Human Rights Act provided a new basis for judicial interpretation but “not a basis for striking down any part of it.” Domestic courts are put in a position of a problem solver but their “hands” are bind really tight and it is hard to protect human rights since so many prohibitions are implemented. On other hand, looking to Human Rights Act from a political perspective, it is thought that this act upholds the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty and political control. Since more tools are given to the judiciary it may result in judges as law-making power. Recent governments have shown concern over the increased power
A world government though is more likely to instead of taking care the public rights to be driven by its own interests. Therefore the true nature of the democracy of a global polity is likely a utopian idea as well. The national interests are stronger and we have seen by many examples of the current international politics that remain priority something that realists supports as well. It would highly unlikely for a government to prioritize global interests rather than national making the creation of a global polity practically inconceivable. Furthermore, would creating one authoritarian organisation enable democracy or rather destroy it?
Here America, take it back, we don’t want it. As a citizen of the United States, one is granted an extensive amount of rights and freedoms that aren’t always present in other countries. But what good are those privileges when we don’t take advantage of them? Our right to vote is one of the most crucial benefits we are given. It gives the people a chance to decide who is best suited to lead our country for a better future.
Eliminating the causes of crime, like poverty, unresolved personal issues that escalate into violence and a general imbalance of privileges would be much more efficient in the long run, albeit of course it would mean that some people might have to give up their unique position, wealth, and the like. I 'm not saying everyone needs to have exactly as much as everyone else, but if people would have an easier access to education and thus could build up a live for themselves in which they have just enough, nobody would need to commit crimes anymore. This is of course a task that can 't be performed as quick and easy as just installing more cameras everywhere, so the society itself would have to commit to working out
What is limitation of diplomacy using technology give the examples? Although technology provides a good influence in the world to diplomacy because it indirectly change the DNA of diplomacy itself, but it is not impossible that technology has a bad or dangerous impact on diplomacy because in modern times everything is fast and free (Sandre, A. 2013). With a lot of information that can be accessed freely of course can also bring adverse effects, especially on diplomatic relations of a country which of course does not always go well and smooth like in want for both parties. Where with information abundance makes the government a target of excessive public opinion, not to mention the loss of privacy from the state to keep secret of what needs to be concealed.
Problems are solved faster because they only need to go through one person who is the king. The law making process is simpler since the king makes the laws. The state has a strong Amy which is a benefit to the state because it will have good defence. The disadvantages absolutism is that it leads to inequality of wealth. Where there is an irresponsible leader it is quite hard for people around to force this leader out or replace him with a more effective leader.
Some negative effects may be it being used against the other branches of government and then they would get a greater amount of power. Secondly It could spread untruthful news very quickly . Also If there is ever a flaw it could be recorded in an unsuitable manner. Finally anything that is shared to the public through media cannot be undone. Overall the consequences of making this decision of creating media to be the fourth branch of government outweigh the positive effects.
Favors among close circles of officials are likely easier to be traded in secret. They also have a higher expectation of privacy for themselves that comes from not bearing the weight of a campaign. Lastly, the downside of elections is the fear that judges would vote with reelection in mind instead of the law. The elevation to an almost celebrity status is a lot of pressure. There are many expectations and people to please, including campaign contributors.
Those who are financially capable take part more than others and are able to press their requests on the government. Public authorities, thus, are substantially more receptive to the rich than to the average individuals and the poor. Candidates running for elections with more financial support basically have a higher possibility of drawing in voters and beating their rivals. This results in a legislature that is ruled by the elites, helping the elites. Subsequently, popular government falls flat in light of the fact that the privileges of the less advantaged are not equivalent to those of the
when choosing they look not just to the person but to the group , and even that the head of the state is lack of power but still the prime minster less important than him . the ability to judge and change the government give the parliamentary the chance to change it when it's not doing its job . The democracy in letting the people choose the president which let them feel that they have the choice . that the president have a stabled period of time in his position they can't change him till its finish unlike the other governmental positions under this system . the separation of the power , which give the president the ability to make a quick decisions .