Docstoc

Frontline to Neolib Common Heritage aff Gary

Document Sample
Frontline to Neolib Common Heritage aff Gary Powered By Docstoc
					Document1                                                                                                                                      DDI 2010
                                                                                                                                                        1
                                         1NC- Neoliberalism- Environ Impact Turn
Neoliberalism checks environmental destruction and lifts people out of poverty.
Goklany 7 (independent scholar writing on global and national environmental issues. 03-23-2007 The Improving State of the World: Why We're Living Longer,
Healthier, More Comfortable Lives on a Cleaner Planet, http://www.reason.com/news/show/119252.html)JFS
      Environmentalists and globalization foes are united in their fear that greater population and consumption of energy,
      materials, and chemicals accompanying economic growth, technological change and free trade—the
      mainstays of globalization—degrade human and environmental well-being. Indeed, the 20th century saw the
      United States’ population multiply by four, income by seven, carbon dioxide emissions by nine, use of
      materials by 27, and use of chemicals by more than 100. Yet life expectancy increased from 47 years to 77 years.
      Onset of major disease such as cancer, heart, and respiratory disease has been postponed between eight and eleven years in
      the past century. Heart disease and cancer rates have been in rapid decline over the last two decades, and total cancer
      deaths have actually declined the last two years, despite increases in population. Among the very young, infant
      mortality has declined from 100 deaths per 1,000 births in 1913 to just seven per 1,000 today. These improvements
      haven’t been restricted to the United States. It’s a global phenomenon. Worldwide, life expectancy has more than
      doubled, from 31 years in 1900 to 67 years today. India’s and China’s infant mortalities exceeded 190 per 1,000 births in
      the early 1950s; today they are 62 and 26, respectively. In the developing world, the proportion of the population suffering
      from chronic hunger declined from 37 percent to 17 percent between 1970 and 2001 despite a 83 percent increase in
      population. Globally average annual incomes in real dollars have tripled since 1950. Consequently, the
      proportion of the planet's developing-world population living in absolute poverty has halved since 1981, from 40
      percent to 20 percent. Child labor in low income countries declined from 30 percent to 18 percent between 1960 and 2003.
      Equally important, the world is more literate and better educated than ever. People are freer politically, economically, and
      socially to pursue their well-being as they see fit. More people choose their own rulers, and have freedom of expression.
      They are more likely to live under rule of law, and less likely to be arbitrarily deprived of life, limb, and property. Social
      and professional mobility have also never been greater. It’s easier than ever for people across the world to transcend the
      bonds of caste, place, gender, and other accidents of birth. People today work fewer hours and have more money and better
      health to enjoy their leisure time than their ancestors. Man’s environmental record is more complex. The early stages of
      development can indeed cause some environmental deterioration as societies pursue first-order problems affecting human
      well-being. These include hunger, malnutrition, illiteracy, and lack of education, basic public health services, safe water,
      sanitation, mobility, and ready sources of energy. Because greater wealth alleviates these problems while providing basic
      creature comforts, individuals and societies initially focus on economic development, often neglecting other aspects of
      environmental quality. In time, however, they recognize that environmental deterioration reduces their quality of life.
      Accordingly, they put more of their recently acquired wealth and human capital into developing and implementing cleaner
      technologies. This brings about an environmental transition via the twin forces of economic development and
      technological progress, which begin to provide solutions to environmental problems instead of creating those problems.
      All of which is why we today find that the richest countries are also the cleanest. And while many developing
      countries have yet to get past the “green ceiling,” they are nevertheless ahead of where today’s
      developed countries used to be when they were equally wealthy. The point of transition from "industrial period" to
      "environmental conscious" continues to fall. For example, the US introduced unleaded gasoline only after its GDP per
      capita exceeded $16,000. India and China did the same before they reached $3,000 per capita. This progress is a testament
      to the power of globalization and the transfer of ideas and knowledge (that lead is harmful, for example).




Last printed 11/29/2011 5:35:00 PM
                                                                                                                                                        1
Document1                                                                                                                       DDI 2010
                                                                                                                                        1

                                     1NC- Neoliberalism- Innovation Impact Turn
Neoliberalism is good for innovation
Timothy Sandefur, is the lead attorney in the Economic Liberty Project at the Pacific Legal Foundation in
Sacramento, California. He is also a contributing editor of Liberty magazine, 2008, “Innovation”, The Concise
Encyclopedia of Economics, http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Innovation.html#abouttheauthor

      There are two common sayings about innovation. The first is that “if you build a better mousetrap, the
      world will beat a path to your door.” In a seminal work on innovation, economist Jacob Schmookler
      gave credence to this view when he compared the rates at which patents were issued with the amount
      of investment in new technologies. Schmookler concluded that innovation is driven almost exclusively by
      economic demand: people engage in innovation out of a belief that the economic returns will be greater than its
      costs.19 But some economists criticize his approach as overly simplistic, particularly for ignoring
      factors independent of economics that heavily influence how innovation happens.20 Mere demand for a
      new product or service is not enough to bring an innovation about.
      The other common saying holds that “necessity is the mother of invention.” But the reality is
      that leisure is the mother of innovation. In economic terms, surplus capital provides the necessary time and startup
      costs for implementing a new idea (see INVESTMENT).21 Because a new product or service, or even a new social
      more, might not succeed, a potential innovator must assemble the resources to permit him to begin implementation
      without a guaranteed return on the investment. The ability to assemble and invest capital is therefore indispensable for
      innovation of any sort, and capital is available only when some people have enough wealth to permit innovators to spend
      their time thinking creatively.



Innovation key to human survival.
Timothy Sandefur, is the lead attorney in the Economic Liberty Project at the Pacific Legal Foundation in
Sacramento, California. He is also a contributing editor of Liberty magazine, 2008, “Innovation”, The Concise
Encyclopedia of Economics, http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Innovation.html#abouttheauthor
      Defenders of innovation, whom Virginia Postrel calls “dynamists,”16 argue that innovation is essential for solving
      problems that impose significant social and personal costs. For example, humans lived with disease and starvation for most
      of recorded history, but technological advancement has led to cures for many of these diseases and improved the production
      of food, with beneficial consequences for a great many people. The introduction of labor-saving technology was essential to
      this process even though it initially caused disruption by costing the jobs of manual laborers. Moreover, some defenders of
      innovation point out that some of what opponents see as “costs” of innovation are in reality benefits. C. P. Snow, for
      example, argues in The Two Cultures that opponents of innovation tend to overlook the suffering of disenfranchised groups,
      or even to romanticize it. Postrel criticizes Leon Kass’s views on medical science on these grounds, arguing that it is
      morally wrong to regard suffering and illness as essential parts of human experience that ought to be preserved.17 By
      contrast, defenders of innovation often see it as beneficial for innovation to disrupt social orders they see as unjust; in The
      Hunchback of Notre Dame, for example, Victor Hugo dramatizes the importance of the printing press in disrupting the
      unjust social order of the middle ages.18 As with social disruption, dynamists regard the economic disruption caused by
      innovation as a benefit to the consumer and as an important step in the pursuit of economic efficiency. In short, dynamists
      tend to favor innovation out of a humanistic concern for the survival and flourishing of individuals.




Last printed 11/29/2011 5:35:00 PM
                                                                                                                                        2
Document1                                                                                                                        DDI 2010
                                                                                                                                         1


                                                       1NC Solvency (1/4)
1. Common heritage of mankind has lost its meaning.
Christopher Garrison, M.A.(Oxon.) LL.M. (Lond.) E.P.A., July, 2007, Beneath the Surface: The common heritage of
mankind, http://kestudies.org/ojs/index.php/kes/article/viewDownloadInterstitial/21/38

      At one end of the spectrum is the ‘strong’ form of CHM principle envisaged by Dr. Pardo and the
      developing countries of the G-77 during the NIEO for application to the deep seabed. Inevitably, given
      the changes that blew through the world in the 1980s and 1990s, much of the strength of this view of
      the CHM principle has been sapped: “...Although the area of the deep seabed beyond the limits of
      national jurisdiction is still called and declared as the common heritage of mankind, the term has lost its original
      meaning and substance when it symbolized the interests, needs, hopes and aspirations of a large number of poor peoples.
      The principle has lost its lustre and soul...”152. This change is not just the result of the increasing dominance of free market
      thinking however. The invention of the EEZ and its inclusion in the Law of the Sea Convention robbed
      much of the riches of the ocean from the zone of the international regime under the CHM principle.
      With the dwindling expectations of the wealth associated with this zone alone, as the dreams of an El
      Dorado on the abyssal plains faded, came a dwindling of practical impact that the concept was likely to
      have. This by no means indicates that the CHM itself withered away completely however. Far from it:




Last printed 11/29/2011 5:35:00 PM
                                                                                                                                         3
Document1                                                                                                DDI 2010
                                                                                                                1
                                            1NC Solvency (2/4)
2. Russia, India, China, Japan all plan to go to the moon regardless of the Common Heritage. The US
has no influence on them.
Fred Guterl, is a Senior Editor at Newsweek International and directs the magazine's coverage of
science, technology, health, medicine and the environment, With Anna Nemtsova and Owen
Matthews in Moscow, Melinda Liu in Beijing, Tracy McNicholl in Paris and Sudip
Mazumdar          in     Delhi,      February        5,    2007,        “Race    to     the    Moon”,
http://www.lexisnexis.com/lnacui2api/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T12415571013
&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T12415534487&cisb=22_T124155
71016&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=5774&docNo=8

This legendary stinginess is the bane of Krikalev, and Russia's ace in the hole. Although it lost the moon race in
the 1960s, since then Russia's space program has made a habit of performing heroic deeds on a shoestring--in
many respects besting its well-heeled U.S. rival. While NASA struggled with its unreliable and fabulously
complex space shuttle, Russia was racking up the mileage with its simple, durable Proton boosters--even during
the chaotic years following the Soviet Union's collapse. Now, despite Krikalev's complaints, Russia's space
program is emerging from the lean years. Last year the Parliament voted a 33 percent increase for Roscosmos,
the Russian Space Agency, bringing its budget, including income from the sale of launch services, to $1.7
billion a year. That money has given Russia the luxury of once again turning its eyes to the moon. It plans to
send the first of five robotic probes in 2010 and follow up with a permanent research base by 2012. "In spite of
the fact that we have less money, Russia's piloted space programs are still more effective than America's," says
Igor Panarin, a Roscosmos official.
Russia is not the only nation with renewed ambitions for manned spaceflight. China, a relative newcomer, has
developed a booster capable of propelling a capsule to the moonand has now sent three astronauts into orbit.
China plans to launch its first moon probe on April 17, NEWSWEEK has learned, and hopes eventually to
follow up with a manned trip. Japan is moving ahead with a moon program. And last week an Indian flight
successfully deployed four satellites, giving Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's audacious promise in 2003
to send a spacecraft to the moon by 2008 at least a patina of realism.
Why, after so many decades, is everybody now interested in sending people to the moon? Prestige and the
desire simply to explore seem to be what's motivating NASA. President George W. Bush set a goal three years
ago to establish a permanent base on the moon and eventually send a manned mission to Mars (though many
critics argue for heading straight to the Red Planet). Unprecedented worldwide growth has pushed formerly
impoverished nations like China, Russia and India into the cosmic middle class. And although technological
spinoffs have always been a weak justification for ridiculously expensive manned missions, Russia and China
have designs to mine the moon for its resources--particularly helium-3, a rare isotope that some scientists think
could fuel nuclear fusion reactors and provide a source of clean energy.
All this comes at a time when NASA, the world's premier space agency, is floundering. In December, NASA
unveiled a more detailed map for reaching Mars via the moon. The Constellation Program, as it's called, would
involve building a new booster rocket, Ares, capable of lugging all the gear needed for a moon trip, with a
capsule on top to carry 4 to 6 astronauts. It would involve a lunar rendezvous--one ship waiting in lunar orbit
while a second descends to the surface. If it sounds familiar, that's because the plan is strikingly similar to
Apollo, last flown in the 1970s.




Last printed 11/29/2011 5:35:00 PM
                                                                                                                4
Document1                                                                                                                        DDI 2010
                                                                                                                                         1

                                                       1NC Solvency (3/4)
3. The Common Heritage fails and no one will abide by it because the space-faring states have not agreed
to it yet.
Zach Meyer, J.D. Candidate, 2010, Northwestern University School of Law, 2010, “Private Commercialization
of Space in an International Regime, A Proposal for a Space District”, 30 NW. J. INT'L L. & BUS. 241
http://www.iew.unibe.ch/unibe/rechtswissenschaft/dwr/iew/content/e3870/e3985/e4139/e6404/sel-topic_4-
privatecommercial_ger.pdf

      First, it should be clarified why the Moon Treaty should be discussed at all. Some commentators have
      simply dismissed the Moon Treaty as irrelevant because it has been accepted by only a limited number of States. n52 But,
      truly, it is only the lack of a major space-faring State from the number of those States accepting the
      Moon Treaty that really motivates such [*250] dismissals. If the United States, Russia, or China either signed
      or ratified the Moon Treaty, surely those same commentators would think twice before dismissing the Moon Treaty as
      irrelevant. However, even by that standard of relevancy, the Moon Treaty is not permanently irrelevant. The company of
      space-faring States is increasing in size, and the club of major space-faring States is not as exclusive as
      it once was. Even among those few States who ratified or signed the Moon Treaty, space-faring status
      is not necessarily so far removed. India, one of the signatories to the Moon Treaty, is aggressively
      developing its space-faring capabilities and there is no reason to think it will not succeed sometime
      soon. n53
       After all, China very quickly became a space-faring State once it similarly set out to develop space-
      faring capabilities.

      n54

       But even if the Moon Treaty is not specifically relevant, the principles of the Moon Treaty reflect
      principles latent in the Outer Space Treaty. Collectively, the Outer Space Treaty and Moon Treaty
      promote a legal regime seemingly inhospitable to the commercialization of outer space. However, the
      two treaties do not prohibit the commercialization of outer space outright. Rather, the two treaties
      resist private ownership and appropriation, and even that resistance is not absolute. Ultimately, as will
      soon become apparent, the two treaties do permit the private ownership and appropriation necessary to
      commercialize space so long as international interests are given their due consideration.

      As a general observation, the Outer Space Treaty is steeped in the rhetoric of a "common interest of all
      mankind," especially expressing the concern that one part of "all mankind" - the less-developed States
      - will be left out of the exploration and use of outer space while the other part of "all mankind" - the
      developed States - will reap all the rewards of exploiting outer space.
      n55
       Specifically, it declares that the exploration and use of outer space is to be conducted "for the benefit
      and in the interests of all countries ... and shall be the province of all mankind."
      n56
       To that end, outer space is to "be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of
      equality and in accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all areas of celestial [*251] bodies."
      n57




Last printed 11/29/2011 5:35:00 PM
                                                                                                                                         5
Document1                                                                                                          DDI 2010
                                                                                                                           1
                                                 1NC Solvency (4/4)
4. Legal scholars have not determined the meaning of the common heritage of mankind.
Scott J. Shackelford, STANFORD LAW SCHOOL, J.D., June 2009 with distinction, UNIVERSITY OF
CAMBRIDGE, M.Phil. in International Relations, May 2006; Ph.D. Candidate, July 2012, INDIANA
UNIVERSITY, B.A., summa cum laude, in Economics and Political Science with Honors, August 2005, from
2008 “The Tragedy of the Common Heritage of Mankind”,
 http://www.iew.unibe.ch/unibe/rechtswissenschaft/dwr/iew/content/e3870/e3985/e4139/e6410/sel-topic_5-
shackleford_ger.pdf

Yet there remains no commonly agreed-to definition of the CHM amongst legal scholars or policymakers. Developing and
developed nations disagree over the extent of international regulation required to equitably manage commons resources . These
disagreements have played out in the diverse legal regimes of the Antarctic, deep seabed, Arctic, and outer
space, each with its own version of the CHM principle. Although no universal definition exists, most
conceptions of the CHM share five primary points. First, there can be no private or public appropriation of the
commons.4 Second, representatives from all nations must manage resources since a commons area is
considered to belong to everyone. Third, all nations must actively share in the benefits acquired from
exploitation of the resources from the common heritage region. Fourth, there can be no weaponry or military
installations established in commons areas. Fifth, the commons should be preserved for the benefit of future
generations. But now even these basic preconditions are in flux, with states claiming large tracts of the Arctic;
the United States, Russia, and China pursuing space weaponry; and oil companies drilling further out into the
deep seabed.




Last printed 11/29/2011 5:35:00 PM
                                                                                                                          6
Document1                                                                                                             DDI 2010
                                                                                                                              1


                                     2NC Solvency EXT- CH Lost Meaning to Russia
US does not spillover to Russia.
Scott Ervin, Bachelor's Degree 1978, University of California, Santa Cruz, JD 1984, Boston College Law School,1984, “Law in a
Vacuum: The Common Heritage Doctrine in Outer Space Law, 7 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 403,
http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1437&context=iclr&sei-
redir=1#search=%22US%20accepting%20Common%20heritage%20mankind%22


      The Soviets believe that the exploitation of space entails responsibility toward future gene r a t ions .19s They
      have.however, opposed from the outset the proposition that space is the common heritage of mankind.197 Soviet
      writers argue that the concept has no juridical meaning.19s Instead they propose that space be "an international area
      for common use."199 The Soviets are apparently seeking a middle ground between the preservation of
      space as the common heritage of mankind and what they perceive as the U.S. desire for
      commercial exploitation of outer space.200 The Soviets are unwilling to allow laissez-faire
      capitalist exploitation of space , but they do appear to accept the use of natural resources for
      nationalistic ends.201




Last printed 11/29/2011 5:35:00 PM
                                                                                                                              7
Document1                                                                                                           DDI 2010
                                                                                                                          1




                                     2NC Solvency EXT- Russia going to Moon

Russia is going to the moon, regardless.
Stephen White, Manchester-based news reporter at Mirror, 1/28/6, “MOON RACE 2; U.S.
AND RUSSIA WANT TO MINE FUEL”,
http://www.lexisnexis.com/lnacui2api/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T12415507
141&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T12415507145&cisb=22_
T12415507144&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=145254&docNo=1


      RUSSIA is planning to race America back to the moon - to mine a precious superfuel.
      No Russian cosmonaut has walked on the lunar surface, but Americans last went there on Apollo 17 in
      1972.
      Both superpowers are planning moon missions, but Russia hopes to beat the USA's 2018 target by three years.
      They aim to set up a permanent base and dig for helium-3.
      The substance is considered to be the perfect nuclear fuel as just 25 tons could power the US for a year
      with virtually no pollution or radioactivity.
      There are few deposits on Earth but about 500million tons on the moon. Lunar bulldozers will process
      200million tons of soil to extract one ton of fuel - which is deposited by a wind of charged particles
      from the sun.
      Space freighters will then ship it back to Earth. Nikolai Sevastyanov, of Russia's Energia Space
      Corporation, said: "We plan to build a permanent base by 2015 and by 2020 begin the industrial-scale
      delivery of helium-3."
      Russia has already approved plans to build pounds 1billion Kliper "shuttles".




Last printed 11/29/2011 5:35:00 PM
                                                                                                                          8
Document1                                                                                                                                                    DDI 2010
                                                                                                                                                                       1
                                                             1NC CP- Property Rights (1/2)

CP Text: The United States Federal Government should create a legal regime over limited property
rights over extracted lunar materials by not binding themselves to the Common Heritage of all
humankind if and only if no environmental problems will arise.

Solves their impacts:

Legal regime allows for development of the moon- no environmental problem
Sarah Coffey, As a defense attorney, Sarah has advised clients of their legal rights and responsibilities on issues
such as gaming law, associational standing, FDIC receivership and garnishment, and has managed a large-scale
document production to the FTC.
At the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, Sarah served as the Executive Articles Editor for
the Journal of International Law. Her article regarding property rights to natural resources in outer space was
published in the Journal and awarded the Note of the Year award, Establishing a Legal
Framework for Property Rights to Natural Resources in Outer Space,
, 2009, http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/cwrint41&div=9&g_sent=1&collection=journals

Drawing on the strengths of the proposals discussed above, this Note suggests a new proposal for goveming property
rights to outer space resources. This proposal falls within the bounds set by the Outer Space Treaty and avoids many
of the problems that prevented the Moon Treaty from being widely ratified. Both developed and developing
nations will benefit from the proposal. In addition, it encourages the exploration and exploitation of resources from space.
First, an intemational agreement should be made that clarifies prop- erty rights on celestial bodies and establishes a limited
intemational body to oversee its execution and implementation. The agreement should clearly state the rule tbat the Outer Space
Treaty is widely understood to have indi- rectly stated that: nations, companies, and individuals may not own real estate on celestial
bodies, but may have property rights to resources they derive from the moon or other celestial bodies. Stating this outright in a new
treaty will prevent the types of ongoing debates that arise from the impre- cise or ambiguous language of agreements such as the Outer
Space Treaty and the Moon Agreement. Since the OST is widely understood to have this meaning anyway, nations are
likely to assent to this portion of the treaty. It solidifies the rights of expeditions to legally claim the resources they extract
from the moon, and the knowledge that they are acting within a stable legal framework should encourage nations to send expeditions
without         fear       that       the       resources         will       be       confiscated       or      deemed          illegal.
The agreement should establish an authoritative body to be formed under the already existing U.N. Office of
Outer Space Affairs. The body would serve limited fimctions, so it would not be overly difficult, time- consuming, or costly to initiate and maintain. It would have a
council on which every space-faring nation or nations otherwise involved with a space would be guaranteed a seat, with limited seats reserved for developing na- tions.
The body would serve limited functions in that it would oversee the general execution of the agreement and be the contact point for participating nations, but under
normal circumstances it would not make everyday deci- sions regarding which country may use what areas and resources. Instead, the credit system would be used.
Each nation would be allocated a certain number of credits representing tonnage of resources to be extracted from the lunar surface for a given period of time. The
credits would be allocated to all member countries with additional credits given to developing nations.'^ The credits would be freely transferable, so nations without
space-faring capabilities could benefit by selling their credits, leasing them while retain- ing ownership, or creating novel agreements that benefit the nation.'*^ Na-
tions may sell their credits to their own citizens, or if all the nation's credits are already in use, facilitate in purchasing them from other nations. Individ- uals and
corporations must still go through the appropriate channels in their nation, per the OST, because it is the nation that is ultimately responsible for their safety and
actions.'* The members of the new space property treaty will need to deter- mine what exactly the credits represent. For example, particular plots of land on the moon
                                                                         fixed location until a nation extracts it on
could be permanently tied to a particular nation's credits, or the credits may represent tonnage that has no
a first come basis. The former would provide some features of real property rights and discourage wastefixl use
the land.'*' The latter, how- ever, seems to better comport with the idea that the moon is the "common heritage
of mankind" and no section is owned by a nation or person. This allows expeditions to prospect freely, as they
do under the International Seabed Authority,'*^ and use their credits only when they decide on a loca- tion to
begin extraction. When a nation exercises its credits on land, that land will become the exclusive economic zone
of that nation, with other parties free to pass through as long as they do not disturb it or take resources from it.
Like       the       ISS      model,       nations      may       collaborate      and        form      agreements
"^ The authority would need to decide how to allocate the credits: equally among member countries, adjusted


Last printed 11/29/2011 5:35:00 PM
                                                                                                                                                                       9
Document1                                                                                                                     DDI 2010
                                                                                                                                       1
                                                  1NC CP- Property Rights (2/2)

based on population, or in some other fashion. Developing countries should receive more than their proportional
share of credits so they might significantly bene- fit fi-om the system even without directly participating in
lunar activities. This complies with the "benefit and interest of all countries" provision of the OST. See Outer
Space Treaty, supra note 2, art. I ("The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other
celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irres- pective of their
degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind."). Given the immense
value of the helium-3 that nations will extract, the cost of credits will likely not make the activity cost-
prohibitive. See supra Part I (assessing the value of helium-3).among themselves regarding particular issues
without needing to go through the authoritative body so long as the agreements do not violate the overarch- ing
agreement on property rights. The natural resources extracted could be taxed by the ton to encour- age nations
not to take more than they need and to fund the operations of the authority goveming the new^ agreement.
There may even be a time or ton- nage limit for staying on a piece of land so that particularly rich areas of
resources will not be monopolized by any one country without giving other nations the opportunity to compete.
Additionally, the authority may estab- lish environmental rules to ensure that the mining does not harm the envi- ronment and that the
mining and its effects would not be visible from earth.



Technologies created by developing property rights is key to human survival and boosting the space
industry.
Ty S. Twibell, J.D. Candidate, 1998, University of Missouri- Kansas City School of Law, B.S., Public
Administration, Southwest Missouri State University 1994, 1997, “PACE LAW: LEGAL RESTRAINTS ON
COMMERCIALIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF OUTER SPACE”, Lexis.

      As stated at the forefront of this Note, the emergence of man into space and the proliferation of outer space economic
      activity is not merely an exercise in scientific endeavor or a luxury of an advanced society. It also holds the key to the
      "salvation" of humankind who can reap vast rewards in economic benefits: cheaper and more accessible energy, advanced
      medicine, infinite natural resources, and space for an expanding population . Any doctrine, such as the res
      communes doctrine, that prevents man from receiving space's incomparable rewards must be
      scrutinized and questioned. The risk and expense of space activity mandates high levels of cooperation
      at many levels, including private and governmental cooperation and cooperation amongst international
      governments. Thus, by allowing property rights in space and increasing the legal certainty for space investors, the
      potential effect is one of both international harmony and humanitarian rewards. Moreover, the survival of mankind could
      ultimately depend on a well-developed foothold in space and commercial development. One day Earth will die. It could be
      tomorrow or in a few billion years. Assuming the latter occurs, the middle-aged sun will swell up into a red giant and
      swallow the Earth before it retracts into a white dwarf or black hole. Such apocalyptic visions may seem like worries
      infinitely far away into the future or merely academic. However, environmental catastrophes equally devastating upon the
      human population may happen at any moment, including nuclear accidents, war and other man-made disasters such as the
      greenhouse effect. This is notwithstanding the Earth's inevitable destruction. There will also be
      environmental catastrophes beyond our control. For example, there are about 2,000 asteroids or other
      similar objects that will cross Earth's orbit, measuring at least one kilometer in size that "threaten us
      with collision and mass global destruction" and at least a documented 400 of these "will certainly
      collide with Earth." It is difficult to determine when such a destructive collision will occur.
      Consequently, there is nothing to gain and everything to lose by not increasing the motivation for space commercialization.
      Whereas, if we do pursue an aggressive course into space, starting by structuring our legal system to support it, the rewards
      will be infinite. We must not permit the means to prevent the ends. Soon, space activities will not merely be symbols of
      feats in human ingenuity and technology, but the actual steps of human progress.




Last printed 11/29/2011 5:35:00 PM
                                                                                                                                      10
Document1                                                                                                                    DDI 2010
                                                                                                                                      1



                                     2NC CP solvency- We should go to moon
Solvency- We should go to the moon to get resources.
Zach Meyer, J.D. Candidate, 2010, Northwestern University School of Law, 2010, “Private Commercialization
of Space in an International Regime, A Proposal for a Space District”, 30 NW. J. INT'L L. & BUS. 241
http://www.iew.unibe.ch/unibe/rechtswissenschaft/dwr/iew/content/e3870/e3985/e4139/e6404/sel-topic_4-
privatecommercial_ger.pdf

The international community should soon establish an appropriate international regime to govern the exploitation of outer space
resources. Private commercial space enterprise is poised to explore, use, and develop outer space, the Moon, and other celestial bodies
in our solar system, and private commercial space enterprise should be given the green light to do so - for their own profit and for the
benefit of all mankind. That exploitive activity is only authorized if an appropriately established international
regime governs the process, something that is not yet in place. Thus, because private commercial space
enterprise is poised to and should exploit outer space, an international regime should be established.




Last printed 11/29/2011 5:35:00 PM
                                                                                                                                   11
Document1                                                                                                                 DDI 2010
                                                                                                                                   1
                                                   2NC CP- AT: Perm
The Common Heritage of Mankind prevents property rights—they are incompatible
Scott J. Shackelford, STANFORD LAW SCHOOL, J.D., June 2009 with distinction, UNIVERSITY OF
CAMBRIDGE, M.Phil. in International Relations, May 2006; Ph.D. Candidate, July 2012, INDIANA
UNIVERSITY, B.A., summa cum laude, in Economics and Political Science with Honors, August 2005, from
2008 “The Tragedy of the Common Heritage of Mankind”,
 http://www.iew.unibe.ch/unibe/rechtswissenschaft/dwr/iew/content/e3870/e3985/e4139/e6410/sel-topic_5-
shackleford_ger.pdf

Yet there remains no commonly agreed-to definition of the CHM amongst legal scholars or policymakers. Developing and
developed nations disagree over the extent of international regulation required to equitably manage commons resources . These
disagreements have played out in the diverse legal regimes of the Antarctic, deep seabed, Arctic, and outer
space, each with its own version of the CHM principle. Although no universal definition exists, most conceptions
of the CHM share five primary points. First, there can be no private or public appropriation of the commons.4 Second, representatives
from all nations must manage resources since a commons area is considered to belong to everyone . Third, all nations must
actively share in the benefits acquired from exploitation of the resources from the common heritage region.
Fourth, there can be no weaponry or military installations established in commons areas. Fifth, the commons should
be preserved for the benefit of future generations. But now even these basic preconditions are in flux, with states
claiming large tracts of the Arctic; the United States, Russia, and China pursuing space weaponry; and oil
companies drilling further out into the deep seabed.




Last printed 11/29/2011 5:35:00 PM
                                                                                                                                12
Document1                                                                                                                      DDI 2010
                                                                                                                                        1
                                           2NC CP- Soft Power Module (1/2)
Creating property rights through the legal regime increases US soft power.
Koh 2003 (Harold Hongju Koh, Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law, Yale
Law School; Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, 1998-2001, May, 2003,
“FOREWORD: On American Exceptionalism,” 55 Stan. L. Rev. 1479)

      In each of these cases, my historical account and policy prescription may be controversial, but my
      broader point should not be. American exceptionalism has both good and bad faces, and we should be
      acutely aware of both. On the Korean peninsula, in Afghanistan, in the Middle East, the United States cannot disengage,
      and the world simply cannot afford to let the United States disengage. Rather, the United States must reengage in each of
      these areas, not with hard power - which has limited resolving power in these delicate diplomatic situations - but with "soft"
      diplomatic power backed by carrots and sticks. In each of these cases, American passivity is not an
      acceptable option and has demonstrably made matters worse. By constantly stressing the ways in which
      America is the problem, single-minded critics of American exceptionalism may perversely encourage dangerous passivity
      in places where the United States presents the only viable solution to a festering global problem. As important, in all
      three cases, the best face of American exceptionalism proves to be the face that promotes the rule of law. In each case,
      American exceptionalism should be channeled not through blunt military force, but through diplomatic engagement
      designed to create broader legal frameworks: orderly, reasonable sets of expectations rooted in mutual consent. In each
      case, the broader goal of American power should be the creation of new, constraining and facilitating legal orders - a
      democratic constitutional government in Afghanistan; a new domestic and international order among Israel and the
      Palestinians; and a new set of international legal norms to govern North Korea's behavior. In the end, American
      exceptionalism succeeds best when it seeks not simply to coerce, but rather, to promote sustainable solutions through the
      generation of legal process and internalizable legal rules.

U.S. soft power prevents 30 regional conflicts from going nuclear
Joe Nye, Dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, 96, Washington Quarterly, "Conflicts after the
Cold War,” 19.1)
   As a result of such disjunctions between borders and peoples, there have been some 30 communal
   conflicts since the end of the Cold War, many of them still ongoing. Communal conflicts, particularly
   those involving wars of secession, are very difficult to manage through the UN and other institutions
   built to address interstate conflicts. The UN, regional organizations, alliances, and individual states cannot
   provide a universal answer to the dilemma of self-determination versus the inviolability of established
   borders, particularly when so many states face potential communal conflicts of their own. In a world of
   identity crises on many levels of analysis, it is not clear which selves deserve sovereignty: nationalities,
   ethnic groups, linguistic groups, or religious groups. Similarly, uses of force for deterrence, compellence,
   and reassurance are much harder to carry out when both those using force and those on the receiving end are
   disparate coalitions of international organizations, states, and sub national groups. Moreover, although few
   communal conflicts by themselves threaten security beyond their regions, some impose risks of
   "horizontal" escalation, or the spread to other states within their respective regions. This can happen
   through the involvement of affiliated ethnic groups that spread across borders, the sudden flood of refugees
   into neighboring states, or the use of neighboring territories to ship weapons to combatants. The use of
   ethnic propaganda also raises the risk of "vertical" escalation to more intense violence, more
   sophisticated and destructive weapons, and harsher attacks on civilian populations as well as military
   personnel. There is also the danger that communal conflicts could become more numerous if the UN and
   regional security organizations lose the credibility, willingness, and capabilities necessary to deal with such
   conflicts. Preventing and Addressing Conflicts: The Pivotal U.S. Role Leadership by the United States,
   as the world's leading economy, its most powerful military force,, and a leading democracy, is a key factor


Last printed 11/29/2011 5:35:00 PM
                                                                                                                                       13
Document1                                                                                                   DDI 2010
                                                                                                                   1
                                     2NC CP- Soft Power Module (2/2)
     in limiting the frequency and destructiveness of great power, regional, and communal conflicts. The
     paradox of the post-cold war role of the United States is that it is the most powerful state in terms of both
     "hard" power resources (its economy and military forces) and "soft" ones (the appeal of its political system
     and culture), yet it is not so powerful that it can achieve all its international goals by acting alone. The
     United States lacks both the international and domestic prerequisites to resolve every conflict, and in each
     case its role must be proportionate to its interests at stake and the costs of pursuing them. Yet the United
     States can continue to enable and mobilize international coalitions to pursue shared security interests,
     whether or not the United States itself supplies large military forces. The U.S. role will thus not be that of a
     lone global policeman; rather, the United States can frequently serve as the sheriff of the posse, leading
     shifting coalitions of friends and allies to address shared security concerns within the legitimizing
     framework of international organizations. This requires sustained attention to the infrastructure and
     institutional mechanisms that make U.S. leadership effective and joint action possible: forward stationing
     and preventive deployments of U.S. and allied forces, prepositioning of U.S. and allied equipment, advance
     planning and joint training to ensure interoperability with allied forces, and steady improvement in the
     conflict resolution abilities of an interlocking set of bilateral alliances, regional security organizations and
     alliances, and global institutions.




Last printed 11/29/2011 5:35:00 PM
                                                                                                                 14
Document1                                                                                                                      DDI 2010
                                                                                                                                       1
                                            2NC CP- Economy Module (1/2)
Space industries benefit the biotechnology and medicine fields—creating jobs in the industry and
boosting the economy.
Ty S. Twibell, J.D. Candidate, 1998, University of Missouri- Kansas City School of Law, B.S., Public
Administration, Southwest Missouri State University 1994, 1997, “PACE LAW: LEGAL RESTRAINTS ON
COMMERCIALIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF OUTER SPACE”, Lexis.

Advancements in medicine and biotechnology are probably the single most important immediate benefit that the space industry can
bring to the U.S. economy. Except for the military industrial complex, the largest component of the U.S. economy is the medical
industry. Therefore, advancements in this area could lead to the most profitable returns and humanitarian value in space commercial
ventures. Already, many advancements have taken place by accident, or in the process of developing techniques outside of medicine,
only to find a medical application. For example, when NASA contracted with a private company to develop a technique for repairing
the Hubble telescope, a new method for breast cancer detection was developed that saved $ 9 million dollars in medical expenses to
women. Other innovations in design and equipment generated by the space program have greatly expanded advances in other fields,
such as the accelerated development of hospital monitoring devices and similar paramedic tools, heart pacemakers, and artificial skin.
These activities will occur at a much slower pace without the stimulus of space activities. In space biotechnology, purer biological
preparations have been obtained for manufacturing non- allergenic medicines, more active and stable strains of antibiotics, vitamins
for use in agriculture, and ultrapure serums and vaccines. "[T]here is a continuing need in the biomedical community for better
separation and purification techniques for specific cell types, cell components, cell products, and proteins." Both the vacuum and
weightlessness characteristics of space aid in the manufacturing of these products. The worldwide market for new and improved drugs
manufactured in space has been estimated to exceed $ 20 billion annually. b. ETM Extraterrestrial Medicine Characteristics of the
space environment can also be beneficial to one unsuspecting area in medicine. Paterson terms it "Extraterrestrial Medicine" or
"ETM" n280 which is the branch of medicine utilizing the space environment for the management, treatment, and rehabilitation of
medical conditions and the prevention of disease. n281 For example, patients on Earth confined to beds for long periods could be in
space in microgravity where no bed sores or decubitus ulceration would develop because their body would not be pressed against
bedding. n282 Certain pulmonary conditions and pneumonia n283 would not occur in space because there is no gravity to oppose the
driving force of the cilia lining the air passages, or to cause pooling and clotting of blood. n284 Paterson claims that such patients in
space could "be a full member of society because he/she is fully mobile and can even work", becoming a more contributive taxpayer.
Microgravity can also help chronic diseases of the central nervous system, n286 cardiovascular system, n287 respiratory system n288
and many others. n289 These beneficial effects of an outer space lifestyle would not only have immeasurable positive effects on the
quality of life for some, but would also produce many valuable economic benefits in terms of the space industry. First, it may be more
cost-effective to care for many of these patients in space where their medical difficulties can be significantly alleviated, while being
"restored to significant social and economic functioning yield[ing] an economic return to . . . developing communities in space." n290
Additionally, such a potential workforce would be committed because their "quality of life" and "very survival" would be dependent
on their efforts in making "Space Enterprise" grow." n291 Moreover, such communities would necessitate the building of an
infrastructure of people, facilities and technology having an exponential effect on the industry needed to support them and as a
resource for other industries. n292 "The infrastructure that will need to be built for them can also support the construction of solar
power stations, Space manufacturing facilities, and Space colonies and all that will flow from them."

And, it’s Mead—Nuclear war
Mead 2009 (Walter Russell Mead, Senior Fellow in US Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, 2/4/2009,
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2)

      So far, such half-hearted experiments not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that
      have tried them in a progressively worse position, farther behind the front-runners as time goes by.
      Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that of the Baltic
      states and Central Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers,
      and professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisis can
      also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists who are
      determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks
      based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more



Last printed 11/29/2011 5:35:00 PM
                                                                                                                                     15
Document1                                                                                                                 DDI 2010
                                                                                                                                  1
                                          2NC CP- Economy Module (2/2)
      established firms in wealthier societies. As a result, developing countries and countries where
      capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage
      when crisis strikes--as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather
      than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet again. None of
      which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial
      crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring
      messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal
      capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish
      Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The
      list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty
      peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the
      current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New
      Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may
      still have to fight.




Last printed 11/29/2011 5:35:00 PM
                                                                                                                                 16
Document1                            DDI 2010
                                           1




Last printed 11/29/2011 5:35:00 PM
                                         17
Document1                                                                                                                           DDI 2010
                                                                                                                                           1
                                           2NC CP- Space Debris Module (1/2)
Property rights solve collisions and debris
Wayne N. White, Attorney, speaking at the Colloquium on the Law of Outer Space conference, “Real Property
Rights in Outer Space”, http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/real_property_rights_in_outer_space.shtml, 1997,
JPW
      Under a regime of functional property rights, title would arise on the basis of a principle entirely different from traditional
      property rights. Conferral of title would not depend upon a government's control over a specific area, but rather upon its
      control over the space objects and personnel at that location. Once conferred, these rights would, nevertheless, be almost
      identical to terrestrial property rights. On Earth the exclusion of others from the use and enjoyment of a given area is the
      principal right associated with real property ownership. In space first-come, first-served occupation, and the prohibition
      against harmful interference with other states' activities provides states with a similar, albeit less clearly defined, right of
      exclusion. Property rights legislation would extend this right to a state's citizens. Functional property rights would
      be subject to the limitationsof Article VIII jurisdiction. These rights would terminate if activity were halted, as
      for example, if a space object was abandoned or returned to Earth. Finally, rights would be limited to the area occupied by
      the space object, and to a reasonable safety area around the facility. Hence, orbital property rights would extend only to the
      moving "envelope" occupied by a facility, and not to its entire orbital path. In other respects a real property regime could
      be structured at a state's discretion. States would determine the conditions necessary to establish and maintain property
      rights. They could follow the example of the United States' Homesteading Acts, and require owners to
      maintain a facility (and/or conduct certain activities) in a fixed location, for a specified period of time
      (e.g. one to five years), to establish a property right. The regime would have to specify the period of
      inactivity or abandonment necessary to extinguish a property right, and the permissible deviation of an
      orbital facility from its proper location. In outer space, requiring facility owners to maintain a fixed orbit offers
      several advantages. First, it will reduce the probability of collision. It seems likely that some sort of "space traffic control"
      will evolve to track and direct space objects; plotting titled orbital locations as constants would permit controllers to
      concentrate on space vehicles and satellites in less stable orbits. Facility owners would benefit from this
      arrangement if non-titled space objects (or space objects exceeding their parameters) were held
      presumptively liable in a collision. Secondly, fixed orbits discourage indiscriminate dumping of debris, because
      debris can be more easily tracked to plotted, fixed points of origin. Hence, courts would sometimes be able to assess
      liability for debris-caused damage. Functional property rights permit free access to all areas of outer space
      and celestial bodies because they do not necessitate territorial sovereignty and its consequent
      appropriation of large areas of space. Safety zones may extend to a reasonable distance around a
      facility, and exist only for the security of the facility and to promote safe navigation in its vicinity. The
      regime is attractive because it is so easy to implement. Nations can unilaterally enact legislation, and
      they can tailor that legislation to conform to their existing property laws. The regime will cost states
      virtually nothing to implement, yet it will encourage citizens to enter what promises to be a very
      lucrative field.




Last printed 11/29/2011 5:35:00 PM
                                                                                                                                          18
Document1                                                                                                                    DDI 2010
                                                                                                                                     1
                                         2NC CP- Space Debris Module (2/2)
Space debris causes ozone depletion
Leonard Davis, writes for FOX News, 5/20/2009 “Space Junk May Be Harming Earth's Atmosphere,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520661,00.html”
     Indeed, as an object plows through the Earth's stratosphere , a shock wave is created that produces nitric oxide, a known
      cause of ozone depletion. Spacecraft and rocket motors are composed of metal alloys and composite materials that melt
      away during re-entry. The researchers found that these materials, as they undergo intense heating, also form
      chemicals that react directly or indirectly to consume ozone.

Ozone depletion will result in extinction.
Greenpeace, non-governmental environmental organization with offices in over 40 countries and with an
international coordinating body, 1995, Full of Holes: Montreal Protocol and the Continuing Destruction of the
Ozone Layer,http://archive.greenpeace.org/ozone/holes/holebg.html

      When chemists Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina first postulated a link between
      chlorofluorocarbons and ozone layer depletion in 1974, the news was greeted with scepticism, but
      taken seriously nonetheless. The vast majority of credible scientists have since confirmed this
      hypothesis. The ozone layer around the Earth shields us all from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Without the
      ozone layer, life on earth would not exist. Exposure to increased levels of ultraviolet radiation can cause cataracts, skin
      cancer, and immune system suppression in humans as well as innumerable effects on other living systems . This is why
      Rowland's and Molina's theory was taken so seriously, so quickly - the stakes are literally the continuation of
      life on earth.




Last printed 11/29/2011 5:35:00 PM
                                                                                                                                    19
Document1                                                                                                                   DDI 2010
                                                                                                                                     1

                         1NC Topicality - Development = Commercial Activity – 1NC
Interpretation:
Space development means to increase the scale and diversity of commercial activity in space
Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator, “NASA: Enhanced Strategy for the Development of Space
Commerce”, NASA, 9/24/01, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=3692//jchen
    A core NASA mission is "to advance the human exploration, use, and development of space" to benefit the quality of
    life on Earth. Increasing the scale and diversity of commercial activity in space is essential to fulfilling this mission. To
    promote the development of robust space commerce, NASA will implement the following strategic goals: Goal
    1: Remove barriers to space commerce Goal 2: Use market tools and commercial strategies in furtherance of
    NASA�s mission and strategic plan Goal 3: Provide opportunities for new commercial space markets Goal 4:
    Support free and fair trade in space goods and services Goal 5: Strategically align NASA participation in
    commercial activities with the Agency�s mission and values

Violation:
The aff doesn’t do that— binding to the common heritage of mankind is not an increase in commercial
development

Reasons to prefer:
1. Limits: Defining as commercial development is the only way to set predictable limits to the topic.
Prevents the aff from running squirrely affs that used ground-based space assets like passive SETI or
send up a random satellite
2. Precision: Our definition is from a NASA administrator with the intent to define the meaning of development
in the context of space.


Ground:
Key to preserve core neg ground like the on-ground CP or spending DAs that are based off of expensive
space assets development—And that’s necessary to give meaning to the word substantial in the
resolution—not increasing commercial development makes it unquantifiable

This is best for fairness- because it allows for an accurate amount of neg ground and is the most predictable
interpretation.

Fairness is the best internal link to information processing




Last printed 11/29/2011 5:35:00 PM
                                                                                                                                    20
Document1                                                                                                DDI 2010
                                                                                                                1
                                                    1NC Politics Link

The plan is unpopular with the United States.
Melissa, Sturge. J.D. Candidate, 1998, Washington College of Law, American University; Note and
Comment Editor, American University International Law Review. BA.,1993, Bucknell University, from
1999, "Who Should Hold Property Rights to the Human Genome? An Application of the Common Heritage of
Humankind." American University International Law Review 13, no. 1 (1999): 219-261
http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1350&context=auilr

The Common Heritage of Mankind principle is an international legal concept which conveys equal
property interests to all people. Less developed countries have embraced the Common Heritage concept4
as the embodiment of the combination of customary international law withjus cogens status.'45 The
Common Heritage doctrine includes four characteristics: 1) no country can appropriate for itself the
territory in question; 2) all states share responsibility for managing the territory;146 3) all states share in
the benefits from exploitation of the territory or its resources; and 4) all countries must use the territory for
exclusively peaceful purposes.
147
In addition, legal bodies sometimes include a fifth characteristic, that all countries have a shared
responsibility for preserving the unique or irreplaceable resources of the territory in question for future
generations.4 The Common Heritage concept is unpopular with developed countries that do not agree with its goal of
redistributing resources to less developed countries.




Last printed 11/29/2011 5:35:00 PM
                                                                                                              21
Document1                                                                                                              DDI 2010
                                                                                                                                  1
                                                        Politics Shell
Debt ceiling deal now- gang of six
ABC News 7/20 (“Compromise Coming? Debt Talks take Turn”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/07/compromise-coming-debt-talks-take-turn.html)

      After weeks of wrangling between House Republicans and the White House, the beginnings of a bipartisan
      deal to raise the country’s debt ceiling and avoid a default began to percolate in the Senate. The recently rekindled
      Gang of Six, a bipartisan group of senators that has been meeting since the start of the year in an effort to hatch a
      deficit-reduction deal, this morning presented their $3.7 trillion deficit-reduction plan to their colleagues. The
      bipartisan talks, which had stalled this Spring after months, were at first intended to turn
      recommendations from the President’s Fiscal Commission into legislation. Their presentation to fellow
      lawmkaers today was significant for its attendance alone: 50 senators -- both Republican and Democrats attended and
      were briefed by six senators -- Republicans Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia
      and Mike Crapo of Idaho, and Democrats Dick Durbin of Illinois, North Dakota’s Kent Conrad and
      Virginia’s Mark Warner. At the White House, President Obama called the reemergence of the gang
      "good news.” "I think it is a very significant step, " Obama told reporters in the White House briefing room.
      "The framework they put forward is broadly consistent with what we've been working on at the White House."



The plan is unpopular with the United States.
Melissa, Sturge. J.D. Candidate, 1998, Washington College of Law, American University; Note and
Comment Editor, American University International Law Review. BA.,1993, Bucknell University, from
1999, "Who Should Hold Property Rights to the Human Genome? An Application of the Common Heritage of
Humankind." American University International Law Review 13, no. 1 (1999): 219-261
http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1350&context=auilr

The Common Heritage of Mankind principle is an international legal concept which conveys equal
property interests to all people. Less developed countries have embraced the Common Heritage concept4
as the embodiment of the combination of customary international law withjus cogens status.'45 The
Common Heritage doctrine includes four characteristics: 1) no country can appropriate for itself the
territory in question; 2) all states share responsibility for managing the territory;146 3) all states share in
the benefits from exploitation of the territory or its resources; and 4) all countries must use the territory for
exclusively peaceful purposes.
147
In addition, legal bodies sometimes include a fifth characteristic, that all countries have a shared
responsibility for preserving the unique or irreplaceable resources of the territory in question for future
generations.4 The Common Heritage concept is unpopular with developed countries that do not agree with its goal of
redistributing resources to less developed countries.




Debt ceiling key to China relations and to prevent China war.
Bartlett 7-19 Bruce, member, American Economics Association; member, Committee for Monetary Research and Education;
domestic policy advisor to Reagan; former treasury official; MA, American diplomatic history, Georgetown U; “The Debt Limit and
National Security” New York Times; July 19, 2011; http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/the-debt-limit-and-
national-security/         |Cramer


Last printed 11/29/2011 5:35:00 PM
                                                                                                                              22
Document1                                                                                                                        DDI 2010
                                                                                                                                          1
One curious thing about the debt limit debate is the virtual silence of the foreign policy establishment. It’s curious because the
potential for a default on our debt owing to Republican intransigence in Congress is a very big foreign policy issue indeed. This
becomes obvious when one realizes that foreigners own close to half of all Treasury debt held by the public, and a lot of it is owned by
countries –- China, in particular –- that are America’s most aggressive competitors on a wide variety of political, economic and
military issues. As Treasury data show, at the end of April, foreigners owned more than 46 percent of all Treasury securities held by
the public. China is our largest creditor, with a fourth of all foreign-held debt and 12 percent of the total. Not surprisingly, Chinese
officials have long expressed concern about the quality of Treasury debt, for both economic and political reasons. Last year, the
Dagong Global Credit Rating Company, a China-based credit-rating agency, downgraded Treasury debt, and last week it
issued another warning, citing fears about the “actual ability and intention to repay its debts” of the United States. Chinese government
officials have also publicly expressed concern about how the debt limit negotiations may affect them. The situation is reminiscent of
debates during the founding of our republic on the role of debt. Alexander Hamilton, the first Treasury secretary, was adamant that the
United States must never default on its foreign debts. As he wrote in Federalist No. 30, “who would lend to a government that
prefaced its overtures for borrowing by an act which demonstrated that no reliance could be placed on the steadiness of its measures
for paying?” A key reason why the Chinese own so much of our debt is that they are risk-averse and would rather get a low rate of
return on Treasuries, even though higher rates are available on corporate bonds and other securities, because the Treasuries are
assumed to have zero risk of default and the market for them is the largest and deepest in the world. We don’t know how the Chinese
will react if their faith in Treasury securities is shattered by a default –- and remember, a default occurs the moment the precise terms
of a loan are not met and either principal or interest is not paid exactly when due. The idea floated by Republicans such as
Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, the chair of the House Budget Committee, that the Chinese won’t mind if there is a
“technical default” and they get their money a few days late is total nonsense and gross self-delusion. In April, J.P.
Morgan surveyed its clients that are large buyers of Treasury securities to see what their reaction would be to a temporary default
resulting from failure to raise the debt limit. It found that foreign buyers would likely demand a 55-basis point increase in interest rates
(0.55 percentage points) and that this increase could be permanent. That is consistent with the experience in 1979 when the Treasury
defaulted for two weeks over a debt limit increase delay and technical problems with its computers. It caused a 60-basis point rise in
interest rates that lasted for years, according to academic research. More worrisome to Morgan’s analysts is the possibility that foreign
investors may permanently reduce their Treasury holdings. The analysts note that foreigners had previously been large buyers of
securities issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But they reduced their holdings by 40 percent after these agencies were placed
under Treasury’s conservatorship. It goes without saying that national defense is a core government function, one that has long
included America’s economic interests, such as protecting the supply of oil. It would be myopic in the extreme to view the flow of oil
to the United States as a legitimate national security issue but to view the flow of foreign capital into Treasury securities as a matter of
no particular concern.

4. China war leads to extinction
Hunkovic, 09 – American Military University [Lee J, 2009, “The Chinese-Taiwanese Conflict Possible Futures
of a Confrontation between China, Taiwan and the United States of America”, http://www.lamp-
method.org/eCommons/Hunkovic.pdf]
      A war between China, Taiwan and the United States has the potential to escalate into a nuclear conflict and a third world
      war, therefore, many countries other than the primary actors could be affected by such a conflict , including Japan, both
      Koreas, Russia, Australia, India and Great Britain, if they were drawn into the war, as well as all other
      countries in the world that participate in the global economy, in which the United States and China are
      the two most dominant members. If China were able to successfully annex Taiwan, the possibility
      exists that they could then plan to attack Japan and begin a policy of aggressive expansionism in East
      and Southeast Asia, as well as the Pacific and even into India, which could in turn create an
      international standoff and deployment of military forces to contain the threat. In any case, if China and
      the United States engage in a full-scale conflict, there are few countries in the world that will not be economically and/or
      militarily affected by it. However, China, Taiwan and United States are the primary actors in this scenario,
      whose actions will determine its eventual outcome, therefore, other countries will not be considered in
      this study.




Last printed 11/29/2011 5:35:00 PM
                                                                                                                                       23

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:2
posted:11/30/2011
language:Welsh
pages:23