Tournament: Grapevine | Round: 2 | Opponent: Clements | Judge: Judge
The member nations of the world trade organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines. I affirm the resolution.
Framework
The standard is util
- The word resolved in the resolution denotes legislative action. Thus we look to policymaking.
Parcher, former debate coach at Georgetown, Feb 2001 http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200102/0790.html===
Pardon me if I turn to a source besides Bill. American Heritage Dictionary: Resolve: 1. To make a firm decision about. 2. To decide or express by formal vote. 3. To separate something into constiutent parts See Syns at *analyze* (emphasis in orginal) 4. Find a solution to. See Syns at *Solve* (emphasis in original) 5. To dispel: resolve a doubt. - n 1. Firmness of purpose; resolution. 2. A determination or decision. (2) The very nature of the word "resolution" makes it a question. American Heritage: A course of action determined or decided on. A formal statement of a decision, as by a legislature. (3) The resolution is obviously a question. Any other conclusion is utterly inconceivable. Why? Context. The debate community empowers a topic committee to write a topic for ALTERNATE side debating. The committee is not a random group of people coming together to "reserve" themselves about some issue. There is context - they are empowered by a community to do something. In their deliberations, the topic community attempts to craft a resolution which can be ANSWERED in either direction. They focus on issues like ground and fairness because they know the resolution will serve as the basis for debate which will be resolved by determining the policy desirablility of that resolution. That's not only what they do, but it's what we REQUIRE them to do. We don't just send the topic committee somewhere to adopt their own group resolution. It's not the end point of a resolution adopted by a body - it's the preliminary wording of a resolution sent to others to be answered or decided upon. (4) Further context: the word resolved is used to emphasis the fact that it's policy debate. Resolved comes from the adoption of resolutions by legislative bodies. A resolution is either adopted or it is not. It's a question before a legislative body. Should this statement be adopted or not. (5) The very terms 'affirmative' and 'negative' support my view. One affirms a resolution. Affirmative and negative are the equivalents of 'yes' or 'no' - which, of course, are answers to a question.
Policymaking means util since policymakers have to evaluate tradeoffs.
Thus, governments operate on the macro level.
3. Governments must weigh consequences
Harries, Owen. "Power and Civilization." National Interest (1994): 107-107. PESH AK
Performance is the test. Asked directly by a Western interviewer, "In principle, do you believe in one standard of human rights and free expression?", Lee immediately answers, "Look, it is not a matter of principle but of practice." This might appear to represent a simple and rather crude pragmatism. But in its context it might also be interpreted as an appreciation of the fundamental point made by Max Weber that, in politics, it is "the ethic of responsibility" rather than "the ethic of absolute ends" that is appropriate. While an individual is free to treat human rights as absolute, to be observed whatever the cost, governments must always weigh consequences and the competing claims of other ends. So once they enter the realm of politics, human rights have to take their place in a hierarchy of interests, including such basic things as national security and the promotion of prosperity. Their place in that hierarchy will vary with circumstances, but no responsible government will ever be able to put them always at the top and treat them as inviolable and over-riding. The cost of implementing and promoting them will always have to be considered.
Thus, pain and pleasure are the only objective way to weigh.
Sayre-McCord, Geoffrey. "Mill's" Proof" of the Principle of Utility: A More than Half-Hearted Defense." Social Philosophy and Policy 18.2 (2001): 330-360. PESH AK
According to the second argument, the evaluative starting point is ~that~ again each person thinking "my own happiness is valuable," but this fact about each person is taken as evidence, with respect to each bit of happiness that is valued, that that bit is valuable. Each person is seen as ha~s~ving reason to think that the happiness she enjoys is valuable, and reason to think of others — given that they are in a parallel situation with respect to the happiness they enjoy — that each person's happiness is such that there is the same evidence available to each for the value of the happiness that another person enjoys as there is for the value of one's own happiness. If happiness is such that every piece of it is desired by someone, then it seems as if, in taking ourselves to have reason to see~ing~ the bit we value as valuable, we are committed to acknowledging the value of all the rest.
Thus, util precedes other ethics.
Only util can motivate action
Pleasure and pain is a starting point
Util is the only moral theory that allows us to objectively weigh impacts
The distinction between acts and omissions does not make sense when applied to a government. Every government policy has winners and losers, so the state can only act by looking at end states with the goal of minimizing the harms and maximizing the advantages.
Sunstein, Cass R., and Adrian Vermeule. "Is capital punishment morally required? The relevance of life-life tradeoffs." U Chicago Law and Econ, Olin Working Paper 239 (2005): 05-06. PESH AK
In our view, any effort to distinguish between acts and omissions goes wrong by overlooking the distinctive features of government as a moral agent. If correct, this point has broad implications for criminal and civil law. Whatever the general status of the act/omission distinction as a matter of moral philosophy, the distinction is least impressive when applied to government, because the most plausible underlying considerations do not apply to official actors. The most fundamental point is that, unlike individuals, governments always and necessarily face a choice between or among possible policies for regulating third parties. The distinction between acts and omissions may not be intelligible in this context, and even if it is, the distinction does not make a ~or~ morally relevant difference. Most generally, government is in the business of creating permissions and prohibitions. When it explicitly or implicitly authorizes private action, it is not omitting to do anything or refusing to act. Moreover, the distinction between authorized and unauthorized private action—for example, private killing— becomes obscure when the government formally forbids private action but chooses a set of policy instruments that do not adequately or fully discourage it.
Even if future states are relevant, death is the worst harm since it denies individual ability to achieve any life plans and opportunities. Since preservation of life is intrinsically good we have an ethical obligation to meet that duty to the best of our ability.
The value criterion is preserving human life.
CASE
Oxfam International. 2021. Campaigners warn that 9 out of 10 people in poor countries are set to miss out on COVID-19 vaccine next year | Oxfam International. ~online~ Available at: https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/campaigners-warn-9-out-10-people-poor-countries-are-set-miss-out-covid-19-vaccine ~Accessed 6 September 2021~.
Nearly 70 poor countries will only be able to vaccinate one in ten people against COVID-19 next year unless urgent action is taken by governments and the pharmaceutical industry to make sure enough doses are produced, a group of campaigning organizations warned today.
By contrast, wealthier nations have bought up enough doses to vaccinate their entire populations nearly three times over by the end of 2021 if those currently in clinical trials are all approved for use. Canada tops the chart with enough vaccines to vaccinate each Canadian five times. Updated data shows that rich nations representing just 14 percent of the world's population have bought up 53 percent of all the most promising vaccines so far.
Developing countries can make vaccines with efficiency but ipps prevent them from doing so Murnia et. All 19 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30651198/===
Developing country vaccine manufacturers (DCVMs) supply over half of the vaccines used in developing country immunization programs. Decisions by developing countries to establish vaccine manufacturing should be based on economic viability, however reliable assessments of vaccine production costs are lacking. This study aimed to quantify the cost of establishing vaccine manufacturing facilities and producing vaccines in developing countries. This study estimates vaccine production costs in developing countries based on twelve vaccines produced by eight DCVMs. The results were based on estimates of the capital and operating costs required to establish vaccine manufacturing facilities under three hypothetical scenarios of production scale and scope. Cost patterns were then compared to vaccine prices paid by countries in both industrialized and developing country markets. The cost of producing vaccines in developing countries was estimated to be on average US$ 2.18 per dose, ranging between US$ 0.98 and US$ 4.85 for different vaccine types and formulations. Vaccine costs-per-dose decrease as production scale and scope increase. Cost-per-dose is mainly driven by fixed costs, but at a scale of production over 20 million doses per year, it becomes driven by variable costs. Under the three hypothetical scenarios used, costs-per-dose of vaccines produced by developing countries was were around 47 lower than vaccine prices in developing-country markets and 84 lower than prices in industrialized-country markets. This study has found that local production of vaccines in developing countries exhibits both economies of scale and economies of scope. The lower costs relative to prices suggests that a producer surplus and potential profits may be attainable in both developing and developed country markets, supporting sustainable production.
https://doc-research.org/2018/08/hegemony-conceptual-theoretical-analysis/
Here we can already see how the definition of hegemony embodies the twin propositions of overwhelming power (capabilities) and the exercise of leadership. The latter attribute of hegemony is pronounced in the definition provided by The International Studies Encyclopedia: "The concept of hegemony refers to international leadership by one political subject, be it the state or a 'historical bloc' of particular social groupings, whereby the reproduction of dominance involves the enrollment of other, weaker, less powerful parties (states/classes) constituted by varying degrees of consensus, persuasion and, consequently, political legitimacy.
The Cambridge Dictionary defines hegemony as "the position of being the strongest and most powerful and therefore able to control others." This definition accentuates the notion of hegemony as encompassing overwhelming power while at the same time assuming that this automatically entails the ability of the hegemon to exercise leverage, or control, over others. In this manner, hegemony involves a relationship between actors, whether it be people or states. This relational aspect of hegemony, as we will see, is important for those who conceptualize hegemony as the exercise of some form of leadership. This leadership can be consensual or dominating, but the important point is the notion that hegemony entails a relationship between a preponderant state or social group and others.
Ian Clark (2011, pp. 18-19), following Howard Lentner (2006), argues that the hegemony debate revolves largely around two principal meanings: domination and leadership. As we will see in the next section, those who emphasize domination largely associate hegemony with preponderant material capabilities while those who emphasize the leadership dimension argue that this is an insufficient basis for understanding the concept of hegemony.
Realism and hegemony
There is no monolithic theory of realism; instead, there is a diverse family of realist theories (Dunne and Schmidt, 2017, pp. 101-115). Nevertheless, despite some exceptions, realists generally define hegemony in terms of first, overwhelming power, and second, the ability to use this power to dominate others.
At the end of the day, however, the predominant tendency among realists is to equate hegemony with overwhelming material power. Yet simply equating hegemony with a preponderance of power is problematic because power is also a contested term.~2~ This has not stopped realists from labeling the most powerful state in the international system as the hegemon. Here, the hegemon is identified as the state that possesses vastly superior material capabilities including military, economic, and, sometimes, diplomatic or soft power.
Power, according to this view, is synonymous with capabilities, and the capabilities of a state represent nothing more than the sum total of a number of loosely identified national attributes including "size of population and territory, resource endowment, economic capability, military strength, political stability and competence" (Waltz, 1979, p. 131).
Because realists believe that violent conflict is always a possibility in the anarchical international system, military power is considered the most important foundation of hegemony. Barry Posen, for example, argues that the United States' command of the commons – command of the sea, space, and air – provides the military foundation of US hegemony (2003, pp. 5-46). For Posen, the military foundation of US hegemony is deeply entrenched and therefore likely to last for the near future.
Closely connected to the notion that hegemony entails the concentration of material capabilities in one state is the related idea that this preponderant state is able to dominate all of the subordinate states (Levy and Thompson, 2005). John Mearsheimer, for example, defines a hegemon as a "state that is so powerful that it dominates all the other states in the system". He adds, "no other state has the military wherewithal to put up a serious fight against it." Hegemony, for Mearsheimer "means domination of the system, which is usually interpreted to mean the entire world (2001, p. 41)."
With this definition, we can begin to see how hegemony is conceptualised less as an attribute of a single state and more a property of what is termed the international system. This is clearly apparent in the work of Robert Gilpin, who considers hegemony to be a particular structure that has periodically characterised the international system. For Gilpin, a hegemonic structure exists when "a single powerful state controls or dominates the lesser states in the system." This is essentially an imperial type of structure that is less anarchical and more hierarchical. Gilpin explains that "this type of system has, in fact, been most prevalent, at least until modern times, and scholars of international relations have detected a propensity for every international system to evolve in the direction of a universal empire" (1981, p. 29).
Christopher Layne largely concurs with Gilpin and argues that "hegemony is about structural change, because if one state achieves hegemony, the system ceases to be anarchic and becomes hierarchic" (2006, p. 4). Layne, who is a neoclassical realist, posits that there are four features of hegemony. First, and most importantly, is that it entails hard power. Like Mearsheimer, Layne argues that hegemons have the most powerful military. They also possess economic supremacy to support their preeminent military capabilities. Second, hegemony is about the dominant power's ambitions; namely, "a hegemon acts self-interestedly to create a stable international order that will safeguard its security and its economic and ideological interests." Third, "hegemony is about polarity," because if one state (the hegemon) has more power than anyone else, the system is by definition unipolar. Finally, "hegemony is about will." Layne writes, "not only must a hegemon possess overwhelming power, it must purposefully exercise that power to impose order on the international system" (Ibid).
Hegemony causes war, proliferation, and terrorism
John, The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities, Yale University Press, p. 2-3
This enthusiasm notwithstanding, liberal hegemony will not achieve its goals, and its failure will inevitably come with huge costs. The liberal state is likely to end up fighting endless wars, which will increase rather than reduce the level of conflict in international politics and thus aggravate the problems of proliferation and terrorism. Moreover, the state's militaristic behavior is almost certain to end up threatening its own liberal values. Liberalism abroad leads to illiberalism at home. Finally, even if the liberal state were to achieve its aims-spreading democracy near and far, fostering economic intercourse, and creating international institutions-they would not produce peace. The key to understanding liberalism's limits is to recognize its relationship with nationalism and realism. This book is ultimately all about these three isms and how they interact to affect international politics. Nationalism is an enormously powerful political ideology. It revolves around the division of the world into a wide variety of nations, which are formidable social units, each with a distinct culture. Virtually every nation would prefer to have its own state, although not all can. Still, we live in a world populated almost exclusively by nation-states, which means that liberalism must coexist with nationalism. Liberal states are also nation-states. There is no question that liberalism and nationalism can coexist, but when they clash, nationalism almost always wins.
Specifically we'll go to war with Russia and China because of entrapment
Edelstein 2018 – Prof in the Edmund Walsh School of Foreign Service and the Dept. of Government @ Georgetown
David M and Joshua R. Itzkowitz Shifrinson, "It's a trap! Security commitments and the risks of entrapment" in US Grand Strategy in the 21st Century: The Case for Restraint, Routledge Press, p. 32
The preceding discussion (summarized in Table 2.1) has large implications for the United States. During the Cold War, bipolarity constrained the importance of allies, limiting the risk of entrapment. Moreover, the prospect of nuclear war discouraged risky behavior by the superpowers and their allies. Today, however, the risk of entrapment born of moral hazard and states' search for security is larger and possibly increasing. As long as the US continues to make commitments overseas and fear the emergence of a peer competitor, American partners will be tempted to act in risky ways, expecting that Washington will feel compelled to come to their rescue should they get into trouble.
Insofar as the United States opposes Chinese or Russian aggression, smaller states will be tempted to provoke China or Russia to garner growing American support. If the United States is opposed to the emergence of great power peer competitors, then it may well opt to come to the aid of smaller states threatened by those potential competitors. This also means that countries that have limited or no explicit security commitments from the United States may try to profit from the insurance policy offered by the United States by provoking conflicts and expecting the United States - whose interests are clear - to ride to their defense. In the next section, we take a preliminary look at some evidence to test these claims. We focus on events in East and Southeast Asia over the last few years. Some have characterized Chinese aggression in recent years as reactionary. That is, China has felt compelled to respond to perceived provocations from smaller Asian nations such as the Philippines and Vietnam. Even though the US does not have formal security commitments to either country, Washington subsequently feels compelled to signal to these countries that it will stand up to Chinese aggression.
Econ and Peace 21
Economicsandpeace.org. 2021. ~online~ Available at: https://www.economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/The-Economic-Consequences-of-War-on-US-Economy_0.pdf ~Accessed 9 September 2021~.
However, analysis of the macroeconomic components of GDP during World War II and in subsequent conflicts show heightened military spending had several adverse macroeconomic effects. These occurred as a direct consequence of the funding requirements of increased military spending. The U.S. has paid for its wars either through debt (World War II, Cold War, Afghanistan/Iraq), taxation (Korean War) or inflation (Vietnam). In each case, taxpayers have been burdened, and private sector consumption and investment have been constrained as a result. Other negative effects include larger budget deficits, higher taxes, and growth above trend leading to inflation pressure. These effects can run concurrent with major conflict or via lagging effects into the future. Regardless of the way a war is financed, the overall macroeconomic effect on the economy tends to be negative. For each of the periods after World War II, we need to ask, what would have happened in economic terms if these wars did not happen? On the specific evidence provided, it can be reasonably said, it is likely taxes would have been lower, inflation would have been lower, there would have been higher consumption and investment and certainly lower budget deficits. Some wars are necessary to fight and the negative effects of not fighting these wars can far outweigh the costs of fighting. However if there are other options, then it is prudent to exhaust them first as once wars do start, the outcome, duration and economic consequences are difficult to predict.
Adb.Org, 2021, https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/156082/adbi-wp227.pdf.
As outlined in the previous section, economic shocks such as the global financial crisis affect both urban and rural poor people's strategies to secure elements of basic livelihood, including the opportunity to earn an income and meet basic human needs, maintain health, and obtain a basic education. The global economic slowdown also poses risks to the governments and their development projects for water supply, food security, human health, and natural resource management—which will may affect the income vulnerabilities of communities. Poverty can be defined as the lack of opportunity to live a decent life, including material needs, education, and health.
Alleyne, Anderson. "Why Vaccines Matter - Global Health Council". Global Health Council, 2021, https://globalhealth.org/why-vaccines-matter/.
- Vaccines save lives.
Vaccines are one of the safest and most effective ways to protect people from life-threatening and preventable diseases. According to the World Health Organization, immunization prevents approximately 2-3 million deaths each year from over 20 deadly diseases such as influenza, tetanus, and rubella. Since 1988, the global incidence rate of polio has decreased by 99.9 and an estimated 16 million people today are walking who may have otherwise been paralyzed by the disease because of polio vaccines. Additionally, during 2000–2018, the measles vaccine prevented an estimated 23.2 million deaths, which demonstrates how valuable vaccines are in saving lives and preventing illness.
2. Vaccines provide a high ROI.
Immunization programs yield a high return on investment (ROI) in terms of the avoided economic costs of disease, treatment, and care. For every $1 invested in vaccines, there is a $21 return over the lifespan of an immunized child. Moreover, according to Johns Hopkins University, the costs averted by implementing these vaccination programs amounted to $681.9 billion between 2011-20 and $828.5 billion for the next decade.
3. Vaccines strengthen global health security.
Though immunization has greatly reduced the burden of infectious diseases globally, 1 in 5 children still doesn't have access to lifesaving vaccines. Diseases do not respect borders and in today's interconnected world, an outbreak anywhere is a health threat everywhere. For this reason, immunization programs underpin global health security for their ability to prevent and control infectious disease outbreaks around the world.
4. Vaccines are the key to eradicating diseases.
To date, smallpox is the only vaccine-preventable disease that has been eradicated. However, infectious disease outbreaks that once killed or disabled millions have been dramatically reduced due to investments in the research and development of vaccines. With continued worldwide commitment, it is possible to eradicate other infectious diseases in the near future.
Patents slow down pandemic response.
Lindsey 21
Brink Lindsey; Lindsey is a vice president at the Niskanen Center, where his research focuses on policy responses to slow growth and high inequality. Prior to joining Niskanen, Lindsey was vice president for research at the Cato Institute. From 2010 to 2012, he was a senior scholar in research and policy at the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.; 6-3-2021; "Why intellectual property and pandemics don't mix"; https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2021/06/03/why-intellectual-property-and-pandemics-dont-mix/, Brookings, accessed 7-31-2021; JPark
The situation is different in a pandemic. Here the government knows exactly what it wants to incentivize: the creation of vaccines to prevent the spread of a specific virus and other drugs to treat that virus. Under these circumstances, the decentralized approach isn't good enough. There is no time to sit back and let drug makers take the initiative on their own timeline. Instead, the government needs to be more involved to incentivize specific innovations now. As recompense for letting it call the shots (pardon the pun), the government sweetens the deal for drug companies by insulating them from commercial risk. If pharmaceutical firms develop effective vaccines and therapies, the government will buy large, predetermined quantities at prices set high enough to guarantee a healthy return. For the pharmaceutical industry, it is useful to conceive of patent law as the default regime for innovation promotion. It improves pharmaceutical companies' incentives to develop new drugs while leaving them free to decide which new drugs to pursue – and also leaving them to bear all commercial risk. In a pandemic or other emergency, however, it is appropriate to shift to the direct support regime, in which the government focuses efforts on one disease. In this regime, it is important to note, the government provides qualitatively superior incentives to those offered under patent law. Not only does it offer public funding to cover the up-front costs of drug development, but it also provides advance purchase commitments that guarantee a healthy return. It should therefore be clear that the pharmaceutical industry has no legitimate basis for objecting to a TRIPS waiver. Since, because of the public health crisis, drug makers now qualify for the superior benefits of direct government support, they no longer need the default benefits of patent support. Arguments that a TRIPS waiver would deprive drug makers of the incentives they need to keep developing new drugs when they are presently receiving the most favorable incentives available, can be dismissed as the worst sort of special pleading.
So, Anthony. "WTO Trips Waiver FOR COVID-19 Vaccines." Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, publichealth.jhu.edu/2020/wto-trips-waiver-for-covid-19-vaccines.
Sharing the know-how behind making COVID-19 vaccines is key to not only scaling up production, but also bringing forward the second generation of vaccines we will need to address emerging variants.
No single vaccine manufacturer can produce enough vaccines to cover the globe, and demand has far outstripped supply, with high-income countries taking the lion's share of reserved doses. Proponents of a TRIPS waiver wonder how it can be right for a multinational vaccine manufacturer to hold exclusive rights that can stop other firms from stepping up to meet the need for vaccines, particularly in markets not being served by current vaccine producers. They argue that the public already has paid once or twice for such innovation, either upfront in research and development (RandD) costs or through purchase guarantees of these products, or both.
Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine—one of two now in use based on an mRNA platform—was paid for largely by the U.S. government, and in fact, Moderna has pledged not to enforce its patents related to the COVID-19 vaccine during the pandemic. However, making the Moderna vaccine likely involves other companies' patented equipment and processes as well, so waiving patent protections on one piece of the process may not help other companies make the entire "recipe."
This is why a TRIPS waiver is considered important to ensure other vaccine manufacturers would have the freedom to operate. It should also be acknowledged that a TRIPS waiver may accelerate scaling up some COVID-19 vaccines where untapped capacity for vaccine production still exists, and it may also encourage existing vaccine producers to step up their technology transfer efforts.
By noting its willingness to move forward with text-based negotiations over a TRIPS waiver at the World Trade Organization, the United States signaled a seismic shift in policy. However, it is only the beginning of a process.
Vaccines save lives valueoptions 11
"How Vaccines Prevent Disease". Valueoptions.Com, 2021, http://www.valueoptions.com/solutions/2011/08-August/story1.htm.
Vaccines help prevent infectious diseases and save lives. Vaccines are responsible for the control of many infectious diseases that were once common in this country, including polio, measles, diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough), rubella (German measles), mumps, tetanus, and Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib).
Platt 10 (John R. Platt, journalist specializing in environmental issues and technology, "Humans are more at risk from diseases as biodiversity disappears, Scientific American, http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/2010/12/07/humans-are-more-at-risk-from-diseases-as-biodiversity-disappears/) BSB
People often ask me, "Why should I care if a species goes extinct
AND
healthy planet equals healthy humans, a lesson it's really time we learned.
Disease mutates and leads to extinction
Dartmouth 9 ("Human Extinction: The Uncertainty of Our Fate" dartmouth.edu, http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/spring-2009/human-extinction-the-uncertainty-of-our-fate) BSB
In the past, humans have indeed fallen victim to viruses. Perhaps the best
AND
could only infect birds — into a human-viable strain (10)