Why Divorce Is A Good Thing

Why Divorce Is A Good Thing We owe all the wonderful aspects of modern marriage to one thing: divorce. You will hear just the opposite, of course. Religious fundamentalists and politicians will tell you that divorce is crumbling our society, ruining childrens lives, and weakening the moral character of the nation. Dont listen to them. They know perfectly well why divorce is a good thing, they just dont want you to ever find out. Divorce means choice. Divorce means that two people do not have to remain bound to each other until the grave, as society dictated until the 20th century. Divorce means that human beings can determine the path their life will take. And at its very root, divorce provides for that most crucial, most valuable of human experiences: happiness. Divorce is also the great equalizer, and the hallmark of a truly advanced society in terms of womens rights. No woman can ever claim to feel like property or subjugated by men where are there are equitable divorce laws in place. When we look back at ancient civilizations, the ones that stand out are the ones like ancient Egypt which provided equitable treatment for women and the accessibility of divorce as a way to end a legal marriage. Even in the modern world, the best countries for women are those that allow them to divorce freely and without social stigma. But the freedom to live your life how you please, without affecting how others live theirs, is something that a great number of people dont want you to have. Religions in particular seem devoted to making sure that you donà ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚ ¢t live how you please, that your every action is analyzed and criticized and ultimately judged. Whether its a stern and moralistic God or a harsh and judgmental society you claim as your higher power, be aware that both of them have one central belief at their core: personal happiness is bad, and personal choice is worse. The Catholic Church, for example, maintains that if you marry someone while your first spouse is still alive, you are committing adultery and will go to Hell. You are not allowed to put aside one spouse and find another, no matter what the reason. They dont like the idea of your having sex with more than one person in your life, even if you want to marry each person that you have it with. Or do they? If your spouse dies they have put no such hex on you. Widows and widowers are given the full blessing of the church to marry again. The limit seems to be three marriages, although Im not sure how stringently this rule is applied. It may be that the widowed are allowed marrying as often as they wish. But even if the church absolutely forbids a widowed person from re-marrying more than twice, it still means that the church would rather sanction youà ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚ ¢re having sexual relations with three people in your life, rather than let you be married to two if the first one is merely divorced from you. Its adultery and fornication if you divorce one spouse and remarry even once, but legitimate carnal relations if you marry three times because the other two died. This cant possibly indicate a desire to limit the number of sexual partners you have, or to stamp out the sin of sex. I couldnt understand this breach in logic. As much as I disagree with the premise, if youre going to claim that all sex outside the bonds of your first marriage is sinful, then surely you have to call the widowed fornicators too, as much as the divorced are. But the church doesnt. And for years, neither did the public at large. Widowed people were pitied but respected. Divorced people caused scandal, were looked down upon by respectable people, were shunned and considered morally bankrupt. Now I know why. Its a question of choice, of volition, a unique human quality. The church, and society, simply wouldnt allow you to exercise your volition beyond that first choice of partner you made a choice, by the way, that was often made for you by your parents and had nothing to do with what you wanted. Nothing would justify wanting to make another choice later in life. Only God could do that, it seems. If God took your partner away from you, you had no choice in that, and therefore, you were allowed to choose again. If God decided to take that spouse from you too, that wasnt your choice either. As long as you yourself werent thinking and choosing and making your own decisions about your life, the church would be lenient on you. The minute you decided to affect change in your own life, to undo something you regretted doing or something that no longer served a purpose in your life, you were branded a sinner. So for centuries, miserably married people could only find freedom in the grave. Many people killed their mates to be free of them. It was not uncommon for aristocrats, attempting to climb the social ladder, to arrange for their no-longer-advantageous spouses to fall down stairs or eat poisoned meat so that they, the aristocrats, could marry someone higher up in the echelon of the nobility. For those without the stomach for murder, there was no option. There may have been unofficial separations as there are today, but the medieval mind was so accustomed to accepting discomfort and sacrifice that most unhappily married people stayed together because they felt it was their lot in life to suffer. Its a sentiment that carried through to our grandparents, and even our parents to some extent, many of whom lived out lives of unhappiness and dissatisfaction, bound for life to someone that contributed to the misery of their life, all under the guise of respecting the sanctity of wedlock. It was only when people started believing that their happiness was more important than a vow to God, that they had choice in life and were free to make choices responsibly, that marriage was a voluntary, mutually agreed upon partnership of respect and love that could dissolve if that love and respect disappearedit was only then that people started seeing marriage as an expression of joy and started enjoying the marriages they had. There is nothing sacred about a loveless marriage. Whats sacred is having the freedom to enjoy the best kind of marriage possible, the kind freely entered into by two people who understand that it could end if they neglect or abuse their partner, or that it could last a lifetime if they both want it to. Whats sacred is knowing that a satisfying, happy marriage is always possible, no matter who you find yourself with at the moment or how many times youve tried to make it work and failed. Whats sacred is saying to yourself, and your children, that happiness in love is a crucial component of a healthy life, that sacrificing that happiness for some fuzzy morality is an insult to the human mind. People who divorce and remarry respect the institution of marriage, and respect themselves. As difficult as divorce may be, as painful and unpleasant as it may be, it is necessary to preserve the essential beauty of marriage. People are much more likely to respect and honor each other, to stay in love, when they know that if they dont earn their partners love and admiration, constantly, their marriage could end. People who are bound, inextricably, to each other for life have no incentive to be good to each other. Children and Divorce But what about the children? Its a cry we hear constantly, in protest against everything from adult sites on the internet to garbage dumps to government cutbacks. Future generations, it seems, are far, far more important than this one. But I digress. I will discuss the issue of children and their relationship to marriage in a later page. Yes, children are often hurt by divorce. Yes, it can be painful for a child to see his parents split up. But I believe it is far more damaging for an adult to have grown up in a household where love has disappeared from his parents marriage, and therefore the only experience he has with it is that its a doomed institution, a miserable partnership, something he never expects will give him joy. One of the biggest mistakes parents make in child rearing is in putting their marriage last. It is imperative that you put your marriage first, not only for yourselves, but also for your children. Show your children what a marriage is, what they can expect and look forward to when they grow up. Show them a couple who are deeply in love and committed to each other, show them a man and woman enjoying being in love, respecting each other, living with each other, loving each other. If they see this, they will want and expect this for themselves. They will know what a good relationship is, and wont get drawn into bad ones. So what happens if you arent that blissful couple? What happens if you dont love each other, if your marriage isnt good? Then is that something you want your children to emulate? Even if your partner is the best parent in the world, it will do your child a great disservice if the two of you fight and hurt each other and then turn around and behave sweetly to your child. It will make your child feel uncomfortable, like they are somehow usurping love from one of their parents. Children plainly understand that their parents are supposed to be in love. Its what assures them that when they grow up theyll be in love as well. If you dont have a loving model to show your children, you are doing them no favors by staying married. Divorce. Separate yourselves from each other, and continue to be good, if separate, parents. Marry again, choosing carefully, so that your children can see that it s alright to want happiness for yourself and to go after it. Show them its alright to leave one marriag e if its bad and start another one thats better. Give them some idea of what to expect for their own happiness in the future. Divorce isnt easy. And naturally a happy marriage is preferable to divorce any day. I dont blame anyone for being afraid of divorce or for not wanting their marriage to end. But if we really want to understand what makes free, unfettered, romantic marriage possible, we have to embrace that which makes it possible, and give it the quiet respect it deserves.

Apartheid in South Africa :: Apartheid South Africa Segregation Essays

Apartheid in South Africa Apartheid is the political policy of racial segregation. In Afrikaans, it means apartness, and it was pioneered in 1948 by the South African National Party when it came to power. Not only did apartheid separate whites from non-whites, it also segregated the Blacks (Africans) from the Coloreds (Indians, Asians). All things such as jobs, schools, railway stations, beaches, park benches, public toilets and even parliament. Apartheid also prevented blacks from living in white areas. This brought about the hated "pass laws". These laws required any non-white to carry a pass on him or her. Unless it was stamped on their pass, they were not allowed to stay in a white area for more than 72 hours. Despite the fact that the whites only make up just over 14% of the population, they own 86.3% of the land. However, it must be said that the Afrikaaners are entitled to the Orange Free State and Transvaal as they were first to use it after the Great Trek of 1836. The average South African White earns eight times as much as the average black man. Coloureds earn three times as much as black while colords earn well over half of what whites earn. During Apartheid, media censorship was at an all time high. People were even banned from showing Soweto on television. It was common to see a newspaper shut down, and then start again after being halted by the government. Up until 1985, mixed marriages were banned. This meant that a person of one race cold not marry a person of another race. Apartheid was not only used in theory, but also by law. Every person was classifed, just like an animal, as white, black or coloured. The system of Apartheid began to deteriorate in the mid to late 1980's. In 1985, mixed marriages were allowed, the Pass laws repealed, and a general weakening of petty segregation laws regarding parks and beaches. In 1994, the entire system collapsed after Pres. F.W. de Klerk gave non- whites to vote. Nelson Mandella was elected tooffice following his prison release in February 1990. GROUP AREAS ACT A Group Areas Act, froom 1948, set aside most of the coutntry for use by the whites. Smaller, and less desiracle areas called 'bantustans' were set aside for blacks. These areas are over crowded, un sanitory, and most of all, unhygenic. Soweto, a large bantustan, is the size of Brighton, yet has over two million peopl in it. Blacks were told to regard these desolate and unfertile areas as their 'homelands'. Over half of the black South African population lived, not in these batustans, but in the white areas of the country for cheap labour.

Scapegoating

Scapegoating, (v, act of singling out any party for unmerited, negative treatment) has been around since the biblical days, and still exists in many different forms today. Although there are many reasons a person or group of people may have for choosing a scapegoat, the bottom line is the simple fact that the â€Å"blamer† does not want to accept responsibility for their own actions or feelings.Whether fueled by hostility, aggression, frustration or jealousy, the scapegoat is singled out as the cause of those unwanted feelings, and for any trouble that may come up along the way. Scapegoating can happen anywhere from right at home within the family, right up the line to various issues within society and politics. Within the home, although most people view this to be their â€Å"safe place,† this may not be the case for some.There are many families that either knowingly or unknowingly pick one member of the family to be the scapegoat. This person will bear the brunt of mo st or sometimes all family members’ anger and frustrations. There are different factors that contribute to how this person is chosen, such as: being viewed to be weaker, they may have traits of un liked relative or friend of the family, or many other unknown reasons. Eventually, this person will begin to accept this to be their lot in life, and begin to accept the blame as reality.This will lead to emotional, behavioral, and social problems, as well as lead to low self- confidence and low self -worth. Another common place to see issues of scapegoating or bullying would be within society and politics. Some societies will place the blame for certain social problems on certain groups. There are places in the world that label specific tribes or ethnicities as the cause for what is going on. Countries will put the blame for government issues onto the President, or Prime Minister.The leader of these countries will then in turn use scapegoating to distract from more serious, underly ing issues by keeping the public busy blaming another person, country or group. The bottom line is that scapegoating, although it may seem convenient at the time, does not actually solve anything! It can lead to violence, hatred, segregation, and more serious issues. There are very rare instances of anything positive coming from scapegoating in a family setting, and even more within society and politics.

Women

Women have a significant importance in the society. They play the fundamental role in the improvement of a nation. In many societies, the place of women has been discussed for numerous times. Each society placed the women in their society variously. Their view of women had shaped according to their style of living, culture, laws, and religion. Even in the modern era, the place of the women is still not clear. It can be seen the level of development of a civilization by looking how women are positioned in that civilization. Although women sometimes lived in a state of liberty, they mainly have limited life. Almost every emerging civilization had set limits on women's freedom of expression and travel. Unfortunately, in much of human history, women had treated as they were the second-class citizen and women were expected to be submissive. Mostly, they were depended on their husbands or fathers. To give an example, in Ancient Greece, women did not have many rights. Women were not permitted to become a citizen of the Athenian city-state. Since they were not able to own their property, they were not able to hold full citizenship rights. Women actually had fewer rights than slaves because they were never allowed their own freedoms (GreekBoston.com). Also, Emory Adams Allen stated that Athenian women were always minors, subject to some male- to their father, to their brother, or to some of their male kin (444). There was even this saying in Ancient Greece time †The best woman is the one who never speaks† (Berktay 106) As a matter of fact, many examples can be given from history such as Romans, Ancient Egypt etc. Though, the point is that the women in many societies somehow suffered enough. Surely, the suffering of women is not only belonging to the past. Still, women are exposed to verbal abuse, violence, they are forcing into the marriage etc. It needs to point out that there is not only one homogenous and unchangeable woman concept. However, all the women regardless of their race, status, and religion had faced inequality at some point in their lives.The way women are perceived in societies has many factors. One of the greatest factors can be their culture. Since the roles and activities of men are determined by the cultural systems in the societies, the effect of the cultural factor is essential. Culture cannot be defined as a single concept. It covers many aspects such as the style of living, manners, customs, arts, values, morals etc. As anticipated, culture can differ from society to another one. For instance, Turks and Arabs are often confused to have a same cultural system just because they share the same religion. However, those cultural differences were even before the Islam. In pre-Islamic Arab culture, when someone has a daughter as a firstborn, it would be a shame for them. On the contrary for Turks, there were people who wanted Oghuz Lord's prayers to have a daughter (Gà ¶kalp 26). On the other hand, even after Turks' acceptance of Islam, there were great differences between Arabs and Turks such as the monogamy. Arabs have a polygamy culture rather than the monogamy. For this reason, even though both nations are sharing the same religion, the disparities can be seen effortlessly. After touching upon the effect of the culture briefly, now it should be mention another massive effect of perceiving the women, and that is the religion. This paper is an attempt to discuss how women perceived in Christianity and Islam.Before discussing the place of women in Christianity, it is essential to know about the main concept of the human beings in this religion. ‘How human beings are portrayed in Christianity?' The man is considered to be sinful and filthy. Therefore, when an infant comes into the world, (s)he will be baptized to purified from sins and filths. The reason for baptism is to get rid of the original sin which was Adam's and Eve's disobedience to God for eating a forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden. It needs to point out that, according to Bible, Adam committed the sin because of Eve tempted him. Eve is portrayed as a seductive woman. Furthermore, Eve is considered to be the first human who fell into sin. As if she is the initiator of all the evilness. Eve is also responsible for the original sin because she tempted Adam. For this reason, women had linked with evil concepts such as wickedness, sin, and seductiveness. The view of women in Christianity has few problems. Church fathers, theologians, and authors have interpreted the bible to the extreme forms to create a widespread feminist literature. (Berktay 105) To give an example, Saint Augustinus, who preoccupied with an incomprehensible mystery of why God created the woman, states that a woman cannot be created only to be a companion for a man. Moreover, a woman simply cannot be created for helping a man because a man can perform this task better. Hence, Augustinus comes to the conclusion that woman has no value aside from child-bringing (Brundage 85). Another North African Christian theologian Tertullianus, who was an extreme misogynist, declared as: You are the gate of hell woman! You are the first to oppose the law of God; you deceived such a man that even the devil would not dare come close to him. You easily ruined the man who was created in the image of God. Because of your blame, even the son of God must die! (Ruther 157). The Christian Bible consists of two main parts, the first part is the Old Testament and the second part is the New Testament. Old testament almost has the same content in Tanakh which is the holy scripture of Jews. However, Tanakh is called Old Testament by Christians and they interpret Tanakh differently. The woman in Old Testament begins with Genesis 2:18 † The Lord God said, â€Å"It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.† It can say that loneliness is not good for the man so that God created a helper for the man, and the helper was Eve. The word of the man refers to Adam. Suitable partner that is in the verse can be defined as a fitting partner for a man. Being partner is also relative to marriage. Afterwards, Eve's creation is mentioned in Genesis 2:21-22 † So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.† According to David Guzik, who is a pastor, God used Adam's own body to create Eve to forever remind him of their essential oneness. Eve and Adam made from same substance. They are more alike than they are different (Guzik). The creation of the human race started in Adam. In Genesis 3:16 † To the woman He said, â€Å"I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.† This verse is the God's curse and punishment upon the woman. The Women were cursed with the severe pain. A woman has to be under the authority of a man, and a wife has to be under the authority of a husband. Man is to lead woman. A woman should be submissive and she must let him to rule over her. Genesis 19 is about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. However, the man who offers his two daughters to the men to rape them instead of two angles that comes to the Sodom is ultimately dreadful. †Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him. and said, â€Å"No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.† (Genesis 19:6-8). The low place of women is can be seen easily in these verses, Lot is willing to prostitute his two daughters. In Exodus 21:7-11 And if a man sells his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed. To sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he takes for himself another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage shall he not diminish. And if he does not do these three unto her, then shall she go out free, without money. During the ancient times, slavery was very common for both man and woman. However, when other male servants had right to walk out, female servants had no right to. As in the Cambridge Bible for Schools and the Collages book states that the reason for the different treatment of female slaves is to be found in the fact that a female slave was as a rule her master's concubine (Perowne). These verses refer that it was alright to trade women and female slaves, and undesirable female slaves can be released without money. In addition to that, polygamy was allowed.The distinction between having a male child and female child and it is consequences can be seen in Leviticus 12:1-5: Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, â€Å"Speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘If a woman has conceived, and borne a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of her customary impurity she shall be unclean. And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. She shall then continue in the blood of her purification thirty-three days. She shall not touch any hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary until the days of her purification are fulfilled. But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her customary impurity, and she shall continue in the blood of her purification sixty-six days. † These verses are about the ritual impurity after the child-bringing. After a male child comes into the world and circumcised on the eighth day, the woman will be unclean until the eighth day. As David Guzik's commentary on the main understanding of this ceremony is to understand the idea of original sin. Every birth another sinner was brought into the world, and the woman was here symbolically responsible for bringing a new sinner into the world. (Guzik). Moreover, as it seen the period of impurities is increased when having a female child, and the reason for this can be a female child will also give birth a sinner in the future. Leviticus 21:9 states that † And the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by playing the whore, she profanity her father: she shall be burnt with fire.† Since the daughter of a priest represents the religion she needs to be careful about her behaviors and she has the responsibility of being a daughter of a priest. Therefore, they need to follow the religion accordingly. However, this verse states that if she dishonors of herself the consequences would be punished fiercely with burning. It is a massive punishment. It needs to emphasize that Why only the daughters of a priest are responsible to follow the religion properly and they are punished when they dishonor themselves but no sons? The sons of a priest are not even mentioned. The way the widows and divorced women were perceived in the Old Testament was not that positive. To give an example, in Ezekiel 44:22 † They must not marry widows or divorced women; they may marry only virgins of Israelite descent or widows of priests.† It is obvious that the priests were not allowed to marry a divorced woman or widows except a priest's divorced wife. Discrimination against divorced women and widows can be observed through this verse.

Introduction to Elasticity in Economics

Introduction to Elasticity in Economics When introducing the concepts of supply and demand, economists often make qualitative statements about how consumers and producers behave. For example, the law of demand states that as the price of a good or service increases, the demand for that good or service decreases. The law of supply states that the quantity of a good produced tends to increase as the market price of that good increases. While these laws are useful, they dont capture everything that economists would like to include in the supply and demand model; as a result, economists have developed quantitative measurements such as elasticity to provide more detail about market behavior. Elasticity, in short, refers to the relative tendency of certain economic variables to change in response to other variables. In economics, it is important to understand how responsive quantities such as demand and supply are to things like price, income, the prices of related goods, and so on. For example, when the price of gasoline increases by one percent, does the demand for gasoline go down by a little or a lot? Answering these sorts of questions is extremely important to economic and policy decision making, so economists have developed the concept of elasticity to measure the responsiveness of economic quantities. Types of Elasticity Elasticity can take a number of different forms, depending on what cause and effect relationship economists are trying to measure. Price elasticity of demand, for example, measures the responsiveness of demand to changes in price. Price elasticity of supply, in contrast, measures the responsiveness of quantity supplied to changes in price. Income elasticity of demand measures the responsiveness of demand to changes in income, and so on. How to Calculate Elasticity Measures of elasticity all follow the same basic principles, no matter which variables are being measured. In the discussion that follows, well use price elasticity of demand as a representative example. Price elasticity of demand is calculated as the ratio of the relative change in quantity demanded to the relative change in price. Mathematically, the price elasticity of demand is just the percent change in quantity demanded divided by the percent change in price: Price elasticity of demand Percent change in demand / Percent change in price In this way, the price elasticity of demand answers the question What would be the percent change in quantity demanded in response to a one percent increase in price? Notice that, because price and quantity demanded to tend to move in opposite directions, the price elasticity of demand usually ends up being a negative number. To make things simpler, economists will often represent price elasticity of demand as an absolute value. (In other words, the price elasticity of demand could just be represented by the positive part of the elasticity number, eg. 3 rather than -3.) Conceptually, you can think of elasticity as an economic analog to the literal concept of elasticity. In this analogy, the change in price is the force applied to a rubber band, and the change in quantity demanded is how much the rubber band stretches. If the rubber band is very elastic, the rubber band will stretch a lot. If its very inelastic, it wont stretch very much, and the same can be said for elastic and inelastic demand. In other words, if demand is elastic, it means a change in price will result in a proportional change in demand. If demand is inelastic, it means a change in price will not result in a change in demand. You may notice that the equation above seems similar, but not identical to, the slope of the mand curve (which also represents price versus quantity demanded). Because the demand curve is drawn with the price on the vertical axis and quantity demanded on the horizontal axis, the slope of the demand curve represents the change in price divided by the change in quantity rather than the change in quantity divided by the change in price. In addition, the slope of the demand curve shows absolute changes in price and quantity whereas price elasticity of demand uses relative (i.e. percent) changes in price and quantity. There are two advantages to calculating elasticity using relative changes. First, percent changes dont have units attached to them, so it doesnt matter what currency is used for the price when calculating elasticity. This means that elasticity comparisons are easy to make across different countries. Second, a one-dollar change in the price of an airplane ticket versus the pr ice of a book, for example, are likely not viewed as the same magnitude of change. Percentage changes are more comparable across different goods and services in many cases, so using percent changes to calculate elasticity makes it easier to compare the elasticities of different items.

1. Discuss the ways in which The Communist Manifesto uses literary Essay

1. Discuss the ways in which The Communist Manifesto uses literary means for political ends - Essay Example This spectre is revealed to be communism, and it captures the imagination at the very start. The second indication of quite sophisticated literary mechanisms at work is the way that the argument is built around a fundamental conflict. The â€Å"holy alliance† between what are described â€Å"reactionary powers† and â€Å"Communism.† The authors grab the attention of the reader by taking familiar politicians, such as Metternich, and other leading figures such as the Pope and the Tsar, and linking them with obviously evil individuals such as â€Å"police spies† in the same sentence (p. 2). This device recasts all these players as harmful opponents, and defines Communism in opposition to these elements as something positive and wholesome, as well as a worthy foe to these forces. A second literary device that is used repeatedly in the Communist Manifesto is the use of emotive description, often piled up in an exaggerated way, in order to add drama and tension to the political views that are presented. Examples of this are the description of Free Trade as â€Å"naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation† (p. 5) and that of the doctrines of German Socialism as â€Å"The robe of speculative cobwebs, embroidered with flowers of rhetoric, steeped in the dew of sickly sentiment, this transcendental robe†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (p.26). These above-mentioned devices make the text more elaborate, but at the same time more engaging for the reader, because they contain quite strong emotional content. The text switches from this elaborate language to a simpler style when key points are made. The authors make complex ideas simpler by using personification : â€Å"As the parson has ever gone hand in hand with the landlord so has clerical socialism with feudal socialism† (p. 23). They also split the text into sections with explanatory headings so that the reader does not mistake the key message contained in each section. There are recap phrases

International System of Justice Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

International System of Justice - Essay Example Until recently, these atrocities and affronts to ideals of humanity went unpunished by national judicial systems and there was urgent need to put in place a system of justice that would protect the international human rights as enshrined in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration on Human Rights (Roht-Arriaza, 1995). The decade was marked by the creation of international criminal justice mechanisms and the application of a universal jurisdiction that would ensure that those who participate in crimes against humanity are held to account for their actions. Due to inherent obstacles in applying justice for such crimes, the mechanisms developed have continued to be marred with failure despite the numerous strides that have been experienced. After the Cold War period and the horrific acts that took place in the former Yugoslavia and the genocide in Rwanda coupled with the miserable failures of national courts of justice to bring perpetrators of crimes against humanity to account for their acts, major international actors including the United Nations (UN), a number of governments and international nongovernmental (NGOs) organizations came up to form international criminal courts. ... In1998, the United Nations adopted the Statute that would lead to the creation of a permanent International Criminal Court as a complementary to national courts of justice with the mandate to act in cases where the national courts are unable or unwilling to investigate and/or prosecute (Schabas, 2007; Schiff, 2008). It is important to note that the concept of international system of justice include standards governing rendering of justice to all on an international scale and the conduct of war and standards that define the fundamental human rights. Most of these requirements of have achieved a degree of recognition internationally over the past few decades in defining the types of criminal conduct by states against other states or against individuals or ethnic groups. In this regard, the varied definitions of violent crime between countries due to dissimilarities in both legal and statistics recording methods have made international comparisons problematic. The law of armed or violen t conflict has generally been applied to define conflict between states with little or no attention to internal armed conflict. However, there have been some developments in international law to especially through the Geneva Conventions to protect civilians during internal armed violence (Moir, 2002) International Criminal Court and Universal Jurisdiction With international criminal law infiltrating the legal systems of many states, the principle of complementarity, which stipulates the only subsidiary competence of the ICC vis-a-vis national jurisdictions, comes to be seen as one of the most important features of the ICC Statute (Schabas, 2007; Bellamy, 2009). The principle of