Security Risk Mitigation Policies Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Security Risk Mitigation Policies - Coursework Example The first option should involve different methods for making it more intricate to intercept and locate the wireless signals. This way, hackers will have a hard time locating the organization’s signal. Additionally, the other principal option will involve utilization of encryption in order to preserve confidentiality even when the wireless signal gets intercepted (Choi et al., 2008). It will also be imperative for the organization to utilize signal-hiding techniques so as to properly intercept wireless transmissions. This is because for any attacker to successfully intrude into a wireless network, they will first need to locate and identify the wireless network. This will be achieved by utilizing numerous steps that will make it extremely difficult to locate the organizations wireless access point. Therefore, the company should include some of the easiest as well as least costly methods which include turning off the service set identifier (SSID) which broadcasts by wireless access points. This will not only make it hard for hackers to have no access, but also, it will make it hard for them to access the company’s servers and download sensitive and personal materials. Moreover, assigning cryptic names to the SSIDs will also make it hard to access the organizations data. Additionally, reducing the organization’s signal will provide requisite coverage.

Critically review the case law concerning the ascertainment of Essay

Critically review the case law concerning the ascertainment of employee status and consider whether the current tests are fit fo - Essay Example Moreover, employees usually are taxed within a diverse tax regime; under the PAYE, while the self-employed usually pay their taxes at the end of each tax year. This is due to the fact that self employed work generally falls under a contract for services while the employed work under a contract of services1. Nonetheless, there is a certain amount of ambiguity linked to the legal formula by which workers are categorized. In this view, the effectiveness of the law may be questioned. Furthermore, some perceive that the current classifications have grown to become too rigid to deal efficiently with the advancement of non-standard employment forums. Such queries have proved to be the subject of many policy-oriented and legal analyses for the last two decades. Many studies have looked into employers’ reasons as to why the employed flexible forms of work. This paper offers a critical review of the given law as it relates to the means by which employee status and a consideration as to whether the current tests are suitable for purpose. The ‘worker’ concept One way for augmenting the number of people covered by employment law includes the use of the wider definition of worker and not employee as the basis for determining protective legislation2. This would include even people who do not have employment contracts but still contract to offer their own individual services to their employers. To some extent, they are economically dependent on the business of their employer. In some way, this broader definition is useful for fair treatment legislation and that which touches on the payment of wages. Recently, the legislation was approved by the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 as well as under regulations that implement the Working Time Directive3. Nonetheless, most of its aspects with regards to its use have remained unclear. There appears to be extremely few decisions about the distinction between a self employed worker and an employee. For this reason, it is hard to comprehend how many people would be affected by extending employment protection rights to those under the definition ‘workers’ and not ‘employees’. Employment status The hardship linked with defining workers, employees, and the self-employed, as well as the issues of giving status to individuals in non-standard work, have added several practical implications to the execution of the law in practice. Ambiguities that surround the distinction between the self-employed and employees should mean that there are many of those who enjoy employment rights without their knowledge. On the other hand, those who may thing they fall under employee category, and therefore enjoy employment rights, may turn out otherwise on close legal scrutiny. This uncertainty may mean that some employers may leave out their obligations4. The Law Governing the Classification of Employment Relationships The decisive factor by which legal classification are decided on are not put down in legislation, however, they have been hugely developed through what is known as Case Law. In particular, four tests are relied on: ‘Integration’, ‘Control’, ‘mutuality of obligation’, and ‘business reality’. Behind such states are a known determinant that includes the means of payment, the stability and the overall length of the employment relationship, as well as the degree of coverage of

The connection between the Jedi Order in Star Wars and Christianity Essay Example for Free

The connection between the Jedi Order in Star Wars and Christianity Essay For thirty-one years, the Star Wars franchise has brought people infinite hours of entertainment with: movies, video games, comic books, toys, and non-fiction books. However, one recurrent theme that is constant throughout the movies and books is a belief in a higher power. In Star Wars, the Jedi and the Sith believed in the Force. The Jedi believe in using their faith in the Force for the greater good. Most of their belief structure is closely based on some aspects of early and modern Christianity. One Jedi aspect that is closely tied to early Christianity is the rule of two. In the fictionally adaptation of George Lucass Star Wars Episode 1: the Phantom Menace, the Jedi Grand Master Yoda states, Always two there are.a master and an apprentice (Brooks 320). Master Yoda is referring to the order of the Sith, but the same reference can also be made about the Jedi. A Jedi Knight handpicks a Padawan (apprentice) to pass on all their knowledge, to protect each other, and to grow in the ways of the Force. This aspect can also be found in the Bible, in the book of Mark 6:7, Jesus called the twelve to him, and sent them out in pairs (Qtd in Peterson 1834). Dick Staub suggests that Jesus did this so that the disciples could unlearn what they have learned to this point in their lives, so that they could fully rely on God for everything; much like the Jedi rely on the Force (Staub 118). Jesus sent six pairs of his disciples, He gave them the authority and power to deal with the evil opposition (Qtd in Peterson 1834). This is just like to Jedi Order. The Jedi came to serve the Galactic Republic as guardians of peace and justice (Lucas Online). The disciples had almost the same mission. The disciples went and preached peace to everyone, They sent demons packing, they brought wellness to the sick, anointing their bodies, healing their spirits (Qtd in Peterson 1835). The Jedi did not heal people, but they did bring messages of peace. Two Jedi played a instrumental role in the blockade of Naboo (plant) placed by the Trade Federation, Qui-Gon Jinn and Obi-Wan Kenobi faced a Sith apprentice name Darth Maul. Darth Maul killed Qui-Gon during the battle, but Obi-Wan was successful in slicing Darth Maul in half; this could be compared to the disciples casting out demons. In the book of Luke 11:14, Jesus delivered a man from a demon that had kept him speechless. The demon gone, the man started talking a blue streak, talking the crowd by complete surprise (Qtd in Peterson 1891). However, the greatest relationship between the Jedi Order and Christianity is the belief in a higher power. Even Darth Vader, the image of evil and devastation, believes in a higher power. Darth Vader displays his beliefs during a meeting on the Death Star. Darth Vader raises his right hand as Commander Tagges eyes start to swell; Tagge raises his hands to his throat, while Darth Vader says, I find this lack of faith disturbing (Lucas 31). Proverbs 3:6 says Trust God from the bottom of your heart, dont try to figure out anything on your own (Qtd in Peterson 1091). This holds true with what Jedi Master Qui-Gon Jinn said to a young Anakin Skywalker, Remember, concentrate on the moment. Feel, dont think. Trust your instincts. May the Force be with you, Annie (Brooks 164). Now, to me, these two quotes sound completely different, but their meanings are the same. The Bible quote tells believers in God, to fully trust him and that God will provide everything that we need to survive. God will show us the right path to travel down after we spend time fasting and in prayer. While, Master Qui-Gons quote tells us that when you take a quick step back from the situation you are in, the Force will reveal the right course of action, and the accurate path to walk down to complete its will; much like God will reveal to us what the accurate path for us is to complete his will. Both the Jedi and Christians are showing an immeasurable amount of faith (trust) in their particular higher power. The Force (and a Lightsaber) is a Jedis most powerful ally; this can equally be said regarding Jesus with Christianity. The Force and Christ are one in the same, Dick Staub referrers to God as the Lord of the Force (Staub 5). Now, Christ doesnt grant us the power to move objects just by raising our hand like the Force does, but Christ does bestow clairvoyance to us. Psalms 119:35 sates, Guide me down the road of your commandments (Qtd in Peterson 1052). Psalms 119:105 states, By your words, I can see where Im going, they throw a beam of light on my path (Qtd in Peterson 1056). So, that we recognize the correct path to walk down. Works Cited Brooks, Terry. Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace. Brooks, Terry. Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace. New York: Del Rey, 1999. 320. Lucas, George. Star Wars: Databank. 5 January 2008. 5 June 2008 http://www.starwars.com/databank/organization/thejediorder/. Lucas, George. Star Wars: From the Adventures of Luke Skywalker. Lucas, George. Star Wars: From the Adventures of Luke Skywalker. New York: Del Rey Books, 1976. 31. Peterson, Eugene H. The Message Remix: The Bible In Contemporary Language. Peterson, Eugene H. The Message Remix: The Bible In Contemporary Language. Colorado Springs: Navpress, 2003. 1834. Staub, Dick. Christian Wisdom of the Jedi Masters.: Staub, Dick. Christian Wisdom of the Jedi Masters. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005.

The Iraq War and International Law

The Iraq War and International Law A critical analysis of the Iraq War of March 2003 This paper offers an insight into some of the politico-legal issues arising from the Iraq War of 2003 and the subsequent military occupation of Iraq by coalition forces led by the United States of America and the United Kingdom. The invasion of Iraq is assessed against the subsisting framework of public international law. It is hoped that a detailed, critical and generally objective appraisal is rendered throughout, although subjective angles are offered to present and support a personal view where such is deemed appropriate. Foreword The invasion of the oil-rich middle-eastern state of Iraq in 2003 was undertaken by the United States and the United Kingdom on March 20 of that year, with the tacit political and in some cases logistical backing of certain other states. Collectively these supportive states, amounting to fifty in total and including Spain, Australia, Italy, Turkey and Japan, were described as a â€Å"coalition of the willing†.[1] After approximately three weeks of concerted military operations, the rule of Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party under his dictatorial control was brought to an end and Iraq fell under the occupation of coalition forces. The fundamental legitimacy of the invasion was disputed since the outset and the question remains one of extreme controversy today. The often promulgated legal justification for the military campaign was that Iraq illegally possessed stockpiles of so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction, including chemical biological and possibly even nuclear weapons, in violation of the 2002 United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441.[2] In the run up to the invasion and throughout the campaign United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair and United States President George W. Bush and their respective administrations repeatedly alleged that these putative weapons posed a serious and imminent threat to the West in general. Expert United Nations inspection teams had been searching Iraq for these alleged weapons prior to the invasion and nothing substantial had been found although there was a common suspicion, inter alios, in both the United States and the United Kingdom, that the Iraqi authorities, whi ch were often obstructive, were hiding something. The weapons inspectors were willing to continue their work, but were forced out when President Bush lost patience with Saddam Hussein by the onset of war. Scrupulous and unfettered investigations since Iraqs capitulation two and a half years ago have failed to unearth anything that could be described as a weapon of mass destruction.[3] Chapter 1:  The myths and realities of Public International Law in the context of the Iraq War of 2003 Public international law, sometimes unconvincingly referred to as the law of nations, may be defined as the system of law that regulates the activities of entities possessing international personality. In particular it is said to govern the relationship between independent sovereign states.[4] It is submitted that nation states derive their autonomy by means of inherent legitimacy or some other socio-political reality rather than through a decree granted by the international community. Exactly how is a political, constitutional and even philosophical matter which varies between countries and is largely beyond the ambit of this work. As things stand in 2005 there is no higher or global power. States may therefore choose to enter into international commitments voluntarily under the matrix that is referred to as international law, and sometimes they will accept legislative process outside their own consent. The fundamental problem with the concept of international law is that there is currently no global sovereign authority that enjoys universal recognition and therefore there is no supreme legal entity (such as a Parliament or Crown) to underpin and enforce a system of law. It follows that independent states tend to follow their own counsel and pursue their own national (and ultimately sovereign) agenda, when it comes to the interpretation of their commitments under international law. Scholars, commentators and political leaders alike have contended that international law has evolved to a point where it exists separately from the mere consent of states, but it is submitted that we are still very far from the crystallisation of that process. There is a trend toward judging the domestic actions of a state in light of international ‘law’ and ‘standards’ but the consistent lack of consensus, forceful capacity and machiavellian disabilities of the so-called United Nations even in fields such as the environment, disease and poverty of common interest to the entirety of the world population amply testifies to this conclusion. Many states, notably including the hugely significant and influential United States, vigorously oppose the idea of the supremacy of international law, maintaining that national sovereignty remains the dominant legal value. A number of commentators now point to the development of a legislative and judicial process in international law that parallels such systems within domestic law, but this is a nascent process, and far from true maturity. It is submitted that the status quo dictates that states only commit to international law with a pragmatic and self-serving view and that they retain the right to make their own interpretations of its meaning. Moreover, international courts only function with the consent of states and their rulings are often overlooked. In summary, international law in the early part of the twenty first century better resembles a â€Å"Pick and Mix† system more akin to a retail confectionery counter than a supreme, coherent and consistently reliable and enforceable legal superstructure. It is suggested that international law exists and is recognised only when each state wants it to be, when it suits their national agenda. There is no better example of the fluid and amorphous nature of international law than that under discussion in this paper. It was a new world order that gave rise to the 2003 Iraq War. In the context of the socio-political legacy of the horrific 9/11 attacks on American soil, which caused a seismic shift in global relations and received diplomatic wisdom, and what the Bush administration considered to be the relative success of the subsequent United States-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, it was deemed by American President that he had sufficient military justification and general support, certainly among middle American voters and hopefully overseas, for further armed operations against perceived threats in the Middle East. Iraq was unfinished business, and something that had given his father George Bush senior, a bloody nose when he held the Executive. It is submitted that the unanticipated survival of Saddam Hussein as leader of Iraq after his own father’s departure fr om office must have leant a strong and irksome personal angle to George Bush junior’s attitude and approach to the Iraq question. Given Saddam Hussein’s continued grip on power, relations between the leading members of the coalition and Iraq had not warmed since the nadir of the original 1991 conflict, which was provoked by the middle eastern state’s invasion of its southern neighbour Kuwait.[5] The nations had acquiesced in a state of bitter low-level conflict in the intervening years, characterised by British and American air-strikes, human shields, no-fly zones, an extensive sanctions regime, and other threats against the Iraqi state, which reacted with public belligerence. Iraqi air defences regularly engaged and fired upon coalition airplanes enforcing the longstanding northern and southern no-fly zones, which had been implemented after the 1991 Gulf conflict. All things considered, by 2003 the stage was set for a stern and high stakes test of the mettle of the framework of public international law and its application in the critically important arena of armed conflict and possible justifications for a military response to real and putative threat. It is submitted that what followed serves only to buttress and underline the opening comments in this paper namely that the phrase â€Å"public international law† may in harsh reality be a contradiction in terms. Chapter 2:  War in International Law, the general prohibition and primary exceptions The United Nations Charter[6] establishes a legal framework for the use of military force in international law. Almost all states are signatories to this Charter, including the United Kingdom, the United States and indeed Iraq. The Charter stresses that peace is the fundamental goal of the Charter, and that it is to be preserved wherever possible. The preamble emphasises a determination ‘to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours’, ‘to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security’, and to guarantee ‘that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest.’ Article 1 of the UN Charter establishes the United Nations’ objectives, the first of which is: â€Å"To maintain international peace and security; and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.† Article 31 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,[7] provides that a treaty must be interpreted in accordance with its overarching purposes and objects, including its preamble. It is submitted that those provisions of the UN Charter which are relevant to this paper namely the prohibition on the use of force and its exceptions must therefore be interpreted in accordance with this fundamental sentiments. The Charter thereafter lays down two core principles: â€Å"2(3) All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. 2(4) All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.† In Nicaragua v United States[8] the International Court of Justice described Article 2(4) as â€Å"a peremptory norm of international law, from which States cannot derogate†. The effect of Articles 2(3) and 2(4) is that resort to force can only be justified as expressly provided under the Charter, and only in situations where it is consistent with the goals of the United Nations. The UN Charter permits the use of military force in the situations set out in Chapter VII. Article 42 provides that, if peaceful means have not succeeded in deriving conformity with Security Council decisions, it: â€Å"may take such action by air, sea or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.† In practice this means that states require a breach of a relevant Security Council resolution in order to use military force against another State,[9] and such action can only be justified where any and all peaceful means available for resolving the dispute have been exploited to the full. It is submitted that where breach of such a resolution has occurred, states do not enjoy a unilateral right under Article 42 to use force to obtain conformity or to penalise the defaulting state: the question as to what action should be taken remains a matter for the Security Council. The above is subject to the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter, which reserves states’ rights to self-defence. A state does not require a Security Council resolution in order to defend itself with the use of military force, but it should be noted that even this right is subject to action by the Security Council. Article 51 stipulates: â€Å"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if [emphasis added] an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by members in the exercise of this right of self defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.† In line with normal principles of interpretation, exceptions to the fundamental principle of the prohibition on the use of force, Articles 42 and 51 must be interpreted restrictively and narrowly on the facts of the particular case. Therefore, under the UN Charter there are only two situations in which one state can legally resort to force against another: (1) In individual or collective self-defence (in this regard Article 51 of the Charter enshrines a right provided by customary international law.) (2) Pursuant to a relevant United Nations Security Council resolution. As for the question of self defence, it is clear that the United Kingdom has not been the subject of any direct attack which could be linked with Iraq. Therefore it is submitted that it is clear that the right of self-defence responsive to a military or even terrorist attack does not arise for consideration. Accordingly, the only possible justification is as an anticipatory species of self-defence presumably in contemplation of some real and imminent future threat. Regrettably, Article 51 of the Charter is silent as to whether ‘self-defence’ includes the kind of pre-emptive strike opted for by the United States and the United Kingdom in 2003. Internationally renowned commentators have taken different tacks on this question. Oppenheim concludes that while anticipatory action in self-defence is typically illegal, it will not necessarily be unlawful in all circumstances.[10] It is argued that the matter depends on the particular facts of the situation including especially the gravity of the threat and the extent to which pre-emptive action is avoidable, and any other options to circumnavigate or mitigate the risk of attack. In fact, it is submitted that the twin requirements of proportionality and necessity are even more important in relation to anticipatory or proactive self-defence than they are in reactive circumstances. On the other hand Detter endorses a more straightforward analysis rendering the practice plainly unlawful. In The Law of War he argues that it should be conceded that pre-emptive force is covered the prohibition of force in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and that this derives a simple presumption that suc h action is illegal.[11] In unequivocal terms he concludes that: ‘the mere threat of attack thus does not warrant a military response.’[12] Chapter 3:  A Critical Evaluation of the Legality of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq and United States and United Kingdom justifications for the military campaign George Bush junior’s administration made no secret of the fact that removing Saddam Hussein from power was a primary goal throughout 2002. It did offer to accept major concessions in Iraqi military and foreign policy in lieu of this, but it is submitted that this would have resulted in what may have been calculated to be an untenable loss of face for Hussein which would thus have presented him with an unacceptable option, while maintaining ostensible negotiations to the world at large. Reportedly, on 9/11 itself, in the immediate aftermath of the strikes President Bush enquired as to whether there were any likely links between the terrorists and the Iraqi dictatorship. When told that none were obvious, President Bush responded by saying â€Å"Well, find them.†[13] As stated, the emphasised justification for the invasion focused on Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction (hereafter â€Å"WMD†), but suspected links with terrorist organizations provi ded the underlying impetus for popular support, particularly in middle-America where attitudes are insular and introspective and the most generous appraisal would find that general knowledge on world affairs is limited to say the least.[14] Little if any convincing evidence was presented and has since been accumulated actually linking the government of Iraq to Al-Qaeda.[15] That said, the incidence of grotesque human rights violations in Iraq, including state-sponsored torture and mass murder organised under Saddam Hussein leadership, was also cited as a justification for the campaign.[16] It is notable however, that it has been suggested that only the WMD ground would have presented a legally defensible ground for military intervention under the auspices of international law, given the claimed breach of Security Council Resolution 1441.[17] The apparent absence of WMDs in Iraq is problematic to say the least in terms of the putative international and national legality of the 2003 c ampaign. In summary, Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld claimed that the stated goals for the invasion of Iraq were as follows: Self-defence To find and destroy weapons of mass destruction, weapons programs, and any terrorists sheltering under the regime; To gather intelligence on networks of weapons of mass destruction and terrorist groups. Humanitarian To bring to an end sanctions and to provide humanitarian support (Secretary of State Madeline Albright claimed that 500,000 Iraqi children had died because of sanctions.) United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution Resolution 1205, made in 1999. Regime Change To terminate the administration of Saddam Hussein; To facilitate Iraqs transition to democratic self-rule Other To secure Iraqs oil fields and other resources[18] Certain members of the Republican camp had even higher hopes for the war. The Bush administration claimed that the war could serve generally as a catalyst to facilitate democracy and peace in the Middle East, on the assumption that once Iraq became democratic and secured new influence, friends and prosperity there would be pressure and incentives for other states in the region to pursue the same route (presumably due to the so-called demonstration effect), and that the socio-political environment that previously had nurtured terrorism would be destroyed. Hamzeh defines the term demonstration effect as â€Å"a revolutionary event in one place [that] may act as a catalyst for a revolutionary process in another place at approximately the same point in time.†[19] That said, it is submitted that for diplomatic and bureaucratic reasons these goals were de-emphasised to allow stress to be put on justifications based on the allegation that Iraq represented a specific threat to the Uni ted States and to upholding the rule of international law. There is of course a popularly held counter point of view which argues that the reasons promulgated to justify pre-emptive war were either inadequate, specious or just plain falsehoods. A summary of critical opinions as to the true motivations that provoked the 2003 military campaign features below: The Oil Issue To seize control of Iraqs hydrocarbon deposits and in so doing preserve the United States’ dollar as the monopoly currency for the hugely important international oil market (Iraq had been using the Euro as its oil export currency since 2001); to reduce the price of oil for the high-consumption American market; To assure that American interests would be primary beneficiaries of Iraqi oil; To guarantee that the United States exercised military control over the middle easts hydrocarbon reserves, and thus secure a lever to control other countries depending on that market for supplies. Military and Construction Interests To divert vast amounts of money to the American defence and construction industries as a consequence of the campaign and subsequent occupation. Public Popularity and Executive Re-election (Falklands Factor) To buttress and enhance the ‘crisis’ popularity enjoyed by the President as a result of his stern response to the 9/11 attacks, and moreover to distract attention and dilute critical comment on other domestic political issues where President Bush was palpably vulnerable politically (In this regard it should be noted that George Bush junior’s father saw his own wartime popularity quickly eroded when the electorate began to focus on the economy in the aftermath of the 1991 conflict. It is submitted that this cannot have gone unnoticed in the political think-tanks of Washington DC, or indeed by Prime Minister Tony Blair’s advisors in London, where reference is so often made to the so-called Falklands Factor which boosted Margaret Thatcher’s ailing popularity and secured her re-election and subsequent political dominance in the 1980s.) Revenge and Ideology To obtain retribution. It is said that revenge is a dish best served cold and for over a decade George W. Bush junior had waited to seize revenge against Saddam Hussein for the humiliation of the dictators survival after the first Gulf conflict and for allegedly attempting to have his father, President George H. W. Bush, assassinated during a 1993 visit to Kuwait. It may also have been a temptation to secure closure for other members of the United States’ Administration, including the influential Richard Cheney, who was both infuriated and humiliated by the continuation of the Hussein dictatorship after the 1991 American action.[20] To pursue the fundamental strategic goal of unquestionable American geopolitical pre-eminence as promulgated, inter alios, by the Project for a New American Century.[21] Under pressure from its vociferous critics, in April 2005 the United Kingdom government published the full text of the advice provided by the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith on 7 March 2003 on the legality of the war.[22] In his advice, the Attorney General evaluated the various arguments on whether military action against Iraq would be legal without another specific United Nations Resolution. Lord Goldsmith was equivocal on many points but he firmly concluded that regime change was not a lawful goal of military action, indeed, he expressly stated that invasion for the purpose of usurping Saddam Hussein was an illegal endeavour.[23] A document that has come to be known as the Downing Street Memo, which details the minutes of a United Kingdom government cabinet meeting on 26 July 2002, was leaked to newspaper The Times on 1 May 2005.[24] The document corroborated the Attorney General’s advice, and restated Lord Goldsmith’s opinion that the desire for regime change was not a legal ground for military action under international law. The memo stated were three possible legal routes: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or United Nations Security Council authorisation. It was found that the first and second grounds could not be the justifications in this case, and that reliance on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1205, which was, at the relevant time, some three years old, would be a tenuous and pregnable stance. The weakness of the argument is exacerbated by recognition of the fact that the cabinet were not discussing a new trade pact or esoteric diplomatic relations, but the single most important decision that a government can take, namely a pre-emptive war. The Downing Street Memo further stated that President Bush wished to remove Saddam, by applying military force, justified by the co-existence of sheltered terrorist factions and WMD. However, it is submitted that the intelligence was being posited around the policy. It was also found that the majority view of the UNSC was not satisfied with the general UN route, and that it harboured no enthusiasm for promulgating additional information on the record of the Iraqi regime. The Memo also indicated that there was little discussion in Washington of the consequences of military action or of the impact of the aftermath on the state of Iraq. It is submitted that it must have been quite apparent that the US President had already decided to resort military action, even if the timing of that action was still to be finalised. However, at this point the case for invasion remained flimsy.[25] Saddam was not posing any realistic threat to his neighbours, nor even posturing to do so. As the Memo sug gested, even in the worst alleged case scenario (which has thus far proved to be wrong) his WMD capability fell substantially short of that of Iran, Libya and North Korea. Four days after the leak in London, in a move initiated by John Conyers, a ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, the US Congress formally requested the President to answer a series of penetrating questions relating to the Downing Street Memo, including whether he or anyone in his administration disputes its accuracy.[26] The Bush Administration has to date failed to answer those questions. Exhibiting similar reticence, on 22 May 2005, the United Kingdom government refused a plaintive request for an investigation into the legality of the war from the families of soldiers that had lost their lives in Iraq. These bereaved families have now sought a judicial review of that decision. Treasury solicitors were responsible for refusing the request, which they did after Tony Blair had made his own view that a review was unnecessary patently clear. In a Channel 4 News interview he stated: â€Å"We have had inquiry after inquiry, we do not need to go back over this again and again.†[27] Seeking to justify their decision, the Treasury Solicitors claimed there were at least five principle reasons to deny the request of the families. These were as follows: The European Court of Human Rights has already clarified that decisions on military action abroad are not reviewable under the European Convention of Human Rights (hereafter â€Å"ECHR†). None of the fatalities occurred within the jurisdiction of the UK as defined by Article 1 of the ECHR. The ultimate decision to pursue military action in Iraq was not the â€Å"immediate and direct operative cause of the deaths of the proposed claimants’ relatives†. There was no â€Å"specific and individualised risk of harm† to those who lost their lives, such that could be distinguished from any other members of the United Kingdom armed forces. Dispatching armed forces to Iraq as part of an organised military force fully equipped and capable of defending itself could not be considered on the same footing as sending a helpless individual victim overseas to confront the risk of torture or death. The claimants would have to invoke the Human Rights Act in raising an action before the domestic courts, but that Act is not applicable in any relevant sense to any territory beyond the frontiers of the United Kingdom. The Treasury Solicitors also contended that the fraught question of the legality of the invasion of Iraq was irrelevant to whether there had been any breach of Article 2 of the ECHR.[28] The legal position in the United States was also both tenuous and pregnable. In conformity with the well known system of checks and balances protected and maintained by the United States Constitution the authority to declare war is granted exclusively to Congress, and there is no provision in the Constitution for its delegation, although it is true that under the provisions of the US War Powers Act of 1973[29] the President can send troops to a country without the consent of Congress for a period not exceeding 90 days. George Bush, therefore, did not have personal authority to declare war. On October 3, of 2002, US Representative and Congressman Ron Paul submitted a proposed declaration to the House International Relations Committee which stated that a state of war was declared to exist between the United States and (with a careful choice of words) the government of Iraq. He said: America has a sovereign right to defend itself, and we don’t need UN permission or approval to act in the interests of American national security. The decision to go to war should be made by the U.S. Congress alone. Congress should give the President full war-making authority, rather than binding him with resolutions designed to please our UN detractors.[30] However, this proposal was rejected. Although this would seem to the casual observer a damning outcome, the President was undeterred. To overcome this obvious setback, drawing on several factors, including unresolved matters still persisting from the 1991 Gulf War, George Bush junior’s administration forcefully claimed the intrinsic authority to engage Iraq militarily, and Congress was manoeuvred into circumnavigating fundamental ‘technicalities’ in transferring what were in substance its war powers to the President.[31] It is submitted that this policy in itself left the American action on shaky legal foundations to say the least.[32] On this tentative analysis, the invasion and military occupation of Iraq, while to all intents and purposes a war per se, may therefore be considered a police action initiated by the Executive, in similar fashion to the Korean War and, notably perhaps, the ill-fated Vietnam War before it. The United Nations: Competing perspectives on the applicable resolutions

Chinese Entrepreneurs in Singapore: Paths to Success Essay -- Business

Chinese Entrepreneurs in Singapore: Paths to Success Due to the economic hardships and threat of Japanese invasion in China in the first half of the 20th century, many men left their homeland in search of success and opportunities abroad. One of the places that many of them migrated to was Singapore. This new and foreign place was fraught with obstacles; however, some of these Chinese men eventually achieved great success. The success of these Chinese entrepreneurs in Singapore was not only due to their personal determination, but it was also contingent upon their social ties, and the economic and political conditions. In the following essay, the experiences of Ng Teow Yhee and Chew Choo Keng will be referred to extensively to illustrate the various combinations of complex factors that lead to their success. Firstly, I will begin with a discussion on the motivations and reasons why the men chose to depart from their families in China. Secondly, the necessity of initial social ties in Singapore will be discussed as well as their first work experiences, which helped to shape their perspectives and goals. Thirdly, the effects of the Japanese invasion on the development and viability of Chinese businesses in Singapore will be examined. Fourthly, the great business developments made by the Chinese, post-Japanese occupation, will be discussed. Lastly, I will compare Ng Teow Yhee’s and Chew Choo Keng’s management styles, strategies and beliefs in order to illustrate how their personal characteristics contributed to their achievement of success. The early 20th century was a period when China was wrought with wars and economic uncertainty. As a result, migrants were forced to uproot from their homeland to seek fortunes abroad. Thus, their motivation was fundamentally an economic one—that is, to earn money to survive and remit to their poor families in China as support. In other words, â€Å"the motivation for emigration seemed to arisen more from the push factors caused by China’s poverty and absence of opportunity than from the pull factors then existent in Nanyang†¦.† (Chan & Chiang, 40) Two prime examples of men who sought their livelihoods in Singapore due to their dreadful village conditions were: Ng Teow Yhee and Chew Choo Keng. Ng was forced to leave his home in 1938, at the age of 15, due to the impending Japanese invasion. Du... ...ial ties, and the economic and political conditions. This has been chronologically illustrated using the experiences of Ng Teow Yhee and Chew Choo Keng—from the time they decided to leave China, to their first jobs in Singapore, to the Japanese Occupation years, into the post-occupation period. It can be seen that their childhood experiences and the life experiences they gained along the way helped them to succeed by providing them with a strong knowledge base upon which to develop their businesses. Although these were prime examples of those who did succeed, it must be noted that there were many with the same determination that did not. Success is dependant on the combination of a number of complex factors. As such, success could not be guaranteed to all those who were innovative and risk-taking because they are not sufficient preconditions for successful entrepreneurship. (Chan & Chiang, 35) Bibliography Chan Kwok Bun & Claire Chiang. Stepping Out: The Making of Chinese Entrepreneurs. Singapore: Prentice Hall, 1994. Chew, Ernest and Edwin Lee. â€Å"Chapter 6: The Syonan Years, 1942-1945.† A History of Singapore. Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Superconductivity Essay -- essays research papers

Superconductivity INTRODUCTION We've all heard about superconductivity. But, do we all know what it is? How it works and what are its uses? To start talking about superconductivity, we must try to understand the how "normal" conductivity works. This will make it much easier to understand how the "super" part functions. In the following paragraphs, I will explain how superconductivity works, some of the current problems and some examples of its uses. CONDUCTIVITY Conductivity is the ability of a substance to carry electricity. Some substances like copper, aluminium, silver and gold do it very well. They are called conductors. Others conduct electricity partially and they are called semi-conductors. The concept of electric transmission is very simple to understand. The wire that conducts the electric current is made of atoms which have equal numbers of protons and electrons making the atoms electrically neutral. If this balance is disturbed by gain or loss of electrons, the atoms will become electrically charged and are called ions. Electrons occupy energy states. Each level requires a certain amount of energy. For an electron to move to a higher level, it will require the right amount of energy. Electrons can move between different levels and between different materials but to do that, they require the right amount of energy and an "empty" slot in the band they enter. The metallic conductors have a lot of these slots and this is where the free electrons will head when voltage (energy) is applied. A simpler way to look at this is to think of atoms aligned in a straight line (wire). if we add an electron to the first atom of the line, that atom would have an excess of electrons so it releases an other electron which will go to the second atom and the process repeats again and again until an electron pops out from the end of the wire. We can then say that conduction of an electrical current is simply electrons moving from one empty slot to another in the atoms' outer shells. The problem with these conductors is the fact that they do not let all the current get through. Whenever an electric current flows, it encounters some resistance, which changes the electrical energy into heat. This is what causes the wires to heat. The conductors become themselves like a resistance but an unwanted one. This explains why only 95% of the power... ...vious afterwards. It's as if the train was "surfing" on waves of voltage. THE MAGSHIP Another interesting application is what is referred to as the magship. This ship has no engine, no propellers and no rudder. It has a unique power source which is electromagnetism. The generator on the boat creates a current which travels from one electrode to another which go underwater on each side of the ship. This makes the water electrically charged. This only works in salt water because pure water would not conduct the current. The magnets which are located on the bottom of the ship would produce a magnetic field which will push the water away making the ship move forward. There are a lot of problems related with that. The magnetic field could attract metallic objects and even other ships causing many accidents. CONCLUSION As time goes by, transition temperature, critical field (maximum magnetic field intensity that a superconductor can support before failing), current capacity and all other problems are improving slowly. But, at least they show that we are moving in the right direction. A lot of people are getting interested in that field since it promises a lot for the future.

Nursing Informatics Article Review

Article Review Number Two NRSG 115 October, 31, 2012 Article Review Number Two This article briefly summarizes informatics providing definitions for confusing terminology and what it means for the nursing profession. Nursing informatics is described as the union of nursing science, computer science, and information science. As advances in technology continue, nursing informatics increasingly plays a larger role in patient care and nursing practice (Manal, Shaben, & Allen, 2012).By encouraging proficiency in informatics, the authors believe that nurses can improve their knowledge base and confidence in their practice. This competency can lead to a higher quality of care and a safer work environment in the nursing profession (Manal et al. , 2012). Quote â€Å"However, choosing to ignore the technology does not address the challenges. On the contrary, nurses need to think about technology beyond skills mastery and critically examine how it impacts patient care and nursing practice† (Manal et al. , 2012, p. 14). You can read also Coronary Artery Disease Nursing Care PlanParaphrase Nurses should view technology as another tool that is important for the profession and patient care (Manal et al. , 2012, p. 14). Evaluation All three authors are registered nurses. Kelib is a candidate for a PhD and holds two masters; one in business administration and the other in nursing. The remaining authors, Allen and Shaben, both hold masters in nursing. As nurses, they understand the increasingly complex world of technology that is changing the nursing profession, and why it is important for nurses to be competent in it.Two of the nurses provided their email addresses in the article for those interested in being a part of the Informatics Specialty Practice Group for Alberta nurses, which leads me to believe that they are very involved and obviously up-to-date in the world of nursing informatics. This article was published in spring of 2012. I believe it is one of the most current articles on the subject. It doesn’t dive into the specifics of informatics which is a constantly evolving field. Instead it focuses on the importance of understanding what informatics is and why it is important in nursing practice.Since it is such a quick and generalized overview, I believe it is as relevant as it was 6 months ago. This article was geared towards registered nurses, particularly those that work in Canada. I also believe that this article is applicable to anyone in the nursing profession. I do think that this information is relevant to me as a student. It is a very simple article that presents to the reader a brief description of informatics in language I understand. This information provides me insight into the importance and impact that the evolving world of technology has on nursing.The authors quote a professional opinion from one reference and cite references throughout the text to support their conclusions. The first section of the article defines health informatics and terminology related to literacy. All the definitions and facts are cited and referenced. The second half of the article provides an expert opinion as to why informatics is important to nursing. This article uses eight references. Four of the references were published within the past 6 years and the other half dates back from 1996-2003.I do consider this bibliography useful because this article is such a brief overview of informatics and I would like to learn more. I realize how important informatics is to nursing practice and the reference list provides great resources to expand my knowledge on the subject. This article was found on the CINAHL database provided by the Renne Library website. I went under advanced search options and narrowed the search by selecting the box, first author is a nurse, and limited the date of publication to no later than five years ago.I entered informatics into the find box. I think this is an expert opinion article because it is not peer reviewed. It does not incl ude the required abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion section that research articles have. It does cite other research articles and papers related to informatics to provide evidence for their opinion. References Kleib, M. , Shaben, T. , & Allen, D. (2012). Lost in translation. Alberta RN, 68(1), 12-14. Retrieved from