International Law...

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:06:16 +0100

International law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.

It is missing citations or footnotes. Please help improve it by adding inline citations. Tagged since August 2009.
It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since August 2009.
It relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Tagged since August 2009.
Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since August 2009.

A major force in public international law, the United Nations was conceived during World War II

International law is the term commonly used for referring to the system of implicit and explicit agreements that bind together sovereign states in adherence to recognized values and standards. It differs from other legal systems in that it primarily concerns states rather than private citizens^[1]. However, the term "international law" can refer to three distinct legal disciplines:

Public international law, which governs the relationship between states and international organizations. It includes the following specific legal field such as the treaty law, law of sea, international criminal law and the international humanitarian law.
Private international law, or conflict of laws, which addresses the questions of (1) in which legal jurisdiction may a case be heard; and (2) the law concerning which jurisdiction(s) apply to the issues in the case.
Supranational law or the law of supranational organizations, which concerns at present regional agreements where the special distinguishing quality is that laws of nation states are held inapplicable when conflicting with a supranational legal system.
Intercivilizational law - concept developed by Ukrainian professor of International Law Alexander Merezhko meaning set of legal, political and ethical norms and principles (e.g. such principles as tolerance and mutual respect) regulating relations between different civilizations. Concept of Intercivilizational Law is viewed as alternative to theory of "clash of civilizations". From the point of view of this concept, all states belong to different civilizations and International Law ought to take into consideration interstate relations of intercivilizational nature.

The two traditional branches of the field are:

jus gentium — law of nations
jus inter gentes — agreements among nations

[hide]

1 Sources of international law
2 Public international law
3 Conflict of super law
4 Supranational law
5 See also
6 References
7 External links

[edit] Sources of international law

Main article: Sources of international law

Sources of International Law are the materials and processes out of which the rules and principles regulating the international community developed. They have been influenced by a range of political and legal theories. During the 20th century, it was recognised by legal positivists that a sovereign state could limit its authority to act by consenting to an agreement according to the principle pacta sunt servanda and charleotte parker. This consensual view of international law was reflected in the 1920 Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, and preserved in Article 7 of the 1946 Statute of the International Court of Justice. This was verified in 1947 by the above mentioned law student.

[edit] Public international law

Main article: Public international law

Public international law (or international public law) concerns the relationships between the entities or legal persons which are considered the subjects of international law, including sovereign nations, the Holy See, international organizations (including especially intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations), and in some cases, movements of national liberation (wars of national liberation) and armed insurrectional movements (see insurgency). Norms of international law have their source in either 1) custom, or customary international law (consistent state practice accompanied by opinio juris), 2) globally accepted standards of behaviour ( peremptory norms known as jus cogens or ius cogens), or 3) codifications contained in conventional agreements, generally termed treaties. Article 13 of the United Nations Charter obligates the UN General Assembly to initiate studies and make recommendations which encourage the progressive development of international law and its codification. Evidence of consensus or state practice can sometimes be derived from intergovernmental resolutions or academic and expert legal opinions (sometimes collectively termed soft law).

International law has existed since the Middle Ages (see Islamic international law), but much of its modern corpus began developing from the mid-19th century. In the 20th century, the two World Wars and the formation of the League of Nations (and other international organizations such as the International Labor Organization) all contributed to accelerate this process and established much of the foundations of modern public international law. After the failure of the Treaty of Versailles and World War II, the League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations, founded under the UN Charter. The UN has also been the locus for the development of new advisory (non-binding) standards, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Other international norms and laws have been established through international agreements, including the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war or armed conflict, as well as by agreements implemented by other international organizations such as the ILO, the World Health Organization, the World Intellectual Property Organization, the International Telecommunication Union, UNESCO, the World Trade Organization, and the International Monetary Fund. The development and consolidation of such conventions and agreements has proven to be of great importance in the realm of international relations.

[edit] Conflict of super law

Main article: Conflict of laws

Conflict of laws, often called "private international law" in civil law jurisdictions, is less international than public international law. It is distinguished from public international law because it governs conflicts between private persons, rather than states (or other international bodies with standing). It concerns the questions of which jurisdiction should be permitted to hear a legal dispute between private parties, and which jurisdiction's law should be applied, therefore raising issues of international law. Today corporations are increasingly capable of shifting capital and labor supply chains across borders, as well as trading with overseas corporations. This increases the number of disputes of an inter-state nature outside a unified legal framework, and raises issues of the enforceability of standard practices. Increasing numbers of businesses use commercial arbitration under the New York Convention 1958.

[edit] Supranational law

Main article: Supranational law

[edit] The European Union

Main article: European Union

[edit] East Africa Community

Main article: East African Community

There are ambitions to make the East African Community, consisting of Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Burundi and Rwanda, a political federation with its own form of binding supranational law by 2010.

[edit] Union of South American Nations

Main article: Union of South American Nations

The Union of South American Nations is an organisation on the South American continent. It intends to establish a framework akin to the European Union by the end of 2019. It is envisaged to have its own passport and currency, and limit barriers to trade.

[edit] Andean Community of Nations

Main article: Andean Community of Nations

The Andean Community of Nations is the first attempt the countries around the Andes Mountains in South America. It started with the Cartagena Agreement of 26th May 1969, and nowadays consists in four countries: Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. It does have a supranational law, called Agreements, which are mandatory for these countries.

[edit] See also

[edit] References

^ Shaw, Malcolm N (2003). International Law. Cambridge University Press; 5 edition. pp. 1–2. ISBN 978-0521531832.

[edit] External links

[hide] v • d • e Supranationalism / World government

Theory	Federalism · Confederation · Intergovernmentalism · Anti-nationalism · Globalization · Democratic mundialization · Pax · Cosmopolitanism · New World Order · Supranational union

International bodies	United Nations · Interpol · International Monetary Fund · World Bank Group · World Trade Organization · Commonwealth of Nations

Regional bodies	European Union · Latin Union · Council of Europe · Caribbean Community · Arab League · African Union · Union of South American Nations · Shanghai Cooperation Organisation · Association of Southeast Asian Nations · Association of Caribbean States · Central American Integration System · Commonwealth of Independent States · Organization of American States · South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation · Pacific Islands Forum · North Atlantic Treaty Organization · Mercosur

International parliaments	United Nations General Assembly · European Parliament · Arab Parliament · Pan-African Parliament · Latin American Parliament · South American Parliament · Mercosur Parliament · Inter-Parliamentary Union

International courts	International Criminal Court · International Court of Justice · International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia · International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda · African Court of Justice · Caribbean Court of Justice · Inter-American Court of Human Rights · European Court of Justice · European Court of Human Rights

Law and treaties	International law (Public · Private · Supranational) · United Nations Charter · Universal Declaration of Human Rights · Geneva Conventions · Rome Statute of the ICC · Kyoto Protocol · European Union treaties · European Union law · Treaty of Chaguaramas

History	Holy Roman Empire · League of Nations · Permanent Court of International Justice · Nuremberg Trials · Permanent Court of Arbitration

Proposals and concepts	United Nations Pa International law From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from International Law ) Jump to: navigation , search This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page. It is missing citations or footnotes. Please help improve it by adding inline citations. Tagged since August 2009. It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since August 2009. It relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Tagged since August 2009. Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since August 2009. A major force in public international law, the United Nations was conceived during World War II International law is the term commonly used for referring to the system of implicit and explicit agreements that bind together sovereign states in adherence to recognized values and standards. It differs from other legal systems in that it primarily concerns states rather than private citizens [1]. However, the term "international law" can refer to three distinct legal disciplines: Public international law , which governs the relationship between states and international organizations. It includes the following specific legal field such as the treaty law , law of sea , international criminal law and the international humanitarian law . Private international law , or conflict of laws , which addresses the questions of (1) in which legal jurisdiction may a case be heard; and (2) the law concerning which jurisdiction(s) apply to the issues in the case. Supranational law or the law of supranational organizations, which concerns at present regional agreements where the special distinguishing quality is that laws of nation states are held inapplicable when conflicting with a supranational legal system. Intercivilizational law - concept developed by Ukrainian professor of International Law Alexander Merezhko meaning set of legal, political and ethical norms and principles (e.g. such principles as tolerance and mutual respect) regulating relations between different civilizations. Concept of Intercivilizational Law is viewed as alternative to theory of "clash of civilizations". From the point of view of this concept, all states belong to different civilizations and International Law ought to take into consideration interstate relations of intercivilizational nature. The two traditional branches of the field are: jus gentium — law of nations jus inter gentes — agreements among nations Contents [hide] 1 Sources of international law 2 Public international law 3 Conflict of super law 4 Supranational law 4.1 The European Union 4.2 East Africa Community 4.3 Union of South American Nations 4.4 Andean Community of Nations 5 See also 6 References 7 External links [edit ] Sources of international law Main article: Sources of international law Sources of International Law are the materials and processes out of which the rules and principles regulating the international community developed. They have been influenced by a range of political and legal theories. During the 20th century, it was recognised by legal positivists that a sovereign state could limit its authority to act by consenting to an agreement according to the principle pacta sunt servanda and charleotte parker. This consensual view of international law was reflected in the 1920 Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, and preserved in Article 7 of the 1946 Statute of the International Court of Justice. This was verified in 1947 by the above mentioned law student. [edit ] Public international law Main article: Public international law Public international law (or international public law) concerns the relationships between the entities or legal persons which are considered the subjects of international law, including sovereign nations, the Holy See , international organizations (including especially intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations), and in some cases, movements of national liberation (wars of national liberation ) and armed insurrectional movements (see insurgency ). Norms of international law have their source in either 1) custom, or customary international law (consistent state practice accompanied by opinio juris ), 2) globally accepted standards of behaviour ( peremptory norms known as jus cogens or ius cogens), or 3) codifications contained in conventional agreements, generally termed treaties . Article 13 of the United Nations Charter obligates the UN General Assembly to initiate studies and make recommendations which encourage the progressive development of international law and its codification. Evidence of consensus or state practice can sometimes be derived from intergovernmental resolutions or academic and expert legal opinions (sometimes collectively termed soft law ). International law has existed since the Middle Ages (see Islamic international law ), but much of its modern corpus began developing from the mid-19th century. In the 20th century, the two World Wars and the formation of the League of Nations (and other international organizations such as the International Labor Organization ) all contributed to accelerate this process and established much of the foundations of modern public international law. After the failure of the Treaty of Versailles and World War II , the League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations , founded under the UN Charter . The UN has also been the locus for the development of new advisory (non-binding) standards, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights . Other international norms and laws have been established through international agreements, including the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war or armed conflict , as well as by agreements implemented by other international organizations such as the ILO , the World Health Organization , the World Intellectual Property Organization , the International Telecommunication Union , UNESCO , the World Trade Organization , and the International Monetary Fund . The development and consolidation of such conventions and agreements has proven to be of great importance in the realm of international relations. [edit ] Conflict of super law Main article: Conflict of laws Conflict of laws, often called "private international law" in civil law jurisdictions, is less international than public international law. It is distinguished from public international law because it governs conflicts between private persons, rather than states (or other international bodies with standing). It concerns the questions of which jurisdiction should be permitted to hear a legal dispute between private parties, and which jurisdiction's law should be applied , therefore raising issues of international law. Today corporations are increasingly capable of shifting capital and labor supply chains across borders, as well as trading with overseas corporations. This increases the number of disputes of an inter-state nature outside a unified legal framework, and raises issues of the enforceability of standard practices. Increasing numbers of businesses use commercial arbitration under the New York Convention 1958. [edit ] Supranational law Main article: Supranational law Childrens Rights... Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:55:46 +0100 Children's rights From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Rights Theoretical distinctions Natural and legal rights Claim rights and liberty rights Negative and positive rights Individual and Group rights Human rights divisions Three generations Civil and political Economic, social and cultural Right holders Animals · Humans Men · Women Fathers · Mothers Children · Youth · Fetuses · Students Minorities · LGBT Other groups of rights Authors' · Digital · Labor Linguistic · Reproductive v • d • e Children's rights are the perceived human rights of children with particular attention to the rights of special protection and care afforded to the young,^[1] including their right to association with both biological parents, human identity as well as the basic needs for food, universal state-paid education, health care and criminal laws appropriate for the age and development of the child.^[2] Interpretations of children's rights range from allowing children the capacity for autonomous action to the enforcement of children being physically, mentally and emotionally free from abuse, though what constitutes "abuse" is a matter of debate. Other definitions include the rights to care and nurturing.^[3] "A child is any human being below the age of eighteen years, unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier."^[4] According to Cornell University, a child is a person, not a subperson, and the parent has absolute interest and possession of the child, but this is very much an American view. The term "child" does not necessarily mean minor but can include adult children as well as adult nondependent children.^[5] There are no definitions of other terms used to describe young people such as "adolescents", "teenagers," or "youth" in international law.^[6] The field of children's rights spans the fields of law, politics, religion, and morality. Contents [hide] 1 Rationale 2 Historic definitions of children's rights 3 Types of rights 3.1 Difference between children's rights and youth rights 3.2 Parental rights 4 Movement 4.1 Opposition 5 International law 5.1 Convention on the Rights of the Child 5.2 Enforcement 5.3 United States law 6 See also 6.1 Issues 6.2 Children's rights organizations 7 References 8 External links 8.1 Bibliography Rationale A boy working as a "clock boy" on the streets of Merida, Mexico. As minors by law children do not have autonomy or the right to make decisions on their own for themselves in any known jurisdiction of the world. Instead their adult caregivers, including parents, social workers, teachers, youth workers and others, are vested with that authority, depending on the circumstances.^[7] Some believe that this state of affairs gives children insufficient control over their own lives and causes them to be vulnerable.^[8] Louis Althusser has gone so far as describe this legal machinery, as it applies to children, as "repressive state apparatuses".^[9] Structures such as government policy have been held by some commentators to mask the ways adults abuse and exploit children, resulting in child poverty, lack of educational opportunities, and child labor. On this view, children are to be regarded as a minority group towards whom society needs to reconsider the way it behaves.^[10] However, there is no evidence that such views are widely shared in society.^{[citation needed]} Researchers have identified children as needing to be recognized as participants in society whose rights and responsibilities need to be recognized at all ages.^[11] Historic definitions of children's rights Consensus on defining children's rights has become clearer in the last fifty years.^[12] A 1973 publication by Hillary Clinton (then an attorney) stated that children's rights were a "slogan in need of a definition".^[13] According to some researchers, the notion of children’s rights is still not well defined, with at least one proposing that there is no singularly accepted definition or theory of the rights held by children.^[14] Children’s rights law is defined as the point where the law intersects with a child’s life. That includes juvenile delinquency, due process for children involved in the criminal justice system, appropriate representation, and effective rehabilitative services; care and protection for children in state care; ensuring education for all children regardless of their origin, race, gender, disabilities, or abilities, and; health care and advocacy.^[15] Types of rights Children's rights are defined in numerous ways, including a wide spectrum of civil, cultural, economic, social and political rights. Rights tend to be of two general types: those advocating for children as autonomous persons under the law and those placing a claim on society for protection from harms perpetrated on children because of their dependency. These have been labeled as the right of empowerment and as the right to protection.^[16] One Canadian organization categorizes children's rights into three categories: Provision: Children have the right to an adequate standard of living, health care, education and services, and to play. These include a balanced diet, a warm bed to sleep in, and access to schooling. Protection: Children have the right to protection from abuse, neglect, exploitation and discrimination. This includes the right to safe places for children to play; constructive child rearing behavior, and acknowledgment of the evolving capacities of children. Participation: Children have the right to participate in communities and have programs and services for themselves. This includes children's involvement in libraries and community programs, youth voice activities, and involving children as decision-makers.^[17]^[18] In a similar fashion, the Child Rights Information Network, or CRIN for short, categorizes rights into two groups:^[19] ^[20] Economic, social and cultural rights, related to the conditions necessary to meet basic human needs such as food, shelter, education, health care, and gainful employment. Included are rights to education, adequate housing, food, water, the highest attainable standard of health, the right to work and rights at work, as well as the cultural rights of minorities and indigenous peoples. Environmental, cultural and developmental rights, which are sometimes called "third generation rights," and including the right to live in safe and healthy environments and that groups of people have the right to cultural, political, and economic development. Amnesty International openly advocates four particular children's rights, including the end to juvenile incarceration without parole, an end to the recruitment of military use of children, ending the death penalty for people under 21, and raising awareness of human rights in the classroom.^[1] Human Rights Watch, an international advocacy organization, includes child labor, juvenile justice, orphans and abandoned children, refugees, street children and corporal punishment.^[21] Scholarly study generally focuses children's rights by identifying individual rights. The following rights "allow children to grow up healthy and free":^[22] Freedom of speech Freedom of thought Freedom from fear Freedom of choice and the right to make decisions Ownership over one's body Other issues affecting children's rights include the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. Difference between children's rights and youth rights Main article: Youth rights "In the majority of jurisdictions, for instance, children are not allowed to vote, to marry, to buy alcohol, to have sex, or to engage in paid employment."^[23] Within the youth rights movement, it is believed that the key difference between children's rights and youth rights is that children's rights supporters generally advocate the establishment and enforcement of protection for children and youths, while youth rights (a far smaller movement) generally advocates the expansion of freedom for children and/or youths and of rights such as suffrage. Parental rights See also: Parents' rights movement Parents affect the lives of children in a unique way, and as such their role in children's rights has to be distinguished in a particular way. Particular issues in the child-parent relationship include child neglect, child abuse, freedom of choice, corporal punishment and child custody.^[24]^[25] There have been theories offered that provide parents with rights-based practices that resolve the tension between "commonsense parenting" and children's rights.^[26] The issue is particularly relevant in legal proceedings that affect the potential emancipation of minors, and in cases where children sue their parents.^[27] A child's rights to a relationship with both their parents is increasingly recognized as an important factor for determining the best interests of the child in divorce and child custody proceedings. Some governments have enacted laws creating a rebuttable presumption that shared parenting is in the best interests of children.^[28] Movement Main article: Children's rights movement See also: Timeline of children's rights in the United Kingdom and Timeline of children's rights in the United States The 1796 publication of Thomas Spence's The Rights of Infants is among the earliest English-language assertions of the rights of children. Throughout the 1900s children's rights activists organized for homeless children's rights and public education. The 1927 publication of The Child's Right to Respect by Janusz Korczak strengthened the literature surrounding the field, and today dozens of international organizations are working around the world to promote children's rights. Opposition The opposition to children's rights far outdates any current trend in society, with recorded statements against the rights of children dating to the 1200s and earlier.^[29] Opponents to children's rights believe that young people need to be protected from the adultcentric world, including the decisions and responsibilities of that world.^[30] In the dominate adult society, childhood is idealized as a time of innocence, a time free of responsibility and conflict, and a time dominated by play.^[31] The majority of opposition stems from concerns related to national sovereignty, states' rights, the parent-child relationship.^[32] Financial constraints and the "undercurrent of traditional values in opposition to children's rights" are cited, as well.^[33] The concept of children's rights has received little attention in the United States.^[34] International law Further information: Children's rights in Mali, Children's rights in Chile, and Children's rights in Colombia The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is seen as a basis for all international legal standards for children's rights today. There are several conventions and laws that address children's rights around the world. A number of current and historical documents affect those rights, including the 1923 Declaration of the Rights of the Child, drafted by Eglantyne Jebb and her sister Dorothy Buxton in London, England in 1919, endorsed by the League of Nations and adopted by the United Nations in 1946. It later served as the basis for the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Convention on the Rights of the Child Main article: Convention on the Rights of the Child The United Nations' 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, or CRC, is the first legally binding international instrument to incorporate the full range of human rights—civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights. Its implementation is monitored by the Committee on the Rights of the Child. National governments that ratify it commit themselves to protecting and ensuring children's rights, and agree to hold themselves accountable for this commitment before the international community.^[35] The CRC, along with international criminal accountability mechanisms such as the International Criminal Court, the Yugoslavia and Rwanda Tribunals, and the Special Court for Sierra Leone, is said to have significantly increased the profile of children's rights worldwide.^[36] Enforcement A variety of enforcement organizations and mechanisms exist to ensure children's rights and the successful implementation of the Union. They include the Child Rights Caucus for the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on Children. It was set up to promote full implementation and compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and to ensure that child rights were given priority during the UN General Assembly Special Session on Children and its Preparatory process. The United Nations Human Rights Council was created "with the hope that it could be more objective, credible and efficient in denouncing human rights violations worldwide than the highly politicised Commission on Human Rights." The NGO Group for the Convention on the Rights of the Child is a coalition of international non-governmental organisations originally formed in 1983 to facilitate the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Many countries around the world have children's rights ombudspeople or children's commissioners whose official, governmental duty is to represent the interests of the public by investigating and addressing complaints reported by individual citizens regarding children's rights. Children's ombudspeople can also work for a corporation, a newspaper, an NGO, or even for the general public. United States law Further information: Timeline of children's rights in the United States Further information: Child labor laws in the United States Children are generally afforded the basic rights embodied by the Constitution, as enshrined by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause of that amendment is to apply to children, born within a marriage or not, but excludes children not yet born.^[37] This was reinforced by the landmark US Supreme Court decision of In re Gault. In this trial 15-year-old Gerald Gault of Arizona was taken into custody by local police after being accused of making an obscene telephone call. He was detained and committed to the Arizona State Industrial School until he reached the age of 21 for making an obscene phone call to an adult neighbor. In an 8-1 decision, the Court ruled that in hearings which could result in commitment to an institution, people under the age of 18 have the right to notice and counsel, to question witnesses, and to protection against self-incrimination. The Court found that the procedures used in Gault's hearing met none of these requirements.^[38] There are other concerns in the United States regarding children's rights. The American Academy of Adoption Attorneys is concerned with children's rights to a safe, supportive and stable family structure. Their position on children's rights in adoption cases states that, "children have a constitutionally based liberty interest in the protection of their established families, rights which are at least equal to, and we believe outweigh, the rights of others who would claim a 'possessory' interest in these children."^[39] Other issues raised in American children's rights advocacy include children's rights to inheritance in same-sex marriages and particular rights for youth. See also Find more about Children's rights on Wikipedia's sister projects: Definitions from Wiktionary Textbooks from Wikibooks Quotations from Wikiquote Source texts from Wikisource Images and media from Commons News stories from Wikinews Learning resources from Wikiversity International Children's Peace Prize National Action Plan for Children Prince v. Massachusetts Red Hand Day World's Children's Prize for the Rights of the Child New Jersey v. T.L.O. (U.S. Supreme Court case on the privacy rights of public school students) Issues Main article: List of articles related to children's rights Further information: List of articles related to youth rights Children's rights organizations Further information: List of children's rights organizations by country Further information: Category:Children's rights bodies References ^ ^a ^b "Children's Rights", Amnesty International. Retrieved 2/23/08. ^ "Convention on the Rights of the Child". United Nations. 1993-09-02. http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm. Retrieved 2009-05-16. ^ Bandman, B. (1999) Children's Right to Freedom, Care, and Enlightenment. Routledge. p 67. ^ (1989) "Convention on the Rights of the Child", United Nations. Retrieved 2/23/08. ^ "Children's Rights", Cornell University Law School. Retrieved 2/23/08. ^ "Children and youth", Human Rights Education Association. Retrieved 2/23/08. ^ Lansdown, G. "Children's welfare and children's rights," in Hendrick, H. (2005) Child Welfare And Social Policy: An Essential Reader. The Policy Press. p. 117 ^ Lansdown, G. (1994). "Children's rights," in B. Mayall (ed.) Children's childhood: Observed and experienced. London: The Falmer Press. p 33. ^ Jenks, C. (1996) "Conceptual limitations," Childhood. New York: Routledge. p 43. ^ Thorne, B. (1987) "Re-Visioning Women and Social Change: Where Are the Children?" Gender & Society 1(1) p. 85–109. ^ Lansdown, G. (1994). "Children's rights," in B. Mayall (ed.) Children's childhood: Observed and experienced. London: The Falmer Press. p 34. ^ Franklin, B. (2001) The new handbook of children's rights: comparative policy and practice. Routledge. p 19. ^ Rodham, H. (1973). "Children Under the Law". Harvard Educational Review 43: 487–514. ^ Mangold, S.V. (2002) "Transgressing the Border Between Protection and Empowerment for Domestic Violence Victims and Older Children: Empowerment as Protection in the Foster Care System," New England School of Law. Retrieved 4/3/08. ^ Ahearn, D., Holzer, B. with Andrews, L. (2000, 2007) Children's Rights Law: A Career Guide. Harvard Law School. Retrieved 2/23/08. ^ Mangold, S.V. (2002) "Transgressing the Border Between Protection and Empowerment for Domestic Violence Victims and Older Children: Empowerment as Protection in the Foster Care System," New England School of Law. Retrieved 4/3/08. ^ "Respecting children's rights at home", Children and Families in Canada. Retrieved 2/23/08. ^ (1997) "Children's rights in the Canadian context", Interchange. 8(1-2). Springer. ^ "A-Z of Children's Rights", Children's Rights Information Network. Retrieved 2/23/08. ^ Freeman, M. (2000) "The Future of Children's Rights," Children & Society. 14(4) p 277-93. ^ "Children's Rights", Human Rights Watch. Retrieved 2/23/08. ^ Calkins, C.F. (1972) "Reviewed Work: Children's Rights: Toward the Liberation of the Child by Paul Adams", Peabody Journal of Education. 49(4). p. 327. ^ "Children's Rights", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2/23/08. ^ Brownlie, J. and Anderson, S. (2006) "'Beyond Anti-Smacking': Rethinking parent–child relations," Childhood. 13(4) p 479-498. ^ Cutting, E. (1999) "Giving Parents a Voice: A Children's Rights Issue," Rightlines. 2 ERIC #ED428855. ^ Brennan, S. and Noggle, R. (1997) "The Moral Status of Children: Children's Rights, Parent's Rights, and Family Justice," Social Theory and Practice. 23. ^ Kaslow, FW (1990) Children who sue parents: A new form of family homicide? Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 16(2) p 151–163. ^ "What is equal shared parenting?" Fathers Are Capable Too: Parenting Association. Retrieved 2/24/08. ^ Starr, RH (1975) Children's Rights: Countering the Opposition. Paper presented at the 83rd Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association in Chicago, Illinois, Aug. 30-Sept. 3, 1975. ERIC ID# ED121416. ^ DeLamater, J.D. (2003) Handbook of Social Psychology. Springer. p 150. ^ Lansdown, G. (1994). "Children's rights," in B. Mayall (ed.) Children's childhood: Observed and experienced. London: The Falmer Press. (p 33-34). ^ "Frequently Asked Questions about Children's Rights", Amnesty International USA. Retrieved 2/24/08. ^ Covell, K. and Howe, R.B. (2001) The Challenge of Children's Rights for Canada. Wilfrid Laurier University Press. p 158. ^ Mason, M.A. (2005) "The U.S. and the international children's rights crusade: leader or laggard?" Journal of Social History. Summer. ^ Convention on the Rights of the Child, UNICEF. Retrieved 4/3/08. ^ Arts, K, Popvoski, V, et al. (2006) International Criminal Accountability and the Rights of Children. "From Peace to Justice Series". London: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9789067042277. ^ "Children's Rights", Cornell University Law School. Retrieved 2/23/08. ^ "Children's Rights Under the Constitution Discussed at the National Constitution Center," Retrieved 2/27/08. ^ AAAA Position on Children's Rights in Adoption. Retrieved 2/27/08. External links Find more about Children's rights on Wikipedia's sister projects: Definitions from Wiktionary Textbooks from Wikibooks Quotations from Wikiquote Source texts from Wikisource Images and media from Commons News stories from Wikinews Learning resources from Wikiversity Cyber Law... Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:44:06 +0100 Cyberlaw From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Internet Law) Jump to: navigation, search Part of a series on the Legal aspects of computing Major topics Cyberlaw File sharing Legal aspects of hyperlinking and framing Lesser or historical topics Spamming This box: view • talk • edit Cyberlaw is a term that encapsulates the legal issues related to use of communicative, transactional, and distributive aspects of networked information devices and technologies. It is less a distinct field of law in the way that property or contract are, as it is a domain covering many areas of law and regulation. Some leading topics include intellectual property, privacy, freedom of expression, and jurisdiction. Contents [hide] 1 Jurisdiction and sovereignty 2 Net neutrality 3 Free speech in cyberspace 4 Governance 5 Internet regulation in other countries 6 See also 6.1 Centers and groups for the study of cyberlaw and related areas 6.2 Topics related to cyberlaw 6.3 Conferences related to cyberlaw 7 References 8 Further reading 9 External links [edit] Jurisdiction and sovereignty Issues of jurisdiction and sovereignty have quickly come to the fore in the era of the Internet. The Internet does not tend to make geographical and jurisdictional boundaries clear, but Internet users remain in physical jurisdictions and are subject to laws independent of their presence on the Internet.^[1] As such, a single transaction may involve the laws of at least three jurisdictions: 1) the laws of the state/nation in which the user resides, 2) the laws of the state/nation that apply where the server hosting the transaction is located, and 3) the laws of the state/nation which apply to the person or business with whom the transaction takes place. So a user in one of the United States conducting a transaction with another user in Britain through a server in Canada could theoretically be subject to the laws of all three countries as they relate to the transaction at hand.^[2] Jurisdiction is an aspect of state sovereignty and it refers to judicial, legislative and administrative competence. Although jurisdiction is an aspect of sovereignty, it is not coextensive with it. The laws of a nation may have extraterritorial impact extending the jurisdiction beyond the sovereign and territorial limits of that nation. This is particularly problematic as the medium of the Internet does not explicitly recognize sovereignty and territorial limitations. There is no uniform, international jurisdictional law of universal application, and such questions are generally a matter of conflict of laws, particularly private international law. An example would be where the contents of a web site are legal in one country and illegal in another. In the absence of a uniform jurisdictional code, legal practitioners are generally left with a conflict of law issue. Another major problem of cyberlaw lies in whether to treat the Internet as if it were physical space (and thus subject to a given jurisdiction's laws) or to act as if the Internet is a world unto itself (and therefore free of such restraints). Those who favor the latter view often feel that government should leave the Internet community to self-regulate. John Perry Barlow, for example, has addressed the governments of the world and stated, "Where there are real conflicts, where there are wrongs, we will identify them and address them by our means. We are forming our own Social Contract . This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different".^[3]. A more balanced alternative is the Declaration of Cybersecession: "Human beings possess a mind, which they are absolutely free to inhabit with no legal constraints. Human civilization is developing its own (collective) mind. All we want is to be free to inhabit it with no legal constraints. Since you make sure we cannot harm you, you have no ethical right to intrude our lives. So stop intruding!"^[4] Other scholars argue for more of a compromise between the two notions, such as Lawrence Lessig's argument that "The problem for law is to work out how the norms of the two communities are to apply given that the subject to whom they apply may be in both places at once" (Lessig, Code 190). Though rhetorically attractive, cybersecession initiatives have had little real impact on the Internet or the laws governing it. In practical terms, a user of the Internet is subject to the laws of the state or nation within which he or she goes online. Thus, in the U.S., Jake Baker faced criminal charges for his e-conduct (see Free Speech), and numerous users of peer-to-peer file-sharing software were subject to civil lawsuits for copyright infringement. This system runs into conflicts, however, when these suits are international in nature. Simply put, legal conduct in one nation may be decidedly illegal in another. In fact, even different standards concerning the burden of proof in a civil case can cause jurisdictional problems. For example, an American celebrity, claiming to be insulted by an online American magazine, faces a difficult task of winning a lawsuit against that magazine for libel. But if the celebrity has ties, economic or otherwise, to England, he or she can sue for libel in the British court system, where the standard of “libelous speech” is far lower. [edit] Net neutrality Another major area of interest is net neutrality, which affects the regulation of the infrastructure of the Internet. Though not obvious to most Internet users, every packet of data sent and received by every user on the Internet passes through routers and transmission infrastructure owned by a collection of private and public entities, including telecommunications companies, universities, and governments, suggesting that the Internet is not as independent as Barlow and others would like to believe. This is turning into one of the most critical aspects of cyberlaw and has immediate jurisdictional implications, as laws in force in one jurisdiction have the potential to have dramatic effects in other jurisdictions when host servers or telecommunications companies are affected. [edit] Free speech in cyberspace In comparison to traditional print-based media, the accessibility and relative anonymity of cyber space has torn down traditional barriers between an individual and his or her ability to publish. Any person with an internet connection has the potential to reach an audience of millions with little-to-no distribution costs. Yet this new form of highly-accessible authorship in cyber space raises questions and perhaps magnifies legal complexities relating to the freedom and regulation of speech in cyberspace. Recently, these complexities have taken many forms, three notable examples being the Jake Baker incident, in which the limits of obscene Internet postings were at issue, the controversial distribution of the DeCSS code, and Gutnick v Dow Jones, in which libel laws were considered in the context of online publishing. The last example was particularly significant because it epitomized the complexities inherent to applying one country's laws (nation-specific by definition) to the internet (international by nature). In 2003, Jonathan Zittrain considered this issue in his paper, "Be Careful What You Ask For: Reconciling a Global Internet and Local Law" ^[5]. In many countries, speech through cyberspace has proven to be another means of communication which has been regulated by the government. The Open Net Initiative, whose mission statement is "to investigate and challenge state filtration and surveillance practices" in order to "...generate a credible picture of these practices," has released numerous reports documenting the filtration of internet-speech in various countries. While China has thus far proven to be the most rigorous in its attempts to filter unwanted parts of the internet from its citizens,^[6] many other countries - including Australia, Singapore, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Tunisia - have engaged in similar practices of internet censorship. In one of the most vivid examples of information-control, the Chinese government for a short time transparently forwarded requests to the Google search engine to its own, state-controlled search engines ^[7]. These examples of filtration bring to light many underlying questions concerning the freedom of speech, namely, does the government have a legitimate role in limiting access to information? And if so, what forms of regulation are acceptable? The recent blocking of "blogspot" and other websites in India failed to reconcile the conflicting interests of speech and expression on the one hand and legitimate government concerns on the other hand. In the UK the case of Keith-Smith v Williams confirmed that existing libel laws applied to internet discussions.^[8] [edit] Governance The unique structure of the Internet has raised several judicial concerns. While grounded in physical computers and other electronic devices, the Internet is independent of any geographic location. While real individuals connect to the Internet and interact with others, it is possible for them to withhold personal information and make their real identities anonymous. If there are laws that could govern the Internet, then it appears that such laws would be fundamentally different from laws that geographic nations use today. In their essay "Law and Borders -- The Rise of Law in Cyberspace",^[9], David Johnson and David Post offer a solution to the problem of Internet governance. Given the Internet's unique situation, with respect to geography and identity, Johnson and Post believe that it becomes necessary for the Internet to govern itself. Instead of obeying the laws of a particular country, Internet citizens will obey the laws of electronic entities like service providers. Instead of identifying as a physical person, Internet citizens will be known by their usernames or email addresses. Since the Internet defies geographical boundaries, national laws will no longer apply. Instead, an entirely new set of laws will be created to address concerns like intellectual property and individual rights. In effect, the Internet will exist as its own sovereign nation. Even if the Internet represents a legal paradigm shift, Johnson and Post do not make clear exactly how or by whom the law of the Internet will be enforced. Instead, the authors see market mechanisms, like those that Medieval merchants used, guiding Internet citizens' actions like Adam Smith's invisible hand. Yet, as more physical locations go online, the greater the potential for physical manifestation of electronic misdeeds. What do we do when someone electronically turns off the hospital lights? However, there is also substantial literature and commentary that the internet is not only “regulable,” but is already subject to substantial regulation, both public and private, by many parties and at many different levels. Leaving aside the most obvious examples of internet filtering in nations like China or Saudi Arabia (that monitor content), there are four primary modes of regulation of the internet described by Lawrence Lessig in his book, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace: Law: Standard East Coast Code, and the most self-evident of the four modes of regulation. As the numerous statutes, evolving case law and precedents make clear, many actions on the internet are already subject to conventional legislation (both with regard to transactions conducted on the internet and images posted). Areas like gambling, child pornography, and fraud are regulated in very similar ways online as off-line. While one of the most controversial and unclear areas of evolving laws is the determination of what forum has subject matter jurisdiction over activity (economic and other) conducted on the internet, particularly as cross border transactions affect local jurisdictions, it is certainly clear that substantial portions of internet activity are subject to traditional regulation, and that conduct that is unlawful off-line is presumptively unlawful online, and subject to similar laws and regulations. Scandals with major corporations led to US legislation rethinking corporate governance regulations such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Architecture: West Coast Code: these mechanisms concern the parameters of how information can and cannot be transmitted across the internet. Everything from internet filtering software (which searches for keywords or specific URLs and blocks them before they can even appear on the computer requesting them), to encryption programs, to the very basic architecture of TCP/IP protocol, falls within this category of regulation. It is arguable that all other modes of regulation either rely on, or are significantly supported by, regulation via West Coast Code. Norms: As in all other modes of social interaction, conduct is regulated by social norms and conventions in significant ways. While certain activities or kinds of conduct online may not be specifically prohibited by the code architecture of the internet, or expressly prohibited by applicable law, nevertheless these activities or conduct will be invisibly regulated by the inherent standards of the community, in this case the internet “users.” And just as certain patterns of conduct will cause an individual to be ostracised from our real world society, so too certain actions will be censored or self-regulated by the norms of whatever community one chooses to associate with on the internet. Markets: Closely allied with regulation by virtue of social norms, markets also regulate certain patterns of conduct on the internet. While economic markets will have limited influence over non-commercial portions of the internet, the internet also creates a virtual marketplace for information, and such information affects everything from the comparative valuation of services to the traditional valuation of stocks. In addition, the increase in popularity of the internet as a means for transacting all forms of commercial activity, and as a forum for advertisement, has brought the laws of supply and demand in cyberspace. [edit] Internet regulation in other countries While there is some United States law that does restrict access to materials on the internet, it does not truly filter the internet. Many Asian and Middle Eastern nations use any number of combinations of code-based regulation (one of Lessig's four methods of net regulation) to block material that their governments have deemed inappropriate for their citizens to view. China and Saudi Arabia are two excellent examples of nations that have achieved high degrees of success in regulating their citizens access to the internet.^[10]^[6] Pavan Duggal^[11], Advocate, Supreme Court and Cyberlaw expert has also been vocal about India's Information Technology Act 2000, and did not find it adequate due to various flaws in it.^[12] He has been critical of the efficacy of new Amendments to IT Act 2000 in India.He believes that new amendments,passed by Indian Parliament in Dec 2008, are not at all sufficient in the context of the emerging needs of India and there are various glaring loopholes.^[13]^[14] [edit] See also [edit] Centers and groups for the study of cyberlaw and related areas Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School Norwegian Research Center for Computers and Law Stanford Center for Internet and Society, at Stanford Law School The Centre for Internet and Society, in Bangalore, India. Center for the Study of the Public Domain and Intellectual Property and Cyberlaw Society at Duke Law School [edit] Topics related to cyberlaw Copyright, especially the Digital Millenium Copyright Act in the United States, and similar laws in other countries Digital Rights Management File sharing Intellectual property Internet censorship Spamming The Law of Cyber-Space (book) [edit] Conferences related to cyberlaw State of Play, a conference series put on by the Institute for Information Law & Policy at New York Law School, concerning the intersection of virtual worlds, games and the law. [edit] References ^ Trout, B. (2007). "Cyber Law: A Legal Arsenal For Online Business", New York: World Audience, Inc. ^ Emerging Technologies and the Law: Forms and Analysis, by Richard Raysman, Peter Brown, Jeffrey D. Neuburger and William E. Bandon, III. Law Journal Press, 2002-2008. ISBN 1-58852-107-9 ^ Barlow. "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace". http://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html. ^ "An Introduction to Cybersecession". http://editthis.info/cybersecession/An_Introduction_to_Cybersecession. ^ Zittrain, Jonathan (2003). "Be Careful What You Ask For: Reconciling a Global Internet and Local Law". http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=395300. ^ ^a ^b "All Content related to China". OpenNet Initiative. http://www.opennetinitiative.net/studies/china/. ^ "Google Replacements". Harvard. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/china/google-replacements/. ^ Gibson, Owen (March 23, 2006). "Warning to chatroom users after libel award for man labelled a Nazi". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/story/0,,1737445,00.html. ^ "Law and Borders - The Rise of Law in Cyberspace". http://www.cli.org/X0025_LBFIN.html. ^ "All Content related to Saudi Arabia". OpenNet Initiative. http://www.opennetinitiative.net/studies/saudi/. ^ Pavan Duggal's Website, Pavan Duggal's Website ^ "What's wrong with our cyber laws?". Express Computer. http://www.expresscomputeronline.com/20040705/newsanalysis01.shtml. ^ Amendments to IT Act, New Amendments to IT Act 2000 ^ Amendments to IT Act, New Amendments to IT Act 2000 [edit] Further reading WorldLII Cyberspace Law Cyber Law World Computer Crime Research Center Global School of Tech Juris White Paper on Censoring The Indian Cyberspace Global School of Tech Juris White Paper on Cyber Voyeurism Perverts Dot Com Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, The Future of Ideas, and Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig ASCL Cyber Law Library Borders on, or border around – the future of the Internet Borders on, or border around – the future of the Internet White Paper on Information technology Act Amendments 2008 Legislative History of Indian Information Technology Act 2000 [edit] External links Cyber Law In India Cyber, War and Law A compendium of Cyber Law Developments in India Stanford Law School Cyberlaw Clinic Santa Clara University School of Law Tech LawForum Cybertelecom: Federal Internet Policy Internet Library of Law and Court Decisions Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberlaw" Categories: Computer law \| Cyberspace Universal Declaration Of Human Rights Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:44:22 +0100 Universal Declaration of Human Rights From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Universal Declaration of Human Rights Eleanor Roosevelt with the Spanish version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Created 1948 Ratified 10 December 1948 Location Palais de Chaillot, Paris Authors John Peters Humphrey (Canada), Rene Cassin (France), P. C. Chang (China), Charles Malik (Lebanon), Eleanor Roosevelt (United States), among others Purpose Human rights The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (10 December 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot, Paris). The Guinness Book of Records describes the UDHR as the "Most Translated Document"^[1] in the world. The Declaration arose directly from the experience of the Second World War and represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are entitled. It consists of 30 articles which have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties, regional human rights instruments, national constitutions and laws. The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols. In 1966 the General Assembly adopted the two detailed Covenants, which complete the International Bill of Human Rights; and in 1976, after the Covenants had been ratified by a sufficient number of individual nations, the Bill took on the force of international law.^[2] Contents [hide] 1 History 1.1 Precursors 1.2 Drafting 1.3 Adoption 2 Structure 3 Preamble 4 Human rights set out in the Declaration 5 Commemoration: International Human Rights Day 6 Significance and legal effect 6.1 Significance 6.2 Legal effect 7 Reaction 7.1 Praise 7.2 Censorship 7.3 Criticism 7.3.1 Islamic criticism 7.3.2 Property Rights Criticism 7.3.3 Education 7.3.4 The Right to Refuse to Kill 7.4 Bangkok Declaration 7.5 Article 29 Section 3 8 See also 9 Notes and references 10 Further reading 11 External links [edit] History [edit] Precursors Main article: History of human rights The morals and values of human rights can be traced through the history of religious beliefs and cultures around the world. European philosophers of the enlightenment period developed theories of natural law that influenced the adoption of documents such as the Bill of Rights of England, the Bill of Rights in the United States, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in France. During World War II, the Allies adopted the Four Freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom from fear and freedom from want, as their basic war aims. The United Nations Charter "reaffirmed faith in fundamental human rights, and dignity and worth of the human person" and committed all member states to promote "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion".^[3] When the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany became apparent after the World War II, the consensus within the world community was that the United Nations Charter did not sufficiently define the rights it referenced.^[4]^[5] A universal declaration that specified the rights of individuals was necessary to give effect to the Charter's provisions on human rights.^[6] [edit] Drafting Main article: Drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Canadian John Peters Humphrey was called upon by the United Nations Secretary-General to work on the project and became the Declaration's principal drafter. At the time Humphrey was newly appointed as Director of the Division of Human Rights within the United Nations Secretariat.^[7] The Commission on Human Rights, a standing body of the United Nations, was constituted to undertake the work of preparing what was initially conceived as an International Bill of Rights. The membership of the Commission was designed to be broadly representative of the global community with representatives of the following countries serving: Australia, Belgium, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Chile, China, Cuba, Egypt, France, India, Iran, Lebanon, Panama, Philippines, United Kingdom, United States, Soviet Union, Uruguay and Yugoslavia.^[8] Well known members of the Commission included Eleanor Roosevelt of the United States, who was Chairman, Jacques Maritain and René Cassin of France, Charles Malik of Lebanon and P. C. Chang of China,^{[citation needed]}^[9] among others. Humphrey provided the initial draft which became the working text of the Commission. According to Globalizing Family Values, the Declaration's pro-family phrases were the result of the Christian Democratic movement's influence on Cassin and Malik.^[10] [edit] Adoption The Universal Declaration was adopted by the General Assembly on 10 December 1948 by a vote of 48 in favor, 0 against, with 8 abstentions (all the Soviet Bloc states, Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, USSR, as well as Yugoslavia, South Africa and Saudi Arabia).^[11] The following countries voted in favor of the Declaration: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Thailand, Sweden, Syria, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay and Venezuela.^[12] Despite the central role played by Canadian John Humphrey, the Canadian Government at first abstained from voting on the Declaration's draft, but later voted in favour of the final draft in the General Assembly.^[13] [edit] Structure The underlying structure of the Universal Declaration was introduced in its second draft which was prepared by Rene Cassin. Cassin worked from a first draft prepared by John Peters Humphrey. The structure was influenced by the Code Napoleon, including a preamble and introductory general principles.^[14] Cassin compared the Declaration to the portico of a Greek temple, with a foundation, steps, four columns and a pediment. Articles 1 and 2 are the foundation blocks, with their principles of dignity, liberty, equality and brotherhood. The seven paragraphs of the preamble, setting out the reasons for the Declaration, are represented by the steps. The main body of the Declaration forms the four columns. The first column (articles 3–11) constitutes rights of the individual, such as the right to life and the prohibition of slavery. The second column (articles 12–17) constitutes the rights of the individual in civil and political society. The third column (articles 18–21) is concerned with spiritual, public and political freedoms such as freedom of religion and freedom of association. The fourth column (articles 22–27) sets out social, economic and cultural rights. In Cassin's model, the last three articles of the Declaration provide the pediment which binds the structure together. These articles are concerned with the duty of the individual to society and the prohibition of use of rights in contravention of the purposes of the United Nations.^[15] [edit] Preamble The Universal Declaration begins with a preamble consisting of seven paragraphs followed by a statement "proclaiming" the Declaration. Each paragraph of the preamble sets out a reason for the adoption of the Declaration. The first paragraph asserts that the recognition of human dignity of all people is the foundation of justice and peace in the world. The second paragraph observes that disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind and that the four freedoms: freedom of speech, belief, freedom from want, and freedom from fear – which is "proclaimed as the highest aspiration" of the people. The third paragraph states that so that people are not compelled to rebellion against tyranny, human rights should be protected by rule of law. The fourth paragraph relates human rights to the development of friendly relations between nations. The fifth paragraph links the Declaration back to the United Nations Charter which reaffirms faith in fundamental human rights and dignity and worth of the human person. The sixth paragraph notes that all members of the United Nations have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The seventh paragraph observes that "a common understanding" of rights and freedoms is of "the greatest importance" for the full realization of that pledge.^[16] These paragraphs are followed by the "proclamation" of the Declaration as a "common standard of achievement" for "all peoples and all nations", so that "all individuals" and "all organs of society" should by teaching and education, promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, secure their universal and effective recognition and observance.^[16] The Preamble is: Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations, Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge, Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction. [edit] Human rights set out in the Declaration The following reproduces the articles of the Declaration which set out the specific human rights that are recognized in the Declaration.^[17] Article 1 All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 2 Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Article 3 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 4 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Article 5 No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 6 Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. Article 7 All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. Article 8 Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. Article 9 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Article 10 Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. Article 11 Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed. Article 12 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. Article 13 Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including their own, and to return to their country. Article 14 Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Article 15 Everyone has the right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. Article 16 Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. Article 17 Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. Article 18 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. Article 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Article 20 Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. No one may be compelled to belong to an association. Article 21 Everyone has the right to take part in the government of their country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in their country. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. Article 22 Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. Article 23 Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. Article 24 Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. Article 25 Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection. Article 26 Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. Article 27 Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. Article 28 Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized. Article 29 Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Article 30 Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein. [edit] Commemoration: International Human Rights Day Main article: Human Rights Day The adoption of the Universal Declaration is a significant international commemoration marked each year on 10 December and is known as Human Rights Day or International Human Rights Day. The commemoration is observed by individuals, community and religious groups, human rights organisations, parliaments, governments and the United Nations. Decadal commemorations are often accompanied by campaigns to promote awareness of the Declaration and human rights. 2008 marked the 60th anniversary of the Declaration and was accompanied by year long activities around the theme "Dignity and justice for all of us".^[18] [edit] Significance and legal effect [edit] Significance In the preamble, governments commit themselves and their peoples to measures to secure the universal and effective recognition and observance of the human rights set out in the Declaration. Eleanor Roosevelt supported the adoption the UDHR as a declaration, rather than as a treaty, because she believed that it would have the same kind of influence on global society as the United States Declaration of Independence had within the United States. In this she proved to be correct. Even though not formally legally binding, the Declaration has been adopted in or influenced most national constitutions since 1948. It also serves as the foundation for a growing number of international treaties and national laws and international, regional, national and sub-national institutions protecting and promoting human rights. [edit] Legal effect While not a treaty itself, the Declaration was explicitly adopted for the purpose of defining the meaning of the words "fundamental freedoms" and "human rights" appearing in the United Nations Charter, which is binding on all member states. For this reason, the Universal Declaration is a fundamental constitutive document of the United Nations. Many^{[citation needed]} international lawyers, in addition, believe that the Declaration forms part of customary international law and is a powerful tool in applying diplomatic and moral pressure to governments that violate any of its articles. The 1968 United Nations International Conference on Human Rights advised that it "constitutes an obligation for the members of the international community" to all persons. The declaration has served as the foundation for two binding UN human rights covenants, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the principles of the Declaration are elaborated in international treaties such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the United Nations Convention Against Torture and many more. The Declaration continues to be widely cited by governments, academics, advocates and constitutional courts and individual human beings who appeal to its principles for the protection of their recognised human rights. [edit] Reaction [edit] Praise The Universal Declaration has received praise from a number of notable people. Charles Malik, Lebanese philosopher and diplomat, called it "an international document of the first order of importance," while Eleanor Roosevelt, first chairwoman of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) that drafted the Declaration, stated that it "may well become the international Magna Carta of all men everywhere."^[19] 10 December 1948. In a speech on 5 October 1995, Pope John Paul II called the UDHR "one of the highest expressions of the human conscience of our time."^[20] And in a statement on 10 December 2003 on behalf of the European Union, Marcello Spatafora said that "it placed human rights at the centre of the framework of principles and obligations shaping relations within the international community."^{[citation needed]} [edit] Censorship The Cuban government has been accused of ordering copies of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be burned or otherwise destroyed.^[21]^[22]^[23] [edit] Criticism [edit] Islamic criticism Some Islamic countries have criticized the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for its perceived failure to take into the account the cultural and religious context of Islamic countries.^{[citation needed]} In 1982, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, articulated the position of his country regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by saying that the UDHR was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.^[24] On 30 June 2000, Muslim nations that are members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference^[25] officially resolved to support the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam,^[26] an alternative document that says people have "freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari’ah".^[27] It is important to acknowledge that there are many voices within Islam and Shari'a law can be and is interpreted variously by different Islamic jurists. The voiced opposition against the UDHR needs to be taken within that context. Religion, culture and politics are intertwined, the position of women and the lack of due legal process in many Islamic societies can not be entirely attributed to the application of Shari'a. [edit] Property Rights Criticism Libertarians and some conservatives believe the positive rights that must be provided by others through forceful extraction (for example taxation) negate other peoples' inalienable rights.^[28] [edit] Education Some proponents^[who?] of alternative education, particularly unschooling, take issue with the right to compulsory education stated in Article 26.^[29] In the philosophies of John Holt and others, compulsory education itself violates the right of a person to follow their own interests: No human right, except the right to life itself, is more fundamental than this. A person’s freedom of learning is part of his freedom of thought, even more basic than his freedom of speech. If we take from someone his right to decide what he will be curious about, we destroy his freedom of thought. We say, in effect, you must think not about what interests you and concerns you, but about what interests and concerns us. – John Holt, Escape from Childhood [edit] The Right to Refuse to Kill Groups such as Amnesty International^[30] and War Resisters International^[31] have advocated for "The Right to Refuse to Kill" to be added to the UDHR. War Resisters International has stated that the right to conscientious objection to military service is primarily derived from, but not yet explicit in, Article 18 of the UDHR: the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.^[31] Steps have been taken within the UN to make this right more explicit (see Conscientious Objector); but those steps have been limited to secondary, more "marginal" UN documents. That is why Amnesty International would like to have this right brought "out of the margins" and explicitly into the primary document, namely the UDHR itself.^[30] To the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights one more might, with relevance, be added. It is "The Right to Refuse to Kill."^[32] – Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, and Nobel Peace Laureate, Sean MacBride, 1974 Nobel Lecture [edit] Bangkok Declaration In the Bangkok Declaration adopted by Ministers of Asian states meeting in 1993 in the lead up to the World Conference on Human Rights, Asian governments reaffirmed their commitment to the principles of the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They stated their view of the interdependence and indivisibility of human rights and stressed the need for universality, objectivity and non-selectivity of human rights.^[33] [edit] Article 29 Section 3 The Declaration's assertion that, "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." is criticized by some as a "fail-safe" clause; supposedly allowing any previous right to be suspended at whim based on changes in UN policy.^[34] [edit] See also Human rights History of human rights Human Rights Humphrey Draft of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Portal:Human rights Timeline of young people's rights in the United Kingdom Timeline of young people's rights in the United States Celebration of the 60th Anniversary of UDHR Maryland Law UDHR 60 Conference - October 23-25, 2008 UDHR 60 Connecticut Conference - December 2008 Know Your Rights 2008 Youth Celebrate the 60th Anniversary of the UDHR CASHRA, the John Humphrey Centre and TakingITGlobal join forces Interfaith Cooperation and the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity. Event celebrating the 60th anniversary of the UN-UDHR Non-binding agreements Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, 1990 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, 1993 United Nations Millennium Declaration, 2000 National human rights law Golden Bull, Hungary, 1222 English Bill of Rights and Scottish Claim of Right, 1689 Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 1776 United States Bill of Rights, completed in 1789, approved in 1791 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, France 1789 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982 International human rights law European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1954 COMMON LAW!!! My favorite subject!!! Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:44:39 +0100 Common law From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article is about the general legal concept. For the book by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., see The Common Law. Common law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals (called case law), rather than through legislative statutes or executive action, and to corresponding legal systems that rely on precedential case law. The body of precedent is called "common law" and it binds future decisions. In future cases, when parties disagree on what the law is, an idealized common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as stare decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases (called a "matter of first impression"), judges have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent.^[1] Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts. In practice, common law systems are considerably more complicated than the idealized system described above. The decisions of a court are binding only in a particular jurisdiction, and even within a given jurisdiction, some courts have more power than others. For example, in most jurisdictions, decisions by appellate courts are binding on lower courts in the same jurisdiction and on future decisions of the same appellate court, but decisions of lower courts are only non-binding persuasive authority. Interactions between common law, constitutional law, statutory law and regulatory law also give rise to considerable complexity. However stare decisis, the principle that similar cases should be decided according to consistent principled rules so that they will reach similar results, lies at the heart of all common law systems. Common law legal systems are in widespread use, particularly in England where it originated in the Middle Ages,^[2] and in nations that trace their legal heritage to England as former colonies of the British Empire, including the United States, Singapore, Pakistan, India,^[3] Ghana, Cameroon, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, Hong Kong and Australia.^[4] Contents [hide] 1 Primary connotations 1.1 1. Common law as opposed to statutory law and regulatory law 1.2 2. Common law legal systems as opposed to civil law legal systems 1.3 3. Law as opposed to equity 1.4 4. Historical uses 2 Basic principles of common law 2.1 Common law adjudication 2.2 Evolution of common law to meet changing social needs and improved understanding 2.3 Interaction of constitutional, statutory and common law 2.4 Overruling precedent—the limits of stare decisis 2.5 Contrasting role of treatises and academic writings in common law and civil law systems 2.6 Common law as a foundation for commercial economies 3 History of the common law 3.1 Medieval English common law 3.2 Influences of Roman law 3.3 Possible influence of medieval Islamic law 3.4 Propagation of the common law to the colonies and Commonwealth by Reception Statutes 3.5 Diminution of Latin maxims and rigid application of stare decisis, and the rise of social sciences and experience as tools of judicial decision-making 3.6 1870 through 20th century, and the procedural merger of law and equity 4 Common law legal systems in the present day 4.1 Scotland (1707) 4.2 States of the United States (1775 on) 4.3 United States federal system (1789 and 1938) 4.4 Canada (1867) 4.5 Nicaragua 4.6 Israel (1948) 4.7 Alternatives to common law systems 5 Works on the common law 6 Notes 7 See also 8 References 9 External links [edit] Primary connotations The term common law has three main connotations and several historical meanings worth mentioning: [edit] 1. Common law as opposed to statutory law and regulatory law This connotation distinguishes the authority that promulgated a law. For example, most areas of law in most Anglo-American jurisdictions include "statutory law" enacted by a legislature, "regulatory law" promulgated by executive branch agencies pursuant to delegation of rule-making authority from the legislature, and common law or "case law", i.e., decisions issued by courts (or quasi-judicial tribunals within agencies).^[5]^[6] This first connotation can be further differentiated into (a) pure common law arising from the traditional and inherent authority of courts to say what the law is, even in absence of an underlying statute, e.g., most criminal law and procedural law before the 20th century, and even today, most of contract law and the law of torts, and (b) court decisions that decide the fine boundaries and distinctions in law promulgated by other bodies, such as judicial interpretations of the Constitution, of statutes, and of regulations.^[7] [edit] 2. Common law legal systems as opposed to civil law legal systems This connotation differentiates "common law" jurisdictions and legal systems from "civil law" or "code" jurisdictions.^[7] Common law systems place great weight on court decisions, which are considered "law" with the same force of law as statutes. By contrast, in civil law jurisdictions (the legal tradition that prevails in, or is combined with common law in, Europe and most non-Islamic, non-common law countries), judicial precedent is given relatively less weight (which means that a judge deciding a given case has more freedom to interpret the text of a statute independently, and less predictably), and scholarly literature is given relatively more. For example, the Napoleonic code expressly forbade French judges from pronouncing general principles of law.^[8] As a rough rule of thumb, common law systems trace their history to England, while civil law systems trace their history to Roman law. The contrast between common law and civil law systems is elaborated in Alternatives to common law systems, below. [edit] 3. Law as opposed to equity This connotation differentiates "common law" (or just "law") from "equity".^[5]^[6] Before 1873, England had two parallel court systems: courts of "law" that could only award money damages and recognized only the legal owner of property, and courts of "equity" that could issue injunctive relief (that is, a court order to a party to do something, give something to someone, or stop doing something) and recognized trusts of property. This split propagated to many of the colonies, including the United States (see "Reception Statutes," below). For most purposes, most jurisdictions, including the U.S. federal system and most states, have merged the two courts.^[9]^[10] Additionally, even before the separate courts were merged together, most courts were permitted to apply both law and equity, though under potentially different procedural law. Nonetheless, the historical distinction between "law" and "equity" remains important today when the case involves issues such as the following: categorizing and prioritizing rights to property—for example, the same article of property often has a "legal title" and an "equitable title," and these two groups of ownership rights may be held by different people. in the United States, determining whether the Seventh Amendment's right to a jury trial applies (a determination of a fact necessary to resolution of a "common law" claim)^[11] or whether the issue will be decided by a judge (issues of what the law is, and all issues relating to equity). the standard of review and degree of deference given by an appellate tribunal to the decision of the lower tribunal under review (issues of law are reviewed de novo, that is, "as if new" from scratch by the appellate tribunal, while most issues of equity are reviewed for "abuse of discretion," that is, with great deference to the tribunal below). the remedies available and rules of procedure to be applied. [edit] 4. Historical uses In addition, there are several historical uses of the term that provide some background as to its meaning. The English Court of Common Pleas dealt with lawsuits in which the King had no interest, i.e. between commoners. Additionally, from at least the 11th century and continuing for several centuries after that, there were several different circuits in the royal court system, served by itinerant judges who would travel from town to town dispensing the King's justice. The term "common law" was used to describe the law held in common between the circuits and the different stops in each circuit. The more widely a particular law was recognized, the more weight it held, whereas purely local customs were generally subordinate to law recognized in a plurality of jurisdictions. These definitions are archaic, their relevance having dissipated with the development of the English legal system over the centuries, but they do explain the origin of the term. [edit] Basic principles of common law [edit] Common law adjudication In a common law jurisdiction several stages of research and analysis are required to determine what "the law is" in a given situation. First, one must ascertain the facts. Then, one must locate any relevant statutes and cases. Then one must extract the principles, analogies and statements by various courts of what they consider important to determine how the next court is likely to rule on the facts of the present case. Later decisions, and decisions of higher courts or legislatures carry more weight than earlier cases and those of lower courts.^[12] Finally, one integrates all the lines drawn and reasons given, and determines what "the law is". Then, one applies that law to the facts. [edit] Evolution of common law to meet changing social needs and improved understanding The common law is more malleable than statutory law. First, common law courts are not absolutely bound by precedent, but can (when extraordinarily good reason is shown) reinterpret and revise the law, without legislative intervention, to adapt to new trends in political, legal and social philosophy. Second, the common law evolves through a series of gradual steps, that gradually works out all the details, so that over a decade or more, the law can change substantially but without a sharp break, thereby reducing disruptive effects. ^[13] In contrast to common law incrementalism, the legislative process is very difficult to get started, as legislatures tend to delay action until a situation is totally intolerable. For these reasons, legislative changes tend to be large, jarring and disruptive (sometimes positively, sometimes negatively, and sometimes with unintended consequences). One example of the gradual change that typifies the common law is the gradual change in liability for negligence. For example, the traditional common law rule through most of the 19th century was that a plaintiff could not recover for a defendant's negligence unless the two were in privity of contract. Thus, only the immediate purchaser could recover for a product defect, and if a part was built up out of parts from parts manufacturers, the ultimate buyer could not recover for injury caused by a defect in the part. Winterbottom v. Wright, 10 M&W 109, 152 Eng.Rep. 402, 1842 WL 5519 (Exchequer of pleas 1842). In Winterbottom, the postal service had contracted with Wright to maintain its coaches. Winterbottom was a driver for the post. When the coach failed and injured Winterbottom, he sued Wright. The Winterbottom court recognized that there would be "absurd and outrageous consequences" if an injured person could sue any person peripherally involved, and knew it had to draw a line somewhere, a limit on the causal connection between the negligent conduct and the injury. The court looked to the contractual relationships, and held that liability would only flow as far as the person in immediate contract ("privity") with the negligent party. A first exception to this rule arose in Thomas v. Winchester, 6 N.Y. 397 (N.Y. 1852) which held that mislabeling a poison as an innocuous herb, and then selling the mislabeled poison through a dealer who would be expected to resell it, put "human life in imminent danger." Thomas used this as a reason to create an exception to the "privity" rule. In Statler v. Ray Mfg. Co., 195 N.Y. 478, 480 (N.Y. 1909) held that a coffee urn manufacturer was liable to a person injured when the urn exploded, because the urn "was of such a character inherently that, when applied to the purposes for which it was designed, it was liable to become a source of great danger to many people if not carefully and properly constructed." Yet the privity rule survived. In Cadillac Motor Car Co. v. Johnson, 221 F. 801 (2nd Cir. 1915) (decided by the federal appeals court for New York and several neighboring states), the court held that a car owner could not recover for injuries from a defective wheel, when the automobile owner only had a contract with the automobile dealer, not with the manufacturer, even though there was "no question that the wheel was made of dead and ‘dozy‘ wood, quite insufficient for its purposes." Finally, in the famous case of MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (N.Y. 1916), Judge Benjamin Cardozo pulled a broader principle out of these predecessor cases. The facts were almost identical to Cadillac a year earlier: a wheel from a wheel manufacturer was sold to Buick, to a dealer, to MacPherson, and the wheel failed, injuring MacPherson. Judge Cardozo held: We hold, then, that the principle of Thomas v. Winchester is not limited to poisons, explosives, and things of like nature, to things which in their normal operation are implements of destruction. If the nature of a thing is such that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made, it is then a thing of danger. Its nature gives warning of the consequences to be expected. If to the element of danger there is added knowledge that the thing will be used by persons other than the purchaser, and used without new tests then, irrespective of contract, the manufacturer of this thing of danger is under a duty to make it carefully. ... There must be knowledge of a danger, not merely possible, but probable. Note that Cardozo's new "rule" exists in no prior case, but is inferable as a synthesis of the "thing of danger" principle stated in them, merely extending it to "foreseeable danger" even if "the purposes for which it was designed" were not themselves "a source of great danger." MacPherson takes some care to present itself as foreseeable progression, not a wild departure. Note that Judge Cardozo continues to adhere to the original principle of Winterbottom, that "absurd and outrageous consequences" must be avoided, and he does so by drawing a new line in the last sentence quoted above: "There must be knowledge of a danger, not merely possible, but probable." But while adhering to the underlying principle that some boundary is necessary, MacPherson overruled the prior common law by rendering the formerly dominant factor in the boundary, that is, the privity formality arising out of a contractual relationship between persons, totally irrelevant. Rather, the most important factor in the boundary would be the nature of the thing sold and the foreseeable uses that downstream purchasers would make of the thing. This illustrates two crucial principles that are often not well understood by non-lawyers. (a) The law evolves, this evolution is in the hands of judges, and judges have "made law" for hundreds of years. (b) The reasons given for a decision are often more important in the long run than the outcome in a particular case. This is the reason that judicial opinions are usually quite long, and give rationales and policies that can be balanced with judgment in future cases, rather than the bright-line rules usually embodied in statutes. [edit] Interaction of constitutional, statutory and common law In common law legal systems (connotation 2), the common law (connotation 1) is crucial to understanding almost all important areas of law. For example, in England and Wales and in most states of the United States, the basic law of contracts, torts and property do not exist in statute, but only in common law (though there may be isolated modifications enacted by statute). In almost all areas of the law (even those where there is a statutory framework, such as contracts for the sale of goods,^[14] or the criminal law),^[15] legislature-enacted statutes generally give only terse statements of general principle, and the fine boundaries and definitions exist only in the common law (connotation 1). To find out what the precise law is that applies to a particular set of facts, one has to locate precedential decisions on the topic, and reason from those decisions by analogy. To consider but one example, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"—but interpretation (that is, determining the fine boundaries, and resolving the tension between the "establishment" and "free exercise" clauses) of each of the important terms was delegated by Article III of the Constitution to the judicial branch,^[16] so that the current legal boundaries of the Constitutional text can only be determined by consulting the common law.^[17] In common law jurisdictions, legislatures operate under the assumption that statutes will be interpreted against the backdrop of the pre-existing common law and custom. For example, in most U.S. states, the criminal statutes are primarily codification of pre-existing common law. (Codification is the process of enacting a statute that collects and restates pre-existing law in a single document—when that pre-existing law is common law, the common law remains relevant to the interpretation of these statutes.) In reliance on this assumption, modern statutes often leave a number of terms and fine distinctions unstated—for example, a statute might be very brief, leaving the precise definition of terms unstated, under the assumption that these fine distinctions will be inherited from pre-existing common law. (For this reason, many modern American law schools teach the common law of crime as it stood in England in 1789, because that centuries-old English common law is a necessary foundation to interpreting modern criminal statutes.) With the transition from English law, which had common law crimes, to the new legal system under the U.S. Constitution, which prohibited ex post facto laws at both the federal and state level, the question was raised whether there could be common law crimes in the United States. It was settled in the case of United States v. Hudson and Goodwin, 11 U.S. 32 (1812). which decided that federal courts had no jurisdiction to define new common law crimes, and that there must always be a (constitutional) statute defining the offense and the penalty for it. Still, many states retain selected common law crimes. For example, in Virginia, the definition of the conduct that constitutes the crime of robbery exists only in the common law, and the robbery statute only sets the punishment.^[18] Virginia Code section 1-200 establishes the continued existence and vitality of common law principles and provides that "The common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force within the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General Assembly." By contrast to statutory codification of common law, some statutes displace common law, for example to create a new cause of action that did not exist in the common law, or to legislatively overrule the common law. An example is the tort of wrongful death, which allows certain persons, usually a spouse, child or estate, to sue for damages on behalf of the deceased. There is no such tort in English common law; thus, any jurisdiction that lacks a wrongful death statute will not allow a lawsuit for the wrongful death of a loved one. Where a wrongful death statute exists, the compensation or other remedy available is limited to the remedy specified in the statute (typically, an upper limit on the amount of damages). Courts generally interpret statutes that create new causes of action narrowly – that is, limited to their precise terms—because the courts generally recognize the legislature as being supreme in deciding the reach of judge-made law unless such statute should violate some "second order" constitutional law provision (cf. judicial activism). Where a tort is rooted in common law, then all traditionally recognized damages for that tort may be sued for, whether or not there is mention of those damages in the current statutory law. For instance, a person who sustains bodily injury through the negligence of another may sue for medical costs, pain, suffering, loss of earnings or earning capacity, mental and/or emotional distress, loss of quality of life, disfigurement and more. These damages need not be set forth in statute as they already exist in the tradition of common law. However, without a wrongful death statute, most of them are extinguished upon death. In the United States, the power of the federal judiciary to review and invalidate unconstitutional acts of the federal executive branch is stated in the constitution, Article III sections 1 and 2: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. ... The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority..." The first famous statement of "the judicial power" was Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). Later cases interpreted the "judicial power" of Article III to establish the power of federal courts to consider or overturn any action of congress or of any state that conflicts with the constitution. [edit] Overruling precedent—the limits of stare decisis Most of the U.S. federal courts of appeal have adopted a rule under which, in the event of any conflict in decisions of panels (most of the courts of appeal almost always sit in panels of three), the earlier panel decision is controlling, and a panel decision may only be overruled by the court of appeals sitting en banc (that is, all active judges of the court) or by a higher court.^[19] In these courts, the older decision remains controlling when an issue comes up the third time. Other courts, for example, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the Supreme Court, always sit en banc, and thus the later decision controls. These courts essentially overrule all previous cases in each new case, and older cases survive only to the extent they do not conflict with newer cases. The interpretations of these courts - for example, Supreme Court interpretations of the constitution or federal statutes - are stable only so long as the older interpretation maintains the support of a majority of the court. The majority may persist through some combination of belief that the old decision is right, and that it is not sufficiently wrong to be overruled. In the UK, the Practice Statement of 1966 allows the House of Lords, in certain circumstances, to overrule a previous decision made in the same House.^[20] [edit] Contrasting role of treatises and academic writings in common law and civil law systems The role of the legal academy presents a significant "cultural" difference between common law (connotation 2) and civil law jurisdictions. In common law jurisdictions, legal treatises compile common law decisions, and state overarching principles that (in the author's opinion) explain the results of the cases. However, in common law jurisdictions, treatises are not the law, and lawyers and judges tend to use these treatises as only "finding aids" to locate the relevant cases. In common law jurisdictions, scholarly work is seldom cited as authority for what the law is.^[21] When common law courts rely on scholarly work, it is almost always only for factual findings, policy justification, or the history and evolution of the law, but the court's legal conclusion is reached through analysis of relevant statutes and common law, seldom scholarly commentary. In contrast, in civil law jurisdictions, the writings of law professors are given significant weight by courts. In part, this is because civil law decisions traditionally were very brief, sometimes no more than a paragraph stating who wins and who loses. The rationale has to come from somewhere else, and the academy often filled that role. As civil law court decisions move in the direction of common law reasoning, it is possible that this balance may shift. [edit] Common law as a foundation for commercial economies This reliance on judicial opinion is a strength of common law systems, and is a significant contributor to the robust commercial systems in the United Kingdom and United States. Because there is common law to give reasonably precise guidance on almost every issue, parties (especially commercial parties) can predict whether a proposed course of action is likely to be lawful or unlawful. This ability to predict gives more freedom to come close to the boundaries of the law.^[22] For example, many commercial contracts are more economically efficient, and create greater wealth, because the parties know ahead of time that the proposed arrangement, though perhaps close to the line, is almost certainly legal. Newspapers, taxpayer-funded entities with some religious affiliation, and political parties can obtain fairly clear guidance on the boundaries within which their freedom of expression rights apply. In contrast, in non-common-law countries, and jurisdictions with very weak respect for precedent (example, the U.S. Patent Office), fine questions of law are redetermined anew each time they arise, making consistency and prediction more difficult, and procedures far more protracted than necessary because parties cannot rely on written statements of law as reliable guides. In jurisdictions that do not have a strong allegiance to a large body of precedent, parties have less a priori guidance and must often leave a bigger "safety margin" of unexploited opportunities, and final determinations are reached only after far larger expenditures on legal fees by the parties. This is the reason for the frequent choice of the law of the State of New York in commercial contacts. Commercial contracts throughout the world (for example, in commercial contracts in Japan, France and Germany, and from most of the other states of the United States) almost always include a "choice of law clause," and the law chosen is often the law of New York, even where the relationship of the parties and transaction to New York is quite attenuated. Because of its history as the nation's commercial center, New York common law has a depth and predictability not (yet) available in any other jurisdiction. Similarly, corporations are often formed under Delaware corporate law, and contracts relating to corporate law issues (merger and acquisitions of companies, rights of shareholders, etc.) include a Delaware choice of law clause, because of the deep body of law in Delaware on these issues. On the other hand, some other jurisdictions have sufficiently developed bodies of law so that parties have no real motivation to choose the law of a foreign jurisdiction (e.g., the United Kingdom and the state of California), but not yet so fully developed that parties with no relationship to the jurisdiction choose that law. The common theme in each case is that commercial parties seek predictability and simplicity in their contractual relations, and frequently choose the law of a common law jurisdiction with a well-developed body of common law in order to achieve that result. [edit] History of the common law The term "common law" originally derives from after the Norman Conquest. The "common law" was the law that the whole country had in common, rather than particular tribal laws that might apply between smaller communities. The doctrine of precedent developed under the inquisitorial system in England during the 12th and 13th centuries,^[23] as the collective judicial decisions that were based in tradition, custom and precedent. Such forms of legal institutions and culture bear resemblance to those which existed historically in societies where precedent and custom have at times played a substantial role in the legal process, including Germanic law^[24] and Islamic law.^[25] The form of reasoning used in common law is known as casuistry or case-based reasoning. The common law, as applied in civil cases (as distinct from criminal cases), was devised as a means of compensating someone for wrongful acts known as torts, including both intentional torts and torts caused by negligence, and as developing the body of law recognizing and regulating contracts. The type of procedure practiced in common law courts is known as the adversarial system; this is also a development of the common law. [edit] Medieval English common law See also: English law This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2008) Before the Norman conquest in 1066, justice was administered primarily by county courts, presided by the diocesan bishop and the sheriff, exercising both ecclesiastical and civil jurisdiction.^[26] Trial by jury began in these courts.^[26] In 1154, Henry II became the first Plantagenet king. Among many achievements, Henry institutionalized common law by creating a unified system of law "common" to the country through incorporating and elevating local custom to the national, ending local control and peculiarities, eliminating arbitrary remedies and reinstating a jury system – citizens sworn on oath to investigate reliable criminal accusations and civil claims. The jury reached its verdict through evaluating common local knowledge, not necessarily through the presentation of evidence, a distinguishing factor from today's civil and criminal court systems. Henry II developed the practice of sending judges from his own central court to hear the various disputes throughout the country. His judges would resolve disputes on an ad hoc basis according to what they interpreted the customs to be. The king's judges would then return to London and often discuss their cases and the decisions they made with the other judges. These decisions would be recorded and filed. In time, a rule, known as stare decisis (also commonly known as precedent) developed, which is where a judge would be bound to follow the decision of an earlier judge; he was required to adopt the earlier judge's interpretation of the law and apply the same principles promulgated by that earlier judge if the two cases had similar facts to one another. By this system of precedent, decisions 'stuck' and became ossified, and so the pre-Norman system of disparate local customs was replaced by an elaborate and consistent system of law that was common throughout the whole country, hence the name, "common law." Henry II's creation of a powerful and unified court system, which curbed somewhat the power of canonical (church) courts, brought him (and England) into conflict with the church, most famously with Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Eventually, Becket was murdered inside Canterbury Cathedral by four knights who believed themselves to be acting on Henry's behalf. Whether Henry actually intended to bring about the assassination of Becket is doubtful, but there is no question that at the time of the murder, the two men were embroiled in a bitter dispute regarding the power of Royal Courts to exercise jurisdiction over former clergymen. The murder of the Archbishop gave rise to a wave of popular outrage against the King. Henry was forced to repeal the disputed laws and to abandon his efforts to hold church members accountable for secular crimes (see also Constitutions of Clarendon). Judge-made common law operated as the primary source of law for several hundred years, before Parliament acquired legislative powers to create statutory law. It is important to understand that common law is the older and more traditional source of law, and legislative power is simply a layer applied on top of the older common law foundation. Since the 1100s, courts have had parallel and co-equal authority to make law^[27] - "legislating from the bench" is a traditional and essential function of courts, which was carried over into the U.S. system as an essential component of the "judicial power" specified by Article III of the U.S. constitution.^[28] There are legitimate debates on how the powers of courts and legislatures should be balanced. However, a view that courts lack law-making power is historically inaccurate and constitutionally unsupportable. [edit] Influences of Roman law The term "common law" is often used as a contrast to Roman-derived "civil law" (connotation 2), and the fundamental processes and forms of reasoning in the two are quite different. Nonetheless, there has been considerable cross-fertilization of ideas, while the two traditions and sets of foundational principles remain distinct. By the time of the rediscovery of the Roman law in Europe in the 12th and 13th centuries, the common law had already developed far enough to prevent a Roman law reception as it occurred on the continent.^[29] However, the first common law scholars, most notably Glanvill and Bracton, as well as the early royal common law judges, had been well accustomed with Roman law. Often, they were clerics trained in the Roman canon law.^[30] One of the first and throughout its history one of the most significant treatises of the common law, Bracton’s De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae (On the Laws and Customs of England), was heavily influenced by the division of the law in Justinian’s Institutes.^[31] The impact Roman law had decreased sharply after the age of Bracton, but the Roman divisions of actions into in rem and in personam used by Bracton had a lasting effect and laid the groundwork for a return of Roman law structural concepts in the 18th and 19th century. Signs of this can be found in Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England,^[32] and Roman law ideas regained importance with the revival of academic law schools in the 19th century.^[33] As a result, today, the main systematic divisions o Citizens Arrest... Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:44:59 +0100 Citizen's arrest From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search A citizen's arrest is an arrest made by a person who is not acting as a sworn law-enforcement official.^[1] In common-law jurisdictions, the practice dates back to medieval Britain and the English common law, in which sheriffs encouraged ordinary citizens to help apprehend law breakers. Despite the practice's name, the arresting person is usually designated as any person with arrest powers, who need not be a citizen of the jurisdiction in which he is acting. Contents [hide] 1 Legal and political aspect 2 Laws by country 2.1 Australia 2.1.1 New South Wales 2.1.2 Queensland 2.1.3 South Australia 2.2 Brazil 2.3 Canada 2.4 Finland 2.5 France 2.6 Germany 2.7 Hong Kong 2.8 Hungary 2.9 Ireland 2.10 Malaysia 2.11 Mexico 2.12 New Zealand 2.13 Portugal 2.14 Sweden 2.15 United Kingdom 2.15.1 England and Wales 2.15.1.1 Other powers 2.15.2 Northern Ireland 2.15.3 Scotland 2.16 United States 3 See also 4 References 5 External links [edit] Legal and political aspect A person who makes a citizen's arrest could risk exposing him or herself to possible lawsuits or criminal charges (such as charges of impersonating police, false imprisonment, kidnapping, or wrongful arrest) if the wrong person is apprehended or a suspect's civil rights are violated. The level of responsibility that a person performing a citizen's arrest may bear depends on the jurisdiction. For instance, in France and Germany, a person stopping a criminal from committing a crime, including crimes against belongings, is not criminally responsible as long as the means employed are in proportion to the threat (note, however, that at least in Germany this results from a different legal norm: "self-defense" and "aid to others in immediate danger"—which are concerned with prevention, not prosecution, of crimes). [edit] Laws by country [edit] Australia The power to arrest is granted by both federal and state legislation, however the exact power granted differs depending on jurisdiction. The power to arrest for a Federal offence is granted by s.3Z of the Crimes Act 1914.^[2] Under the Act, a person who is not a police constable may, without warrant, arrest another person if they believe on reasonable grounds that: the other person is committing or has just committed an indictable offence; and proceedings by summons against the other person would not: ensure the appearance of the person before a court in respect of the offence; prevent a repetition or continuation of the offence or the commission of another offence; prevent the concealment, loss or destruction of evidence relating to the offence; prevent harassment of, or interference with, a person who may be required to give evidence in proceedings in respect of the offence; prevent the fabrication of evidence in respect of the offence; or would not preserve the safety or welfare of the person. A person who arrests another person must, as soon as practicable after the arrest, arrange for the other person, and any property found on the other person, to be delivered into the custody of a constable. [edit] New South Wales In the Australian state of New South Wales, the power to arrest is granted by s.100 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002.^[3] Under the Act, a person may, without a warrant, arrest another person if: the person is in the act of committing an offence under any Act or statutory instrument, or the person has just committed any such offence, or the person has committed a serious indictable offence for which the person has not been tried. Section 231 of the Act allows for the use of such force as is reasonably necessary to make the arrest or to prevent the escape of the person after arrest. A person who arrests another person under s.100 must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, take the person, and any property found on the person, before a magistrate to be dealt with according to law. The magistrate will also decide whether or not the force applied in making the arrest was reasonable in the circumstances. According to the Law Society of New South Wales, the arresting person should: inform the person that they are under arrest and inform the person of the reasons for the arrest^[4] [edit] Queensland In the Australian state of Queensland, the power to arrest is granted by s.546 of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Code Act 1899.^[5] Under the Act, any person who finds another committing an offence may, without warrant, arrest the other person. The power to arrest in Queensland also allows for arrest on suspicion of an offence: If the offence has been actually committed--it is lawful for any person who believes on reasonable ground that another person has committed the offence to arrest that person without warrant, whether that other person has committed the offence or not. s.260 of the Act also provides a power to arrest in preventing a breach of the unorthodox peace: It is lawful for any person who witnesses a breach of the peace to interfere to prevent the continuance or renewal of it, and to use such force as is reasonably necessary for such prevention and is reasonably proportioned to the danger to be apprehended from such continuance or renewal, and to detain any person who is committing or who is about to join in or to renew the breach of the peace for such time as may be reasonably necessary in order to give the person into the custody of a police officer. [edit] South Australia Any person may arrest a person guilty of a breach of the Criminal Law Consolidated Act. They must make it clear they are arresting the person by words or actions. [edit] Brazil A Federal law allows any person to arrest a suspect criminal found in (in flagrante delicto) or fleeing from the crime scene. The person has to, at his/her own judgment,have the physical power to keep the suspect detained, has to verbally explain what he/she is doing to the arrestee and has to call the police. Both have wait for the police's arrival. The person who makes a citizen's arrest has to sign the police forms as a witness and explain the facts. Typically it will lead to a time burden of at least two hours. If the facts cannot be verified the person who realizes the citizen's arrest might be sued by the arrestee. [edit] Canada Section 494. (Criminal Code)^[6] (1) ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT BY ANY PERSON Any one may arrest without warrant/s (a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or (b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes (i) has committed a criminal offence, and (ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person (2) ARREST BY OWNER, ETC., OF PROPERTY Any one who is (a) the owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or (b) a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property may arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property. (3) DELIVERY TO PEACE OFFICER Any one other than a peace officer who arrests a person without warrant shall forthwith deliver the person to a peace officer. This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this section if you can. (July 2009) -Section 494, sub. 1, (a) is the "General Power of Arrest" for non-peace officers. - Section 494, sub. 1, (b) is known as the "Assist Power of Arrest" and includes assisting another citizen who witnessed a "Criminal Offence" and, therefore, "... is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person ...". This section of the Criminal Code of Canada IS that authorization. - Section 494, sub. 2, is the "Owner/Agent" power of arrest. It applies to both security and all other staff (or friends/neighbours if it is a dwelling) of any given property (The reason companies tell their staff they can't make such an arrest is because if the person making the arrest is hurt/killed by the criminal, the company becomes liable for the injury or death. Further, most people are neither equipped or trained to make proper arrests which greatly increases the likelihood of injury or death to the citizen). - in Section 494, sub. 2, (b) "...a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property." includes criminal offences that are not on that property at all. If someone steals from a store, the security personnel who pursue the thief can (but rarely ever do) leave the property to continue the pursuit. When the pursuit is broken off the thief is no longer considered to be "freshly pursued" and therefore others are no longer permitted to assist in the apprehension of the criminal (it, then, becomes a matter for the Police to handle). Note that 494(1)(a) allows for arrest related only to indictable offences, while 494(2) allows for arrest for any offence against the laws of Canada,^[7] most notably small value theft. [edit] Finland Coercive Measures Act 30.4.1987/450 gives a right to apprehend someone in the act of committing a crime (in flagrante delicto) or fleeing from the crime scene, if punishment for the crime might be imprisonment or the crime is mild assault, pilferage, mild reachery, mild unapproved use, mild annexation of motorvehicle, mild mischief or mild forgery. A person wanted by the police (arrest warrant) can be apprehended by anyone. After the apprehend, the police must be contacted as soon as possible. Law a gives right to, if criminal is resisting or tries to escape, use necessary amount of force that can be considered as legitimate, when considering nature of crime, behavior of apprehended and the situation as whole. [edit] France Allows any person to arrest a person having been caught in flagrante delicto committing a crime punishable by a jail or prison term, and to conduct that person before the nearest officer of judiciary police – in modern practice one would rather call the police in after performing the arrest.^[8] [edit] Germany Citizen's arrests can be made under §127 StPO (code of penal procedures) if the arrestee is caught in flagrante delicto and the identity of the person cannot be otherwise established immediately.^[9] The person making the arrest is allowed to hold the arrestee solely for the purpose of turning him over to a proper legal authority such as the police. German law does not establish that the crime has to be serious, nor that the person making the arrest has to actually be a citizen of Germany. [edit] Hong Kong Known as the '101 power' in Hong Kong. Under Hong Kong Laws. Chap 221 Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Section 101 Summary apprehension of offender in certain cases, subsection 2 "Any person may arrest without warrant any person whom he may reasonably suspect of being guilty of an arrestable offence." Once an arrest is made, the suspect must be delivered to a police office as soon as possible for court proceedings. "Arrestable offence" is defined as any crimes that can be sentenced for more than 12 months of jail time.^[10] [edit] Hungary According to article 127, section 3 of Act XIX. of the year 1998 about the Penal Procedure, anyone may arrest a person caught commiting a felony, but obliged to hand the person over to the "investigative authorities" immediately; if this is not possible, the police must be informed. [edit] Ireland Any person can arrest someone who they have reasonable cause is in the act of committing or has committed an "arrestable" offence, that is one punishable by more than 5 years in prison.^[11] The arrest can only be effected if the arrestor has reasonable cause that the person will attempt to avoid apprehension by Gardaí and the arrestor delivers the person to Garda custody as soon as is practicable. [edit] Malaysia Section 27(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code allows for a private person to arrest a person who, in his view, has committed a seizable offence or a non-bailable offence:^[12] Any private person may arrest any person who, in his view, commits a non-bailable and seizable offence or who has been proclaimed under section 44 and shall without unnecessary delay hand over the person so arrested to the nearest police officer or, in the absence of a police officer, take that person to the nearest police station. Sub-section 5 further allows the arrest of a person who commits an offence on or with respect to the property of another by any person who is using the property to which the injury is done, or by the servant of either of those persons or by any person authorized by or acting in aid of either of those persons:^[13] Any person who commits an offence on or with respect to the property of another may if his name and address are unknown be apprehended by the person injured or by any person who is using the property to which the injury is done, or by the servant of either of those persons or by any person authorized by or acting in aid of either of those persons, and may be detained until he gives his name and address and satisfies such person that the name and address so given are correct or until he can be delivered into the custody of a police officer. A "seizable offence" is defined as an offence in which a police officer may ordinarily arrest without warrant as per defined by the Code.^[14] [edit] Mexico Article 16 of the 1917 Constitution of Mexico allows any person to arrest a criminal found in flagrante delicto.^[15] [edit] New Zealand Some legal protection exists to those making a citizen's arrest as provided in the Crimes Act 1961 in that there may be justification or protection from criminal responsibility. Justification of the arrest ensures the arresting person is not guilty of an offence and are not liable to any civil proceeding. Protection from criminal responsibility means those who make the arrest are not liable to any criminal proceedings. They are however liable for civil proceedings. The legislation is carefully worded and only applies for offences covered in the Crimes Act 1961, not other offences such as those covered in the Summary Offences Act 1981.^[16] Specifically, the Crimes Act 1961 states that everyone (not just New Zealand citizens) is justified in arresting without warrant:^[17] Any person found committing any offence against the Act which the maximum punishment is not less than 3 years' imprisonment; or Any person found at night committing any offence against the Act. Other situations where members of the public are protected from criminal responsibility when involved in arresting where: They have been asked by a police officer to help arrest any person believed or suspected to have committed any offence unless they know that there is no reasonable ground for the belief or suspicion.^[16]^[18] They witnesses a breach of the peace, and therefore are justified in interfering to prevent its continuance or renewal, and may detain any person committing it, in order to hand them over to a Police Officer provided that the person interfering does not use more force than is reasonably necessary for preventing the continuance or renewal of the breach of the peace, or than is reasonably proportionate to the danger to be apprehended from its continuance or renewal.^[19] Similar legislation applies to suppressions of riots by members of the public.^[20] They believe, on reasonable and probable grounds, someone has committed an offence against the Crimes Act 1961 and is fleeing and is being pursued by any one they believe can arrest that person for the offence (such as a police officer). This applies whether or not the offence has in fact been committed, and whether or not the arrested person committed it.^[21] [edit] Portugal According to the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure (article 255), any person may arrest someone in the act of committing a crime or fleeing from the crime scene if the crime they were committing is punishable with a prison term of any length. The arrested person must be handed over to the police immediately after it is possible to do so. [edit] Sweden Any person may arrest someone in the act of committing a crime or fleeing from the crime scene if the crime he or she was committing is punishable with a prison term of any length. A person wanted by the police, for whom there is an arrest warrant, can be arrested by anyone at any time. After the arrest, the police must be contacted as soon as possible. [edit] United Kingdom [edit] England and Wales A citizen's arrest (officially called an "any person arrest") is permitted to be made on any person under section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for an indictable offence, including either way offences (in this section referred to simply as "an offence"), but excluding certain specific ones listed below. It is thus permissible for any person to arrest: Anyone who is without doubt in the act of committing an offence, or whom the arrestor has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be in the act of committing an offence, and Where an offence has been committed without doubt, anyone who is without doubt guilty of that offence or whom the arrestor has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it In order for the arrest to be lawful, the following two conditions must also be satisfied: It is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make the arrest instead The arrestor has reasonable grounds for believing that the arrest is necessary to prevent one of the following: The person causing physical injury to himself or others The person suffering physical injury The person causing loss of or damage to property The person absconding before a constable can assume responsibility for him Use of the second power above is rather risky, since it relies upon the person carrying out the arrest knowing that an indictable or either way offence has been committed. If, for example, the arrested person is later acquitted in court then it could be concluded that no offence has been committed; thus the arrest would be unlawful. The Act therefore gives a constable three additional powers, to arrest: Anyone who is (without doubt) about to commit an offence, or whom the constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to commit an offence Anyone whom the constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of an offence which is merely suspected to have taken place A constable's arrest power is not limited to indictable offences, and conditions different from the above apply. However, a citizen's arrest cannot be made: inside a polling station, on a person who commits or is suspected of committing an offence of personation under article 30 of the National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007,^[22] inside a polling station, on a person who commits or is suspected of committing an offence of personation under section 60 of the Representation of the People Act 1983^[23] in relation to an offence of stirring up racial hatred under Part 3 or stirring up religious hatred under Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986.^[24] In addition to the above, a private person may be authorised to execute an arrest warrant, if the court issuing the warrant has given them the authority to do so, and any person may arrest someone who is "unlawfully at large" (for example, an escaped prisoner). [edit] Other powers An officer or agent of certain companies may seize and detain any person who has committed an offence against the provisions of the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 whose name and residence shall be but unknown to such officer or agent, and take them before a justice of the peace, who "shall proceed with all convenient despatch to the hearing and determining of the complaint against such offender".^[25] [edit] Northern Ireland Similar provisions apply to Northern Ireland as to England and Wales, implemented through the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (SI 1989/1341)^[26] as amended by the Police and Criminal Evidence (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order (SI 2007/288).^[27] [edit] Scotland While no statutory provision for citizen's arrest exists in Scots Law, there is a common law position that anyone committing an offence can be detained using the minimum force necessary with consideration to what is reasonable in the relevant circumstances.^[28]^[29] [edit] United States Each state, with the exception of North Carolina, permits citizen arrests if the commission of a felony is witnessed by the arresting citizen, or when a citizen is asked to assist in the apprehension of a suspect by police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanors, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party. American citizens do not carry the authority or enjoy the legal protections of police, and are held to the principle of strict liability before the courts of civil- and criminal law including but not limited to any infringement of another's rights.^[30] Though North Carolina General Statutes have no provision for citizens' arrests, detention by private persons is permitted and applies to both civilians and police officers outside their jurisdiction.^[31] Detention is permitted where probable cause exists that one has committed a felony, breach of peace, physical injury to another person, or theft or destruction of property.^[32] Detention is different from an arrest in that in a detention the detainee may not be transported without consent. [edit] See also R. v. Asante-Mensah [edit] References ^ Hudson v. Commonwealth of Virginia. ^ Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914. ^ Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 of New South Wales. ^ Law Society of New South Wales - Under arrest?. ^ Criminal Code Act 1898 of Queensland. ^ Criminal Code. ^ http://www.mtec.mb.ca/igbonline/legal/force.htm Offences. ^ Code of penal procedure (France), L73. ^ §127 StPO (code of penal procedures) (Germany). ^ Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Hong Kong), Chapter 212, Section 101. ^ Criminal Law Act 1997 (Ireland), Section 4. ^ Criminal Procedure Code (Act 593) § 27(2). ^ Criminal Procedure Code (Act 593) § 27(5). ^ Criminal Procedure Code (Act 593) § 2(1). ^ Constitution of Mexico, Article 16. ^ ^a ^b "Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence" (PDF). Neighbourhood Support New Zealand. http://www.ns.org.nz/fact_sheet_39_citizens_arrest_and_self_defence.pdf. Retrieved 2008-06-24. ^ Crimes Act 1961, Section 35 & 36. ^ Crimes Act 1961, Section 34. ^ Crimes Act 1961, Section 42. ^ Crimes Act 1961, Section 43. ^ Crimes Act 1961, Section 38. ^ http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=police+1984&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1871554&linkToATDocumentId=3121915&linkToATVersionNumber=1&#1959863 ^ http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=police+1984&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1871554&linkToATDocumentId=2570690&linkToATVersionNumber=1&#1897917 ^ http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=police+1984&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&activeTextDocId=3416535&parentActiveTextDocId=1871554&showAllAttributes=1&hideCommentary=0&suppressWarning=0&versionNumber=2#attrib ^ http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=Companies+Clauses+Consolidation+Act+1845&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1035033&ActiveTextDocId=1035211&filesize=772 ^ http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1989/uksi_19891341_en_1 ^ http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/uksi_20070288_en_1 ^ House of Commons - Armed Forces - Minutes of Evidence. ^ Citizen's Arrest (Hansard, 18 October 1995). ^ [1] Columbia Law Review, Vol. 65, No. 3 (Mar., 1965), pp. 502-513. ^ GS_15A-404. ^ North Carolina General Statutes - Legal Commentary - April 1997. [edit] External links The Constitution Society Guide to a Citizen's Arrest Australian Federal Police fact sheet on Citizen's Arrest wikiHow How to make a Citizen's Arrest Terrorism, by definition... Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:45:28 +0100 Terrorism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search "Terrorist" redirects here. For other uses, see Terrorist (disambiguation). Terrorism Definitions History of terrorism International conventions Anti-terrorism legislation Counter-terrorism War on Terrorism By ideology Left-wing Eco-terrorism Narcoterrorism Nationalist Ethnic Religious (Christian • Islamic • Jewish) Types and tactics Agro-terrorism Bioterrorism Car bombing Environmental Aircraft hijacking Nuclear Piracy Propaganda of the deed Proxy bomb Suicide attack State involvement State terrorism State sponsorship United States and state terrorism Pakistan and state terrorism Russia and state terrorism Iran and state terrorism Sri Lanka and state terrorism Organisation Terrorist financing Terrorist front organization Terrorist training camp Lone-wolf fighter Clandestine cell system Historical Reign of Terror Red Terror White Terror Lists Designated organizations Charities accused of ties to terrorism Incidents v • d • e Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.^[1] At present, there is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.^[2]^[3] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants. Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war. The history of terrorist organizations suggests that they do not select terrorism for its political effectiveness.^[4] Individual terrorists tend to be motivated more by a desire for social solidarity with other members of their organization than by political platforms or strategic objectives, which are often murky and undefined.^[4] The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,^[5] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. A 1988 study by the United States Army found that over 100 definitions of the word “terrorism” have been used.^[6] The concept of terrorism is itself controversial because it is often used by states to delegitimize political or foreign opponents, and potentially legitimize the state's own use of terror against them. A less politically and emotionally charged, and better defined, term (used not only for terrorists, and not including all those who have been described as terrorists) is violent non-state actor. Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations for furthering their objectives. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments.^[7] One form is the use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual.^[8] Contents [hide] 1 Origin of term 2 Key criteria 3 Pejorative use 4 Types 4.1 Democracy and domestic terrorism 5 Religious terrorism 6 Perpetrators 6.1 Terrorist groups 6.2 State sponsors 6.3 State terrorism 7 Tactics 8 Responses 9 Mass media 10 History 11 See also 12 Further reading 13 References 14 External links 14.1 UN conventions 14.2 News monitoring websites specializing on articles on terrorism 14.3 Papers and articles on global terrorism 14.4 Papers and articles on terrorism and the United States 14.5 Papers and articles on terrorism and Israel 14.6 Other [edit] Origin of term Main article: Definition of terrorism See also: State terrorism "Terror" comes from a Latin word meaning "to frighten". The terror cimbricus was a panic and state of emergency in Rome in response to the approach of warriors of the Cimbri tribe in 105BC. The Jacobins cited this precedent when imposing a Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. After the Jacobins lost power, the word "terrorist" became a term of abuse. Although the Reign of Terror was imposed by a government, in modern times "terrorism" usually refers to the killing of innocent people by a private group in such a way as to create a media spectacle. This meaning can be traced back to Sergey Nechayev, who described himself as a "terrorist".^[9] Nechayev founded the Russian terrorist group "People's Retribution" (Народная расправа) in 1869. In November 2004, a United Nations Security Council report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act". (Note that this report does not constitute international law).^[10] In many countries, acts of terrorism are legally distinguished from criminal acts done for other purposes, and "terrorism" is defined by statute; see definition of terrorism for particular definitions. Common principles among legal definitions of terrorism provide an emerging consensus as to meaning and also foster cooperation between law enforcement personnel in different countries. Among these definitions there are several that do not recognize the possibility of legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country and would, thus label all resistance movements as terrorist groups. Others make a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence. Ultimately, the distinction is a political judgment.^[11] [edit] Key criteria Official definitions determine counter-terrorism policy, and are often developed to serve it. Most government definitions outline the following key criteria: target, objective, motive, perpetrator, and legitimacy or legality of the act. Terrorism is also often recognizable by a following statement from the perpetrators. Violence – According to Walter Laqueur of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence". However, the criterion of violence alone does not produce a useful definition, as it includes many acts not usually considered terrorism: war, riot, organized crime, or even a simple assault. Property destruction that does not endanger life is not usually considered a violent crime, but some have described property destruction by the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front as violence and terrorism; see eco-terrorism. Psychological impact and fear – The attack was carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact. Each act of terrorism is a “performance” devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols, to show power and to attempt to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government, while increasing the prestige of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.^[12] Perpetrated for a political goal – Something that many acts of terrorism have in common is a political purpose. Terrorism is a political tactic, like letter-writing or protesting, which is used by activists when they believe that no other means will effect the kind of change they desire. The change is desired so badly that failure to achieve change is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians. This is often where the inter-relationship between terrorism and religion occurs. When a political struggle is integrated into the framework of a religious or "cosmic"^[13] struggle, such as over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Israel and Jerusalem, failing in the political goal (nationalism) becomes equated with spiritual failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than their own death or the deaths of innocent civilians. One definition that combines the key elements was developed at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies by Carsten Bockstette: "Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states." ^[14] Deliberate targeting of non-combatants – It is commonly held that the distinctive nature of terrorism lies in its intentional and specific selection of civilians as direct targets. Specifically, the criminal intent is shown when babies, children, mothers and the elderly are murdered, or injured and put in harm's way. Much of the time, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings" that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorists possess. Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting their message out to an audience or otherwise satisfying the demands of their often radical religious and political agendas.^[15] Unlawfulness or illegitimacy – Some official (notably government) definitions of terrorism add a criterion of illegitimacy or unlawfulness^[16] to distinguish between actions authorized by a government (and thus "lawful") and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. Using this criterion, actions that would otherwise qualify as terrorism would not be considered terrorism if they were government sanctioned. For example, firebombing a city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authorized by a government. This criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally accepted, because: it denies the existence of state terrorism; the same act may or may not be classed as terrorism depending on whether its sponsorship is traced to a "legitimate" government; "legitimacy" and "lawfulness" are subjective, depending on the perspective of one government or another; and it diverges from the historically accepted meaning and origin of the term.^[17]^[18]^[19]^[20] For these reasons, this criterion is not universally accepted; most dictionary definitions of the term do not include this criterion. [edit] Pejorative use The terms "terrorism" and "terrorist" (someone who engages in terrorism) carry strong negative connotations. These terms are often used as political labels, to condemn violence or the threat of violence by certain actors as immoral, indiscriminate, unjustified or to condemn an entire segment of a population.^[21] Those labelled "terrorists" by their opponents rarely identify themselves as such, and typically use other terms or terms specific to their situation, such as separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, vigilante, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla, rebel or any similar-meaning word in other languages and cultures. Jihadi, mujaheddin, and fedayeen are similar Arabic words which have entered the English lexicon. It is common for both parties to a conflict to describe each other as terrorists. On the question of whether particular terrorist acts, such as killing civilians, can be justified as the lesser evil in a particular circumstance, philosophers have expressed different views: while, according to David Rodin, utilitarian philosophers can (in theory) conceive of cases in which the evil of terrorism is outweighed by the good which could not be achieved in a less morally costly way, in practice the "harmful effects of undermining the convention of non-combatant immunity is thought to outweigh the goods that may be achieved by particular acts of terrorism".^[22] Among the non-utilitarian philosophers, Michael Walzer argued that terrorism can be morally justified in only one specific case: when "a nation or community faces the extreme threat of complete destruction and the only way it can preserve itself is by intentionally targeting non-combatants, then it is morally entitled to do so".^[22] In his book "Inside Terrorism" Bruce Hoffman wrote in Chapter One: Defining Terrorism that "On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. 'What is called terrorism,' Brian Jenkins has written, `'thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.' Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization `terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism."^[5] The pejorative connotations of the word can be summed up in the aphorism, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". This is exemplified when a group using irregular military methods is an ally of a state against a mutual enemy, but later falls out with the state and starts to use those methods against its former ally. During World War II, the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army was allied with the British, but during the Malayan Emergency, members of its successor (the Malayan Races Liberation Army), were branded "terrorists" by the British.^[23]^[24] More recently, Ronald Reagan and others in the American administration frequently called the Afghan Mujahideen "freedom fighters" during their war against the Soviet Union,^[25] yet twenty years later, when a new generation of Afghan men are fighting against what they perceive to be a regime installed by foreign powers, their attacks are labelled "terrorism" by George W. Bush.^[26]^[27] Groups accused of terrorism understandably prefer terms reflecting legitimate military or ideological action.^[28]^[29]^[30] Leading terrorism researcher Professor Martin Rudner, director of the Canadian Centre of Intelligence and Security Studies at Ottawa's Carleton University, defines "terrorist acts" as attacks against civilians for political or other ideological goals, and goes on to say "There is the famous statement: 'One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' But that is grossly misleading. It assesses the validity of the cause when terrorism is an act. One can have a perfectly beautiful cause and yet if one commits terrorist acts, it is terrorism regardless."^[31] Some groups, when involved in a "liberation" struggle, have been called "terrorists" by the Western governments or media. Later, these same persons, as leaders of the liberated nations, are called "statesmen" by similar organizations. Two examples of this phenomenon are the Nobel Peace Prize laureates Menachem Begin and Nelson Mandela.^[32]^[33]^[34]^[35]^[36]^[37]^[38] Sometimes states which are close allies, for reasons of history, culture and politics, can disagree over whether or not members of a certain organization are terrorists. For instance, for many years, some branches of the United States government refused to label members of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) as terrorists while the IRA was using methods against one of the United States' closest allies (Britain) which Britain branded as terrorism. This was highlighted by the Quinn v. Robinson case.^[39]^[40] For these and other reasons, media outlets wishing to preserve a reputation for impartiality are extremely careful in their use of the term.^[41]^[42] [edit] Types In the spring of 1975, the Law Enforcement Assistant Administration in the United States formed the National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals. One of the five volumes that the committee was entitled Disorders and Terrorism, produced by the Task Force on Disorders and Terrorism under the direction H.H.A. Cooper, Director of the Task Force staff.^[43] The Task Force classified terrorism into six categories. Civil disorder – A form of collective violence interfering with the peace, security, and normal functioning of the community. Political terrorism – Violent criminal behaviour designed primarily to generate fear in the community, or substantial segment of it, for political purposes. Non-Political terrorism – Terrorism that is not aimed at political purposes but which exhibits “conscious design to create and maintain high degree of fear for coercive purposes, but the end is individual or collective gain rather than the achievement of a political objective.” Quasi-terrorism – The activities incidental to the commission of crimes of violence that are similar in form and method to genuine terrorism but which nevertheless lack its essential ingredient. It is not the main purpose of the quasi-terrorists to induce terror in the immediate victim as in the case of genuine terrorism, but the quasi-terrorist uses the modalities and techniques of the genuine terrorist and produces similar consequences and reaction. For example, the fleeing felon who takes hostages is a quasi-terrorist, whose methods are similar to those of the genuine terrorist but whose purposes are quite different. Limited political terrorism – Genuine political terrorism is characterized by a revolutionary approach; limited political terrorism refers to “acts of terrorism which are committed for ideological or political motives but which are not part of a concerted campaign to capture control of the state. Official or state terrorism –"referring to nations whose rule is based upon fear and oppression that reach similar to terrorism or such proportions.” It may also be referred to as Structural Terrorism defined broadly as terrorist acts carried out by governments in pursuit of political objectives, often as part of their foreign policy. In an analysis prepared for U.S. Intelligence^[44] four typologies are mentioned. Nationalist-separatist Religious fundamentalist New religious Social revolutionary [edit] Democracy and domestic terrorism The relationship between domestic terrorism and democracy is very complex. Terrorism is most common in nations with intermediate political freedom, and is least common in the most democratic nations.^[45]^[46]^[47]^[48] However, one study suggests that suicide terrorism may be an exception to this general rule. Evidence regarding this particular method of terrorism reveals that every modern suicide campaign has targeted a democracy- a state with a considerable degree of political freedom. The study suggests that concessions awarded to terrorists during the 1980s and 1990s for suicide attacks increased their frequency.^[49] Some examples of "terrorism" in non-democracies include ETA in Spain under Francisco Franco, the Shining Path in Peru under Alberto Fujimori, the Kurdistan Workers Party when Turkey was ruled by military leaders and the ANC in South Africa. Democracies, such as the United States, Israel, Indonesia, and the Philippines, also have experienced domestic terrorism. While a democratic nation espousing civil liberties may claim a sense of higher moral ground than other regimes, an act of terrorism within such a state may cause a perceived dilemma: whether to maintain its civil liberties and thus risk being perceived as ineffective in dealing with the problem; or alternatively to restrict its civil liberties and thus risk delegitimizing its claim of supporting civil liberties. This dilemma, some social theorists would conclude, may very well play into the initial plans of the acting terrorist(s); namely, to delegitimize the state.^[50] [edit] Religious terrorism Main article: Religious terrorism Religious terrorism is terrorism performed by groups or individuals, the motivation of which is typically rooted in the faith based tenets. Terrorist acts throughout the centuries have been performed on religious grounds with the hope to either spread or enforce a system of belief, viewpoint or opinion. Religious terrorism does not in itself necessarily define a specific religious standpoint or view, but instead usually defines an individual or a group view or interpretation of that belief system's teachings. [edit] Perpetrators The perpetrators of acts of terrorism can be individuals, groups, or states. According to some definitions, clandestine or semi-clandestine state actors may also carry out terrorist acts outside the framework of a state of war. However, the most common image of terrorism is that it is carried out by small and secretive cells, highly motivated to serve a particular cause and many of the most deadly operations in recent times, such as the September 11 attacks, the London underground bombing, and the 2002 Bali bombing were planned and carried out by a close clique, composed of close friends, family members and other strong social networks. These groups benefited from the free flow of information and efficient telecommunications to succeed where others had failed.^[51] Over the years, many people have attempted to come up with a terrorist profile to attempt to explain these individuals' actions through their psychology and social circumstances. Others, like Roderick Hindery, have sought to discern profiles in the propaganda tactics used by terrorists. Some security organizations designate these groups as violent non-state actors.^[52] It has been found that a "terrorist" will look, dress, and behave like a normal person, until he or she executes the assigned mission. Terrorist profiling based on personality, physical, or sociological traits would not appear to be particularly useful. The physical and behavioral description of the terrorist could describe almost any normal person.^[53] [edit] Terrorist groups Main articles: List of designated terrorist organizations and Lone wolf (terrorism) [edit] State sponsors Main article: State-sponsored terrorism A state can sponsor terrorism by funding or harboring a terrorist organization. Opinions as to which acts of violence by states consist of state-sponsored terrorism or not vary widely. When states provide funding for groups considered by some to be terrorist, they rarely acknowledge them as such. [edit] State terrorism Main article: State terrorism “ Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims. ” — Derrick Jensen ^[54] As with "terrorism" the concept of "state terrorism" is controversial.^[55] The Chairman of the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee has stated that the Committee was conscious of the 12 international Conventions on the subject, and none of them referred to State terrorism, which was not an international legal concept. If States abused their power, they should be judged against international conventions dealing with war crimes, international human rights and international humanitarian law.^[56] Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said that it is "time to set aside debates on so-called 'state terrorism'. The use of force by states is already thoroughly regulated under international law"^[57] However, he also made clear that, "...regardless of the differences between governments on the question of definition of terrorism, what is clear and what we can all agree on is any deliberate attack on innocent civilians, regardless of one's cause, is unacceptable and fits into the definition of terrorism."^[58] State terrorism has been used to refer to terrorist acts by governmental agents or forces. This involves the use of state resources employed by a state's foreign policies, such as using its military to directly perform acts of terrorism. Professor of Political Science, Michael Stohl cites the examples that include Germany’s bombing of London and the U.S. atomic destruction of Hiroshima during World War II. He argues that “the use of terror tactics is common in international relations and the state has been and remains a more likely employer of terrorism within the international system than insurgents." They also cite the First strike option as an example of the "terror of coercive diplomacy" as a form of this, which holds the world hostage with the implied threat of using nuclear weapons in "crisis management." They argue that the institutionalized form of terrorism has occurred as a result of changes that took place following World War II. In this analysis, state terrorism exhibited as a form of foreign policy was shaped by the presence and use of weapons of mass destruction, and that the legitimizing of such violent behavior led to an increasingly accepted form of this state behavior. (Michael Stohl, “The Superpowers and International Terror” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, Atlanta, March 27-April 1, 1984;"Terrible beyond Endurance? The Foreign Policy of State Terrorism." 1988;The State as Terrorist: The Dynamics of Governmental Violence and Repression, 1984 P49). State terrorism has also been used to describe peace time actions by governmental agents or forces, such as the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Charles Stewart Parnell described William Gladstone's Irish Coercion Act as terrorism in his "no-Rent manifesto" in 1881, during the Irish Land War.^[59] The concept is also used to describe political repressions by governments against their own civilian population with the purpose to incite fear. For example, taking and executing civilian hostages or extrajudicial elimination campaigns are commonly considered "terror" or terrorism, for example during Red Terror or Great Terror.^[60] Such actions are often also described as democide which has been argued to be equivalent to state terrorism.^[61] Empirical studies on this have found that democracies have little democide.^[62]^[63] [edit] Tactics Main article: Tactics of terrorism Terrorism is a form of asymmetric warfare, and is more common when direct conventional warfare either cannot be (due to differentials in available forces) or is not being used to resolve the underlying conflict. The context in which terrorist tactics are used is often a large-scale, unresolved political conflict. The type of conflict varies widely; historical examples include: Secession of a territory to form a new sovereign state Dominance of territory or resources by various ethnic groups Imposition of a particular form of government Economic deprivation of a population Opposition to a domestic government or occupying army Terrorist attacks are often targeted to maximize fear and publicity, usually using explosives or poison.^[64] There is concern about terrorist attacks employing weapons of mass destruction. Terrorist organizations usually methodically plan attacks in advance, and may train participants, plant "undercover" agents, and raise money from supporters or through organized crime. Communication may occur through modern telecommunications, or through old-fashioned methods such as DEFINITION OF DISCIPLINE... Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:45:57 +0100 Discipline From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page. It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since April 2009. It may contain an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not verifiable with the given sources. Please help add reliable sources about this topic. Tagged since April 2009. It reads like a personal reflection or essay. Tagged since April 2009. It may need copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling. Tagged since April 2009. Sections should be added to this article, to conform with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Tagged since April 2009. For other uses, see Discipline (disambiguation). Look up discipline in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Discipline In its most general sense, discipline refers to systematic instruction given to a disciple. To discipline thus means to instruct a person to follow a particular code of conduct "order." Usually, the phrase 'to discipline' carries a negative connotation. This is because enforcement of order - that is, ensuring instructions are carried out - is often regulated through punishment. Contents [hide] 1 Usage 1.1 Self discipline 1.2 Work life 2 Methods of discipline 3 See also 4 References [edit] Usage "Discipline is the instant willingness and obedience to all orders, respect for authority, self reliance and teamwork. The ability to do the right thing even when no one is watching or suffer the consequences of guilt which produces pain in our bodies, through pain comes discipline." --United States Marine Corps To discipline thus means to instruct a person to follow a particular code of conduct or "order." In the field of child development, discipline refers to methods of modeling character and of teaching self-control and acceptable behavior"^[1] (e.g teaching a child to wash her/his hands before meals). Here, 'washing hands before meals' is a particular pattern of behaviour, and the child is being disciplined to adopt that pattern. 'To disciple' also gives rise to the word disciplinarian, which denotes a person who enforces order. However usually, the phrase 'to discipline' carries a negative connotation. This is because enforcement of order - that is, ensuring instructions are carried out - is often regulated through punishment.^cf. ^[2] To be disciplined is then, subject to context, either a virtue (the ability to follow instructions well) or a euphemism for punishment (which may also be referred to as disciplinary procedure). As a concrete noun, the discipline refers to an instrument of punishment, for example in mortification of the flesh (see also: flagellation). Such an instrument may also be applied to oneself, for example in penitence for not being sufficiently self-disciplined. [edit] Self discipline Self-discipline refers to the training that one gives one's self to accomplish a certain task or to adopt a particular pattern of behaviour, even though one would really rather be doing something else. For example, denying oneself of an extravagant pleasure in order to accomplish a more demanding charitable deed. Thus, self-discipline is the assertion of willpower over more base desires, and is usually understood to be a synonym of 'self control'. Self-discipline is to some extent a substitute for motivation, when one uses reason to determine a best course of action that opposes one's desires. Virtuous behaviour is when one's motivations are aligned with one's reasoned aims: to do what you know is best and to do it genuinely gladly. Continent behaviour, on the other hand, is when one does what one knows is best, but must do it by opposing one's motivations.^[3] Moving from continent to virtuous behaviour requires training and some self discipline. Self discipline can also be linked to 'school discipline', 'church discipline' and even 'academic discipline'. School discipline refers to regulation of children and the maintenance of order ("rules") in schools. These rules may, for example, define the expected standards of clothing, timekeeping, social behaviour and work ethic. The term may also be applied to the punishment that is the consequence of transgression of the code of behavior. For this reason the usage of school discipline sometimes means the administration of punishment, rather than behaving within the school rules. Church discipline is a response of an ecclesiastical body to some perceived wrong, whether in action or in doctrine. Its most extreme form in modern churches is excommunication. Church discipline can also refer to the rules governing some ecclesiastical order, such as priests or monks, such as clerical celibacy. An academic discipline refers to a body of knowledge that is being given to - or has been received by - a disciple. The term may then denotes a 'sphere of knowledge' that an individual has chosen to specialise in. In an institute of higher learning, the term 'discipline' is often a synonym of 'faculty'. [edit] Work life In unionised companies, discipline may be a regulated part of a collective bargaining agreement and subject to grievance procedures. In UK employment matters, a discipline hearing [otherwise known as a disciplinary hearing] is conducted by an employer when it is alleged that an employee has fallen below the required standard in an aspect relating to their employment. A discipline hearing can be instigated regarding an issue of misconduct or poor performance. The employee should be allowed to respond to the allegations during the discipline hearing. [edit] Methods of discipline Methods of discipline are social standards on who, when, why, and how people are disciplined. Typically, it is not socially acceptable for anyone other than the parents to spank a child. Depending on state law, it may or may not be acceptable to execute a prisoner guilty of murder. Standards change depending on the environment. Home: Common practices are time-out, grounding, restricting, and spanking. School: Common practices are detention, in school suspension, and out of school suspension. Society: Common practices are citations, jail time, and execution. These practices are punishments for undesirable behavior, whose effectiveness has been disputed. Positive reinforcement, as opposed to punishment, has been found to promote desired behaviors without unwanted side effects. Positive reinforcement is about preventing misbehavior by praising the desirable behavior. People tend to function better under these circumstances. Humans, in general, want to know that they are doing a good job. People work diligently to gain bonuses, promotions, good grades, and scholarships. It is important to praise children when they do the right thing because they will be more likely to repeat it in the future. [edit] See also Child discipline [edit] References ^ Papalia, D. E.; Wendkos-Olds, S.; Duskin-Feldman, R. (2006), A Child's World: Infancy Through Adolescence (10th ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill ^ Douglas, Murray A.; Strauss (2007), "Discipline by Parents and Child Psychopathology", in Felthous, A.; Sass, H., International Handbook of Psychopathology and the Law, New York: Wiley, pp. 1–2 . ^ , Fowers BJ. 2008, From Continence to Virtue: Recovering Goodness, Character Unity, and Character Types for Positive Psychology. Theory & Psychology, Vol. 18, No. 5, 629-653 Donations Graciously Accepted, and yes we are non-profit!!! Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:46:14 +0100 http://HelpmesavetheEarth.yolasite.com *Donations, products, items, cash...* All volunteer, non-profit organisation, we are, and always have been....BUT....I will be accepting donations in these forms: computer system and accessories, tower, monitor, mic, camera, speakers, internet, ( wireless acceptible) operating program doesn't really matter but big ram and big bites do matter, mouse, keyboard, I need something that works fast and noone can hack through!!!! Desperately need a handhelp C/B, police/fire scanner, 800 #, Phone Service for my cell, (can't trust the home phone!) Base Unit C/B/ w/antanae and accessories, flash lights, pins, notebooks, pens, pencils, business cards, or/ a copier/scanner/printer posters, desk, chair. Second hand, is ok, as long as it functions! As long as I have everything I need, I can get most of the job done right from home, we have alwasy had window watchers and foot and bike patrollers all over the city and of course I have always been connected to the Crime Watch in the area and to the local security and PD's. Cash donations will go towards these subjects, internet, phone service, cell phone and portions of the electric bill totally 20%. Home Security is the only other thing I need! It's a big apartment but we are incredibly frugal around here! See, I've been trying so hard to get this site all finished up and I'm sharing a computer with a 17 year old, so it's not the easiest task in the world to get accomplished, see, if he doesn't get his equal time he will take it away from Mama!!! Information on cards and posters needs to read... Augusta Area Neighborhood Crime Watch, 81 Glenridge Drive #16, Augusta Maine, 04330 Crisis Line 207-623-9101 email jangelford@yahoo.com webpage http://HelpmesavetheEarth.yolasite.com ALWAYS SEARCHING FOR VOLUNTEERS, WINDOW WATCHERS AND FOOT/BIKE PATROL!!! So, unless you have a car you want to donate....( I wish) the only other than that all I need to survive is my coffee and my tobacco and of course my vitamins and minerals and herbs!!! ...Other things I would not mind being donated are...kitchen table and chairs, a real bed, couch, lamps, pots and pans and kitchen utencils, when my ex-roomate took off he took everything with and I have nothing to my name!!! HOME SITE: http://HelpmesavetheEarth.yolasite.com The Neighborhood (Crime) Watch Program...In Originality, what it's all about Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:46:41 +0100 http://HelpmesavetheEarth.yolasite.com *The Neighborhood Crime Watch...* The Neighborhood Crime Watch Program, (from the founder herself) ,is all about the *organising* of crime, *the refocus and redirection of wrath and rage, all of physical, mental, interractive, cyber, virtual, telecommunicative, even and especially, ...paranormal!* The *point* is to assist people in *regaining pride and trust in their communities* and also in assisting BOTH, the Local and State Law Enforcement in watching over areas that they have trouble getting around to! See,There's never enough of them! It's just not in the budget,for some ODD reason. Crime Watch Programs get the community to become involved to *regain respect of the ground we walk on,* not only the people that live in the communities around us! *We deserve to feel safe letting our children play and walk down the road, for us to shop and visit!* Elders, still preach of a time in life when the community helped to take care of each other. I really do hate to be the informant to both sides equally, ...BUT!...If you are upset about people being nosey, it usually means you are one of two things, see...either an abus-er or the abus-ed!!! POINT BLANK!!! Your whole *community* could be *revenged over the one lawbreaker* in the area! This means you are doing something that you know is wrong or you are allowing something to happen that you know is wrong!!! Reguardless of how careful you are, or you think you are, *we have eyes everywhere!! Satellites in the sky pick up all red flag signals* all over the Earth, *and any illegal, unlawful, illogical or irrational behavior is red flagged, WORLDWIDE! I got the clue at a young age because my family was internationally involved online! ESPECIALLY AND EVEN AUTHORITY FIGURES ARE NOT SAFE FROM THE EARTHS JUDGMENT!!!!* Where we don't have cameras and microphones, we have physical presences, be it Guardian Angels, Invisible Friends, Angels, Demons, Vamps, Royalty, Authority, or Military Members, there are either religious freaks, ghosts or some kind of Government Officials somewhere around you, no matter where you live! *If you think you can hide or get out of jail time,...they'll focus the wrath of the terrorists in your direction!* Those people come from all areas of the Earth! Point is, to save the ground we have to plant our food in and let our children play on. When we allow people to get away with things that are unethical and immoral, even inhumane, *it diseases the ground we live on* and then the water we swim in and drink! Doing the wrong thing wears on a persons self esteem and the self esteem problems, always, no matter what, *come out in the wrong directions* for lack of better and proper focus. See what I'm sayin? Some people *want* to live to be a ripe old age, *COMFORTABLY, Preferably! Those of us who do chose such things ( and we all have a right to chose) know how to get the proper education* to be capable of such things. I do believe that's why they distributed the *World Wide Web, BECAUSE THE EARTH DESERVES THE EDUCATION NECESSRY TO UNDERSTAND...WHAT IS WRONG, HOW TO CHANGE IT AND WHY THEY GET PUNISHED/DISCIPLINED FOR THEIR EVERY LITTLE ACTION!!!* I believe that education should be free!!! *Advice, hints and tips should be free!* The whole world deserves to know what they've done wrong and how to change that, I can't stress this fact often or forcefuly enough! *That way see, we can discipline them in any and all ways when they continue to do wrong!!!* Another big point to the community involvement is to assist with *education, some people know more than others and are willing and able to share that information, properly. WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW IS KILLING YOU FASTER THAN YOU THINK!!! Don't cause anything that you don't want comming back on you, never become what you hated,* never fall for overpunishment, revenge, terrorism, sabatogue or even playing pranks!!! You don't know what you cause! The slightest little bit of frustration could set off an abuse victim because they've already been terrorised to death, that's probably what caused them to be the way they are! Everyone is an abuse victim of some kind. Abuse victims have triggers that set them off. *THINK ABOUT HOW YOU REACT TO YOUR WORST FEARS?!?!?!* Seriously, you don't want someone flaunting their hands around your face, it makes people fear, *FEAR AND ANGER MAKE PEOPLE SNAP!!!* If you are not careful, you could cause family violence and that automatically makes you a warmonger or terrorist, which is an abuser! I understand peoples rage for being screwed over by the system, friends, family, communities. Some people are *seriously misunderstood* for their looks, their abilities, their intelligence, their talents, their family names, etc. *Big clue to these people...learn social ability, body language, manners! Big Time!!! You got to, I mean it! Be kind, smile and wave, remember everyones an abuse case!!! GENTLE CORRECTION AND DISCIPLINARY ACTION!!!* Then if people get rude alert the authorities! *PEOPLE WOULDN'T BE ACTING OUT IN PUBLIC PLACES IF THEY WERE NOT BEGGING TO BE TAUGHT RIGHT FROM WRONG!!!* It gives people respect to know that there's someone on Earth that cares enough to teach them forcefully and bluntly, *in a way they can understand the why and the how not just the what, RIGHT FROM WRONG!* It makes the community a better place to be! *Making positive changes in your life, you become a worthy contribution, SEE... and the more people you involve in your positive changes, the more you rub off on people!* Be careful now, if someones in a rage, there's a reason. Maybe they just need to know someone gives a crap, maybe they are on drugs, maybe they've had a bad day. Smile and say hey, you ok? Do you need to vent? Can I help? *It makes such a huge difference...Give em a compliment! Tell them you're sorry they're havin a bad day! That almost, always works for me, if it's heartfelt, if you mean it!!! WATCH YOUR TEMPER, APOLOGISE TO PEOPLE WHEN YOU HAVE A BAD DAY AND KEEP AWAY FROM TOUCHY PEOPLE IF YOU SENSE YOUR OWN ANGER!* There are more lessons on how not to be a victim and how to correct yourself and your abusers in special ways in the rest of my blogs, *read them, it's information the WHOLE WORLD NEEDS RIGHT NOW!! Like yesterday people!! Yeterday 20 years ago!!!* I can't believe all the information that's comming back to me and at an incredibly fast rate. *Want to enhance your memory?* Read the blogs, Vision, Hearing Loss, Parenting Tips, cleaning, *Cure Alls* for disease and illness, personal therapy *without hiring a shrink!* Brainwash yourself and even those around you with gentle force! I TRULY LOVE YOU ALL, EVEN THOSE I HATE!!! Free info for all the world. If you've been abused as I have, neglected, spoiled, incested, raped, malnourished, you need all the info you can get as fast as possible. Take the time to read as much as you can!!! PEACE, ...OUT!!! http://HelpmesavetheEarth.yolasite.com

neighbordhood-watch-program

International Law...

International law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Sources of international law

[edit] Public international law

[edit] Conflict of super law

[edit] Supranational law

[edit] The European Union

[edit] East Africa Community

[edit] Union of South American Nations

[edit] Andean Community of Nations

[edit] See also

[edit] References

[edit] External links

International law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Sources of international law

[edit] Public international law

[edit] Conflict of super law

[edit] Supranational law

Childrens Rights...

Children's rights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Rationale

Historic definitions of children's rights

Types of rights

Difference between children's rights and youth rights

Parental rights

Movement

Opposition