Un Upr CP - Michigan7 2015

UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
UN UPR Counterplan HJPV
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
Notes
This card sums up the counterplans mechanism
St. Vincent 5/7/15 CDTs Human Rights and Surveillance Fellow, J.D. at the
University of Michigan Law School (Sarah, US to Answer for Surveillance Practices on
Global Stage, CDT, https://cdt.org/blog/us-to-answer-for-surveillance-practices-onglobal-stage/)//JJ
It only happens once every four and a half years, but its about to happen this month: the United
States will appear before the assembled United Nations Member States to listen and
respond to critiques of its human rights record. CDT has been working hard to ensure that the US surveillance
practices are at the top of the agenda for this process, which is known as the Universal
Periodic Review (UPR). We hope the official comments aired during the session will help to reinforce strong
human rights standards around government surveillance and hold the US to account for
its abuses. The UPR is conducted by the UN Human Rights Council, which is tasked with
reviewing every UN Member States compliance with its obligations under the human
rights treaties it has ratified. The process is mandatory for all countries: the May session, for example, will see the US examined just after Bulgaria
and Honduras and shortly before Jamaica and Libya. (The US will be in the hot seat on Monday, May 11 from 9:00 am to 12:30 pm Geneva time, so if you live in North America,
set your alarm clock early.) If a country recommends that the US discontinue any indiscriminate interception of private communications, the Obama administration will be
The US has committed to upholding human

rights under several treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR), the Convention against Torture, and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The
ICCPR, in particular, contains rights to privacy and free expression. During the session, every
other UN Member State will have the right to ask the US questions about its respect for
the human rights enshrined in these treaties and make recommendations as to what the
country should do differently in order to comply with its obligations . The US (represented by its
Geneva diplomatic mission and other members of the executive branch) will have the opportunity to respond to these points during the session, and will also need
to declare shortly afterward whether it accepts each of the recommendations. In other words, if
(for example) a country recommends that the US discontinue any indiscriminate interception
of private communications, the Obama administration will be required to take a public
position as to whether it accepts this recommendation. The UPR is a relatively recent
creationit was established via a UN General Assembly resolution in 2006and it continues to evolve as the UN
institutions, the Member States, and NGOs such as CDT, decide how it can best be used .
For example, unlike during its first review in 2010, the United States will now be encouraged to submit an official
midterm follow-up report to the Human Rights Council some time after the review
session to explain what the government is doing to implement the human rights
recommendations that were made. (We expect that the government will indeed engage in such reporting.) Meanwhile, for an organization
such as CDT, the review of the US represents a chance to remind the public and the global
diplomatic community about serious NSA surveillance abuses, and to strengthen the
human rights laws and standards that apply to government intrusions on privacy and
free speech. The latter opportunity arises because countries frame their recommendations using careful
legal language that reflects what they believe human rights law actually requires in practice; these
formal articulations can shape the relevant legal tests and ultimately have a long-term
impact on what the US and other governments believe they must do in order to fulfill their international
commitments. As part of the UPR process, CDT (along with the ACLU) submitted a joint expert report to the Human Rights Council on
required to take a public position as to whether it accepts this recommendation.
five particularly egregious global NSA surveillance programs, including MUSCULAR and QUANTUM, and we also contributed to a second expert report on US surveillance led
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
UN Member States to make surveillance one of

their priority issues during the review session. During the UPR session, we will be on the
lookout for whether: Countries with which the US has a positive relationshipparticularly those that
co-sponsored the recent groundbreaking resolution creating a new UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy publicly remind the US
government that many of the NSA surveillance programs revealed in the Snowden
documents violate human rights and make recommendations as to how those programs
should be changed; Countries state that the US must comply with its human rights
obligations when conducting surveillance outside its own bordersan assertion that
would carry significant weight in a major ongoing legal debate; Emphasis is placed upon the fact that even
the initial interception or acquisition of private data interferes with the rights to privacy
and free expression; There is a significant embrace of the UN Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights conclusion that any interferences with the right to
privacy must be necessary and proportionate in order to comply with human rights (again,
such statements by countries would help to strengthen a good global legal standardone the US currently resists); The burden surveillance places
on free expression is explicitly highlighted; and Countries address specific human rights
issues such as meaningful oversight of surveillance programs (for example, by courts or independent bodies) and
the need to ensure that anyone who experiences a violation of his/her rights due to
surveillance has access to an effective remedy. The Universal Periodic Review is the
worlds biggest stage for highlighting human rights violations and working for clearer,
stronger standards to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals everywhere . As the US steps
by our colleagues at the Brennan Center. Additionally, we have been urging the other
into the spotlight, the world will be watching, and so will CDT.
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
***top-level
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
1nc shell
The United States Federal Government should submit <the plan> to a
binding United Nations Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review.
The counterplan solves the aff and ensures U.S. human rights compliance
within UN institutions the process of the counterplan shapes
implementation
It only happens once every four and a half years, but its about to happen this month: the United
States will appear before the assembled United Nations Member States to listen and
respond to critiques of its human rights record. CDT has been working hard to ensure that the US surveillance
practices are at the top of the agenda for this process, which is known as the
Universal Periodic Review (UPR). We hope the official comments aired during the session will help to reinforce
strong human rights standards around government surveillance and hold the US to
account for its abuses. The UPR is conducted by the UN Human Rights Council, which is
tasked with reviewing every UN Member States compliance with its obligations under
the human rights treaties it has ratified. The process is mandatory for all countries: the May session, for example, will see the US
examined just after Bulgaria and Honduras and shortly before Jamaica and Libya. (The US will be in the hot seat on Monday, May 11 from 9:00 am to 12:30 pm Geneva time, so
if you live in North America, set your alarm clock early.) If a country recommends that the US discontinue any indiscriminate interception of private communications, the
Obama administration will be required to take a public position as to whether it accepts this recommendation.
The US has committed to
upholding human rights under several treaties, including the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention against Torture, and the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The ICCPR, in particular, contains rights to privacy and free
expression. During the session, every other UN Member State will have the right to ask
the US questions about its respect for the human rights enshrined in these treaties and
make recommendations as to what the country should do differently in order to
comply with its obligations . The US (represented by its Geneva diplomatic mission and other members of the executive branch) will have
the opportunity to respond to these points during the session, and will also need to declare shortly afterward whether it accepts each of the recommendations. In other words, if
(for example) a country recommends that the US discontinue any indiscriminate interception of private communications, the Obama administration will be required to take a
The UPR is a relatively recent creationit was established via a UN General

Assembly resolution in 2006and it continues to evolve as the UN institutions, the Member States, and
NGOs such as CDT, decide how it can best be used. For example, unlike during its first review in 2010, the United
States will now be encouraged to submit an official midterm follow-up report to the
Human Rights Council some time after the review session to explain what the
government is doing to implement the human rights recommendations that
were made. (We expect that the government will indeed engage in such reporting.) Meanwhile, for an organization such as CDT, the review of the
US represents a chance to remind the public and the global diplomatic community
about serious NSA surveillance abuses , and to strengthen the human rights
laws and standards that apply to government intrusions on privacy and free speech . The latter
opportunity arises because countries frame their recommendations using careful legal language that
public position as to whether it accepts this recommendation.
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
reflects what they believe human rights law actually requires in practice; these formal
articulations can shape the relevant legal tests and ultimately have a longterm impact on what the US and other governments believe they must do in order to fulfill their
international commitments. As part of the UPR process, CDT (along with the ACLU) submitted a joint expert
report to the Human Rights Council on five particularly egregious global NSA surveillance programs, including MUSCULAR and QUANTUM, and we also contributed to a
UN Member States to
make surveillance one of their priority issues during the review session.
second expert report on US surveillance led by our colleagues at the Brennan Center. Additionally, we have been urging the other
U.S. compliance within UN institutions bolsters UN legitimacy

Thakur 9 director, Balsillie School of International Affairs, Distinguished Fellow,
Centre for International Governance Innovation and Professor of Political Science,
University of Waterloo (Ramesh, LAW, LEGITIMACY AND UNITED NATIONS,
Melbourne Journal of International Law Volume 11, 12/7/9, p. 10-21)//JJ
All of these elements might be enough to put the ball back in the UNs court. But its authority, too, has been diminished by the Iraq War . As I have
put it elsewhere: [w]hat is to stop other leaders from mimicking the bumper sticker argument
about not needing a permission slip from the UN to defend ones country? In other
words, repeated US assaults on UN-centered law governing the international use of force have undermined
the norm of a world of laws, the efficacy of international law and the legitimacy of
the UN as the authoritative validator of international behaviour.
A norm cannot control the behaviour of those who reject its legitimacy. Norm compliance
by those who reject the legitimacy of the existing order will be a function of their incapacity to break out, not of voluntary obedience. The de facto position of nuclear might equals right is an inducement to join the club of nuclear enforcers. It is curious, to say the least, th at those who worship at the altar of nuclear weapons are the fiercest in denouncing
as heretics anyone else wishing to join their sect. In order to enhance their credentials as critics and enforcers of the norm, the N5 need to move more rapidly from deterrence to disarmament. There have been signs that the Obama Administration might well take a lead on this. 43 The logic of non-proliferation is inseparable from that of disarmament.
Hence, the axiom of non-prol iferation: as long as any one country has them, others, including terrorist groups, will try their best (or worst) to get them. If they did not exist, nuclear wea pons could not proliferate. Because they do, they will. The pursuit of nuclear non-proliferation is doomed without an accompanying duty to disarm. Paradoxically,
counter-proliferation effo rts may well be legitimate even if illegal. The reality of contemporary threat s means that significant gaps exist in the legal and institutional framework to combat them. Within the constraints of the NPT , a non-nuclear country can build the ne cessary infrastructure to be but a screwdriver away from acquiring nuclea r weapons.
Non-state actors are outside the jurisdiction and contro l of multilateral agreements. Recognising this, a US-led group of like-minded countries launched the Prolif eration Security Initiative to interdict illi cit air, sea and land cargo li nked to WMDs. Its premise is that the proliferation of such weapons dese rves to be criminalised by the civilised
community of nations. The In itiative signals a new determination to overcome an unsatisfactory state of affairs through a br oad partnership of countries that, using their own national laws and resources, will coordinate actions to halt shipments of dangerous technologies and material. V A TROCITY C RIMES AND I NTERNATIONAL I
NTERVENTIONS The Proliferation Security Initiative involves a limited use of force by groups of countries acting outside the UN fram ework. The lawlegitimacy distinction arose with particular cogency with resp ect to the legal system promulgated and enforced by the apartheid regime in South Africa. If the constitutional system itself was essentially a
criminal regime, then could not opposition to it be held up as legitimate even if illegal? That debate had barely faded when the same dilemma flared up in the 1990s with the sp ate of humanitarian atrocities and the role of international indifference, inaction or intervention with respect to these atrocities. Except, this time, the role s of the global North
and South were reversed. When NATO launched a human itarian war without UN authorisation in Kosovo, it raised a triple policy dilemma: 1 To respect sovereignty all the time is sometimes to be complicit in humanitarian tragedies; 2 To argue that the Secur ity Council must give its consent to international intervention for humanitarian purposes is to
risk policy paralysis by handing over the agenda either to th e passivity and apathy of the Council as a whole, or to the mo st obstructionist member of the Council, including any one of the P5 determined to use the veto clause; 3 To use force without UN authorisation is to violate international law and undermine world order. The three propositions
together high light a critical lawlegitimacy gap between the needs and distress felt in th e real world and the codified instruments and modalities for managing world order. Faced with another Holocaust or Rwanda-type genocide on the one hand and a Security Council veto on the other, what would we do? Doing nothing would progressively delegitimise the role and undermine the auth ority of the Security Council as the cornerstone of the international law enforcement system . But action without UN authorisation would be illegal and also undermine the la wful authority of th e Security Council. The lawlegitimacy distinction was to resu rface four years later over Iraq and leave many
Westerners rather less co mfortable than the Kosovo precedent. In making up the rules of intervention on the fly in Kosovo, 45 NATO countries put at peril the requirement for a lasting system of world order grounded in the rule of international law. The attempt to limit the reach of the Kosovo precedent did not prevent the advo cates of the Iraq War
from invoking it to justify toppling Saddam. 46 The Iraq Wars legality and legitimacy will be debated for years to come. The belligerent countries insisted that the war was both legal and legitimate, based on a series of prior UN resolutions and the long and frustrating history of combative-cum-deceitful defiance of the UN by Saddam Hussein. Others
Similarly, there were three views on the significance of the war for the
UNUS relationship: that it demonstrated the irrelevance, centrality or potential complicity of the UN. 48 First, for the neoconceded that it may have been illegal but, like Kosovo in 1999, it was nevertheless legitimate in its largely humanitarian outcome. For a third group, the war was both illegal and illegitimate.
conservatives, because it exists, the UN should be uninvented and there was therefore no reason to seek UN approval. 49 Under the second view, it was recognized that there was a need to confront Saddam
Hussein but [it] ruled out acting without UN authorization. 50 Third, UN authorization of the war was necessary but not sufficient with irrelevance preferred to complicity. 51 In the opinion of some,
the
UN is now more than ever reduced to the servile function of after-sales

service provider for the United States, on permanent call as the mop-up brigade .
Humanitarianism provides us with a vocabulary and institutional machinery of emancipation. But [f]ar from being a defense of the individual against the state, human rights has become a standard pa rt of the justification for the external use of force by the state against other states and individuals. 53 The use of force may be lawful or unlawful; the
decision to use force is a political act; and almost the only channel between legal authority and political legitimacy with regard to the international use of force is the UN. Conceding to any regional organisation the authority to decide when political legitimacy may override legal technicality would make a mockery of the entire basis of strictly limited, and
in recent times increasingly constricted, recourse to force for settling international disputes. Conversely, restricting the right solely to NATO is an open argument for law-making by an elite group of Western powers sitting in judgment over their own actions 54 as well as that of all others. In effect, the Wests position vis-a-vis the rest is: we shall hold
you to account for your use of force domestically while exempting our internat ional use of force from any external accountability. While the West wants to proscribe the unconstrained use of force to maintain domestic order, developing countries wa nt to proscribe the use of force by outsiders to enforce justice within errant member states. There is also
the moral hazard that outside intervention on behalf of groups resisting state authority by force encourages other recalcitrant groups in other places to resort to ever more violent challenges, since that is the trigger to internationalising their power struggle. The tension is both powerful and poignant with respect to moving the globally endorsed
responsibility to protect from norm to action (or words to deeds, principle to practice). Here we enter the realm both of normative inconsistency selective application and enfo rcement of global norms against friends and adversaries, for example dow nplaying the human rights abuses of Central Asian states and Israel while hi ghlighting those of Iraq
and Iran and normative incoherence when different norms clash with each other as between human rights requirements and prohi bitions against the use of force. Is it permissible (or legitimate) to violate some aspects of international law in order to enforce respect for human rights laws? Is it still legitimate if some states are more equal than
others in facing intern ational pressure and sanctions, including military intervention as the ultimate sanction? Bernard Kouchner, the French Foreign Minister, advocated invoking the responsibility to pr otect in order to override the juntas recalcitrance about accepting international assistance after Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar in 2008, 55 but was
notably silent about possible Israeli war crimes in Gaza in 2009. Such selectivity will quickly de-legitimise the new norm whose path to global endorsement was quite contentious. 56 In a Security Council debate on the prot ection of civilians in armed conflict on 4 December 2006, Chinese ambassador Liu Zhenmin warned that the 2005 World Summit
Outcome 57 was a very cautious representation of the responsibility to protect popul ations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing 54 David Chandler, From Kosovo to Kabul: Human Rights and International Intervention (Pluto Press, 2002) 135. 55 See Seth Mydans, Myanmar Junta, Wary of Outsiders, Is Accused of Delaying Storm Aid, The New
York Times (New York), 8 May 2008, A22. 56 That story is told in three books by three people closely associated with it: Gareth Evans, The Responsibility to Protect: Ending Mass Atrocity Crimes Once and for All (Brookings Institution Press, 2008); Ramesh Thakur, The United Nations, Peace and Security: From Collective Security to the Responsibility
to Protect (Cambridge University Press, 2006); Thomas G Weiss, Humanitarian Intervention (Polity, 2007). 57 2005 World Summit Outcome , GA Res 60/1, UN GAOR, 60 th sess, Agenda Items 46 and 120, UN Doc A/RES/60/1 (24 October 2005). 2010] Law, Legitimacy and United Nations 17 The philosophical antecedents of such beliefs lie in the 18
th 19 th century theory of evolutionary progress through diffusion and acculturation from the West to the rest. The implicit but clear assumption is that when Western and non-Western values diverge, the latter are in the wrong and it is only a matter of working on them with persuasion and pre ssure for the problem to be resolved and progress
achieved. 77 The cognitive rigidity is s hown again in the phrase that [p]ressure by Western states and intern ational organizations can greatly increase the vulnerability of norm-violating governments to external influences. 78 Self-evidently, only non-Western governme nts can be norm vi olators; Western governments can only be norm-setters and
enforcers. The rejection of the ICC by Washington highlights the irony that the US is prepared to bomb in the name of human rights but not to join institutions to enforce them. 79 Even if we agree on universal huma n rights, they still have to be constructed, articulated and embedded in international conve ntions. The question remains of the agency
and procedure for determining what they are, how they apply in specific circumstances and cases, what the proper remedies might be to breaches, who decides on these breaches and what rules of procedure and evidence they should follow. Under presen t conditions of world realities, the political calculus relations based on military might, economic
power and media and NGO dominance cannot be taken out. The resilience of the opposition to the internationalis ation of the human conscien ce lies in the fear that the lofty rhetoric of universal human rights claims merely masks the more mundane and familiar pursuit of nati onal interests by different means. VII T HE U NITED N ATIONS S
ECURITY C OUNCIL Almost all the above examples relate to the Security Council as the core of the international law enforcement system. General Rupert Smith argues that in Bosnia, [t]he existence and actions of the Security Council negatively affected events ... The consequence of this failing was the destruction of the credibility of the UN. 80 He
concludes that [i]f the Security Council ... is to change so as to wield force for good, then structural a nd organizational chan ges are necessary. 81 An unreformed Security Council has been experiencing a steady erosion of international legitimacy, which helps to explain the growing willingness of many state and non-state actors to defy its edicts openly.
That is, the increasing 77 Many in developing countries watched bemusedly from the sidelines when the same attitudinal divide opened up across the Atlantic in 2003 with respect to the US threat of war on Iraq and the stiff resistan ce from European citizens. Th e dominant view in Washington seemed once again to be that the European people could
not possibly be right. The task was to show them the error of their ways or, fa iling that, to make sure that the European governments listened to the US Administration rather than to their own people. That the Administration could be wrong was a priori beyond the realm of possibility. 78 Thomas Risse and Stephen C Ropp, International Human Rights
Norms and Domestic Change: Conclusions in Thomas Risse, Stephen C Ropp and Kathryn Sikkink (eds), The Power of Human Rights (Cambridge University Press, 1999) 234, 277. 79 Christine Chinkin, Kosovo: A Good or Bad War? (1999) 93 American Journal of International Law 841, 846. 80 Rupert Smith, The Security Council and the Bosnian
Conflict: A Practitioners View in Vaughan Lowe et al (eds), The United Nations Security Council and War: The Evolution of Thought and Practice since 1945 (Oxford University Press, 2008) 442, 451. 81 Ibid. 18 Melbourne Journal of International Law [Vol 11 divergence of Security C ouncil-sourced law from le gitimacy dramatically reduces the efficacy
of the UN in regula ting the international behaviour of a growing number of actors. For legality a nd legitimacy to come together again in the Security Council, its composition and procedures must be changed urgently to reflect todays military and ideational realities. The legitimacy of the Security Counc il as the authorita tive validator of international
security action suffers from a quadruple legitimacy deficit: performance, representati onal, procedural and account ability. Its performance legitimacy suffers from two strikes: an uneven and a selective record. It is unrepresentative from almost any point of view. 82 Its procedural legitimacy is suspect on grounds of a lack of democratisati on and
transparency in decision-making. And it is not answerable to the General Assembly, the World Court, the nations or the peoples of the world. Western countries often fret at the in effectual performance legitimacy of the Council. Their desire to resist the Counc ils role as the sole validator of the international use of force is the product of this dissa
tisfaction at its perceived sorry record. But the moral authority of collective judgments does depend in part on the moral quality of the process of making those judgments. 83 Michael Ignatieff writes that [w]hen democrats di sagree on substance, they need to agree on process. 84 The collective nature of the decision-making process of the Security
Council is suspect because of the skewed dist ribution of political power and resources among its members. If th e Security Council were to become increasingly activist, interventionist and effective, the erosion of representational and procedural legitimacy and the abse nce of any accountability mechanisms would lead many countries to question th e
authority of the Council even more forcefully. There is a logical slippage between normative idealism and Realpolitik in picking and choosing which elements of th e existing order are to be challenged and which retained. If ethical imperati ves and calculations of justice are to inform, underpin and justify international interventions, then there is a
powerful case for reforming the composition of the Security Council a nd eliminating the veto clause with respect to humanitarian operations. To self-censor such calls for major reform on the grounds that they are unacceptable to the major powers and therefore unrealistic, is to argue in e ffect that the motive for intervention is humanitarian, not
strategic; yet, the agency and procedure for deciding on intervention must remain locked in the strategic logic of Realpolitik. The UN is usually attacked for doing t oo little, too late. Has the Security Council been doing too much and too soon? In recent times the Council has been coopting functions that belong properly to legislative and judicial spheres.
It has taken on a legislative role in resolutions on terrorism and non-proliferation. This is intruding into the realm of state prerogatives as negotiated in international conferences and conventions . Security Council deci sions are binding, so 192 82 See Ramesh Thakur, UN Electoral Grou pings Reform in Ramesh Thakur (ed), What is Equitable
Geographic Representation in the Twenty-First Century? (United Nations University Press, 1999) 23. 83 Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson, Democracy and Disagreement (Belknap Press, 1996) 4. 84 Michael Ignatieff, The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror (Edinburgh University Press, 2004) viii. 2010] Law, Legitimacy and United
Nations 19 legislatures are denied their right of review over international treaties. The Security Council imposed sanctions on Li bya for its failure to extradite two citizens accused of being the brains behind the Lockerbie bombing. That is, without a trial and conviction, the Secu rity Council was bent on compelling one sovereign state to hand over it s
citizens to another sove reign state on the basis of allegations from the latter which had itself, just a few years earlier, defied the World Courts verdict in a case brought against it by Nicaragua. In September 2004, the Council approved a US-backed resolution 85 demanding the immediate withdrawal of a ll foreign forces from Lebanon at a time
when more than 100 000 US troops were occupying Iraq. No-one held their breath over any possible UN i nvestigation of the tens or is it hundreds of thousands killed in Iraq since 2003. On 31 May 2007, a sharply divided Security Council voted 10:0:5 to estab lish an internati onal criminal tribunal to prosecute the perpetrators of the suicideassassin ation of Lebanons Prime Minister, Rafiq Hariri, and 22 others in February 2005, which put the organisation in the business of stigmatizing and punishing individuals for a political crime. 86 The five abstainers China, Indonesia, Qata r, Russia and South Africa explained that the resolution bypassed the Lebanese parliaments
constitutional role in approving international agreements. 87 Hezbollah issued a statement denouncing the Security Council resolution as illegal and illegitimate at the national and international level. 88 It is easy to understand why Iranians might have come to the same conclusion about the Security Council afte r their bitter war with Iraq. For eight
long years, despite clear evidence of aggression by Saddam Hussein (who during this time was the Wests useful idiot) and his use of chemical weapons, the Councils standard response was to suggest that bot h belligerents were equally at fault. 89 If and when the UN Charter is reformed, one item on the agenda should be the introduction of curbs on
untrammelled authority in the Security Council, which is presently subject to no count ervailing political check or judicial review. 90 The idea that the P5 should fuse legislative, executive and judicial 85 SC Res 1559, UN SCOR, 59 th sess, 5028 th mtg, UN Doc S/RES/1559 (2 September 2004). 86 Gary J Bass, Does the UN Understand What Its Getting
Itself Into?, The Washington Post (Washington DC), 30 October 2005, B03. 87 Colum Lynch and Ellen Knickmeyer, UN Council Backs Tribunal for Lebanon: Beirut Braces for Unrest after Vote to Purs ue Assassins of Former Premier, The Washington Post (Washington DC), 31 May 2007, A01. 88 Hezbollah Condemns Hariri Court (31 May 2007) BBC
News <http://news.bbc.co.uk>. 89 Charles Tripp, The Security Council and the IranIraq War, in Vaughan Lowe et al (eds), The United Nations Security Council and War: The Evolution of Thought and Practice since 1945 (Oxford University Press, 2008) 368, 374. 90 In Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in
Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) (Advisory Opinion) [1971] ICJ Rep 16; Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aeri al Incident at Lockerbie (Libya v UK) (Preliminary Objections) [1998] ICJ Rep 9; and Questions of Interpretation and
Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libya v US) (Preliminary Objections) [1998] ICJ Rep 115, the ICJ cast doubts on the blanket immunity of the Security Council from judicial scrutiny but did not go so far as to enunciate a doctrine of judicial review. See Jose E Alvarez, Judging the Security
Council (1996) 90 American Journal of International Law 1; Thomas M Franck, The Powers of Appreciation: Who Is the Ultimate Guardian of UN Legality? (1992) 86 American Journal of International Law 519. 20 Melbourne Journal of International Law [Vol 11 powers to themselves violates elementary notions of due process. Imagine if abuser
regimes, and only they, had perm anent membership and veto powers in the new Human Rights Council. Western commentators seem to point r outinely to China and Russia as the veto-wielding problem members of the P 5. In fact, since the end of the Cold War, the country to have cast the veto mo st frequently is the US. The UK and the US have been
among the most heavily i nvolved in warfare and armed conflict over the last century, and if we limit the period to that starti ng after the Second World War, a third country in the list would be Israel. Not the least, because of the veto power in the Security Council, there is no prospect of anyone from any of these three countries being placed in the ICC
dock in the foreseeable future. Little wonder that the precedent-setting in dictment of the President of Sudan by the ICC in March 2009 drew protests fr om the majority of the African Union, 91 the Arab League 92 and the Non-Aligned Movement 93 (the worlds most representative general pur pose body after the UN itself) about the selective justice
being meted out by the ICC. Until such time as Washington (and London) are prepared to lead the campaign for th e abolition of the veto clause, it is difficult to see how the expect ation, threat or use of ve to by others can legitimise any US or UK action that circumvents the veto. Those who live by the veto cannot rightfully complain about having to die
by the veto
. VIII
THE UNITED NATIONS UNITED STATES DUALISM
The push for democratization in the world has
been led by the three Western members of the P5 (UK, France and the US ). Yet the three have been the most fiercely resistant to bringing democracy and transparency to the workings of the Council itself. In some
respects,
it is more accurate to speak these days of the P1 rather than the P5 . Authority is the right to
make policy and rules, while power is the capacity to implement the policy and enforce the rules.
The UN has global reach and authority but no power . It
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
symbolizes global governance but lacks the attributes of international government.

While lawful authority remains vested in the UN, power has become increasingly
concentrated in the US which has global grasp and power but not international authority. The
exercise of power is rendered less effective and generates its own resistance if
divorced from authority. The latter in turn is corroded when challenges to it go
unanswered by the necessary force. Lack of capacity to be the chief enforcer acting under Chapter
means that the UN remains an incomplete organization , one that practices only part s of its
Charter. That being the case, Edward Luck asks, [i]s it tenable for the UN to say that it only wants to walk on the soft side of the street but nevertheless
VII of the UN Charter
wants to have some degree of control over what happens on the other side as well? Until the First World War, war was an accepted and normal part of the state system with distinctive rules, norms and etiquette.
In that Hobbesian world, the only protection against aggression was countervailing power, which increased both the cost of victory and the risk of failure. Since 1945, the UN has spawned a corpus of law to
The UN exists to check the predatory instincts of the powerful

towards the weak one of the most enduring but not endearing lessons of history. Since 11 September 2001, a US that was already overarmed has militarized its foreign policy still more. Might the US irritation at the UN owe as much to its effectiveness in constraining
imperial US behavior as alleged UN ineffectiveness against others? The Bush Administration rejected Harry Trumans counsel that the US must
deny itself the license to do as it pleases, ignored John F Kennedys wisdom that the US is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, and rode roughshod over four
stigmatize aggression and create a robust norm against it.
decades of tradition of en lightened self-interest and liberal internationalism as the guiding normative template of US foreign policy. Paul Heinbecker, Canadas former UN ambassador, comments that [t]he
distance between delusion and hubris is short and the Bush Administration covered it in a sprint.
UN legitimacy solves extinction

Goldberg 13 citing Chuck Hagel, former U.S. Secretary of Defense and Senator from
Nebraska (Mark Leon, Why Chuck Hagel Supports the United Nations, UN Dispatch,
1/7/13, http://www.undispatch.com/why-chuck-hagel-supports-the-unitednations/)//JJ
The United Nations can play a central and critical role in forging connections. The global
challenges of terrorism , proliferation of weapons of mass destruction ,
hunger , disease , and poverty require multilateral responses and
initiatives . The United States should therefore take every opportunity to help
strengthen global institutions and alliances, including the UN . Like all institutions, the United
Nations has its limitations and problems. It needs reform. Too often, the UN, especially the General Assembly, succumbs to the worst forms of political posturing. Nevertheless,
the United Nations has played an essential role throughout the world in
postconflict transitions, supervising elections, providing humanitarian programs and assistance, 22
peacekeeping, and offering international legitimacy and expertise of the kind that have helped stabilize Korea, Haiti,
Liberia, East Timor, the Balkans, Afghanistan, and a number of other regions. Helping bring security to those troubled areas required an immense
international effort. Although many of these hot spots are still troubled today, each is more
stable than it was, reducing the risk of further violence and regional escalation . More
importantly, each has some hope for a peaceful futurealthough it may take years before that hope is realized. No international conflict is
simple or easy to deal with, but each requires attention and the United Nations is the
only international organization that can help bring the consensus that is
indispensable in finding solutions and resolving crises. Critics have suggested that McCains League of
Democracies could diminish the role of the United Nations. When I mentioned this to Hagel, he said, What is the point of the United Nations?
The whole point, as anyone who has taken any history knows, was to bring all nations of the world together in some
kind of imperfect body, a forum that allows all governments of the world, regardless of
what kinds of government, to work through their problems versus attacking each
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
other and going to war. Now, in Johns League of Democracies, does that mean Saudi Arabia is out? Does that mean our friend King Abdullah in Jordan is
out? It would be only democracies. Well, weve got a lot of allies and relationships that are pretty important to us, and to our interests, who would be out of that club. And the
in order to solve
problems youve got to have all the players at the table, Hagel went on, his voice rising. How are you going to fix
the problems in Pakistan , Afghanistan the problems weve got with poverty,
way John would probably see China and Russia, they wouldnt be in it, either. So it would be an interesting Book-of-the-Month Club. But
proliferation, terrorism, wars when the largest segments of society in the world
today are not at the table? He paused, then added, more calmly, The United Nations, as Ive said many
times, is imperfect. Weve got NATO, multilateral institutions, multilateral-development banks, the World Trade Organizationall have flaws, thats true.
But if you didnt have them what would you have? A world completely out of
control , with no structure , no order , no boundaries .
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
***solvency
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
2nc xt: solvency

Universal Periodic Review solves the aff and ensures human right
compliance
CDT 5/11/15 global non-profit organization championing global online civil liberties
and human rights, driving policy outcomes that keep the Internet open, innovative, and
free, *citing Sarah Vincent; J.D. at the University of Michigan Law School (Center for
Democracy and Technology, UN Human Rights Council Highlights US Surveillance
Abuses, https://cdt.org/press/un-human-rights-council-highlights-us-surveillanceabuses/)//JJ
Today, the United Nations Human Rights Council conducted its second Universal
Periodic Review of the United States human rights practices . During this
process, UN Members States have the opportunity to raise concerns about a
countrys human rights record, highlighting particular concerns or areas for
clarification. The human rights implications of large-scale government
surveillance were a prominent topic of criticism by more than a dozen countries. The
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) and the ACLU submitted a shadow report on five particularly egregious US surveillance programs in advance of the review, and CDT
previewed the process last week.
The global community has said firmly that the US must address its
surveillance-related human rights abuses . The US cannot continue to ignore

these calls for action, said Sarah St. Vincent, Human Rights and Surveillance Legal fellow at CDT. The UN Human Rights
Council review comes just days before surveillance reform legislation is to be
taken up in Congress and follows last weeks ruling by the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals that the NSA bulk collection is not legal under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act .
The Councils proceedings have put additional pressure on the US to reform its
surveillance practices not just in the US, but around the world , St. Vincent added. Theyve
highlighted the need to ensure that all surveillance programs respect the rights to
privacy and free expression for everyone, at all times. At least 17 nations questioned the US on its surveillance practices,
raising issues related to the interception of private data, transparency, redress for violations, and the rights of individuals being monitored outside of the US borders. CDT will
provide additional analysis of the proceedings later this week.
Solves the aff

University of Michigan Law School (Sarah, UN Member States Call for US Surveillance
Reforms, CDT, https://cdt.org/blog/un-member-states-call-for-us-surveillancereforms/)//JJ
On Monday, US officials went before the gathered United Nations Member States in Geneva and were greeted with a message that
was loud and clear: all surveillance, no matter where it takes place or whose data it
involves, must comply with human rights law. As Congress and the Executive Branch continue
to face urgent demands from the American public to reform surveillance, they would do well to heed this global call for change
as well. In particular, the Administration should give immediate and serious consideration to
countries recommendations to recognize that human rights apply to all
surveillance; that any surveillance program must be subject to adequate judicial,
congressional, and independent oversight; and that anyone whose fundamental rights
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
are violated by surveillance activities must have access to effective redress. NSA surveillance remains a
matter of strong and detailed concern to the global community. As CDT explained last week, the UN Human Rights Council conducted the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of
the United States, which occurs once every four and a half years and entails a public review of the countrys compliance with all of its obligations under human rights law.
Every UN Member State had the right to participate in the US review, and Mondays
session demonstrated a remarkable cohesiveness among the serious issues that were
raisedand showed that NSA surveillance remains a matter of strong and detailed
concern to the global community. Among the 17 countries that commented on US surveillance (or privacy rights more broadly), several
emphasized something the Administration has thus far refused to acknowledge: namely, that the US must respect human rights
whenever it conducts surveillance operations, including surveillance of people who are
outside the United States and are not Americans. As CDT and the ACLU observed in a report to the Human Rights Council prior
to the session, the Snowden documents indicate that the NSA has been intercepting the private data of hundreds of millions of people around the world every day, and the
Administrations failure to recognize that these activities give rise to human rights
obligations remains a conspicuous and grave one. In addition to this general critique, several countries specifically indicated
that the US must adopt better judicial, legislative, and independent oversight of its surveillance programs. Such oversight is an essential element of the right to privacy, and is a
basic safeguard that CDT has been working hard to promote both within the US and internationally. A number of countries also highlighted the fact that US surveillance places a
burden on individual rights from the moment the NSA acquires private data, regardless of whether analysts later view or use ita point that echoes a similar finding by a US
US is
expected to state publicly whether it accepts these and other surveillance-related
recommendations. We believe the Administration should accept the following
obligations, among others, as a matter of official policy: Respect and protect the human
rights of all people when conducting surveillance: Ensure that all surveillance
Second Circuit Court of Appeals last week in a case concerning the agencys bulk collection of records of phone calls to, from, and within the US. Next month, the
policies and measures comply with international human rights law,

particularly the right to privacy, regardless of the nationality or location of those
affected, including through the development of effective safeguards against abuses
(recommendation made by Brazil). Do the same when requiring companies to disclose users data: Respect international human rights
obligations regarding the right to privacy when intercepting digital communications of
individuals, collecting personal data or requiring disclosure of personal data from third
parties (recommendation made by Germany). Conduct surveillance only on the basis of clear ,
comprehensive, non-discriminatory laws, and review existing laws accordingly : Review US
federal laws and policies in order to ensure that all surveillance of digital communications is consistent with its
international human rights obligations and is conducted on the basis of a legal
framework which is publicly accessible, clear, precise, comprehensive and nondiscriminatory (recommendation made by Liechtenstein). Restrict large-scale global surveillance, ensure sufficient oversight, and provide redress for violations:
Take all necessary measures to ensure an independent and effective oversight by all Government branches of the overseas surveillance operations of the National Security
Agency, especially those carried out under Executive Order 12333, and guarantee access to effective judicial and other remedies for people whose right to privacy would have
been violated by the surveillance activities of the United States (recommendation made by Switzerland; similar recommendation made by Hungary). Take proactive measure to
prevent abuses: Take adequate and effective steps to guarantee against arbitrary and unlawful acquisition of [private] data (recommendation made by Kenya; similar
recommendation made by Costa Rica). It is to the Administrations credit that (as several participating countries noted) it has taken the Human Rights Councils review of its
human rights record with evident seriousness thus far. US Ambassador Keith Harper remarked before the assembled delegates that every nation benefits from having a mirror
held before it, and the US decision to send a high-level delegation representing a range of federal agencies reflects the sincerity of that view. In the case of surveillance,
It is imperative for the Executive Branch to

take action accordingly by formally declaring that it will accept and uphold the
positions described above.
however, theres no escaping the fact that the mirror has revealed profound flaws.
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
2nc at: U.S. says no

U.S. will implement the recommendations council and member states
authority
During the UPR session, we will be on the lookout for whether: Countries with which the US
has a positive relationshipparticularly those that co-sponsored the recent groundbreaking resolution creating a new UN Special
Rapporteur on the right to privacypublicly remind the US government that many of the NSA
surveillance programs revealed in the Snowden documents violate human rights
and make recommendations as to how those programs should be changed ;
Countries state that the US must comply with its human rights obligations
when conducting surveillance outside its own bordersan assertion that would
carry significant weight in a major ongoing legal debate; Emphasis is placed upon the fact that even
the initial interception or acquisition of private data interferes with the rights to privacy
and free expression; There is a significant embrace of the UN Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights conclusion that any interferences with the right to
privacy must be necessary and proportionate in order to comply with human rights (again,
such statements by countries would help to strengthen a good global legal standardone the US currently resists); The burden
surveillance places on free expression is explicitly highlighted ; and Countries address
specific human rights issues such as meaningful oversight of surveillance programs (for
example, by courts or independent bodies) and the need to ensure that anyone who experiences a violation
of his/her rights due to surveillance has access to an effective remedy . The Universal
Periodic Review is the worlds biggest stage for highlighting human rights violations
and working for clearer, stronger standards to protect the rights and freedoms of
individuals everywhere. As the US steps into the spotlight, the world will be watching, and so will CDT.
U.S. will implement empirics flow neg
DS 2/6/15 U.S. Department of State (UPR Report of the United States of America,
Department of State Diplomacy in Action,
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/upr/2015/237250.htm)//JJ
In our first UPR in 2010, the United States supported in whole or in part 173 of 228
recommendations. We have divided these recommendations into ten thematic areas and have structured Section III of this report
accordingly. Working groups comprising experts from relevant federal agencies addressed
each of the thematic areas, meeting periodically , assessing progress on the
recommendations, and consulting with civil society to share updates and receive feedback.
Heres specific ev to surveillance
ISHR 5/18/15 independent, non-governmental organization dedicated to promoting
and protecting human rights, developed the UN Declaration on Human Rights
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
Defenders (International Service For Human Rights, United States: Implement UPR
recommendations to establish national human rights institution and review
national security laws, http://www.ishr.ch/news/united-states-implement-upr-recommendations-establish-nationalhuman-rights-institution-and)//JJ
US) was reviewed last week on Monday, 11 May for the second time, as part of the 22nd session of the
Universal Periodic Review (UPR). Late last year, ISHR prepared a Briefing Paper on the Situation of Human
Rights Defenders in the US to assist States and other stakeholders to formulate questions and recommendations regarding the
protection of human rights defenders (HRDs) during the US second UPR. In the briefing paper, ISHR called on the US Congress
to reform national security legislation and ensure accountability surrounding the
unwarranted surveillance of human rights defenders and journalists; enact specific
legislation that protects HRDs from reprisals and intimidation; and to build and
endorse human rights mechanisms necessary for consistent and effective oversight of
human rights in the US. Encouragingly, many of these recommendations were taken up
by States in last weeks review.
The United States of America (
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
2nc at: U.S. lies

Irrelevant rights groups, institutions, and NGOs solve
OHCHR 15 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (Basic facts about
the UPR, United Nations Human Rights, 2015,
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/BasicFacts.aspx)//JJ
The documents on which the reviews are based are: 1) information provided by the State under review, which can
take the form of a national report; 2) information contained in the reports of independent human
rights experts and groups , known as the Special Procedures, human rights treaty
bodies , and other UN entities ; 3) information from other stakeholders including
national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations .
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
2nc at: every 4 years

Fiat solves their interpretation justifies no affs or politics or counterplans
during Congressional recess
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
2nc at: delay

UPR is grease lightning
During the Working Group session half an hour is allocated to adopt each of the outcome reports
for the States reviewed that session. These take place no sooner than 48 hours after
the country review. The reviewed State has the opportunity to make preliminary comments on the recommendations choosing to either
accept or note them. Both accepted and noted recommendations are included in the report. After the report has been adopted,
editorial modifications can be made to the report by States on their own statements
within the following two weeks . The report then has to be adopted at a plenary session of the Human Rights Council.
During the plenary session, the State under review can reply to questions and issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the Working Group and
respond to recommendations that were raised by States during the review. Time is also allotted to member and observer States who may wish to
express their opinion on the outcome of the review and for NHRIs, NGOs and other stakeholders to make general comments.
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
2nc at: surv compliance now

Extend St. Vincent (and 2nc solvency ev) most recent UPR proves U.S.
surveillance violates international human rights
Theyre wrong
HRW 6/29/15 international non-governmental organization that conducts research
and advocacy on human rights, Peabody Award winner (Human Rights Watch, World
Report 2015: United States, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/countrychapters/united-states)//JJ
Documents leaked to journalists by former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden continued to reveal new details about US surveillance programs. In the
last year, reports based on the Snowden documents show that the US may be collecting millions of text messages worldwide each day and intercepting all phone calls and
metadata in the Bahamas and Afghanistan, and gathering all phone metadata in Mexico, Kenya, and the Philippines. A July news story said several prominent American Muslim
leaders, including the head of a Muslim civil liberties group, were targeted with electronic surveillance. On January 17, 2014, President Obama announced additional measures
these measures
fell short of ensuring that interference with privacy was limited to what was necessary
and proportionate, and they left open the possibility of large-scale collection. Also, while the
measures purported to bring rules on surveillance of non-US persons (foreigners abroad) closer to those governing data collected on US persons, the rules are
vague and create no justiciable rights . In March, the UN Human Rights
to restrict the use, retention, and dissemination of personal data gathered by intelligence services in Presidential Policy Directive 28. However,
Committee called on the US to ensure that its surveillance activities respect

privacy rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
regardless of the nationality or location of individuals being monitored. It also expressed
concern over the lack of transparency in US laws and court rulings governing
surveillance. In July, Human Rights Watch released a report documenting how large-scale
US surveillance is hampering journalists and lawyers in their work, making it more
difficult to protect sources, and leading journalists to go to extreme lengths to avoid
detection: from using encryption to burner phones, to ceasing all electronic communication. As a result, far less information about matters of public concern may be
seeing the light of day. Also in July, Senator Patrick Leahy introduced a new version of the USA Freedom Act that would have limited
some forms of domestic surveillance, while doing almost nothing to safeguard the privacy of foreigners
abroad. However, it failed to move forward in the Senate.
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
2nc cdt prodict

CDT is baller heres the quals of the editor
CDT 15 global non-profit organization championing global online civil liberties and
human rights, driving policy outcomes that keep the Internet open, innovative, and free
(Center for Democracy and Technology, Nuala OConnor, 2015, https://cdt.org/staff/nuala-o
%E2%80%99connor/)//JJ
Nuala OConnor is the President & CEO of the Center for Democracy & Technology. She
is an internationally recognized expert in Internet and technology policy, particularly in
the areas of privacy and information governance. Nuala is passionate about the ways technology and the Internet can be
instruments of global free expression and individual freedom, and is committed to finding policy solutions that affect real people. Nuala has experience in both the public and
She was the Global Privacy Leader at General Electric (GE), where she was responsible for privacy policy
and practices across GEs numerous divisions. Prior to joining CDT, she worked at Amazon.com as Vice President of
Compliance & Consumer Trust and Associate General Counsel for Data & Privacy
Protection. Nualas time in the technology sector began at DoubleClick, where she was part of a team of professionals brought in to address public outcry over the
private sectors.
advertising giants proposal to merge on- and offline data sets. She managed numerous class actions, a multistate settlement with state attorneys general, and an FTC
investigation before going on to help found the privacy compliance department, which served as an influential model for companies in the technology sector and beyond. Later,
Nuala served as Deputy Director of the Office of Policy & Strategic Planning, Chief
Privacy Officer and as the Chief Counsel for Technology at the US Department of
Commerce, where she worked on global technology policy including Internet
governance and industry best practices. She became the first statutorily appointed Chief
Privacy Officer in federal service when she was named as the first Chief Privacy Officer
at the Department of Homeland Security. At DHS she was responsible for
groundbreaking policy creation and implementation regarding the use of personal
information in national security and law enforcement. Under her leadership, the DHS Privacy Office issued a seminal
report criticizing the use of private-sector data in national security efforts. She serves on numerous nonprofit boards, and is
the recipient of the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) Vanguard
Award, the Executive Womens Forums Woman of Influence award, and was named to
the Federal 100, and Geek of the Week by the Minority Media & Telecom Council in
May 2013. She also served as the Chairman of the Board of IAPP. Born in Belfast, Northern Ireland, Nuala grew up in and around New York City. She holds
an AB from Princeton , an M.Ed. from Harvard , and a JD from Georgetown
University Law Center . She lives in the Washington, DC, area with her three school-aged children.
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
2nc health aff

Solvency advocate against Health Surveillance affs
Dixon 14 executive director of the World Privacy Forum, formerly a research fellow
with the Privacy Foundation at Denver Universitys Sturm School of Law, former author
(Pam, WPF Universal Periodic Review Comments The Right to Health Privacy:
Human Rights and the Surveillance and Interception of Medical and Health Records by
Security Agencies, World Privacy Forum, 10/7/14, https://www.worldprivacyforum.org/2014/10/wpfuniversal-periodic-review-comments-the-right-to-health-privacy-human-rights-and-the-surveillance-and-interception-of-medicaland-health-records-by-security-agencies/)//JJ
he Universal Periodic Review

Recommendations on National Security supported in whole or in part by the U.S. The
World Privacy Forum is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit public interest research group based in
the United States. We focus exclusively on privacy and security issues and have
substantive expertise in health privacy. 1. Our comments focus on the issue of the U.S. National
Security Agencys (NSA) interception of, acquisition of, and access to the health (including physical and
mental health) records held by health care providers, health insurers, and health care
clearinghouses located in the United States or otherwise subject to U.S. health privacy
law. 2. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in Article 12 and 25, provides that
individuals should be free to seek health care without intrusion by their government. The
United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 68/167 in December 2013, which expresses concern regarding the negative
impact that surveillance and interception of communications may have on human
rights. The United States in the 2010 UPR supported the right to privacy, and the goal of legislation or regulations that would work to prevent the violations of individual
The World Privacy Forum respectfully submits these comments to the Civil Society Consultation on t
privacy, including constant intrusion, by its intelligence and security organizations. Specifically, the U.S. supported in part: 59: Legislate appropriate regulations to prevent
the violations of individual privacy, constant intrusion in and control of cyberspace as well as eavesdropping of communications, by its intelligence and security organizations.
187: Guarantee the right to privacy and stop spying on its citizens without judicial authorization. 3. The World Privacy Forum acknowledges that there are lawful reasons for
We are, however, most concerned that non-transparent access to

patient health files by national security agencies occurs in two circumstances: 1.) When
the files are held by health care providers, and 2.) When the files are in transmission
between providers, insurers, and other lawful users. In these comments, we discuss the issue of a lack of
transparency and oversight regarding the acquisition and use of health records by
federal agencies with national security functions and, in particular, by the NSA. I. The lack of transparency
regarding U.S. security agency acquisition of health records when held by health care providers and other entities covered under health privacy legislation. 5. There are
no meaningful procedures or protections established by federal law governing the the
acquisition or interception of patient health records by national security agencies from a
health care provider, insurer, or clearinghouse. 6. U.S. health care providers are regulated under the federal health privacy rule.
Federal law includes a broad national security exemption that offers no effective
restrictions on the disclosure of health records by health care providers for national
security and intelligence activities. The exemption [45 CFR 164.512(k)(2)] states: (2) National security and intelligence activities.A covered
access to health records for investigations. 4.
entity may disclose protected health information to authorized federal officials for the conduct of lawful intelligence, counter-intelligence, and other national security activities
authorized by the National Security Act (50 U.S.C. 401, et seq.) and implementing authority (e.g., Executive Order 12333). [45 CFR 164.512(k)(2)]. 7. Because of the breadth of
this exemption, it is lawful for health care providers and other entities covered by the law to disclose health records to national security agencies without any procedural
standards, any formal judicial request, any showing of relevance or importance, any probable cause, or any reasonable cause. The law does not require a written or indeed any
request for it to be lawful for a covered entity to hand over patient health files. Further, there are no adequate procedures under which a record keeper or record subject can
challenge a request for the records as unlawful, inappropriate, or as not in accordance with statutory procedures. II. The lack of transparency regarding the U.S. security agency
acquisition of health records in transmission outside of the health care provider context 8. Events since 2010 have better informed the public and the world about health record
privacy and national security investigation activities, including interception of health records in bulk collections. We are most concerned about examples regarding the NSAs
The NSA has broken the encryption that in the past has protected health records.
activities.
(NewYork Times, Top Secret NSA Program Cracks Most Internet Encryption Tools, Sept. 05, 2013.) While this does not prove that the NSA is deliberately intercepting health
records, it does indicate that traditional means of making health files private are no longer reliable against intrusion, particularly during transmission, even when the security
We certainly have no confidence that standard

encryption protocols protect health records against NSA capabilities. 10. Health records of
individuals, including non-targeted individuals, have been routinely intercepted by the
meets the requirements set out in the federal health security rule.
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
NSA. A reporter at the Washington Post who received copies of intercepted files from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden documented this issue, noting the presence
of health files. He wrote: About 16,000 of the data files contained the text of intercepted conversations. The rest were photographs or documents such as medical records, travel
vouchers, school transcripts and marriage contracts. (Barton Gellman, The Washington Post, How 160,000 intercepted communications led to our latest NSA story, July 11,
2014. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/your-questions-answered-about-the-posts-recent-investigation-of-nsa-surveillance/2014/07/11/43d743e60908-11e4-8a6a-19355c7e870a_story.html>. 11. The U.S. Executive Branch acknowledged in 2013 that the business records provision of the USA PATRIOT ACT had been reinterpreted to allow the U.S. government to collect the private records of large numbers of ordinary Americans via bulk collection. A bi-partisan group of U.S. Senators wrote to
the Director of National Intelligence on June 27, 2013 requesting answers to issues regarding interception of health records: We are troubled by the possibility of this bulk
collection authority being applied to other categories of records. The bulk collection authority could potentially be used to supersede bans on maintaining gun owner databases,
or laws protecting the privacy of medical records, financial records, and records of book and movie purchases. These other types of bulk collection could clearly have a significant
impact on Americans privacy and civil liberties as well. <http://www.wyden.senate.gov/download/?id=87b45794-0fa4-4b1a-b3a6-e659a91a5042&download=1>. 12. No
existing legal mechanisms provide appropriate standards, transparency, or oversight in the use of health records for national security investigations. III. The importance of
health privacy as a human right and value worth protecting 13. We are concerned that individuals may be chilled from seeking necessary and even life-saving health treatment
due to legitimate privacy concerns regarding their health records. As health records become increasingly digitized, routine access to patients electronic health records by U.S.
intelligence and security agencies becomes more likely. We include remote electronic access to this assessment. 14. The goals of UPR 59 are that countries Legislate
appropriate regulations to prevent the violations of individual privacy, constant intrusion in and control of cyberspace as well as eavesdropping of communications, by its
intelligence and security organizations. These goals are not being met in the United States with respect to disclosure and interception of health records by national security
agencies. IV. Recommendations The World Privacy Forum recommends the following steps be taken: Recommendation 1. Change U.S. law so there are more accountability and
better procedures for national security requests, demands, and interceptions. Specifically, we recommend the following changes to U.S. law with respect to access by or
disclosure of health records to U.S. national security agencies: Health information should only be disclosed for national security purposes pursuant to a judicial warrant. There
must be procedures under which record keepers can challenge national security demands for health records that are unlawful or inappropriate. If there is no requirement for a
judicial warrant, then we offer these further recommendations: Requests for health information by all national security agencies must meet standards of reasonable or probable
cause. Formal requests by all national security agencies for health records should be subject to the supervision of the federal courts. Recommendation 2. The U.S. should accept
the letter and spirit of 59 and 187 and should take immediate corrective action.
The lack of sufficient human rights
protections for health privacy and health records in the U.S. erodes the
values expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in Article 12 and 25.
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
***theory/perms
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
2nc theory top-level

Its a core topic question
St. Vincent and Hall 14 CDTs Human Rights and Surveillance Fellow, J.D. at the
University of Michigan Law School AND **Chief Technologist for CDT, Ph.D. in
information systems from UC Berkley (Sarah and Joseph Lorenzo, Five US Surveillance
Programs Undermining Global Human Rights, CDT, 9/18/14, https://cdt.org/blog/fiveus-surveillance-programs-undermining-global-human-rights/)//JJ
Those of us in the United States often like to thinkrightly or wronglythat our overall human-rights record is in pretty good order. However, even those
who view the US as a global human-rights leader have had to take a deep breath
when considering the past year of Big Brother-like surveillance revelations .
A major UN body highlighted these revelationsalong with a decidedly sobering array
of other US human-rights issuesin a set of recommendations back in April. In order to keep
drawing attention to these surveillance-related problems, CDT and the ACLU submitted comments this past Monday to the United Nations
describing five particularly egregious surveillance programs that have had a
grievous impact on human rights around the world. Every four years, the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) evaluates
all of a countrys human-rights commitments during a process called the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). During the UPR, the UN HRC examines the promises a country has
madei.e., in human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rightsand evaluates to what
extent that country is living up to its obligations. We make it crystal clear that on a daily basis, US authorities are intercepting the private communications and other personal
electronic data of hundreds of millions of people across the globe, the vast majority of whom are not suspected of any wrongdoing. In anticipation of next years UPR of the
United States, CDT and the ACLU sought to do something unique: after wading into the sea of NSA-related surveillance revelations that have emerged during this past year, we
highlighted (and used our technical expertise to explain) five specific surveillance programs that have a particularly outrageous and broad impact on the human rights
including privacy, freedom of expression, and freedom of assemblyof people around the world. We aimed to provide an accessible technical description of the five programs
and explain the impact these programs have on millions of people throughout the world, regardless of any suspicion of wrongdoing and without any judicial oversight. The five
programs we analyzed include:
DISHFIRE, an initiative through which the US collects hundreds of
millions of private text messages worldwide every day; CO-TRAVELER, through

which the US captures billions of location updates daily from mobile phones around the
world; MUSCULAR , which entails the US interception of all data transmitted
between certain data centers operated by Yahoo! and Google outside of US territory;
MYSTIC , a US program that collects all telephone call details in five sovereign
countries other than the US, as well as the full content of all phone calls in two of those
countries; and QUANTUM, a US program that listens in real-time to traffic on the
Internets most fundamental infrastructure and can respond based on certain triggering
information with active attacks, including the delivery of malicious software to the endusers device. In our submission we make it crystal clear that on a daily basis, US authorities are intercepting the private communications and other personal
electronic data of hundreds of millions of people across the globe, the vast majority of whom are not suspected of any wrongdoing. The intercepted data includes information
about where those hundreds of millions of people are, with whom they correspond, and what they say in their correspondence. At the end of our submission, we make a number
of recommendations to the US about how it can improve its respect for human rights in this context. The recommendations focus on halting the US indiscriminate interception
of individuals private communications data, getting greater (or, to be more accurate, any) Congressional and judicial oversight for these programs, stopping the attacks under
QUANTUM, and ensuring that the relevant orders and regulations are brought into line with human-rights law.
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
2nc at: process cp theory

Process counterplans are good
a) topic education this counterplan is specifically core to this topic
learning about the process is just as important as learning about the
product
who view the US as a global human-rights leader have had to take a deep breath
when considering the past year of Big Brother-like surveillance revelations .
A major UN body highlighted these revelationsalong with a decidedly sobering array
of other US human-rights issuesin a set of recommendations back in April. In order to keep
drawing attention to these surveillance-related problems, CDT and the ACLU submitted comments this past Monday to the United Nations
describing five particularly egregious surveillance programs that have had a
grievous impact on human rights around the world. Every four years, the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) evaluates
all of a countrys human-rights commitments during a process called the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). During the UPR, the UN HRC examines the promises a country has
madei.e., in human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rightsand evaluates to what
extent that country is living up to its obligations. We make it crystal clear that on a daily basis, US authorities are intercepting the private communications and other personal
electronic data of hundreds of millions of people across the globe, the vast majority of whom are not suspected of any wrongdoing. In anticipation of next years UPR of the
United States, CDT and the ACLU sought to do something unique: after wading into the sea of NSA-related surveillance revelations that have emerged during this past year, we
highlighted (and used our technical expertise to explain) five specific surveillance programs that have a particularly outrageous and broad impact on the human rights
including privacy, freedom of expression, and freedom of assemblyof people around the world. We aimed to provide an accessible technical description of the five programs
and explain the impact these programs have on millions of people throughout the world, regardless of any suspicion of wrongdoing and without any judicial oversight. The five
programs we analyzed include:
DISHFIRE, an initiative through which the US collects hundreds of
millions of private text messages worldwide every day; CO-TRAVELER, through

which the US captures billions of location updates daily from mobile phones around the
world; MUSCULAR , which entails the US interception of all data transmitted
between certain data centers operated by Yahoo! and Google outside of US territory;
MYSTIC , a US program that collects all telephone call details in five sovereign
countries other than the US, as well as the full content of all phone calls in two of those
countries; and QUANTUM, a US program that listens in real-time to traffic on the
Internets most fundamental infrastructure and can respond based on certain triggering
information with active attacks, including the delivery of malicious software to the endusers device. In our submission we make it crystal clear that on a daily basis, US authorities are intercepting the private communications and other personal
electronic data of hundreds of millions of people across the globe, the vast majority of whom are not suspected of any wrongdoing. The intercepted data includes information
about where those hundreds of millions of people are, with whom they correspond, and what they say in their correspondence. At the end of our submission, we make a number
of recommendations to the US about how it can improve its respect for human rights in this context. The recommendations focus on halting the US indiscriminate interception
of individuals private communications data, getting greater (or, to be more accurate, any) Congressional and judicial oversight for these programs, stopping the attacks under
QUANTUM, and ensuring that the relevant orders and regulations are brought into line with human-rights law.
b) fairness there is no neg ground on this topic process counterplans

are necessary to make up for the atrocity of DA ground
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
c) research voting us down on theory discourages good research practices

process counterplans fosters in-depth and analytical research for tricky
mechanisms
d) reciprocal the aff can get advantages based on the process of
implementation
Reject the argument not the team
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
2nc at: perm do both

Links to the net-benefit unilateral U.S. action is perceived as bypassing
the UPR recommendations
UN legitimacy is uniquely key to binding human rights compliance U.S.
involvement in the process tarnishes credibility
Tasioulas 13 inaugural Yeoh Professor of Politics, Philosophy and Law at The
Dickson Poon School of Law, King's College London, doctorate from philosophy at
Oxford (John, Human Rights, Legitimacy, and International Law, American Journal of
Jurisprudence, 2013m http://ajj.oxfordjournals.org/content/58/1/1.full#sec-2)//JJ
That, of course, is a very general objection to any attempt to render the concept of a human right parasitic on the concept of a particular kind of institutional structure or geopolitical configuration. But let me
human rights are essentially benchmarks of

political legitimacy . By the legitimacy of a political institution, I mean the right of a political
institution, such as the state, to rule over its purported subjects. And by ruling, I mean the issuing of
directives that purport to be morally binding that purport to impose obligations of
obedienceon those subjects. Moreover, these are obligations that are claimed to exist
independently of the content of any particular directive, simply in virtue of the
proceed now to one broad manifestation of the political view of human rights, that according to which
institutions say-so . It follows from this that a law may be morally binding , because enacted by a
body that enjoys legitimacy , while being in some sense unjust in terms of its content or
the process
whereby
it was enacted.
^The permutation is driven by national security interests and wont receive

UN recommendations
Tharoor 3 UN Undersecretary-General for Communications and Public Information
and the author of eight books (Shashi, Why America Still Needs the United Nations,
Foreign Affairs, September 2003, https://www.foreignaffairs.org/articles/2003-0901/why-america-still-needs-united-nations)//JJ
That Washington has often used force on behalf of such principles makes good political sense. After all, acting in the name of international
law is always preferable to acting in the name of national security. Everyone has a
stake in the former, and so couching U.S. action in terms of international law
universalizes American interests and comforts potential allies. When American
actions seem driven by U.S. national security imperatives alone , partners can
prove hard to find
-- as became clear when, in marked contrast to the first Gulf War, only a small "coalition of the willing" joined Washington the second time around in Iraq.
Working within the UN allows the United States to maximize what Joseph Nye calls its "soft power" -- the
ability to attract and persuade others to adopt the American agenda -- rather than
relying purely on the dissuasive or coercive "hard power" of military force.
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
Legitimacy key to binding precedent the permutation rubber stamps the

UN
Tharoor 3 UN Undersecretary-General for Communications and Public Information
and the author of eight books (Shashi, Why America Still Needs the United Nations,
Foreign Affairs, September 2003, https://www.foreignaffairs.org/articles/2003-0901/why-america-still-needs-united-nations)//JJ
Equally important, however, is the need for legitimacy , and here again the UN has proven invaluable . The
organization's role in legitimizing state action has been both its most cherished
function and, in the United States, its most controversial . As the world's preeminent international organization, the
UN embodies world opinion, or at least the opinion of the world's legally constituted states. When the UN Security Council passes a resolution, it is seen as
speaking for (and in the interests of) humanity as a whole, and in so doing it confers a
legitimacy that is respected by the world's governments , and usually by their publics. When the resolution in question is
passed under Chapter VII of the charter -- that document's enforcement provisions -- it becomes legally binding on all member states.
The composition of the council that passes a particular resolution is no more relevant to its legitimacy than that of a national parliament that passes a law; congressional
legitimacy of the
UN inheres in its universality and not in its structural details, which have long been
subject to the clamor for reform. Some Americans have scorned the status and conduct of many of the Security Council members that failed to
legislation, by the same logic, is not less binding on Americans if the majority that votes for it comes overwhelmingly from small states. The
support the United States on Iraq. But this unseemly sneering over the right of Angola, Cameroon, or Guinea to pass judgment in the council overlooks the valuable contribution
Universality of
membership also allows the world to view the UN as something more than the sum of its
parts, as an entity that transcends the interests of any one member state. The UN guards
the vital principles entrenched in its charter, notably the sovereign equality of states and
the inadmissibility of interference in their internal affairs . It is precisely because the UN is the chief guardian of both
their presence makes. The election of small countries to the council bolsters its legitimacy by enhancing its role as a repository of world opinion.
these sacrosanct principles that it alone is allowed to approve derogations from them. Thus when the UN, in particular the Security Council, legislates an intervention in a
When an individual state acts in

defiance of the UN, on the other hand, it merely violates these principles. This is why so many countries, including the most powerful
sovereign state, it is still seen as upholding the basic principles even while approving a departure from them.
ones, take care to embed their actions within the framework of the principles and purposes of the UN Charter. For examples of this, one need only peruse a random selection of
speeches by countries explaining their votes on the Security Council, especially those concerning military action. The value of internationally recognized principles resonates
across the globe and has been reified through 58 years of repetition -- including last March, when the council debated Iraq. To suggest -- as did some critics of the UN during the
Iraq crisis -- that the organization has become irrelevant overlooks the message President George W. Bush himself sent when he appeared before the General Assembly in
September 2002. In calling on the Security Council to take action, Bush framed the problem of Iraq as a question not of what the United States (unilaterally) wanted, but of how
to implement Security Council resolutions. Indeed, these resolutions were at the heart of the U.S. case. Had the Security Council been able to agree that force was warranted, it
The fact that the council did not ultimately

agree, however, strengthens, rather than dilutes, the rationale for approaching it in such
situations. The council's refusal to serve as a rubber stamp for Washington will
give any future support it lends to the United States greater credibility.
would have provided unique (and incontestable) legitimacy for U.S. military action.
Independent UN action is key to credibility the perm positions the UN on

the sideline
Shariati 9 PhD, Professor of Economics and Sociology and KCKCC (Medhi, UNITED
NATIONS AND THE CRISIS OF LEGITIMACY: The Anatomy of One of the Organs of
Hegemonic Powers, Payvand Iran News, 2/23/09,
http://www.payvand.com/news/09/feb/1277.html)//JJ
The world is desperately in need of a solution to the crises of socio-economic and political violence, lack of direction, and utter disregard for the declining moral and ethical standards. The reality
points to a very frightening prospect and to a world that is not governed by any moral
codes, ethical values, international law and the absence of credible enforcing
institutions . As the behavior of certain permanent members even in the formative years of the United
Nations reveals, the current dysfunctionality of the UN is neither a recent problem nor it is a matter of
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
bureaucratic inefficiency . Rather it is built into the hegemonic structure itself and the need for an alternative system with a philosophy and mission statement
suitable for a sustainable global social, political and economic system is becoming increasingly urgent. As long as the world is managed by those
very few so called "fit" who pursue their own selfish interest at the expense of the
great majority, they are given the right to codify rules, regulations, morality and
ethics and to write history. Are we to assume that the world is ruled by the fittest of the human species? If so then the results suggest that there is a cancer on the body of
humanity and unless the world reverses its course and changes the culture of violence, the cancer will destroy it. Recently at Davos we heard calls for more deregulation, more free market, more capital
inflow/outflow, more speculations, more free trade and much more free this and free that. Angela Merkel of Germany and Gordon Brown of Britain suggested the creation of a Security Council Economic
Commission for more policing of the World economy. This however is not in opposition to the neoliberalism that Davos has been promoting. It simply means for control of the World economy by a few-a few that
control Security Council itself. There is a hopeful sign that there is a
growing awareness regarding the very oligarchic
structure of global institutions and the various mechanisms of transfer of wealth from the poorest to richest. The developing world is displaying an advanced degree
of awareness that often dwarfs that of their counterparts in the advanced industrial and capitalist countries. As their awareness advances inexorably, the hope for a better world must be sustained. It is not the
hoarding and the wasteful consumption of resources --the foundation of uni-polar and bi-polar hegemonic system that has ruled the world. It is a world free of hegemonic tendencies, respect for the rules that
everyone can live by.
As long as hegemonic powers control the structure and set policies , the
structure will remain detrimental to the health of the "real" international

community. No one should believe that United Nations ought to solve the World's pressing problems, but no one expects the United Nations to be one of the causes of the problems. It is
time for the United Nations and all of its agencies to renounce past practices on the part of some of its
agencies, adopt a new paradigm, and join the voices speaking on behalf of the under-privilege at the World Social forum rather than as a cheer leader on
the sideline
for the voices of greed and failure at the World Economic Forum at Davos.
The margin for error is tiny

Thakur 9 director, Balsillie School of International Affairs, Distinguished Fellow,
Centre for International Governance Innovation and Professor of Political Science,
University of Waterloo (Ramesh, LAW, LEGITIMACY AND UNITED NATIONS,
Melbourne Journal of International Law Volume 11, 12/7/9, p. 12)//JJ
Similarly, there were three views on the significance of the war for the UNUS relationship: that it demonstrated the
irrelevance, centrality or potential complicity of the UN. 48 First, for the neo-conservatives, because it exists, the UN should be uninvented and there was
therefore no reason to seek UN approval. 49 Under the second view, it was recognized that there was a need to confront Saddam Hussein but [it] ruled out acting without UN
the UN is
now more than ever reduced to the servile function of after-sales service
authorization. 50 Third, UN authorization of the war was necessary but not sufficient with irrelevance preferred to complicity. 51 In the opinion of some,
provider for the United States, on permanent call as the mop-up brigade .
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
2nc at: perm do the cp

Makes the plan extra-topical the UPR recommendations are not limited to
surveillance and are international actions
The ultimate goal of UPR is the improvement of the human rights situation in every country with significant consequences for people around the globe.
To achieve this, the

UPR involves assessing States human rights records and addressing human rights
The UPR is designed to prompt, support, and expand the promotion and protection of human rights on the ground.
violations wherever they occur . The UPR also aims to provide technical
assistance to States and enhance their capacity to deal effectively with human
rights challenges and to share best practices in the field of human rights among
States and other stakeholders.
Voter for jursidiciton
Severs the plan no portion mentions the UN or the UPR 5 programs
prove the counterplan is a distinct form of action
who view the US as a global human-rights leader have had to take a deep breath when
considering the past year of Big Brother-like surveillance revelations. A major UN body
highlighted these revelationsalong with a decidedly sobering array of other US
human-rights issuesin a set of recommendations back in April. In order to keep drawing attention to these
surveillance-related problems, CDT and the ACLU submitted comments this past Monday to the United Nations describing five
particularly egregious surveillance programs that have had a grievous impact on human
rights around the world. Every four years, the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) evaluates all of a countrys human-rights commitments during a
process called the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). During the UPR, the UN HRC examines the promises a country has madei.e., in human rights treaties such as the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rightsand evaluates to what extent that country is living up to its obligations. We
make it crystal clear that on a daily basis, US authorities are intercepting the private communications and other personal electronic data of hundreds of millions of people across
the globe, the vast majority of whom are not suspected of any wrongdoing. In anticipation of next years UPR of the United States, CDT and the ACLU sought to do something
unique: after wading into the sea of NSA-related surveillance revelations that have emerged during this past year, we highlighted (and used our technical expertise to explain)
five specific surveillance programs that have a particularly outrageous and broad impact on the human rightsincluding privacy, freedom of expression, and freedom of
assemblyof people around the world. We aimed to provide an accessible technical description of the five programs and explain the impact these programs have on millions of
DISHFIRE, an
initiative through which the US collects hundreds of millions of private text messages
worldwide every day; CO-TRAVELER, through which the US captures billions of
location updates daily from mobile phones around the world; MUSCULAR, which
entails the US interception of all data transmitted between certain data centers
operated by Yahoo! and Google outside of US territory; MYSTIC, a US program that
collects all telephone call details in five sovereign countries other than the US, as well as
the full content of all phone calls in two of those countries; and QUANTUM, a US
program that listens in real-time to traffic on the Internets most fundamental
people throughout the world, regardless of any suspicion of wrongdoing and without any judicial oversight. The five programs we analyzed include:
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
infrastructure and can respond based on certain triggering information with active
attacks, including the delivery of malicious software to the end-users device. In our submission we
make it crystal clear that on a daily basis, US authorities are intercepting the private communications and other personal electronic data of hundreds of millions of people across
the globe, the vast majority of whom are not suspected of any wrongdoing. The intercepted data includes information about where those hundreds of millions of people are, with
whom they correspond, and what they say in their correspondence. At the end of our submission, we make a number of recommendations to the US about how it can improve its
respect for human rights in this context. The recommendations focus on halting the US indiscriminate interception of individuals private communications data, getting greater
(or, to be more accurate, any) Congressional and judicial oversight for these programs, stopping the attacks under QUANTUM, and ensuring that the relevant orders and
regulations are brought into line with human-rights law.
Should is certain and immediate

Nieto 9 Judge Henry Nieto, Colorado Court of Appeals, 8-20-2009 People v. Munoz, 240 P.3d 311 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009)
"Should" is "used . . . to express duty, obligation, propriety, or expediency." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2104
(2002). Courts [**15] interpreting the word in various contexts have drawn conflicting conclusions, although the
authority
appears to favor interpreting "should" in an
weight of
imperative, obligatory sense . HN7A number of
courts, confronted with the question of whether using the word "should" in jury instructions conforms with the Fifth and Sixth
Amendment protections governing the reasonable doubt standard, have upheld instructions using the word. In the courts of other
states in which a defendant has argued that the word "should" in the reasonable doubt instruction does not sufficiently inform the
jury that it is bound to find the defendant not guilty if insufficient proof is submitted at trial, the courts have squarely rejected the
argument. They reasoned that the word "conveys a sense of duty and obligation and could not be misunderstood by a jury." See
State v. McCloud, 257 Kan. 1, 891 P.2d 324, 335 (Kan. 1995); see also Tyson v. State, 217 Ga. App. 428, 457 S.E.2d 690, 691-92 (Ga.
Ct. App. 1995) (finding argument that "should" is directional but not instructional to be without merit); Commonwealth v.
Hammond, 350 Pa. Super. 477, 504 A.2d 940, 941-42 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986). Notably, courts interpreting the word "should" in other
types of jury instructions [**16] have also found that the word conveys to the jury a sense of duty or obligation and not discretion.
In Little v. State, 261 Ark. 859, 554 S.W.2d 312, 324 (Ark. 1977), the Arkansas Supreme Court interpreted the word "should" in an
instruction on circumstantial evidence as synonymous with the word
"must"
and rejected the defendant's argument that
the jury may have been misled by the court's use of the word in the instruction. Similarly, the Missouri Supreme Court rejected a
defendant's argument that the court erred by not using the word " should" in an instruction on witness credibility which used the
word "must" because the two words have the
same meaning . State v. Rack, 318 S.W.2d 211, 215 (Mo. 1958).
[*318] In
applying a child support statute, the Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that a legislature's or commission's use of the word
"should" is meant to convey
duty
or
obligation . McNutt v. McNutt, 203 Ariz. 28, 49 P.3d 300, 306 (Ariz. Ct. App.
2002) (finding a statute stating that child support expenditures "should" be allocated for the purpose of parents' federal tax
exemption to be mandatory).
Severance the counterplans recommendations and method of

implementation are uncertain and occur later
Resolved denotes legislation
Words and Phrases 64 Permanent Edition
Definition of the word resolve, given by Webster is to express an opinion or determination by resolution or vote; as it was resolved
by the legislature; It is of similar force to the word enact, which is defined by Bouvier as meaning to establish by law.
Severance the recommendations are not implemented through legislative

means, but rather internal reforms, etc.
Severance is a voter allows the aff to spike out of all links and makes it a
moving target wrecks neg ground
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
2nc at: perm lie

U.S. binding commitment is key genuine or not, the perm will be
perceived as a form of American exceptionalism
Morrison 6 Director of Communications for the United Nations Development
Program (Dave, The U.S. Relationship with the United Nations, Yale Journal of
International Affairs, spring 2006,
http://www.yale.edu/yjia/articles/Vol_1_Iss_2_Spring2006/unroundtable223.pdf)//J
J
So at its core, the UN is deeply tied to this country and to American values. But there is another strand in American foreign
policy, which is American exceptionalism . The most well-known example of this is the United States
position on the International Criminal Court, where the United States is really way out
on its own. I think we have to accept that there are issues where the U.S. simply sees itself as different from
the rest of the world and that in such cases the U.S. position is likely to diverge from that of
the wider UN.
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
***net-benefit
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
2nc at: case solves

Only UN legitimacy can solve
Sachs and Jeremic 14 UN Secretary-General's Special Advisor on the Millennium
Development Goals, is the director of The Earth Institute, Quetelet professor of
sustainable development, and professor of health policy and management at Columbia
University AND ** president of the Center for International Relations and Sustainable
Development (CIRSD), former Serbia's foreign minister, former president of the 67th
Session of the United Nations General Assembly (Jeffrey and Vuk, Global Cooperation
in the Age of Sustainable Development, Huffington post, 3/7/14,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vuk-jeremic/global-cooperation_b_4890371.html)//JJ
Throughout most of history, the tasks of

integrating economic development, social inclusion, and environmental sustainability
were local or regional. In the 21st century, however, they are indisputably global. Only
through global cooperation can individual nations overcome the interconnected globalscale crises of extreme poverty, economic instability, social inequality, and
environmental degradation. The crises of sustainable development have already become
crises of national and global security. Every country faces increasingly complex
challenges of energy, food, and water security. Every country faces the crisis of rising
frequency and intensity of natural disasters, with a soaring number of floods, droughts,
heat waves, extreme storms, and forest fires. Many countries face the unsolved problem of creating jobs for their young people, and
many poor countries have populations growing too fast to meet their respective education and employment needs. Many of the today's conflicts -- in
the Sahel, the Horn of Africa, Syria, and Western Asia -- are being stoked by droughts, famines, mass migration, and
other manifestations of economic, social, and environmental unsustainability. This is no time for
despair, but for resolve. The United Nations must become the functional center of the global
sustainable development effort, one that draws on every stakeholder through the UN's
unique convening power and universally-recognized legitimacy . Sustainable development must become the daily
Achieving sustainable development will be the overriding strategic challenge of this generation.
work of UN Member States, private businesses, non-governmental organizations, universities and research centers, international financial institutions, and the UN organs
themselves.
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
2nc at: U.S. commitment now

Its on the brink any support is mere rhetoric
McDonald and Patrick 10 former international affairs fellow in residence at the
Council on Foreign Relations and a Foreign Service officer with the U.S. Department of
State, fromer director for United Nations and international operations at the National
Security Council, AND **Senior Fellow and Director of the International Institutions
and Global Governance Program at the Council on Foreign Relations (Kara and Stewart,
UN Security Council Enlargement and U.S. Interests, Council on Foreign Relations,
December 2010, p. 13-14)//JJ
CURRENT U.S. POLICY Despite its rhetorical commitment to updating international
institutions, the Obama administration, like administrations before it, has shied from
leadership on UNSC reform. Rather than advance a particular proposal, U.S. officials have offered broad
statements in support of a limited expansion of both permanent and nonpermanent
members within five parameters. These statements include: enlargement cannot diminish the UNSC's effectiveness or efficiency; any
proposal to expand permanent membership must name specific countries (ruling out so-called framework proposals); 21 candidates for permanent
membership must be judged on their ability to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security; there should be no changes to the
current veto structure; and expansion proposals must accommodate charter requirements for ratification, including approval by two-thirds of the U
The Obama administration's stance presents only two modest changes to that
of its predecessor. First, it no longer conditions movement on UNSC expansion to progress on broader UN management and budgetary
S. Senate.
reform. Second, whereas the Bush administration supported only Japan's candidacy, the Obama administration has announced support for India as
an additional permanent member, leaving other potetial configurations open for discussion. Beyond these parameters, the Obama administration has
not proposed any specific reforms, clarified the acceptable limits of any expansion, or endorsed any candidates.24 President Obama has not launched
an interagency review ofthe matter, and aspirant countries have not yet pressed him vigorously on it. Whether the time has come to alter the UNSC's
compositionand, if so, how it should be alteredremain subjects of fierce debate.
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
2nc xt: HR cred

The counterplan is the last chance to maintain U.S. global human rights
commitment
Sanchez-Moreno 5/11/15 co-director of the U.S program at Human Rights Watch,
J.D. from NYU Law School (Maria McFarland, Hold the US accountable on human
rights, Aljazeera America, http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/5/holding-theus-accountable-on-human-rights.html)//JJ
The U.S. has put a lot of effort into strengthening the U.N. Human Rights Council
and making the UPR a useful process when it comes to dealing with other countries. It
has also made a point of setting a good example , by engaging in extensive
consultation with nongovernmental organizations and other stakeholders in the run-up
to its review. But the U.S. will risk undermining these efforts if it fails to fulfill its
own human rights commitments.
UPR solves human rights implementation global reach
OHCHR 15 United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights,
citing Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General (Universal Periodic Review, 2015,
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/UPRMain.aspx)//JJ
The Universal Periodic Review "has great potential to promote and protect human
rights in the darkest corners of the world. Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General
The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a unique process which involves a review of the
human rights records of all UN Member States. The UPR is a State-driven process, under the
auspices of the Human Rights Council, which provides the opportunity for each State to
declare what actions they have taken to improve the human rights situations in their
countries and to fulfil their human rights obligations . As one of the main features of the
Council, the UPR is designed to ensure equal treatment for every country when their
human rights situations are assessed.
The UPR was created through the UN General Assembly on 15 March 2006 by resolution 60/251, which established the Human
Rights Council itself. It is a cooperative process which, by October 2011, has reviewed the human rights records of all 193 UN
Member States. Currently, no other universal mechanism of this kind exists. The
UPR is one of the key elements

of the Council which reminds States of their responsibility to fully respect and
implement all human rights and fundamental freedoms. The ultimate aim of this
mechanism is to improve the human rights situation in all countries and address
human rights violations wherever they occur.
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
2nc terrorism
U.S. HR leadership solves the root cause of terrorism
Duffy 6/26/15 Senior Media Relations Associate for Human Rights First, former
intern for or Senators Schumer, Gillibrand, and Clinton (Corrine, U.S. Government
Should Promote Global Counterterrorism Strategy Rooted in Human Rights, Human
Rights First, http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/press-release/us-government-should-promote-global-counterterrorismstrategy-rooted-human-rights)//JJ
U.S. government to redouble its efforts to combat

terrorism and counter violent extremism by tackling the underlying drivers of
violent extremism. It is clear that there is a need for a concerted, sustained international effort to combat and prevent terrorist violence such as the horrific attacks in Sousse and Kuwait
today, said Human Rights Firsts Neil Hicks. "Violent extremists and repressive authoritarian governments are
mutually reinforcing . To break this destructive cycle, governments that wish to be effective partners in the
Today, in response to terrorist attacks in Kuwait and Tunisia, Human Rights First urged the
struggle against violent extremism must extend human rights protections to all
members of their communities, make independent civil society a partner, protect
religious freedom and denounce sectarian incitement ." In February, President Obama outlined a preventive
strategy at the White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, and this week a regional conference in Kenya focuses on similar issues. As Under Secretary of State Sarah Sewall reiterated in her opening
renewed focus on protecting the rights of religious

and ethnic minorities, an end to the incitement of sectarian violence, which leads to
atrocities such as the suicide bombing of a Shi'ite mosque in Kuwait today, and for empowering
remarks in Kenya yesterday, the international community must commit itself to a
independent civil society organizations as core partners in the struggle against

violent extremism. "Tunisia represents a hopeful alternative to endless conflict between repressive authoritarianism and violent extremism. The United States has a vital interest in
ensuring the success of Tunisia's fragile transition towards democracy," noted Hicks. "Tunisia has become a target for terrorist violence in recent months because of the progress it has made in transitioning away
from decades of authoritarian rule towards democratic government grounded in the rule of law. With its international partners, the United States should make clear that it will not let terrorism win a victory in
The Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant ( ISIL ) has claimed responsibility for the suicide bombing
of a Shi'ite mosque in Kuwait, further spreading its sectarian violence in the Gulf region.
The global struggle against ISIL requires cooperation from key Arab partners, especially among the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states. Since the Arab Spring protests of 2011 Saudi Arabia
and the GCC states have been leading a region-wide pushback against popular demands for
more representative, more responsive government. This has included a Saudi-led, GCC supported, military incursion into Bahrain to put
down a peaceful protest movement and ample financial and political support for President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi's authoritarian rule in Egypt. The repressive policies of such
governments undermine global efforts to counter violent extremism and combat
terrorism.
Tunisia, and that it will stand behind the Tunisian economy and help the Tunisian security forces to secure further progress towards a peaceful democratic future for Tunisia."
Specifically nuclear terror

Weiss and Burroughs 4 President of the New York-based Lawyers Committee on
Nuclear Policy and Vice President of the Paris-based International Federation of Human
Rights Leagues, AND ** Executive Director of the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear
Policy and Adjunct Professor of International Law at Rutgers Law School (Peter and
John, Weapons of mass destruction and human rights, HUMAN RIGHTS, HUMAN
SECURITY AND DISARMAMENT, 2004, p. 33)//JJ
There can be no doubt that a world rife with weapons of mass destruction is less safe a place than a world without them, a point only reinforced by the
rise of catastrophic terrorism. The elimination of WMD is a matter of political will. It can be achieved through full implementation of the Chemical
Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention and the negotiation of measures to eliminate nuclear arms within the overarching
The nuclear weapons states are pledged to negotiate in good faith

toward this end, but so far have refused to honour their pledge. When they do, they will
framework of a convention.
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
also be acting to uphold the human rights to life and peace. The elimination of terrorism may be a more
difficult goal to reach. When leaders speak of waging the war against terrorism to its final victory, one can only wince and wonder what they have in
mind. What war? Where fought? Against whom? With what weapons? The last question is probably the crucial one. Yes, competent intelligence and
But if there is one lesson that history teaches it is that

social, economic, ethnic and religious differences can translate into feelings of
powerlessness and give rise to violencewhich the powerless call the search for justice
and those at whom the violence is directed call terrorism. This is where human
brute force can reduce the danger of terrorist attacks.
rights come in . There may never be a world without terrorism. But it is reasonable to expect that the closer
the world comes to realizing the full panoply of human rights enshrined in the Universal
Declaration and the International Covenants, the closer it will be to freedom from
terrorism, not least WMD terrorism . It is a goal worth striving for.
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
2nc middle east instability

U.S. human rights leadership solves Middle East instability
Duffy 6/25/15 Senior Media Relations Associate for Human Rights First, former
intern for or Senators Schumer, Gillibrand, and Clinton (Corrine, State Department
Country Reports Highlight Need for U.S. Leadership on Human Rights , Human
Rights First, http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/press-release/state-departmentcountry-reports-highlight-need-us-leadership-human-rights)//JJ
Human Rights First today welcomed the release of the State Departments 2015 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, noting that the widespread violations of human
urgent need for the United States to press foreign governments to protect
the basic rights and freedoms of their citizens . The Country Reports, which have been delayed for months, are released and
rights detailed underscore the
submitted to Congress annually, and highlight human rights violations perpetuated during the past year in all countries that receive U.S. assistance as well as all United Nations
key human rights concerns throughout the world,

including abuses perpetrated by U.S. allies in the Middle East and elsewhere, the
spread of discriminatory anti-LGBT legislation in central Asia, and the growth of
antisemitic and racist violence in Europe, said Human Rights Firsts Tad Stahnke. The reports give prominence to the
terrible human rights violations committed by non-state actors, including terrorist groups like
ISIL and Boko Haram, but they also emphasize the responsibilities of governments whose
violations of human rights have created the conditions exploited by violent
member states. This years State Department Country Reports highlight
extremists . These reports should prompt further action by the U.S. government in pressing for human
rights, including a strategy to ensure that the fight against terrorism and extremism is
enhanced by freedom and human rights protections ." In response to todays reports Human Rights First
urges the Obama Administration to: Make clear at the highest levels its opposition to human rights violations by
U.S. partners in the multilateral initiative to combat violent extremism and terrorism , including Bahrain,
Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, which undermine this vital global effort. Press Saudi Arabia to end practices that fuel violent
extremism, including the targeting non-violent human rights activists and inciting sectarian tensions between
Sunni and Shiite Muslims . Urge Bahraini authorities to release non-violent political prisoners and human rights defenders, and to
implement political reforms that would meet the legitimate demands of the majority of the population for more representative governance. Raise concerns about the misuse of
counterterrorism laws to crackdown on peaceful dissent. Press the government of Kyrgyzstan to reject the passage of the proposed propaganda law, which, if passed, would
violate the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons and contribute to a climate of violence and discrimination against them. Adopt a strategy to
reverse Hungarys backsliding on democracy and rule of law by supporting human rights, good governance and independent media organizations. As he did during his recent
trip to Jamaica, President Obama should continue to champion those voices calling for positive change for LGBT people in the Caribbean. In line with his public comments at
the Countering Violent Extremism Summit in February, President Obama should publicly oppose the targeting of legitimate human rights NGOs by the Kenyan government
several U.S. allies are using counterterrorism and

national security justifications to crack down on civil society groups, peaceful
expression, and legitimate dissent, added Stahnke. As President Obama prepares for his trip to Kenya, he should use these Country Reports
to highlight that the global struggle against terrorism and violent extremism is
during his visit to Nairobi next month. The Country Reports make clear that
undermined when human rights are denied and civil society oppressed.
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
2nc at: last upr

Past UPR is our brink not their thumper last chance to save U.S. human
rights cred
Larson 5/10/15 AFP journalist, citing Jamil Dakwar, head of human rights at the
American Civil Liberties Union (Nina, The UN is about to put the United States under
the microscope, Business Insider, http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-us-rights-record-in-un-spotlight-20155)//JJ
Hard questions
"The world will be asking hard questions of a country that considers itself a human
Jamil Dakwar, head of human rights at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), told AFP.
rights champion,"
How the US delegation responds to questions on a multitude of issues Monday could mark "the last
opportunity for the Obama administration to shape the human rights legacy
of
the president," he warned.

Diplomats from around the world are expected to raise questions about widespread incarceration in the United States of illegal
immigrants, including children.
Conditions inside US prisons, including the use of long-term solitary confinement and continued use of the death penalty, were also
among the issues raised in reports and questions filed in advance of Monday's hearing.
The United States has seen its execution numbers drop in recent years to 35 in 2014, but still ranks fifth in the world after China,
Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, according to Amnesty International.
The issue of mass surveillance systems brought to light in documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden will also
certainly be raised, as will US counterterrorism operations and targeted drone killings.
Also on the agenda is the US record on addressing its "war on terror" legacy, including alleged CIA torture, and Washington's failure
to close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre in Cuba.
The United States underwent its first UPR in November 2010, but activists say it has
done little to implement many of the 171 recommendations it accepted out of the 240 made by
other countries that time around.
"The US has little progress to show for the many commitments it made during its first Universal
Periodic Review," Antonio Ginatta, US advocacy director at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement.
He said he hoped diplomats this time would "press the US on mass surveillance, police violence and detention of migrant families,"
stressing that "the
US should take the opportunity to make a serious commitment to
roll back these abusive practices."

the last UPR, the US government "failed to deliver".
Now, he said, the administration had the opportunity to show what values it stands for.
Dakwar agreed that after
"Will President Obama be remembered as the president who approved secret kill-lists, instituted indefinite detention, and failed to
end unlawful surveillance practices?" he asked.
"Or will the president be on the right side of history by endorsing accountability for torture (and providing) an apology and
reparations for victims?"
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
2nc at: alt causes

Fiat solves the recommendations would encompass more than
surveillance policy
Past UPR is our brink not their thumper last chance to save U.S. human
rights cred
Larson 5/10/15 AFP journalist, citing Jamil Dakwar, head of human rights at the
American Civil Liberties Union (Nina, The UN is about to put the United States under
the microscope, Business Insider, http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-us-rights-record-in-un-spotlight-20155)//JJ
a country that considers itself a human rights champion ,"

Jamil Dakwar, head of human rights at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), told AFP. How the US delegation responds to questions on a
multitude of issues Monday could mark "the last opportunity for the Obama administration to
Hard questions "The world will be asking hard questions of
shape the human rights legacy
of the president," he warned. Diplomats from around the world are expected to raise questions about
widespread incarceration in the United States of illegal immigrants, including children. Conditions inside US prisons, including the use of long-term solitary confinement and
continued use of the death penalty, were also among the issues raised in reports and questions filed in advance of Monday's hearing. The United States has seen its execution
numbers drop in recent years to 35 in 2014, but still ranks fifth in the world after China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, according to Amnesty International. The issue of mass
surveillance systems brought to light in documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden will also certainly be raised, as will US counterterrorism operations and
targeted drone killings. Also on the agenda is the US record on addressing its "war on terror" legacy, including alleged CIA torture, and Washington's failure to close the
The United States underwent its first UPR in November 2010, but
activists say it has done little to implement many of the 171 recommendations it accepted
out of the 240 made by other countries that time around. "The US has little progress to show for the many commitments it
made during its first Universal Periodic Review ," Antonio Ginatta, US advocacy director at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement.
He said he hoped diplomats this time would "press the US on mass surveillance, police violence and detention of migrant families," stressing that " the US should
take the opportunity to make a serious commitment to roll back these abusive
practices." Dakwar agreed that after the last UPR, the US government "failed to deliver". Now, he said,
the administration had the opportunity to show what values it stands for. "Will President Obama be
Guantanamo Bay detention centre in Cuba.
remembered as the president who approved secret kill-lists, instituted indefinite detention, and failed to end unlawful surveillance practices?" he asked. "Or will the president be
on the right side of history by endorsing accountability for torture (and providing) an apology and reparations for victims?"
HR thumpers are nill

AFP 5/11/15 international news agency headquartered in Paris, third largest news
agency in the world (Agence France-Presse, US wants to improve police practices, enca,
http://www.enca.com/world/us-wants-improve-police-practices)//JJ
GENEVA - The United States acknowledged Monday more needed to be done to uphold its
civil rights laws following a string of recent killings of unarmed black men by police.
Speaking before the United Nations Human Rights Council, a US representative stressed the advances his country had made in establishing a range of civil rights laws over the
past half century. But referring to a long line of recent cases of alleged abuse of African Americans by police, James Cadogan, a senior counsellor in the justice department's civil
we must rededicate ourselves to ensuring that our civil rights laws live up
to their promise." "The tragic deaths of Freddie Gray in Baltimore, Michael Brown in Missouri, Eric Garner in New York, Tamir Rice in Ohio, and Walter Scott in
rights division, admitted that "
South Carolina have... challenged us to do better and to work harder for progress," he said. The United States was undergoing a so-called Universal Periodic Review of its rights
record -- which all 193 UN countries must undergo every four years. The US delegation, headed by US ambassador to the council Keith Harper and acting US legal advisor Mary
McLeod, faced a range of questions from diplomats about law enforcement tactics, police brutality and the disproportionate impact on African Americans and other minorities.
The half-day review in Geneva came after the US justice department on Friday launched a federal civil rights investigation into whether police in Baltimore have systematically
discriminated against residents, following the death of 25-year-old Freddie Gray in police custody last month. Six police officers have been charged in connection with Gray's
Washington was intent on bringing abusive

police officers to justice. "When federal, state, local or tribal officials willfully use
excessive force that violates the US Constitution or federal law, we have authority to
arrest and death. One faces a second-degree murder charge. Cadogan insisted
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
prosecute them," he said, pointing to criminal charges brought against more than 400 law
enforcement officials over the past six years. Also on the agenda during Monday's review was the continued use of the death penalty,
and the US record on addressing its "war on terror" legacy, including Washington's failure to close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre in Cuba and CIA torture revelations.
As President (Barack) Obama has acknowledged, we crossed the line, we did not live up
to our values, and we take responsibility for that," McLeod said of the past cases of CIA torture, detailed in an explosive
"
We have since taken steps to clarify that the legal prohibition on

torture applies everywhere and in all circumstances, and to ensure that the United
States never resorts to the use of those harsh interrogation techniques again ," she said.
Senate report last December. "
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
2nc at: treaties

Recent policy solves this also proves recommendation implementation
Smith 15 Project Attorney with the Human Rights in the U.S. Project at the Human
Rights Institute, JD from Columbia Law School (Erin, Federal Outreach and
Mechanisms to Ensure Human Rights Implementation and the Federal, State and Local
Levels, Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute & The International Association
of Official Human Rights Agencies, April 2015,
https://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/human-rightsinstitute/images/state_and_local_upr_report.pdf)//JJ
In recent years, the Obama Administration has taken a number of important steps to
improve federal coordination around treaty reporting and implementation : a. The
United States has created a federal level interagency Equality Working Group to coordinate federal agencies around human rights. 28 b. The U.S. has
stepped up efforts to inform state and local actors about treaty review processes . In
2014, the State Departments Office of the Legal Adviser sent letters to state and local governments, emphasizing the U.S. commitment to protecting
human rights domestically through the operation of our comprehensive system of laws, policies, and programs at all levels of government federal,
2014
letter followed up on earlier communications to state and local actors seeking input
into U.S. treaty reports. 30 c. In 2014, the U.S. included a mayor and a state attorney general in
its delegations for the ICCPR and CERD reviews. d. During the interactive dialogue with the Human Rights
state, local, insular, and tribal, and noting that the U.S. is proud of this shared role in upholding and protecting human rights. 29 The
Committee, the Obama Administration committed to disseminate the Human Rights Committees Concluding Observations to state and local actors. e.
The
State Department made a presentation on human rights treaties at IAOHRA
conferences in 2010 , 2011 and 2012 , and at the 2014 Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission conference for state and local agencies.
No impact to treaties
Groves and Schaefer 10 Bernard and Barbara Lomas Senior Research Fellow, The
Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation,
AND ** Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs, The
Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation
(Steven and Brett, United Nations Human Rights Council: Universal Periodic Review for
the United States of America, Heritage Foundation, 4/20/10,
http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/united-nations-human-rights-counciluniversal-periodic-review-for-the-united-states-of-america)//JJ
The United States is not party to all of the core human rights treaties, but ratification of
treaties is not the indispensable condition of the observation and protection of
human rights. Many governments boast that they have ratified a treaty, or that human
rights are enshrined in their constitutions and laws, yet routinely and flagrantly
violate those rights. The evidence indicates that without an independent judiciary and an ability to enforce civil and
political rights, such rights are under constant threat regardless of the number of treaties a
state has ratified or the rights provided for under their laws. The United States system of representative
government, its independent judiciary, its robust civil society, and the principles enshrined in its Constitution represent best practices that all states
and stakeholders should emulate in observing and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms.
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
2nc at: UPR bad

Empirics prove massive impact on the most nefarious abusers
Diop 14 Advocacy Advisor of Child Rights at Save the Children, has a Masters of
Science in Human Rights from the University College Dublin and a Masters in Politics
and International Relations from the Institute of Political Studies, Toulous (Diarra,
Universal Periodic Review: Successful examples of child rights advocacy, Save The
Children, 2014, http://resourcecentre.savethechildren.se/library/universal-periodicreview-successful-examples-child-rights-advocacy)//JJ
The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is an inter-governmental human rights review within the Human Rights Council in Geneva. The UPR
assesses the extent to which governments are meeting their obligations to protect ,
respect and fulfil human rights , including child rights, in their countries. Save the
Children has seized the opportunity of the UPR from the outset (2008) to raise the profile of childrens rights, by engaging directly in reporting and
Universal Periodic Review: Successful examples of child

rights advocacy" provides valuable insights for future child rights advocates wanting
to engage in the UPR process and more generally in child rights monitoring and
advocacy. This document includes eight case studes (Nepal, Philippines, Pakistan, Republic of Korea,
Peru, Zambia, Bangladesh and Mali,) which give good practices examples of Save the Childrens
engagement in UPR reporting and advocacy . It sheds light on the different strategies used to push forward
child rights priorities to influence UPR recommendations. It also provides some pointers on how the UPR recommendations can
reinforce existing advocacy efforts and be integrated into follow-up plans to
advocacy or supporting child rights coalitions. "
track their implementation . Key success factors and lessons learned were drawn to
capitalize on the experience from these countries over the last 6 years, and inspire
others to replicate these approaches in order to maximize advocacy
outcomes and impact for children.
Even if its not perfect its the best option available
The Universal Periodic Review ( UPR ) is a unique process which involves a periodic
review of the human rights records of all
193
UN Member States. The UPR is a significant
innovation of the Human Rights Council which is based on equal treatment for all
countries. It provides an opportunity for all States to declare what actions they have taken to improve the
human rights situations in their countries and to overcome challenges to the enjoyment
of human rights. The UPR also includes a sharing of best human rights practices
around the globe . Currently, no other mechanism of this kind exists.
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
2nc at: plan solves impact

UPR key
CDT 14 global non-profit organization championing global online civil liberties and
human rights, driving policy outcomes that keep the Internet open, innovative, and free
(Center for Democracy and Technology, Protecting Human Rights in the Age of
Surveillance, 4/8/14, https://cdt.org/insight/protecting-human-rights-in-the-age-ofsurveillance/)//JJ
Leveraging United Nations Mechanisms
Participants agreed that it is
processes
important to take advantage of UN human rights bodies and
in 2014 and beyond. Discussants raised the
importance of the Human Rights Committee
review of United States compliance with the ICCPR. They also talked about strategic contributions to
the anticipated report from the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the right to privacy in the digital
age, and the possibility of pushing the Human Rights Committee for a General
Comment on privacy. In addition, discussants addressed the possibility of creating a UN Special Rapporteur on Privacy, and
considered processes in Human Rights Council , including the upcoming
Universal Periodic Review of the United States.
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
2nc at: noko da

This isnt an argument empirically denied by 2010 and 2015 U.S. UPRs
and every other UPR ever
No war deterrence and zero capabilities
Kimball 14 executive director of the Arms Control Association (Daryl, Will North
Korea ever use its nuclear weapons?, The Guardian, 10/31/14,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/31/sp-north-korea-nuclearweapons)//JJ
As president Ronald Reagan once said, a nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought. North Korea does not
have, and will not have for many years , the means to strike with nuclear
weapons beyond the peninsula that would be suicide . Combined US and South
Korean forces would end the Kim dynasty and destroy much of the country .
Therefore, there is a near zero chance of a premeditated North Korean nuclear attack.
All rhetoric assumes all the warrants
Redhead 14 Metro News Reporter (Harry lol, North Korea defends human rights
record then threatens nuclear war, Metro, 11/26/14,
http://metro.co.uk/2014/11/26/north-korea-defends-human-rights-record-thenthreatens-nuclear-war-4963760/)//JJ
A week after a U.N. resolution condemned North Koreas human rights record ,
the country has shown its commitment to preserving basic individual dignities by threatening the U.S. and Japan
with nuclear war. North Korea reacted angrily after the U.N. General Assemblys Third Committee urged the Security Council to consider
referring the countrys human rights abuses to the International Criminal Court in a damning resolution last Tuesday. And the
Democratic Peoples Republic of Koreas National Defence Commission (NDC) accused
Japan and the U.S. of violating their dignity and promised payback. Time will prove what high price
those who unreasonably violated the dignity of the Demoratic Peoples Republic of Korea, despite its repeated warnings, will have to pay, the NDC said.
The US and its followers are now unable to escape merciless punishment for daring impair the prestige of the DPRK and foolishly trying to bring down
the socialist system.
One of those perceived followers, Japan who North Korea said would
disappear from the world map were completely unconcerned the comments. Its
not the first time that theyve threatened us over nuclear issues, Taro Tsutsumi,
counsellor at Japans mission to the United Nations, told VICE. Its actually a usual , daily
matter . In September, North Korea released a report declaring its human rights record as excellent.
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
***aff
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
2ac alt causes

Massive alt. causes to human rights compliance this is the UPR
Just Security 5/20/15 based at the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at
New York University School of Law (The UNs Universal Periodic Review of US
Human Rights PracticesNational Security Highlights, Just Security,
http://justsecurity.org/23115/us-upr-natsec-highlights/)//JJ
the Universal Periodic Review released a draft of its

report on the United States UPR. The UPR is a process during which each UN member state has the opportunity to explain what measures it has taken to meet
international human rights standards and receives feedback and recommendations from other member states in a sort of peer review process. While the UPR covers all human
rights (including economic and social) and contains information on a wide range of topics , a number of recommendations may
Last week, the UN Human Rights Councils Working Group on
be of special interest to Just Security readers. We have collected and organized some key recommendations below that relate to national security law and policy.
Lethal Force,
Extrajudicial Killings, and Drones (5.20713) A number of states submitted

recommendations related to lethal force, extrajudicial executions, killings, and drone
strikes, largely focused on ending unlawful extrajudicial killings, compensating
victims, and protecting innocent civilians. The specific recommendations were: Use armed drones in line with existing international legal regimes and
pay compensation to all innocent victims without discrimination (Pakistan) Put an end to unlawful practices which violate human
rights including extrajudicial executions and arbitrary detention, and close any arbitrary
detention centres (Egypt) Take legal and administrative measures to address civilian killings by
the US military troops during and after its invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq by bringing perpetrators to justice and remedying the victims (North Korea) Desist from extrajudicial
killings such as drone strikes and ensure accountability for civilian loss of life resulting from extraterritorial counter terrorism operations (Malaysia) Stop extrajudicial killings
of citizens of the United States of America and foreigners, including those being committed with the use of remotely piloted
aircraft (Russia) Investigate and prosecute in courts the perpetrators of selective killings
through the use of drones, which has costed [sic] the lives of innocent civilians outside the
United States (Ecuador) Punish those responsible for torture, drone killings, use of lethal force
against African Americans and compensate the victims (Venezuela) Torture (5.21417, 221, 28791, 293) A handful of countries made recommendations
related to torture, ranging from strengthening safeguards against torture to paying compensation and
prosecuting CIA officials including for acts committed outside the United States . The specific
recommendations were: Strengthen safeguards against torture in all detention facilities in any territory under its jurisdiction, ensure proper and transparent investigation and prosecution of individuals
responsible for all allegations of torture and ill-treatment, including those documented in the unclassified Senate summary on CIA activities published in 2014 and provide redress to victims (Czech Republic)
Stops
acts of torture by US Government officials, not only in its sovereign territory, but also in
foreign soil (Maldives) Prevent torture and ill-treatment in places of detention (Azerbaijan) Respect the absolute
Enact comprehensive legislation prohibiting all forms of torture and take measures to prevent all acts of torture in areas outside the national territory under its effective control (Austria)
prohibition on torture and take measures to guarantee punishment of all perpetrators (Costa Rica) Prosecute all CIA operatives that have been held responsible for torture by the US Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence (Pakistan) Allow an independent body to investigate allegations of torture and to end the impunity of perpetrators (Switzerland) Prosecute and punish those responsible for torture (Cuba)
Investigate the CIA torture crimes, which stirred up indignation and denunciation among people, to disclose all information and to allow investigation by
international community in this regard (North Korea) Further ensure that all victims of torture and ill-treatment whether still in US
custody or not obtain redress and have an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation
and as full rehabilitation as possible, including medical and psychological assistance
(Denmark) Investigate torture allegations, extrajudicial executions and other violations of human rights committed in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, NAMA and BALAD camps and to subsequently close
Guantnamo (5.24455) Ten

countries including four NATO members (France, Germany, Iceland, and Spain) recommended the closure of Guantnamo. Two other
states put forth recommendations that the US agree to an unrestricted visit to the site by the
Special Rapporteur on Torture. The specific recommendations were: Close, as soon as possible, the detention centre at Guantanamo Bay and put an end
to the indefinite detention of persons considered as enemy combatants (France) Close the Guantanamo prison
and release all detainees still held in Guantanamo, unless they are to be charged and tried without further delay (Iceland) Improve living conditions in prisons
in particular in Guantanamo (Sudan) Work and do all its best in order to close down the Guantanamo facility (Libya) Immediately close the prison in Guantanamo and cease the illegal
them (Iran) Also Lebanon, Switzerland, and Denmark recommended the US ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (5.4345)
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
detention of terrorism suspects at its military bases abroad (Russia) Immediately close the Guantanamo facility (Maldives)
Close Guantanamo and secret detention centres (Venezuela) Make further progress in fulfilling its commitment to close the Guantanamo detention facility and abide by the ban on
torture and inhumane treatment of all individuals in detention (Malaysia) Fully disclose the
abuse of torture by its Intelligence Agency, ensure the accountability of the persons
responsible, and agree to unrestricted visit by the Special Rapporteur on Torture to Guantanamo facilities (China) Engage further in the common fight for the prohibition of torture,
ensuring accountability and victims compensation and enable the Special Rapporteur on torture to visit every part of the detention facility at
Guantanamo Bay and to conduct unmonitored interviews (Germany) Take adequate measures to ensure the definite de-commissioning of the Guantanamo Military Prison (Spain) End illegal detentions in
Guantanamo Bay or bring the detainees to trial immediately (Pakistan)
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
1ar xt: alt causes
Massive alt cause to HR cred no ratification

GICJ 5/18/15 Geneva International Center for Justice (US Human Rights Violations:
Geneva Centre for Justice, Global Research, http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-humanrights-violations-geneva-centre-for-justice/5450204)//JJ
The United States continued lack of ratification for several key international
human rights treaties drew criticism from many states. Most countries including Luxembourg, Lebanon,
and Iran called for the ratification of key documents such as: the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women ( CEDAW ), the Convention on the Rights of the Child
( CRC ), the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ( CRPD ) and the
Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture ( CAT ). Also mentioned by Egypt, India, and Togo
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ( ICESCR )
which is still not ratified by the United States since it signed onto the treaty in 1977 . The
Indian delegation pointed out that the United States considers itself to be a global leader on human rights, but still does not have a
guarantee for all the economic, social and cultural rights outlined in the ICESCR. To
was
truly be a leader on human rights , India urged the U.S. to ratify the ICESCR. While
the United States delegation did not specifically discuss all the outstanding treaties, the delegation did discuss the process of ratification in the United
States. Pointing out that the United States constitution requires the nations legislative bodies to sign onto ratification of the treaties, the delegation
Not mentioned is the

lack of political willingness from administrations to push treaties such as the
ICESCR which has not been ratified in the over 30 years since it was signed.
appeared to shift the responsibility for ensuring the United States engagement with the outstanding treaties.
Alt causes to HR cred laundry list

Sherrif 5/11/15 visiting scholar at the Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute,
journalist for NYU, Luce Research Fellow in Religion and Digital Media at NYUs Center
for Religion and Media( (Natasja, US cited for police violence, racism in scathing UN
review on human rights, Aljazeera America,
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/5/11/us-faces-scathing-un-review-onhuman-rights-record.html)//JJ
The United States was slammed over its rights record Monday at the United Nations
Human Rights Council,
criticizing the country for police violence and racial
with member nations
discrimination , the Guantnamo Bay Detention Facility and the continued use of
the death penalty
racism and police brutality dominated the
universal periodic review Country after country recommended that the U.S.
strengthen legislation and expand training to eliminate racism and excessive use of force
by law enforcement not surprised that the world's eyes are focused on police issues in
the U.S
international spotlight
. The issue of
discussion on Monday during the countrys second
(UPR).
. "I'm
.," said Alba Morales, who investigates the U.S. criminal justice system at Human Rights Watch. "There is an
that's been shone [on the issues], in large part due
to the events in Ferguson and the disproportionate police response to even peaceful protesters," she said. Anticipating the comments to come, James Cadogan, a senior counselor to the U.S. assistant attorney general, told delegates gathered in Geneva, "The tragic
Freddie Gray
Michael Brown
Eric Garner
Tamir Rice
Walter Scott
renewed a long-standing and critical national debate about the even-handed
administration of justice
The events have sparked widespread anger and unrest over the past
deaths of
in Baltimore,
in Missouri,
in New York,
in Ohio and
in South
Carolina have
. These events challenge us to do better and to work harder for progress through both dialogue and action." All of the names he mentioned are black men or boys who were killed by police
officers or died shortly after being arrested.
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
year.
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
Cadogan added that the Department of Justice has opened more than 20 investigations in the last six years including an investigation into the Baltimore Police Department as well as the release of a report of the Presidential Task Force on 21st
the U.S. could do much more Use of excessive

force by police was a major part of this year's UPR, and the fact that we still don't have a
reliable national figure to know how many people are killed by police or what the racial
breakdown is of those people is a travesty,"
A nation as advanced as the U.S. should
be able to gather that number."
killings in U.S. cities over the past year has attracted the attention and
criticism of the international community
the United States of America to be a
Century Policing in March, which included more than 60 recommendations. But advocates like Morales say
."
she said. "
The Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment. Although the problems are not new, the death of young men like Gray and Brown and the unrest that
followed their
. "Chad considers
country of freedom, but recent events targeting black sectors of society have tarnished
its image ,
" said Awada Angui of the U.N. delegation to Chad. The U.S. responded to questions and recommendations from 117 countries during a three-and-a-half-hour session in Geneva on Monday morning, with the high level of
Among the various concerns raised by U.N. member states was the
failure to close the Guantnamo Bay detention facility, the continued use of the death
penalty, the need for adequate protections for migrant workers and protection of the
rights of indigenous peoples. Member states also called on the U.S. to end child labor,
human trafficking and sexual violence against Native American and Alaska Native
women and to lift restrictions on the use of foreign aid to provide safe abortion services
for rape victims in conflict areas.
participation leaving each country just 65 seconds to speak.
More laundry hope you brought your OxiClean

Pakistan, Russia, China and Turkey were among the most vociferous of the member
states, with Russia informing the U.S. that "the human rights situation in the country has seriously
deteriorated recently" before presenting seven recommendations to the U.S. delegation. Pakistan Ambassador to the U.N. Zamir Akram
told the delegation that Pakistan has "serious concerns about the human rights situation in the U.S ."
Akrams eight recommendations included calls for the U.S. to use armed drones in line with
international norms and to compensate innocent victims of drone strikes with
cash. He also said the U.S. should end police brutality against African-Americans,
cease illegal detentions at Guantnamo Bay and prosecute CIA operatives
responsible for torture . The March findings of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on torture were not overlooked by
international delegates. Many echoed the concerns of the Danish delegate, Carsten Staur, who recommended that the U.S. " further ensures
that all victims of torture and ill treatment, whether still in U.S. custody or not, obtain
redress and have an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation and as full
rehabilitation as possible, including medical and psychological assistance."
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
2ac 4 years
UPR reviews happen in cycles most recent U.S. review was two months
ago computation means the counterplan process happens in 4 years
***all of the neg ev talks about how the most recent UPR was in May 2015
When will States have their human rights records reviewed by the UPR ? During the first
cycle, all UN Member States have been reviewed, with 48 States reviewed each year.
The second cycle, which officially started in May 2012 with the 13th session of the UPR Working
Group, will see
42 States reviewed each year. The reviews take place during the sessions of
the UPR Working Group (see below) which meets three times a year . The order of
review remains the same as in the first cycle and the number of States reviewed at
each session is now 14 instead of 16.
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
2ac wont implement

U.S. wont implement empirics
HRW 5/7/15 Human Rights Watch, citing Antonio Ginatta, U.S. Advocacy Director
at HRW (US: UN Rights Review to Expose Failings, HRW,
https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/05/07/us-un-rights-review-expose-failings)//JJ
The United States should make concrete commitments to address serious human rights problems during a United Nations review of its human rights record, Human Rights Watch said today. On May 11, 2015, the
US is scheduled to undergo its second Universal Periodic Review (UPR) before the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, in which UN member countries will raise past US human rights pledges and new concerns.
At the UN
rights review, the US has been strong on process and short on substance , said Antonio Ginatta, US advocacy
The UN Human Rights Council periodically reviews the human rights progress of each member every four-and-a-half years during this process. The first review of the US was in 2010.
director at Human Rights Watch. The US has little progress to show for the many commitments it made during its first Universal Periodic Review. During the current UN review, Human Rights Watch has
flagged concerns over the newly revealed mass surveillance programs, longstanding concerns over indefinite detention without trial at Guantanamo Bay, and the lack of accountability for torture under the
previous administration. The UN established the UPR process in 2006. Countries under review submit written reports on their human rights situation and respond to the questions and recommendations put
The United States engaged in extensive

consultation with nongovernmental organizations in the lead-up to its UPR. In its first
review in 2010, the US accepted 171 recommendations out of 240 from other member
countries. However, the US has largely failed to follow through on these
recommendations. For example, the US agreed to: Take measures to improve living conditions through its prison system, increase its efforts to eliminate alleged brutality and use of
excessive force by law enforcement officials against Latinos, African Americans, and undocumented migrants, and study racial disparities in the application of the death penalty. Five years
later, the US has done little on these recommendations; [I]nvestigate carefully each case involving the detention of migrants
and ensure immigration detention conditions meet international standards. While UN bodies oppose all detention of immigrant
children, the US has in the past year embraced the detention of immigrant children
and their mothers; and Seek the ratification of core international human rights treaties,
including the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and the Convention on
the Rights of the Child. The Obama administration submitted only the Disability Rights
forward by UN member countries at the Human Rights Council. All 193 UN member countries undergo these reviews.
Convention to the Senate for its consent, and was unable to muster the two-thirds
majority necessary for ratification. UN member countries should hold the US to its past human rights commitments by making sure that new recommendations are
concrete, specific, and measurable, Human Rights Watch said. Governments at the Human Rights Council should press the US on mass surveillance, police violence, and detention of migrant families, Ginatta
said. The US should take the opportunity to make a serious commitment to roll back these abusive practices.
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
2ac U.S. lies
U.S. will lie about the plan durable fiat doesnt answer this
Norrel 5/12/15 staff reporter at numerous American Indian newspapers and a
stringer for AP and USA Today (Brenda, US lies to UN Human Rights Council about
spying, torture, imprisonment of migrant children, The Narcosphere,
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/brenda-norrell/2015/05/us-lies-un-human-rights-council-about-spying-tortureimprisonment-mi)//JJ
The United States lied about spying , torture and the imprisonment of
migrant children , before the UN Human Rights Council during a review of the US human rights record on
Monday in Geneva. The US delegation said that US spying has not been used to suppress
dissent or for unfair business advantage. However, the US government has used spying to
stalk and entrap activists, spy on the media, and imprison whistleblowers. Further, the US
government has used the NSA spying for insider knowledge for business and trade .
During the Universal Periodic Review , the US delegation concealed the facts
of the imprisonment of migrant children, the murder of women and children during
drone assassinations , and the truth about US torture and renditions . Chad's
representative Awada Angui told the UN Human Rights Council, "Chad considers the United States of America to be a country of freedom, but recent events targeting black
The US concealed its prisons for profit empire , which has resulted in the
imprisonment of migrants, blacks, American Indians and Chicanos for corporate profit. The US did not mention its political
sectors of society have tarnished its image.
prisoners. The US did not provide the facts of the murder of migrants by US Border
Patrol agents, or of the rape and abuse carried out by US Border Patrol agents. The US delegation
did not reveal that hundreds of US Border Patrol and ICE agents have been convicted for drug
smuggling and serving as spotters for the drug cartels to bring their load across the Mexican border. Tohono
O'odham and other Indigenous Peoples living along the border are the victims of violence carried out by the US Border Patrol agents and drug cartels. During its responses,
the US attempted to cover up the widespread rape within the US military and the
extensive homelessness and failed medical services for veterans in the US. The
majority of the predominantly docile UN Human Rights Council
representatives seemed to believe the US public relations spin asserting that all problems in Indian country have
been solved. The US did not reveal that coal mining, power plants and uranium mining are poisoning Native American communities. The US did not reveal that Navajos and
Pueblos in the Southwest live in a cancer alley created by uranium mines, and dirty coal-fired power plants.
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
1ar xt: lie
Theyll lie Mays review proves

Norrel 5/12/15 staff reporter at numerous American Indian newspapers and a
stringer for AP and USA Today (Brenda, US lies to UN Human Rights Council about
spying, torture, imprisonment of migrant children, The Narcosphere,
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/brenda-norrell/2015/05/us-lies-un-human-rights-council-about-spying-tortureimprisonment-mi)//JJ
The US delegation concealed the fact that the imprisonment of whistleblowers

and assassinations by drones have accelerated during the Obama
administration. During the review on Monday, the United States was not held
accountable for arming the drug war in Mexico by providing drug cartels with assault
weapons. The ATFs Project Gunrunner, Operation Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious have armed the drug cartels in Mexico since 2005, beginning on the Texas border and continuing on the
Arizona border, according to US Dept. of Justice documents. Further, the US delegation concealed the fact US Homeland
Security gave the US border surveillance contract to Israels Apartheid security
contractor Elbit Systems, responsible for the security surrounding Palestine. Currently Elbit holds the
contract to construct US spy towers on the Arizona border, including those on the sovereign Tohono Oodham Nation. The most egregious cover-ups by
the US delegation were the fantasy claims by the US delegation regarding the fairy tale
array of services for migrant children. Migrant children have been imprisoned in large numbers, in violation of international law. The US
fantasy claims included the denial of torture, and assurances that all inmates in
Guantanamo had access to fair trials. While one member of the US delegation asserted
that the US had gone too far in its torture program, and steps had been taken to halt it, another member
of the US delegation from the Joint Chiefs of Staff assured the Human Rights
Council that inmates at Guantanamo were treated in accordance with domestic and
international law.
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
2ac surv. compliance now

Surveillance compliance now
DS 2/6/15 U.S. Department of State (UPR Report of the United States of America,
Department of State Diplomacy in Action, http://www.state.gov/j/drl/upr/2015/237250.htm)//JJ
83. The United States strives to protect privacy and civil liberties while also protecting national
an extensive and effective framework of protections that applies to
privacy and intelligence issues, including electronic surveillance . The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
security. We have
governs, among other matters, electronic surveillance conducted within the United States for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence or counterintelligence information. In
establishing
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, FISA sets forth a system of rigorous,
independent judicial oversight of the activities it regulates to ensure that they are
lawful and effectively address privacy and civil liberties concerns . Such activities are also subject to oversight by
the U.S. Congress and entities in our Executive Branch. 84. Signals intelligence collection outside the FISA context is also regulated, and must have a valid foreign intelligence or
Presidential Policy Directive-28 , which enunciates

standards for the collection and use of foreign signals intelligence . It emphasizes that we
do not collect foreign intelligence for the purpose of suppressing criticism or dissent, or
for disadvantaging any individual on the basis of ethnicity , race , gender , sexual
counterintelligence purpose. In January 2014, the President issued
orientation , or religion , and that agencies within our intelligence community are required to adopt and make public to the greatest extent
feasible procedures for the protection of personal information of non-U.S. persons. It also requires that privacy and civil liberties
protections be integral in the planning of those activities, and that personal information be protected at
appropriate stages of collection, retention, and dissemination. 85. PPD-28 recognizes that all persons should be
treated with dignity and respect, regardless of nationality or place of residence, and that all persons have legitimate privacy interests in the handling of their personal
requires U.S. signals intelligence activities to include

appropriate safeguards for the personal information of all individuals. 86. Further, our
intelligence community is required to report on such programs and activities to Congress, where these issues are vigorously debated. Agencies within our
intelligence community have privacy and civil liberties officers. The National Security Agency, for example, has
recently established a Civil Liberties and Privacy Officer who advises on issues including signals intelligence
information collected through signals intelligence. It therefore
programs that entail the collection of personal information.
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
2ac upr bad
The UPR is a joke no credibility

Pollak 5/11/15 lost to my cousin in the 2010 Illinoiss 9th congressional district
election, editor-in-chief for Breitbart, AB from Harvard, JD from Harvard, MA from
Cape Town (Joel, Obama Complains to UN About Americas Human Rights Violations,
Breitbart, http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/05/11/obama-complainsto-un-about-us-human-rights-violations/)//JJ
The State Department report, released Monday as part of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the
UN Human Rights Council, reads less like an accounting of human rights issues and
more like the platform of the Democratic Party [chirp chirp] and invites the
world to judge America harshly. The so-called human rights problems cited in the report include:
Police brutality, including the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, Missouri Discrimination against Muslims who want to build or expand mosques Voter identification laws in
Texas and elsewhere Predatory lending in home mortgages Suspension of black children in schools Women earning 78 cents on the dollar (a false statistic) In addition, the
report boasts of progress in the following areas: Promoting same-sex marriage Fighting discrimination against transgender children in school Executive action on illegal
immigration Helping illegal alien children who cross the border Protecting privacy rights against government surveillance Trying to close the Guantnamo Bay prison for terror
detainees Revoking torture memos for interrogating terrorists Passing Obamacare Expanding food stamps Regulating carbon pollution to fight climate change The
apologetic, left-liberal report echoes one filed by the Obama administration five years ago, during which the State Department proudly told the Human Rights Council that the
Critics of the UN note that the UPR

has become a place where abusers are applauded and democracies are heavily
administration opposed Arizonas new immigration law, among other alleged American misdeeds.
criticized , and Iran, Libya, China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia are treated lightly . Al-Jazeera
America reported that
the U.S. was subjected to scathing criticism from a variety of
dictatorships after filing its report, including Chad, Pakistan, Russia, and China. Iran, for
example, complained about racial discrimination in the United States, among other criticisms, calling on the U.S. to protect the rights of African-Americans against police
The Iranian regime brutally represses its own population, and used police and
paramilitaries to crush a pro-democracy protest in 2009.) The Qatar-owned network
piled on with a misleading headline : US cited for police violence, racism in
scathing UN review on human rights. The story implied that it was the UN that had
targeted the United States, rather than the Obama administration targeting Americaa
rather telling conflation of Americas enemies with the Obama administration
itself. A representative of the Obama administration offered meekly: The tragic deaths of Freddie Gray in Baltimore, Michael Brown in Missouri, Eric Garner in New
brutality. (
York, Tamir Rice in Ohio and Walter Scott in South Carolina have renewed a long-standing and critical national debate about the even-handed administration of justice. These
The Obama administration also

boasted to the UN about challenging racially discriminatory voting laws in North
Carolina and Texas, though many UN member states have laws requiring voter
photo identification, and similar laws have been upheld in the recent past by the U.S.
Supreme Court as constitutional and non-discriminatory.
events challenge us to do better and to work harder for progressthrough both dialogue and action.
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
1ar xt: upr bad

UPR wont solve hypocritical process
Under the UPR, every U.N. member state is subject to the same peer-review of its human rights record on a four-year cycle. The UPR was created as part of the mandate of the
Human Rights Council, established by the U.N. General Assembly in 2006 to replace the widely discredited Human Rights Commission, which included among its members
some of the world's most egregious human rights abusers. The council consists of elected members which, when electing new members, according to the resolution that created
it, should "take into account the candidates' contribution to the promotion and protection of human rights and their voluntary pledges and commitments made thereto." Still,
according to Freedom House an organization advocating for democracy and human rights
repressive regimes nonetheless gain
council membership and can weaken the effectiveness of the council and the
UPR. And the process is not without hypocrisy , as countries that frequently abuse
the rights of their citizens line up to offer their critiques of and recommendations for
other member states. "Obviously, everybody has improvements they can make to their human rights record. We do believe that everybody from the most
powerful country on down should be called to task on their rights records, and we value the opportunity to do so," said Morales. "We like to focus on the substance of the
comments rather than the source of them," she added.
More the UPR is terminally flawed

Schaefer and Groves 10 --- fellow in international regulatory affairs at Heritages Margaret Thatcher Center for
Freedom and senior research fellow (Brett D, and Steven, The U.S. Universal Periodic Review: Flawed from the Start, The Heritage
Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/08/the-us-universal-periodic-review-flawed-from-the-start)//Mnush
Established in Human Rights Council Resolution 5/1 of June 18, 2007, the UPR process reviews countries on several bases,
including, but not limited to: (a) the charter of the United Nations; (b) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; (c) human rights
instruments to which the state is a party; and (d) voluntary pledges and commitments made by states, including those undertaken
when presenting their candidatures for election to the Human Rights Council. While the UPR offers an unprecedented opportunity
to hold the human rights practices of every country open for public examination and criticism,
it has proven to be a
flawed process hijacked by countries seeking to shield themselves from

criticisma flaw that the HRC shares with the broader human rights
efforts in the U.N. system. There are two key problems with the UPR: (1) contributions to the
process by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are strictly curtailed; and (2)
countries use points of order and other procedures to intimidate NGOs from making
statements or to strike their comments from the record.[5] These two issues have
tainted the UPR and resulted in numerous farcical human rights reviews. For instance:
China laughably claimed in its UPR report that it adheres to the principle that all ethnic groups are
equal and implements a system of regional ethnic autonomy in areas with high
concentrations of ethnic minorities, that elections are democratic and competitive,
that citizens enjoy freedom of speech and of the press, and that China respects the right to religious
freedom.[6] Cubas UPR report claimed that its democratic system is based on the principle of government of the people, by the
people and for the people and that the right to freedom of opinion, expression and the press is guaranteed and protected, as are
the rights of assembly and peaceful demonstration.[7] North Korea asserted that it comprehensively provides for fundamental
rights and freedoms, including the right to elect and to be elected, the freedoms of speech, the press, assembly, demonstration and
association, the rights to complaints and petitions, work and relaxation, free medical care, education and social security, freedoms to
engage in scientific, literary and artistic pursuits, and freedoms of residence and travel.[8] These patently false reports were
accepted at face value and approved by the majority of member states in the council. A U.S. Grilling in the Offing The U.S. review is
unlikely to go as smoothly as those for China or Cuba. Countries deeply resentful of the U.S. and its practice of criticizing their
human rights records in its annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices will seize with great glee the opportunity to accuse
the U.S. of violating the rights of its citizens (and non-citizens). Human rights NGOs (including organizations based in the U.S.) will
eagerly join them to make sure that their complaints, which are often unsupported if not specious, are highlighted. Aside from the
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
Administrations obvious self-aggrandizement (President Obama is referred to over 20 times in the 25-page report, and his health
care reform is credited with vast achievements that have yet to be realized, if they ever will), the U.S. UPR report generally defends
Americas strong record in the preservation of human rights. To its credit, the report provides a robust defense of the U.S.
Constitution as the basis for and protection of human rights in the U.S. The report properly emphasizes the primacy of civil and
political rights (dedicating over 12 pages to those rights) as opposed to so-called economic and social rights (of which the report
discussed only three and asserted that they were pursued as a matter of public policy rather than as human rights obligations).
That emphasis will likely displease the HRC, which tends to give equal if not greater weight to economic and social rights when
analyzing a nations human rights record. Yet some of what the Obama Administration wrote in the official U.S. report will be
cannon fodder to the HRC during the U.S. review. For instance, one particular paragraph in the U.S. report demonstrates the type of
self-flagellation that the HRC expects of the U.S.: We are not satisfied with a situation where the unemployment rate for African
Americans is 15.8%, for Hispanics 12.4%, and for whites 8.8%, as it was in February 2010. We are not satisfied that a person with
disabilities is only one-fourth as likely to be employed as a person without disabilities. We are not satisfied when fewer than half of
African-American and Hispanic families own homes while three-quarters of white families do. We are not satisfied that whites are
twice as likely as Native Americans to have a college degree.[9] This paragraphs emphasis on group rights and achieving equality
of results rather than only equality of opportunity is consistent with the HRCs often wrongheaded perspective on the nature of
the UPR
process thus far has been closer to farce than fact . Those countries bent on
attacking the U.S. will no doubt come armed with plenty of criticisms regarding the U.S.
record. The UPR report will provide them with some additional, unnecessary
ammunition. However, U.S. participation in the UPR process itself already provides
undue legitimacy to their complaints .
human rights. It remains to be seen how the HRC will react to the U.S. report this November in Geneva. But
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
2ac noko war da

UN human rights action triggers North Korea nuclear response
Oakford 14 UN correspondent at VICE News (Samuel, North Korea Threatens
'Nuclear War' Over Human Rights Reprimand, VICE News, 11/24/14,
https://news.vice.com/article/north-korea-threatens-nuclear-war-over-human-rightsreprimand)//JJ
A week after the passage of a UN resolution condemning North Korea's human rights record,
the reclusive regime has ratcheted up threats against the US and Japan, warning its
Pacific neighbor "will disappear from the world map for good." The bluster came in a statement issued
Sunday by North Korea's National Defense Commission (NDC). In it, the country known officially as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea predicted "t ime will
prove what high price those who unreasonably violated the dignity of the DPRK despite
its repeated warnings will have to pay." The NDC also referred to the specter of
" nuclear war " on the Korean peninsula , and intimated that the country may be
considering a further nuclear test. The statement was a direct response to the passage of a resolution last Tuesday in the
General Assembly's Third Committee that urged the Security Council to consider referring North Korea's
human rights abuses to the International Criminal Court. Though both China and Russia
are expected to veto such a move, the resolution overwhelmingly approved by
member states was highly symbolic, and upped pressure on the isolated nation. North
Korea warns of 'serious consequences' after UN human rights reprimand. Read more here. For months
prior to the vote, North Korea had engaged in a diplomatic charm offensive aimed at averting attention from the results of a UN Commission of Inquiry that investigated human
rights abuses in the country. In an April report, the Commission found the government in Pyongyang has systematically murdered, starved, and raped its own citizens,
"The UN as a body has never come out in this way to

criticize North Korea," Charles Armstrong, professor of Korean Studies at Columbia University, told VICE News. "This will be
hanging over them for some time to come."
imprisoning tens of thousands of people in political prisons.
Causes escalatory global nuclear war

Yenko 6/30/15 reporter for the Morning News (Athena, North Korea Threatens US
To Extinction, Morning News USA, http://www.morningnewsusa.com/north-koreathreatens-us-to-extinction-2325630.html)//JJ
North Korea vowed to launch a nuclear counter-attack that will extinguish the United States into
flames the moment it ignites a nuclear war on the peninsula . A statement from the National Defense Commission of the
DPRK brandished a warning that it is ready for conventional, nuclear or cyber wars against U.S. The statement
comes after U.S. deployed USS Chancellorship and Global Hawk at a U.S. military base in Yokosuka, Japan. U.S. will perish in the flames
North Korea has called for the U.S. to pay heed to the DPRKs warning that it is ready for conventional or nuclear or cyber war. The U.S. would be well advised to bear in mind
already put in place powerful strike group equipped with strategic and tactical
rockets to cope with its missile threat, the statement from its defense department reads as reported by KCNA. It is as clear as a pikestaff
that the DPRK has
that if the U.S. nuclear maniacs ignite a nuclear war on the peninsula at any cost, they will perish in the flames kindled by themselves, the statement declared. The heavyworded statement comes as U.S. deploys the USS Chancellorship and Global Hawk at a U.S. military base in Yokosuka, Japan. North Koreas defense department said if the U.S.
pushes through its plan to deploy USS Ronald Reagan at the end of this year, there will already be 14 warships in the U.S. Navy base in Yokosuka, Japan. The number will be the
largest-ever warship fleet in Japan by U.S. since World War II. Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki North Korea said the U.S. is daydreaming if it thinks that it can launch a
nuclear attack tantamount to dropping atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. North Koreas fear over the same attack was sparked as U.S. said that the deployment of
warships in Japan is part of military strategy to contain North Korea and China. All these military moves under the pretext of containing
China are aimed to kick up an overall nuclear war
the DPRK and
racket against the DPRK in the ground, air and seas, KCNA said in
its report. This fully revealed once again the aggressive nature of the U.S. imperialists who are making no scruple of periodically disturbing peace and stability in the region to
attain their strategic and avaricious purposes, the report stated. Morning News USA has recently reported that Pentagon has called for the advancement of its nuclear deterrent
capability. Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work said that
ongoing nuclear upgrades by Russia , China and North
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
Korea should compel U.S. to maintain a strong nuclear deterrent force at present or in
the immediate future.
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
1ar xt: noko war da

Turn
AFP 14 Associated Free Press (North Korea warns 'catastrophic consequences' over
UN rights ruling, The Telegraph, 11/23/14,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/11248559/North-Korea-warns-catastrophic-consequences-overUN-rights-ruling.html)//JJ
North Korea's top military body on Sunday warned of "catastrophic consequences" for
supporters of the latest UN censure on its human rights record, as state media reported
leader Kim Jong Un presided over fresh military drills.
A resolution asking the UN Security Council to refer North Korea's leadership to the
International Criminal Court (ICC) for possible charges of "crimes against humanity"
passed by a resounding vote of 111 to 19 with 55 abstentions in a General Assembly
human rights committee last week.
Introduced by Japan and the European Union and co-sponsored by some 60 nations,
the resolution drew heavily on the work of a UN inquiry which concluded in February
that the North was committing human rights abuses "without parallel in the
contemporary world."
The North since then has repeatedly slammed the bill as a political "fraud" and warned
that it was being pushed into conducting a fresh nuclear test.
The National Defense Commission (NDC), chaired by Kim, said Sunday the bill
amounted to a "war declaration" taking issue with the North's leader, Kim Jong-Un.
Related Articles
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, left, and then Vice Chairman of the National
Defense Commission Jang Song Thaek
North Korean linked to Kim Jong-un's purged uncle 'goes missing' in Paris 21 Nov
2014
Pyongyang threatens new nuclear test in response to UN criticism 20 Nov 2014
Comment: If Kim Jong-un won't face a war crimes court, then who on earth will? 19
Nov 2014
UN panel demands North Korea human rights investigation 19 Nov 2014
The resolution makes no mention of Kim but notes the UN inquiry finding that the
"highest level of the state" holds responsibility for the rights abuses.
The dignity of its leader "cannot be bartered for anything," NDC said in a statement,
adding Japan as well as South Korea and the US - co-sponsors of the UN bill - were
Pyongyang's "primary target."
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
"The US and its followers will be wholly accountable for the unimaginable and
catastrophic consequences to be entailed by the frantic 'human rights' racket against the
(North)," it said.
As Pyongyang ramped the up angry threats, Kim guided a large military drill involving
maritime transport and amphibious landing, the state-run KCNA said.
The NDC also said that Seoul's leader Park Geun-Hye would not be safe "if a nuclear war
breaks out" on the Korean peninsula, and its attacks could make Japan "disappear from
the world map for good."
The isolated and nuclear-armed state has staged three atomic tests - most recently in
2013, which was its most powerful test to date.
This week, the US-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins University said on its closely
followed 38 North website that new satellite imagery suggested Pyongyang may be firing
up a facility for processing weapons-grade plutonium - a major source for a nuclear test.
South Korea said last week its military was on stand-by, and the US said Thursday that
the renewed threat of a nuclear test in the North was a "great concern."
UN UPR COUNTERPLAN
MICHIGAN 15
HJPV
2ac permutation
The permutation solves the net benefit US taking the lead gives credibility
to the UN
Schaefer and Groves 10 --- fellow in international regulatory affairs at Heritages Margaret Thatcher Center for
Freedom and senior research fellow (Brett D, and Steven, The U.S. Universal Periodic Review: Flawed from the Start, The Heritage
Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/08/the-us-universal-periodic-review-flawed-from-the-start)//Mnush
By legitimizing the HRC through U.S. membership, the Obama Administration will give
credibility to a farcical UPR process that has become little more than a mutual praise
society[3] for repressive regimes and created the opportunity for human rights abusers
to take unjustified shots at Americas human rights record. The Obama Administration was
mistaken to believe it could improve the HRC from within and should press for
fundamental reforms at the mandatory 2011 review of the council.

Un Upr CP - Michigan7 2015

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Un Upr CP - Michigan7 2015

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

UN UPR COUNTERPLAN

UN UPR Counterplan HJPV

The US has committed to upholding human

UN Member States to make surveillance one of

The US has committed to

upholding human rights under several treaties, including the International

The UPR is a relatively recent creationit was established via a UN General

U.S. compliance within UN institutions bolsters UN legitimacy

UN is now more than ever reduced to the servile function of after-sales

THE UNITED NATIONS UNITED STATES DUALISM

The push for democratization in the world has

The UN has global reach and authority but no power . It

symbolizes global governance but lacks the attributes of international government.

The UN exists to check the predatory instincts of the powerful

UN legitimacy solves extinction

2nc xt: solvency

surveillance-related human rights abuses . The US cannot continue to ignore

Solves the aff

policies and measures comply with international human rights law,

It is imperative for the Executive Branch to

2nc at: U.S. says no

2nc at: U.S. lies

2nc at: every 4 years

2nc at: delay

2nc at: surv compliance now

Committee called on the US to ensure that its surveillance activities respect

2nc cdt prodict

2nc health aff

he Universal Periodic Review

We are, however, most concerned that non-transparent access to

We certainly have no confidence that standard

The lack of sufficient human rights

2nc theory top-level

DISHFIRE, an initiative through which the US collects hundreds of

millions of private text messages worldwide every day; CO-TRAVELER, through

2nc at: process cp theory

DISHFIRE, an initiative through which the US collects hundreds of

millions of private text messages worldwide every day; CO-TRAVELER, through

b) fairness there is no neg ground on this topic process counterplans

c) research voting us down on theory discourages good research practices

2nc at: perm do both

human rights are essentially benchmarks of

^The permutation is driven by national security interests and wont receive

Legitimacy key to binding precedent the permutation rubber stamps the

When an individual state acts in

The fact that the council did not ultimately

Independent UN action is key to credibility the perm positions the UN on

growing awareness regarding the very oligarchic

structure will remain detrimental to the health of the "real" international

The margin for error is tiny

2nc at: perm do the cp

To achieve this, the

Should is certain and immediate

appears to favor interpreting "should" in an

imperative, obligatory sense . HN7A number of

and rejected the defendant's argument that

Severance the counterplans recommendations and method of

Severance the recommendations are not implemented through legislative

2nc at: perm lie

2nc at: case solves

Throughout most of history, the tasks of

2nc at: U.S. commitment now

2nc xt: HR cred