Muslims and also several cartoons in a French magazine which they say insult their religion. They have called on nations to punish the filmmakers and the publishers of the cartoon, describing their depictions of Islam as hate speech, for example. But others argue that doing so will undermine freedom of expression and could actually stifle legitimate dissent in the future. Should nations prohibit people from insulting religions? Are insults considered hate speech? How does international law address this specific issue? Is freedom of expression absolute? Or does international law allow nations to restrict speech in specific circumstances? Date: Thursday, October 18, 2012 Time: 12:45 p.m. 1:50 p.m. Location: W402

5 Is it okay to invade a nation to stop massive suffering? In the last few decades, nations and non-state groups have carried out (or even failed to stop) atrocities and other events within their borders which have led to massive suffering. Millions have died in civil conflicts, disasters, genocidal campaigns, and persecutions in Cambodia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rwanda, Myanmar, and now Syria. Many argue that the world has a responsibility to protect those in other nations who are suffering large-scale harm and human rights violations. But others worry about the implications of intervening in the domestic affairs of other states. Do nations have a responsibility to stop massive suffering in other nations? What criteria would be used before carrying out a humanitarian intervention? Does international law address this issue? How do critics respond? Date: Thursday, November 15, 2012 Time: 12:50 p.m. 1:50 p.m. Location: Boardroom (W204)