US Use of EMF Weapons Devices on humans

The Use of the Modifier More in English

The Use of the Modifier More in English The modifier more is commonly used in English in a wide variety of situations. You are probably familiar with the use of more in the comparative form, but there are other uses as well. Below you will find explanations of each of the different ways more is used to modify nouns, as well as in the comparative form and as an adverb. More is different than (the) most which you can learn about on this page dedicated to the uses of most in English. Comparative Form The most common use of more is in the comparative form. More is used with adjectives of more than one syllable - with the exception of adjectives ending in y - to express that there is more of a particular quality. Notice that the opposite less is also used in a similar manner to indicate that there is less of a particular quality (This hike is less dangerous than the one we took last week.) Examples: My history class is more interesting than my math class.New York is more expensive than Seattle to visit. More Noun Determiner More is placed before a noun as a determiner to state that there is more of something. However, it is important to note that the preposition of is not used when speaking in general. Remember that the plural form is used when speaking in general about countable items or people (There are more students this year). When speaking about uncountable objects, use the singular form (We need more rice). Examples: Its important to eat more fruit in your diet during the summer.There are more books to read in the next room. More of Determiner Noun More of is used with articles and other determiners when speaking about a particular thing or group. This is true for people as well as for objects. Remember that the is used to indicate a specific object that both the listener and the speaker understand, whereas a is used to speak about something listeners do not which specific instance is referred to. Examples: He is more of a thinker than you might realize.Ill have to use more of this class to explain the present perfect. More Alone In some instances, its clear which noun more modifies. For example, in a restaurant, a waitperson might ask you if you would like more referring to coffee, water, etc. If the context is clear the noun may be dropped. Examples: Would you like more? - Sure, Id love more. (Mom talking to a child concerning cake)I wish I had more, but the economy is tough these days. (Friend talking about money) Number More Noun Infinitive A number used with more followed by a noun and an infinitive expresses that how many/much more there are/is to do of a certain task. One more ... to do can be substituted with another ... to do. Examples: There are three more tests to correct today.Jennifer needs two more credits to graduate. More as Adverb More can also be used as an adverb to indicate an increase in an action or feeling. The opposite of this form is less (i.e. I like him more every day. OR I like him less every day.) Examples: I like him more each time I see him.She wants more every time I talk to her. More and More The comparative phrase more and more before an adjective is used to state that something or someone is increasingly becoming a certain way. In other words, when stating that there is a growing tendency towards something use the phrase more and more before an adjective. The opposite of this phrase is less and less to indicate that something is decreasing (i.e. Its getting less and less expensive to buy a computer.) Examples: Its becoming more and more difficult to find a job.Peter is getting more and more nervous about his final exam.

Q5 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words - 2

Q5 - Essay Example The culture plays a major role in global information system management. Since the culture strongly influences management practices, such as decision making, policy-making, and system development strategies. However, the research on cultural dimensions offers a theoretical base that has been normally utilized for discovering the effects of cultural differences on the implementation and acceptance of information systems. These dimensions of culture are: (Kim & Peterson, 2003) Additionally, the complication of GIS development augments with the cultural dissimilarities in the countries concerned, particularly when the project manager is unable to recognize or distinguish the factors and overall situations that must be measured all through the global information system implementation. In addition, other complexities and challenges take place because of different languages, business, and official environments, vendor and technology help, national communications, local market size, the presence of local IT skills, and data export controls. Normally, culture differences affect global projects more than local projects because the straightforward and uncomplicated information system implemented locally can become a nightmare (a challenging task) if implemented globally (Biehl, 2007). Different techniques and technologies can be used to help resolve above discussed issues, for instance outsourcing is a best solution when workforce is less qualified. Social networks and other collaboration tools can be used to improve communication between international teams. As physical and logical security regulations are dissimilar, and they require to be tackled in cycle. Companies and Governments have previously spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the union of logical and physical security solutions. Security inside the business organization has previously been

WheelWorks Business Case Study Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

WheelWorks Business Case Study - Essay Example Therefore, employee needs are used to motivate employees across organizations universally. Maslow’s need hierarchy can be explained as below: This is the basic need of every individual. It is concerned with satisfying the primary needs such as food. Until these needs are satisfied, no individual would look forward to satisfy his/her other needs. A famous saying ‘man can live on bread alone if there is no bread’ suggests that human beings first try to acquire necessities for their survival. At Wheel Works, for example, the employees are being given highest possible wages along with bonus and sick pay. Once primary needs are satisfied to a reasonable degree (which is mostly subjective), the second level of needs comes. This need is concerned with the safety of an individual from danger or self-preservation. It is to be noticed that human beings will think of safety of their lives only when their need for food is met. In an organization, safety needs can be met by establishing safety system that ensures employees are free from danger and accidents. In the Wheel Works factory, for example, employees are assured sick pay, health plans. These needs in the ladder of Maslow’s need theory represent the desire for belongingness, which is concerned with human desire to be accepted and appreciated by others. When it becomes dominant, individuals try to create meaningful relationship with others. In an organizational context, where employee supervision and control are stringent, informal groups may be formed to interact among one another in the group. For example, the sales force has the freedom to do the correct job. The esteem needs are concerned with self-respect, self-confidence, a feeling of personal worth and feeling of being unique and recognition. In the context of Wheel Works, employees are given the freedom to work and excel in their work. It is the need to maximize one’s potential, whatever it may be. This is

Women Role in Society Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Women Role in Society - Essay Example Today, women share the same political and civil rights as men. They can vote and they can even be elected and appointed in public office. They can own property, they can practice profession and in all aspects of the law, they are considered as equal. Discrimination is even punished. As such, women now are no longer expected to just stay at home and rear their children. They can now pursue any career that they like. They are free to endeavor on anything. Although it still is challenging for them, we see women executives and politicians. And society actually looks up at successful, career-oriented women. However, being a woman, the demands of motherhood is still present. Despite having a career, mothers still have the responsibility to take care of their children. As such, the problem of women now has a different face. It is no longer discrimination or oppression. Now, their problem involve, them being torn between pursuing a career and the demands of child rearing. Personally, I would like my wife to remain at home to take care of me and the kids. But I know that way of thinking will be frowned upon. Society now dictates that the modern woman be career-oriented. Being a housewife is considered old-fashioned and pass. I don't want my wife to be called old-fashioned. And I don't want to be scorned as I will be depriving my wife of her opportunity to pursue a career. However, I find the essay of Danielle Crittenden very interesting. My impression of her is that she was born in the time civil and political rights was already equal between men and women. As such, she does not share the same sentiments as Stanton, Adams, Wollstonecraft and Wolfe. She does not have that extremely strong drive to prove herself as capable and worthy as any man. Because at the time that she was born, equality between men and women has already been established. As such, Crittenden was not ashamed to admit that motherhood is equally important to women. That it is also hard for mothers to leave their children while they work away from home. That while society demands that the modern woman be career-oriented, a mother cannot easily brush off the longing to personally take care of her child at home. In my opinion, women now face a different kind of pressure. Because of the work of a lot of female activists to grant women the equal status that they enjoy today, modern women feels compelled, that it is their responsibility to keep it that way. To voluntarily submit and be limited to housework would be throwing away all the years of advocacy for equal opportunity that women like Stanton worked hard to achieve. As such, women feel ashamed to fall back into the old-fashioned state of women. They feel that they should do more than just stay home and take care of the household. That they could do better than just become a housewife. I do not agree with this line of thinking. Being a housewife is not an easy task. It may not be as glamorous but it is difficult just the same. The house doesn't clean by itself. The clothes don't wash themselves either. And the babies, they can't feed on their own, they can't change their own diapers. That's why I don't understand why they get less respect from society. They do hard work

Guyana v. Suriname Analysis

Guyana v. Suriname Analysis Fay-Anne R. Herod CASE BRIEF THE VOTE: a unanimous vote by all five judges: H.E. Judge L. Dolliver M. Nelson President, Professor Thomas M. Franck, Dr. Kamal Hossain, Professor Ivan Shearer, and Professor Hans Smit. THE FACTS: Guyana gained independence from Great Britain May 26, 1966, and ratify the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) November 16, 1993. Suriname gained independence November 25, 1975, from the Netherlands and ratify the UNCLOS on July 9, 1998.[1] The Parties, Guyana and Suriname are situated on the northeast coast of the South American continent with their coastlines adjacent and meeting at or near the mouth of the Corentyne River.[2] In 1799 the land border between Suriname and Guyana was agreed to by colonial authorities to run along the west bank of the Corentyne River.[3] In 1936 a Mixed Boundary Commission fixed the northern end of the border at a particular point on the west bank of the Corentyne River, near the mouth, a point then referred to as Point 61 or the 1936 Point- the British and Dutch commission concluded that the maritime boundary in the territorial sea should be fixed at an azimuth of N10à ¯Ã‚ ¹Ã‚ ¾E from point 61 to the limit of the territorial sea.[4] Guyana advocates using the equidistance method for maritime delimitation after obtaining independence, which resulted in a line following an azimuth of N34à ¯Ã‚ ¹Ã‚ ¾ E, whereas Surinames position was that the maritime boundary was to follow the N10à ¯Ã‚ ¹Ã‚ ¾line. The area overlapping claims were about 31 600 km ².[5] In 1989, then presidents of both parties agreed that modalities for joint utilization of the border area should be established pending settlement of the border.[6] Furthermore, a 1989 agreement led to a 1991 Memorandum of Understanding Modalities for Treatment of the Offshore Area of Overlap between Guyana and Suriname (the 1991 MOU), if representatives of both governments would meet within 30 days to conclude discussions on the modalities for joint utilization of the disputed area.[7] The 1991 MOU was never implemented by Suriname, and the negotiations on joint utilization did not progress any further.[8] During MOU period, Guyana issued several concessions for oil exploration in the disputed area. In 1999, CGX Resources Incorporated (a Canadian oil and gas company that holds three licenses in the Guyana v. Suriname Basin) arranged for seismic testing to be performed over the entire concession area, involving exploratory drilling on the seabed, and the drilling plans became known to Suriname government. On May 11 31 2000, Suriname government, through diplomatic channels requested Guyana to cease all oil exploration activities in disputed area. On June 3, 2000, two Surinamese navy patrol boats approached CGXs oil rig and drill ships, the C.E. Thornton, and ordered the crew and ship to leave the area within 12 hours, otherwise, the consequences would be theirs.[9] PROCEDURAL HISTORY: On February 24, 2004, Guyana initiated arbitration proceedings by way of a Notification and Statement of Claim such; 1.) concerning the delimitation of its maritime boundary with Suriname, alleging breaches of international law by Suriname in disputed maritime territory Pursuant to Articles 286 and 287 of the 1982 United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Seas (the convention) and in accordance with Annex VII to the convention.[10] 2.) Claiming that the Parties are deemed to have accepted arbitration in accordance with Annex VII of the Convention by operation of Article 287(3); since neither Party had made a declaration pursuant to Article 287(1) of the Convention regarding their choice of compulsory procedures, and that neither Party had made a declaration in accordance with Article 298 regarding optional exceptions to the applicability of the compulsory procedures provided for in Section 2. And, 3.) Further, appointed Professor Thomas Franck as a member of the Arbitral Tribunal in accordance with Article 3(b) of Annex VII.[11] Hereinafter, on March 23, 2004 Suriname in its Notification under Annex VII, Article 3(c) of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea UNCLOS Regarding Appointment to the Arbitral Tribunal with Reservation, appointed Professor Hans Smit in accordance with Article 3(c) of Annex VII, but reserved its right to present its views about jurisdiction and any other preliminary matters to the full Arbitral Tribunal when in is constituted.[12] On June 15, 2004, by joint letter to the Secretary-General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) the Parties noted that they had agreed to the appointment of the remaining three members of the Tribunal in accordance with Article 3(b) of Annex VIII.[13] LEGAL ISSUES AT STATE: there are two legal issue 1) whether claim of unlawful threat or use of force taken by Suriname is implicit in international laws, such actions not a law enforcement activity but a threat of use of force is in contravention of UNCLOS, the Charter of the United Nations and general international law; in international law force, may not be used in law enforcement activities provided such for is unavoidable, reasonable and necessary, reasonable and necessary. 2) and whether the claim that action breached international laws constituted a countermeasure precluding wrongfulness not accepted, countermeasures may not involve the use of force. APPLICABLE INTERNATIONAL LAWS: United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Seas (UNCLOS), adopted December 10, 1982, an international treaty to regulate the use of the worlds ocean areas, and all uses of the seas and all its resources.[14] 1. State Obligation under article 74(3) and 83(3) of the UNCLOS to make every effort to enter provisional arrangements; duty to negotiate in good faith; to make every effort to reach such agreements. And, 2. State Obligation under article 74(3) and 83(3) of UNCLOS to make every effort not to jeopardize or hamper the reaching of final agreement; unilateral activity that might affect the other partys rights in a permanent manner not permissible; distinction drawn between activities leading to a permanent physical change such as exploitation of oil and gas reserves, and those that do not, such as seismic exploration.[15] THE DECISION: the tribunal awarded declaratory relief, 1) declares that violations of the Convention have taken place, in certain circumstances, reparation in the form of satisfaction may be provided by a judicial declaration that there has been a violation of a right or an obligation. And, 2) declares that the parties violated their obligations under articles 74(3) and 83(3) of the Convention to make every effort to enter into provisional arrangements of a practical nature. Furthermore, the parties violated their obligations, also under articles 74(3) and 83(3) of the Convention, to make every effort not to jeopardize or hamper the reaching of a final delimitation agreement.[16] In addition, 3) jurisdiction holds it has competence to delimit, by the drawing of a single maritime boundary, the territorial sea, continental shelf, and exclusive economic zone appertaining to each of the parties in the waters where their claims to these maritime zones overlap; to consider and rule on Guyanas allegation that Suriname has engaged in the unlawful use or threat of force contrary to the Convention, the UN Charter, and general international law; and to consider and rule on the parties respective claims under articles 74(3) and 83(3) of the Convention relating to the obligation to make every effort to enter into provisional arrangements of a practical nature and the obligation not to jeopardise or hamper the reaching of a final agreement. REASONING: 1)The International Maritime Boundary between the parties is a series of geodetic lines joining the points in the order listed as set forth in the award; 2) the expulsion from the disputed area of the CGX oil rig and drill ship C.E. Thornton by Suriname on 3 June 2000 constituted a threat of the use of force in breach of the Convention, the UN Charter, and general international law; however, for a reason specified in the award, Guyanas request for an order precluding Suriname from making further threats of force and Guyanas claim for compensation are rejected; 3) both parties violated their obligation under articles 74(3), and 83(3) of the Convention to (first) make every effort to enter into provisional arrangements of a practical nature and to (second) do everything possible not to jeopardise or hamper the reaching of a final delimitation agreement; and claims inconsistent with award were rejected.[17] ANALYSIS Introduction For decades, neighboring countries have struggled to reach an amicable solution in resolving matters relating to the limitations of the High Seas, all parts of the sea that are not included in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a state.[18]As well as the high seas freedoms such as navigation; overflight; fishing; to lay submarine cables and pipelines; to construct artificial islands, installations and structures; and scientific research.[19] Per Louis B. Sohn[20], et al., the first four freedoms are expressly mentioned in Article 2 of the 1958 High Sea Convention;[21] whereas the last two were added in Article 87(1) of the LOS Convention.[22] Particularly, matters of potentially very high capital gain. Another thing to remember is that conflicts and/or disputes with respect to the two major wars WWI and WWII were a direct result of unresolved matters that could not be solved by diplomatic negotiations. Conflicts arising from the highs seas are no different, especially w ith natural resources, not to mention resources such as oil, gas, and hydrocarbon. Factually, these commodities are in very high demand in relation to the economic stability of developed and even developing countries. Consequently, in the late 1960s the world was faced with a nightmare of conflicts over maritime rights.[23] Not only did different views arise between developed and developing countries, coastal and land-locked states, and large and small maritime powers, but also within those groups.[24] Scholars suggest that this, of course, breed its own problems and since the close of WWII and the end of European Empire, there have been a growing number of boundary disputes, particularly between states.[25] In other words, nothing can more epitomize this than the realm of upstream oil and gas developments, where particularly in recent times, glittering prices of $100 a barrel await those who can maximize their hydrocarbon production.[26] As time change, disputes became more and more challenging. In the twentieth century, the international law codification movement addressed both international and new law of the sea issues.[27] The League of Nations in 1930 and then the United Nations, UN in its 1958 and 1960 First and Second UN conferences on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS 1 and UNCLOS 2) tried to solve the recurrent issue of the breadth of the territorial sea under the control of the coastal state, to no avail.[28] The only logical solution was the establishment of a new internationa l legal regime, a code of international law of the oceans. Therefore, the states arranged for the Third United Nations Law of the Sea conference (UNCLOS III) and over a period of nine years 1973-1982, [à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦] the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was birth and set out the rights and responsibilities of coastal states and other states.[29] The following paper will examine the tribunal decision, between the Republic of Guyana and the Republic of Suriname (Guyana v. Suriname, 2007) arbitral case, after hearing awarded September 17, 2007. But before the following paper seeks to explore the courts decision on Surinamese action which constituted a threat of the use of force, and the threat of the use of force was not justified on the first and second states obligations. It is important to point out from the outset that the decision is commendable and a progression, however, it did not provide clear guidance on its interpretations or what it meant by state practice. To analysis the decision, this paper is divided into three sections to examine the issues first, historical events up to arbitration; secondly, the tribunal decision on states first obligation and the reasoning in the international legal framework; and third, the court ruling on the second states obligation, logic and what it means for further disputes on interna tional laws. For concision, the following paper will consolidate its conclusion with a focus on the tribunal decision in general international law with associated cases. Historical events leading up arbitration Since the establishment of the UNCLOS, 1982, proponents of the law of the seas have noted that there are an increasing number of disputes being fuelled by the discovery of hydrocarbons on or near a claimed boundary line.[30] Per Roughton, indeed the United Nations noted in 2001 that 100 maritime boundary delimitations throughout the world still await some form of a resolution by peaceful means and by 2006, that figure had increased to some 220 potential maritime boundary disputes, which must exclude boundary disputes on land.[31] At that time, the tribunal had already awarded in the case of Barbados and Trinidad Tobago while at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras), 2007 and Nicaragua and Columbia (Nicaragua v. Columbia) in December of the same year, on territorial sea and maritime delimitation disputes.[32] The evidence through documentation submitted to the tribunal for the dispute between Guyana v. Suriname, 2007, on the maritime boundary line proves that many factors are leading up to the dispute going back to colonization which has a direct link to the arbitration. But the most important factor is perhaps the economic factor. In this regard, the significance of oil and gas reserves should not be understated as in many disputed areas which often involve oil and natural gas resources.[33] Legal documentation pointed out the origin of the conflict between the parties stretch back to a 1799 border agreement and the inability, of the Dutch and British colonial authorities in the 1930s to define the boundaries between the parties with greater precision.[34] Following the independence of both states and the granting of offshore oil concessions in a disputed area of the sea, where the Corentyne River flows into the Atlantic Ocean, matters came to a halt in June 2000, specifically for sovere ignty over the territorial sea, Continental Shelf, and EEZ.[35] This is an interesting point to note, that prior as well, colonial authorities for the parties had agreed for the border to run along the west bank of the Corentyne River to enable the Netherlands (for Suriname) to exercise supervision of all traffic in the river. Additionally, in 1936 a Mixed Border Commission (agreement) between the parties fixed the northern end of the border at a particular point on the west bank, near the mouth of the Corentyne River. Taken together, during this time, this area is considered a disputed area (title belong to neither of the parties) yet they worked together and jointly shared the area. Since, the traffic during this time on the seas was mainly for navigating, transporting citizens between both countries, and fishing. Hence, from the early times when sailors and fishermen first ventured into the sea, two principles traditionally governed the law of the sea: the right of the coastal state to control a narrow strip along the coast and the freedoms of navigation and fishing in the high seas beyond the coastal area.[36] This comment supports the overall argument in this section that the parties interest at the time was navigating and fisheries, so peaceful arrangements were possible. However, a different approach ensued with the drilling company for possibly discovering oil, gas, and hydrocarbon. On the first obligation was there every effort made by both sides? Under UNCLOS with regards to the nature and the rights and obligations impose under international law for article 74(3) and 83(3) provides as follows, in sum pending agreement (of delimitation of the EEZ or Continental Shelf), the States involved, in a spirit of understanding and co-operation, shall make every effort to enter into provisional arrangements of a practical nature and during this transitional period, not to jeopardise (risk, endanger, expose) or hamper (hinder) the reaching of the final agreement. Such arrangements shall be without prejudice to the final delimitation.[37] All the same, the two duties of cooperation and mutual restraint imposed on states party to the UNCLOS in relation to disputed maritime delimitations, as per Roughton, for some time there was no clear view as to the form in which any such cooperation might be mandated beyond the anodyne statement, but that States are simply required to negotiate in good faith provisional arrangements of a practical nature.[38] This was to change from the Guyana v. Suriname case by what the UNCLOS meant in article 74(3) and 83(3), from the threat of the use of force by the Surname navy vessel against CGX resources undertaking exploratory work for Guyana which brought up the issue of sovereignty over the disputed area between the parties to be ruled on. The tribunal had to then consider the meaning and effects of article 74(3) and 83(3), so in its award/decision, it specified in its interpretation to that of both obligations simultaneously attempt to promote and limit activities in a disputed maritime area.[39] Which means in the first obligation is that pending a final delimitation, states parties are required to make every effort to enter provisional arrangements of a practical nature.[40] That is, in turn to pave the way for provisional utilization of disputed areas pending delimitation. Parallel through its expose of the first obligation the tribunal implied to encourage the equitable and efficient use of the resources of the seas natural resources claimed by more than one state, subject always to the objectives of the second obligation, such activities do not affect the reaching of a final agreement.[41] Additionally, the tribunal appeared to have in mind the encouragement of arrangements for the joint exploration and exploitation of maritime resources as between the parties. Hence, using the decision by the ICJ in the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases to interpret the extent of the obligation to cooperate with the pre-UNCLOS regime. In that regard, the tribunal referenced the (then) recent UK-Norwegian Continental Shelf Agreement, and found that where there are overlapping claims, joint exploitation agreements were particularly appropriate when it is a question of preserving the unity of deposit.[42] Noteworthy to mentioned, the parties have worked together without conflict up to 1990. By previous agreements as up to the attempt with the 1991 MOU which apparently if a representative of both governments would have met within the 30 days to conclude the discussion, but, Suriname never implemented, neither came forth to negotiate on joint utilization, which might have prevented this ar bitration. This supports the argument that the dispute was driven by the possibility of discovering and the production of oil, gas, and hydrocarbon in the disputed area. The tribunal decision did not provide a clear interpretation to the practice of States in interpreting first obligation and offered guidance as to what extent it considered there to be a developing trend of customary law.[43] For clarification, my understanding is perhaps within its language the tribunal was suggesting states to jointly share the exploitation and exploration of maritime boundaries if overlapping or in disputed areas. If so, is there a regulation to rights, limits, and responsibilities for states not signed to the UNCLOS with other signed states and where neither state is signed? Likewise, the production, and revenue from the oil, gas, and hydrocarbon pending delimitation. On the other hand, successful joint utilization as a memorandum of understanding between Cambodia and Thailand made on 18 June 2001 under which both parties consider that it is desirable to enter into a provisional arrangement of a practical nature in relation to their overlapping claims in the Gulf of Thailand: the allusion to Articles 74(3) and 83(3) could not be clearer neither party is contracting state under UNCLOS.[44] But for this to be acceptable and recognized as customary international law both parties must consider two elements; state practice and opiniojuris(not discussed in this paper) as was used and interpreted in the North Sea Continental Shelf case. However, per author Roughton joint development agreements have been concluded most famously between Malaysia and Thailand in 1990 and between Malaysia and Vietnam in 1992. As well as, the suite of an agreement entered by Australia with Indonesia and East Timor over the Timor Gap.[45] For the overall argument of this pape r is that a joint utilization in an international legal framework to solve such an issue should be taken up on a case-by-case basis. The language suggested by the tribunal should not pose a blanket of one-size fits all to resolve a disputed area conflict. Second state obligation: not to jeopardize or hamper the reaching of a final agreement The findings of the tribunal that both Guyana and Suriname violated their obligations under Articles 74(3) and 83(3) of UNCLOS, in its reasoning on the second obligation: state parties must during that period of make every effort à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦. not to jeopardize or hamper the reaching of final agreement, it was not intended to freeze all exploratory activities in a disputed maritime area in the absence of a provisional arrangement. In this regard, it made a distinction between activities of the kind that lead to a permanent physical change in the marine environment and those that do not, such as seismic exploration: while the former class of activities could be undertaken only jointly or by agreement between the parties, because such actions could be perceived to, or may genuinely, prejudice the position of the other party in the delimitation dispute, thereby both hampering and jeopardizing the reaching of a final agreement; the latter class of activities in disputed waters would b e permissible.[46] Based upon these theoretical analyses, the tribunal found that Suriname failed in its duty under Articles 74(3) and 83(3) noting that Suriname did not send a representative to conclude discussions on modalities for joint utilization of the disputed area, as contemplated by the 1991 MOU; Suriname failed to respond to the draft of proposed Modalities for Treatment of the Offshore Area of Overlap between Guyana and Suriname submitted by Guyana in 1994.[47] Particularly, placing emphasis in the build-up to the CGX incident, In order to satisfy its obligation to make every effort to reach provisional arrangements, Suriname would have actively had to attempt to bring Guyana to the negotiating table, or, at a minimum, have accepted Guyanas last minute 2 June 2000 invitation and negotiated in good faith.[48] It notably could have insisted on the immediate cessation of CGXs exploratory drilling as a condition to participating in further talks.[49] In light of this, Suriname believed that Guya nas authorization of its concession holder to undertake exploratory drilling in disputed waters constituted a violation of its obligation, and if bilateral negotiations failed to resolve the issue, Suriname should resort to the remedy provided for in the options for peaceful settlement envisaged by Part XV and Annex VII of the Convention, instead of opting for resorting to self-help in threatening CGX Resources.[50] On the other hand, the Tribunal ruled that Guyana also violated its obligation to make every effort to enter provisional arrangements by its conduct leading up to the CGX incident, in that in a spirit of cooperation, informed Suriname directly of its plans, and the notification in the press by way of CGXs public announcements was not sufficient for Guyana to meet its obligation. Besides, Guyana should have sought to engage Suriname in discussions concerning the drilling at a much earlier stage.[51] Its 2 June 2000 invitation to Suriname to discuss the modalities of any drilling operations, although an attempt to defuse a tense situation, was also not sufficient to discharge Guyanas obligation under the LOS Convention.[52] Being a tense situation already stemming from Surinames lack of participation to implementation of the MOU agreement, the assumption is that the last minute efforts made matters worse. In this regard, the explanation by the tribunal in this section supports the over all argument of this paper. It points out clearly that the focus or driving force behind the arbitration is the development of the potential equity, that is the discovery by CGX Resources undertakings for Guyana in the disputed drilling for possibly oil, gas and hydrocarbon. Both parties failed in the spirit of cooperation and restrained in relation to articles 74(3) and 83(3) states obligations. Conclusion The evidence listed above has supported the argument of this paper by proving that the dispute between Guyana v. Suriname was driven by factors of economic interest. Both parties failed in its obligations as Suriname contended in its defense that the measures it undertook on 3 June 2000 were of the nature of reasonable and proportionate law enforcement measures to preclude unauthorized drilling in a disputed area. While Guyana failed its for authorizing CGX Resources to drill in disputed area and not providing Suriname with sufficient notice of drilling activities. Although in international law, force may be used in law enforcement activities, it is only if such force is unavoidable, reasonable and necessary. But, the action mounted by Suriname deemed more akin to a threat of military action rather than a mere law enforcement activity, therefore, constituted a threat of the use of force in contravention of the UNCLOS, the UN Charter, and general international law. Moreover, the tribunal emphasized that peaceful means of addressing Guyanas alleged breach of international law with respect to exploratory drilling were available to Suriname under the UNCLOS.[53] That is, a State faced with a such a dispute should resort to the compulsory procedures provided for in Section 2 of Part XV of the Convention, which provide, inter alia, where the urgency of the situation so requires, a State may request that ITLOS on prescribing provisional measures.[54] Above all, the tribunal provided clarification of the obligations to make every effort to enter provisional arrangements and not to jeopardize or hamper the reaching of a final delimitation agreement, and exert a significant influence on the mode of behavior of those states facing maritime delimitation disputes.[55] However, it did not provide guidance when referred to the practice of States in interpreting first obligation neither offered guidance as to what extent (if any) it considered there be a developing trend of customary international law.[56] For such as, if a boundary is fixed, but a reservoir straddling it exist, unitization is the pa

Affirmative Action: The White Women-have Made The Greatest Gains

â€Å"Affirmative action was orginally designed to help minorities, but women-especially white women-have made the greatest gains as a result of these programs†(Gross, 1996). Affirmative action is a growing argument among our society. It is multifaceted and very often defined vaguely. Many people define affirmative action as the ability to strive for equality and inclusiveness. Others might see it as a quote-based system for different minority groups. I agree and support affirmative actions in that individual†s should be treated equally. I feel affirmative action as an assurance that the best qualified person will receive the job. Is affirmative action fair? In 1974, a woman named Rose was truned down for a supervisory job in favor of a male. She was told that she was the most qualified person, but the position was going to be filled by a man, because he had a family to support. Five years before that, when Rose was about to fill an entry-level position in bank! ing, a personnel officer outlined the woman†s pay scale, which was $25 to $50 month less than what men were being payed for the same position. Rose was furious because she felt this was descriminating to her. She confronted the personnel officer and he saw nothing wrong with it. Thanks to affirmative action today things like these situations are becoming more rare and/or corrected more quickly. Affirmative action has definately helped women and minorities in their careers, but it has yet to succed in the goal of equality to the fullest for the business world to woment and minorities. Some observers argue that women have made huge strides! with the help of affirmative action. They now hold 40 percent of all corporate middle-management jobs, and the number of women-owned businesses has grown by 57 percent since 1982†³(Blackwood, 1995). â€Å"Affirmative action was desinged to give qualified minorities a chance to compete on equal footing with Whites† (Chappell, 1995). Equal opportunities for the blacks, for the most part, has remained more wishful-thinking than fact. Black students are continuing to struggle to seek an education, black business owners are still competing against their White counterparts, and black workers are experienceing an unemployment rate twice that of Whites and hold dead-end, labor-intensive, low-paying jobs. â€Å"Few can argue that racism is still rampant in awarding craontcts, jobs, and educational opportunities, eventhough it†s been proven benefical to have peop[le of different races with different ideas and different experiences working toward the same goal† (Chappell, 1995). The employment outlook for minorities is grim, but not hopeless. We definaltely need affirmative action to overcome the disparities of employment that exist int his country. A recent Urban Benchmarks† study found that of 71 metro areas surveyed nationwide, Pittsburgh had the highest rate of employment-related problems among non-Hispanic whites between! the ages of 25 and 54 and the sixth highest rate among African Americans in the same age group. We have a lot of problems with basic education here and if you don†t have basic education, you have no chance of getting a good job because competition is increasing for everyone. We must make sure that we educate our potential work force, including minorities, or our competitive edge, if we have one, will continue to decline in golbal markets. Many jobs today are in the technician and technologist area. â€Å"Jobs require more than a high-school diploma,but less than a four-year degree–such as an associate degree or certificate fro! m a vocational or trade school† (Kovatch, 1996). As more and more women faced discrimination in large firms, more decided to strike out on their own. In conclusion, most Americans know that the deck is stacked against poor kids. They also realize that, because of past discrimination, an extraordinary number of those facing unequal opportunities are black. So, while 75 percent of Americans oppose racial preferences, according to a 1995 Washington Post/ABC poll, two-thirds with to â€Å"change† affirmative actionprograms rather than â€Å"do away with them entirely†. But the public also realized that, in real life, the legacy of discrimination is not always so neat. It is diffuse, and it requires a broader remedy. Affirmative Action: The White Women-have Made The Greatest Gains â€Å"Affirmative action was orginally designed to help minorities, but women-especially white women-have made the greatest gains as a result of these programs†(Gross, 1996). Affirmative action is a growing argument among our society. It is multifaceted and very often defined vaguely. Many people define affirmative action as the ability to strive for equality and inclusiveness. Others might see it as a quote-based system for different minority groups. I agree and support affirmative actions in that individual†s should be treated equally. I feel affirmative action as an assurance that the best qualified person will receive the job. Is affirmative action fair? In 1974, a woman named Rose was truned down for a supervisory job in favor of a male. She was told that she was the most qualified person, but the position was going to be filled by a man, because he had a family to support. Five years before that, when Rose was about to fill an entry-level position in bank! ing, a personnel officer outlined the woman†s pay scale, which was $25 to $50 month less than what men were being payed for the same position. Rose was furious because she felt this was descriminating to her. She confronted the personnel officer and he saw nothing wrong with it. Thanks to affirmative action today things like these situations are becoming more rare and/or corrected more quickly. Affirmative action has definately helped women and minorities in their careers, but it has yet to succed in the goal of equality to the fullest for the business world to woment and minorities. Some observers argue that women have made huge strides! with the help of affirmative action. They now hold 40 percent of all corporate middle-management jobs, and the number of women-owned businesses has grown by 57 percent since 1982†³(Blackwood, 1995). â€Å"Affirmative action was desinged to give qualified minorities a chance to compete on equal footing with Whites† (Chappell, 1995). Equal opportunities for the blacks, for the most part, has remained more wishful-thinking than fact. Black students are continuing to struggle to seek an education, black business owners are still competing against their White counterparts, and black workers are experienceing an unemployment rate twice that of Whites and hold dead-end, labor-intensive, low-paying jobs. â€Å"Few can argue that racism is still rampant in awarding craontcts, jobs, and educational opportunities, eventhough it†s been proven benefical to have peop[le of different races with different ideas and different experiences working toward the same goal† (Chappell, 1995). The employment outlook for minorities is grim, but not hopeless. We definaltely need affirmative action to overcome the disparities of employment that exist int his country. A recent Urban Benchmarks† study found that of 71 metro areas surveyed nationwide, Pittsburgh had the highest rate of employment-related problems among non-Hispanic whites between! the ages of 25 and 54 and the sixth highest rate among African Americans in the same age group. We have a lot of problems with basic education here and if you don†t have basic education, you have no chance of getting a good job because competition is increasing for everyone. We must make sure that we educate our potential work force, including minorities, or our competitive edge, if we have one, will continue to decline in golbal markets. Many jobs today are in the technician and technologist area. â€Å"Jobs require more than a high-school diploma,but less than a four-year degree–such as an associate degree or certificate fro! m a vocational or trade school† (Kovatch, 1996). As more and more women faced discrimination in large firms, more decided to strike out on their own. In conclusion, most Americans know that the deck is stacked against poor kids. They also realize that, because of past discrimination, an extraordinary number of those facing unequal opportunities are black. So, while 75 percent of Americans oppose racial preferences, according to a 1995 Washington Post/ABC poll, two-thirds with to â€Å"change† affirmative actionprograms rather than â€Å"do away with them entirely†. But the public also realized that, in real life, the legacy of discrimination is not always so neat. It is diffuse, and it requires a broader remedy.

Btc Pipeline: Turkish Delight or Russian Roulette?

INTRODUCTION Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline is an oil pipeline that transports crude oil Caspian Sea to the Turkish coast, over three countries. BTC Company is a joint venture company responsible for the construction and operation of the whole $4bn pipeline, led by BP as majority shareholder. Spread across Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey largest cross-border infrastructure construction project in the world dubbed the â€Å"contract of the century†. Financing was agreed after over two years of appraisal of the potential environmental and social impacts relating to the project.An underlying strategy is to reduce dependency on OPEC oil producers in the turbulent Middle East and to avoid Russia seen by America as a resurgent superpower. Aside from indirect benefits; Georgia and Turkey gain financial benefits through transit fees and Azerbaijan through the royalties and tax revenues, However, BTC co. encountered several social and environmental issues during the construction of the 1768km pipeline. Limited routing options meant encountering geo-hazard risks, potential harm and disturbance of communities and natural habitat, temporary land acquisition, revenue management and a volatile political environment.Thus this project received intense scrutiny by stakeholders and press for its lack in humility and effectiveness in resolving political, social, developmental and security concerns. THE OBJECTIVE/GOALS Stakeholder map. A visual mapping of parties that affect or about affected by an organization, strategy and in this case a project. Helps us identify the expectations and power of different stakeholders, this understand what ethical issues dilemmas are to be understood and resolved. METHOD / FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS We have chosen a normative approach (what should be done) for our analysis as opposed to a descriptive approach (how it is done).Generate solutions that enforce behaviorally standards; as we already have detailed evidence showing how it is done. Moral absolutism will be used by clearing stating what is right and wrong; which be rationally determined in order to come up with a universal applicable solution. This helps us come up with an objective stand-point on the subject. There will be examination of traditional ethical theories such as consequentialist and non-consequentialist approaches and stakeholder theories and new age concepts namely, corporate citizenship to help us justify our absolute perspective in solving the ethical dilemmas.THE MAIN ISSUES AND DILEMMAS BP FACE IN THIS CASE Political instability Pipeline Security Human Right Abuses Corruption Poor governance High expectations from local community Environmental Risks and Risk Assessment Intense scrutiny by pressure groups and media Land Acquisition and Land Compensation HOW WOULD YOU EVALUATE BP’S APPROACH TO SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT FOR THE LOCAL COMMUNITY? BP set up a Regional Sustainability Development program (RSDP) t o proactively address issues. Social 1) Community Investment Program ($20m addressed to social issues)-in Azerbaijan set with largely international groups-in Turkey with local Turkish organizationswith universities and private consultants firmsBP set up a monitoring and complaints procedure | Economical 1) Regional Development Initiative ($25m designed to accompany over 10yrs after opening) 2) Set up of local coordinators and in consultation with local community. ) Focus was improvement of local infrastructure in road and civil construction 4) Projects aimed at agriculture and skill development| Environmental 1) Environmental Investment Program (to ecological issues)| CEO Lord Browne appointed a Caspian Development Advisory Panel, which provided recommendations such as assembly of an external body to conduct periodic reviews.ASSESS THE APPROACH FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF UTILIARIANISM AND DEONTOLOGY? According to utilitarianism,an action is morally right if it results in the greatest amo unt of good for the greatest number of people affected by the action Based on cost? benefit analysis Rule utilitarianism * looks at classes of action and ask whether the underlying principles of an action produce more pleasure than pain for society in the long runStakeholder| Cost| Benefit| BP and BTC & co| * $25m +$20m programs * Opportunity cost * Failure of local actors * Subjected to a corrupt environment * Misuse of revenue * Complaints from locals| * Good Reputation * Helping society * Compliance| Financiers| % of investments go to CSR| * Mitigation of social development risks that would result to additional costs| Communities| Unfair treatmentHuman right abusesIssue of compensationLocal political divisions- 1 blood feud| * Financial investment in society and development projects * Structure in place for communication * First commercial strawberry farm| Government| External involvement of governance| * Investment for national development * Availability of resources| Pressure G roups| Alleged TortureHuman rights abuses| * Raised awareness of internal politics| Employees and Contractors| Unfair treatment| * Job Opportunities * Economic support| Environment| Destruction and disturbance of the environment| * Structure of a program to address issues| Agencies and NGO’s| Lack of credibility Public scrutiny | * Displayed support from BP * Increased involvement | Work from a German philosopher Immanuel Kant who development a theoretical framework called â€Å"categorical imperative†. This meant that this framework applied to every moral issue regardless of who is involved. It is made out of three maxims; which are: 1) Consistency throughout any situation ) Treat humanity always as an end and never as a means. 3) Universally acceptable These two theories introduce the issue of subjectivity due to intellectual scrutiny. ASSESSMENT FROM RIGHTS AND JUSTICE. HOW DOES IT DIFFER? Rights and justice is â€Å"based on a consensus about nature of human digni ty†. It is objective in that it conceptualized on natural rights that â€Å"certain basic, important, unalienable entitlements that should be respected and protected in every single action. † In addition Ethics of justices means fair procedures and fair outcomes. A violation of these rights means the approach is seen as unethical. BP’s poor social and environmental assessment led to a display of lack of humility.SCOPE OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR MNC OPERATING IN ENVIRONMENTS OF CORRUPTION AND POOR GOVERNANCE. How far should BP made be responsible? Arguments against The corporation should solely be accountable to its shareholders in order to protect investments. In support of this argument, Milton Friedman published an article titled, â€Å" The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. † Stating only humans have moral responsibilities, managers should act in interests of its shareholders and social issues and problems are for governments to h andle. Another perspective is that of Archie Carroll’s four-part model of CSR. Stating that CSR can be met by going through each level consecutively. Arguments forCSR seems to be widely accepted because of enlightened self-interests. However, corporations are now perceived assume a social actors, not only because of legislation but companies rely on the contribution of other parties. It now exists in a society. Thus, the introduction of corporate citizenship, in which the company acknowledges an extended political role. Obtaining citizenship means entitlement of civil, social and political rights; which are attached to responsibilities. Social rights (i. e. freedom to participate in society): BP provider / ignorer Civil rights (i. e. freedom from abuses): BP disabler/ enabler Political righs (i. e. right to participate in process of governance): BP chanelling / blockingTransparency International Corruption Perception Index| Year| Turkey| Azerbaijan| Georgia| 2002| 64| 95| 85| 2003| 77| 124| 124| 2006| 60| 130| 99| It can be argued that BP has fuelled the level of corruption as seen in the figures above. Therefore have to commit them to solving this social problem. What is the appropriate way for BP to respond to its on-going criticism? Virtue ethics Transparency Expose finding Protection Acts Auditing Body Discourse ethics Dialogue and Stakeholder Engagement Effective Complaint Procedure – eg. Response period Right to Information Systems in Place Land Ownership options Introduce this all over Azerbaijan not only Baku

History of Noahs Ark essays

History of Noahs Ark essays Flood stories have been a common thread in many religions across the globe. One of the stories we are most familiar with in our culture, the story of Noahs Ark, is a well known segment of the old testament, and an interesting story of how God punished the world for how corrupt it had become. God accomplished this reportedly by flooding the world, and annihilating all the creatures upon it, save for Noah and his family and a pair of each type of creature on the earth . This story, however, has roots deep in the past, some of which have only come to light with the development of new archeological techniques and technology. As more and more is found out about the era from whence this story originates, discoveries are made as to the origin of the story, what tale it was based upon, and as to the authenticity that such an event may have actually even occurred, if on a somewhat smaller scale. Based on the information available at the present time, one can make fairly confident inferen ces as to the root of this story. One could argue that the story of Noahs Ark was based on the Epic of Gilgamesh, and that in turn was based on older stories that were based on a real flood of the Black Sea. The story of Noahs Ark was first written as part of the old testament by the Jewish people. However, it is predated by far by the story of the Epic of Gilgamesh, a story that originated in the same area that holds many striking similarities to the tale of Noahs Ark. Though the story was modified to accommodate new characters, many properties of the story are similar, from small details like the creatures used as scouts to the religious purpose of the flood itself. For example, both the flood stories start with the characters receiving specific building instructions for a ship, which is to be used to spare the lives of one set of pairs of the creatures of the world. The dimensions of the ship underwent some drastic ch...

Sound and Fury Characterizatio essays

Sound and Fury Characterizatio essays Several times throughout The Sound and the Fury, as in other novels, are scenes in which the family, or parts of it, is sitting down at the dinner table for a meal. In Jasons section, there is a particular scene in which this occurs. At this point in time, the Compson family consists of Jason, his mother, Quentin and Benjy, and Dilsey and Luster. The scene begins by Jason refusing to eat dinner, or even go to the dinner table, until his mother and Quentin come down to accompany him. This situation clearly shows the stubbornness of Jasons personality. Several times Dilsey asks him to just eat by himself, and to forget about the other family members who are obviously too sick or occupied to come down to dinner. Instead, Jason continues to read the paper, refusing to move until the rest of the family has come down to join him. In the same dialogue as above, not only is the trait of stubbornness shown, but also his constant sarcastic, almost brash tone. When Dilsey first tells Jason that dinner is ready, instead of a thank you or any other common words of appreciation, he replies Is it?. . .Excuse me, I didnt hear anybody come down. This clearly shows his sarcastic tone towards all people. Jason is seen as the man of the house ever since Mr. Compson died. His mother actually corrects herself when she calls the house her house, instead saying it is Jasons and that he is the head of it. This is what gives him a lot of his arrogance and haughtiness. His mother is constantly telling him how he is the superior of all the other children and even that he is the head of the house and that it is his. Who wouldnt acquire such a big ego with the praise he receives from his mother? When Quentin finally sits at the table, Jason immediately starts to rip her apart. In his usual cynical tone he constantly irritates Quentin to the point where she breaks. Jason brings up th...

United Technologies Corporation - a Program of Compliance and Global Case Study - 6

United Technologies Corporation - a Program of Compliance and Global Ethics - Case Study Example The biggest hurdle that the company faced is the incorporating of a huge number of employees and who were composed of a variety of world’s cultures. Basically, the ethics of Chubb plc were nowhere near those of UTC- United Technologies Corporation. Just before embarking on this stand-alone case, it is of a high essence to look at a short background description to enable the reader has an easy time while studying the situation. UTC was a global corporation constituting of USD31 billion in terms of its value and this value was a combination of seven business undertakings and a single research center that was held responsible for any research concerning the divisions in entirety. This world’s conglomerate employed approximately 205,700 workers. After the acquiring of Chubb plc, it would lead to a situation where 138,000 of these workers would be sourced from beyond the USA borders. This corporation had above 4,000 locations in about 62 nations. Its business operations covered around 180 nations. In the year 2002 alone, 55% of the aggregate revenue of UTC was generated from foreign and the net income stood at USD2.2 billion and had an asset base of USD29.1 billion. In the year under focus (2003), UTC took position 49 in the Fortune 500 companies’ list. UTC’s first business can be traced back to 1853. One major name tarnishing event was the 1980s’ scenario. UTC was during that period the US’s major government’s contract with the Department of Defense being party to this and the case still remains. In the middle of this decade, the US’s DOD- Department of Defense was facing hard times due to the accusations of waste, fraud, and abuse. One of the divisions of UTC by the name Pratt & Whitney was put in the spotlight in connection with the same reputation tarnishing scandals. This ended up costing UTC an amount of USD 40 million from profits.

Que Onda Urban Youth Culture and Border Identity. BOOK Essay

Que Onda Urban Youth Culture and Border Identity. BOOK - Essay Example This means that the concept of identity is the people’s way of life and its effects on the political choice and affiliation. The author went further to postulate that the person’s identity may post a great challenge in the way the community relates to power and politics (Bejarano, 2005). Indeed, the aspects are more evidenced in the struggles, which characterize the cultural practices and social institutions about their daily lifestyle. In essence, the politics of identity determines the political direction along the boarder region (Bejarano, 2005). However, the fact that the cultural institutions and conditions in the area were extremely oppressive; it hindered the free articulation of the political situation. Notably, the only sign of relief on the politics of identity in the region would be a critical engagement and insight of the beliefs and cultural practices, considered to have significant impacts on the political players and scenes (Bejarano, 2005). For the Latinas/os along the boarder region, some of the factors, which influence identity development, include historical, biographical, institutional, and socio-cultural contexts (Bejarano, 2005). Notably, all the factors have meaningful contribution to the believability, intelligibility and relevance to the social context in the boarder region. On the historical factors, the Latinas/os have unique cultural beliefs that are considered to be controversial to the political development and affiliations, and the identity of the occupants (Bejarano, 2005). Notably, the historical oppression of the Latina/os could be traced from the American relationship with the Europeans. Though there were elements of multiculturalism in the region, the different groups of people, they had to hold their traditional cultural heritage as a form of identity (Bejarano, 2005). In addition, they had to acknowledge the oppression