I'll start some discussion with a question or two, but first of all thanks for the work you put into writing this paper- it's incredibly thorough and well-written.
1) My biggest concern relates to the question of uniqueness, which the paper never really addresses. In the section where you outline two possible affs, the evidence you include for Belarus says
"To the International Labor Organization–
Continue urging Belarus to cooperate and implement recommendations..."
and in the Zambia's section you say
"Today, an abundance of efforts are underway through the ILO in Zambia..."
And that is followed by evidence that lists a bunch of stuff the ILO is doing already. This seems to me like this would be a problem for the negative's ability to generate uniqueness for disads where the link doesn't depend on solvency (which is what my second question is about).
The major possible aff (discussed in the paper) that does seem to have solid uniqueness is the ILO reform/collective responsibility aff, but that aff has its own problems. Specifically, there's no way to target that action to a specific country/industry- maybe that's not a bad thing, but the paper seems very focused on producing specific debates about previously ignored countries which this wouldn't seem to allow. To bring this to a question, how do you think status quo efforts affect the negative's ability to generate unique offense?
2) I alluded to this in number 1 (and it's definitely related), but virtually all of the disads discussed in the paper require aff solvency to generate links. This seems like it could make being negative really hard in certain situations. For example, an aff that says the ILO should ask Turkey to pressure Belarus (asking other countries to pressure was an example of a possible aff listed in the paper). Belarus says no so your DAs don't link, but Turkey looks awesome for taking a leadership role. I'm curious what your thoughts are about ground based on the mechanism rather than solvency.