There are two basic responses to the harm principle as a means of limiting speech. One is that it is too narrow; the other is that it is too broad. This latter view is not often expressed because, as already noted, most people think that free speech should be limited if it does cause illegitimate harm. George Kateb (1996), however, has made an interesting argument that runs as follows. If we want to limit speech because of harm then we will have to ban a lot of political speech.
The United Nations is not a world government and can therefore not make laws. This is why The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a legally binding document. Many countries have, however, ratified it and adopted the declaration into their own law book. The United Nations has also developed treaties to further protect the people’s rights. These treaties include conventions which countries are invited to participate in order to sign and later ratify the topic of agreement.
One reason that explains why immigrants do not seek help is the language barrier that immigrants struggle with. The fact that “mental health treatment relies on direct verbal communication rather than objective tests as for physical illness …” (Kim et al., 2011, p.104) makes it really difficult for immigrants with low English proficiency levels to accurately describe their symptoms to a doctor further isolating them without receiving professional help. Many cultures also consider mental health issues “taboo” and might not have direct translations for such issues. (Simich, 2010, p.20). Another factor is the stigma that many cultures attach to mental health issues.
They took their time in hopes of getting such a landmark decision correct. Their first opinion did not address the implementation, instead a second opinion a year later addressed this matter. “This decision went to considerable length to spell out the kinds of problems that would face the implementers,” but it failed to set specific deadlines (Raffel 35). The opinion also forced states to set up desegregation plans “with deliberate speed” under specific guidelines (Goodman 287). This included placing the responsibility of reviewing these plans under the jurisdiction of the federal District Courts.
The CHF policy was created using a top-down approach, in which the Central Ministry of Health and the World Bank wrote the act with the assumption that the District Managers would comply with the guidelines of the policy. In this traditional managerial approach, the central government had more power than the District Managers, who had limited input on the creation of the policy, despite their position on the frontlines. Thus, District Managers felt that the policy was imposed upon them without proper discussion of key issues.11 This left the District Managers feeling powerless over how the CHF should be implemented, and in turn, caused a bitterness and resistance to the CHF. The negative attitude towards the policy influenced District Managers actions, or lack thereof, to support the success of the CHF in their
The author argued that the U.S supreme court applies the customary law in such situation where no available treaty, law, code that fits to resolve the dispute. Skelton (n.d.) has explained that the U.S supreme court applied legal precedents that supported the international customary law, regarding coast fishing ships, which was first made by King Henry IV of England during the world between England and France in 1403 and assigned by Emperor Charles V and Francis I of France in 1521. The court, eventually, decided that the seizure was unlawful and the owners got his properties back with a compensation for the damages and costs. Scholar Rothenberg (2004) has reinforced the existence of customary international law in the U.S federal common law system by stating that international law could displace the federal common law when the court has to make a sentence, but is unable to find any suitable domestic rule, law, and code that regard to the case. Sosa v.
Socio-discursive imaginaries: Towards an ideology “Ce n’est […] pas le discours qui est politique mais la situation de communication qui le rend politique. Ce n’est pas le contenu du discours qui fait qu’un discours est politique, c’est la situation qui le politise” [ It is not the discourse that is political but it is the situation of communication that makes it political. It is not the content of discourse that makes that a discourse is political, it is the situation that politicizes it] (Charaudeau, 2014: 30). According to Charaudeau, political discourse can be an area in which a system of thoughts is being developed. This system results from a discursive activity aimed at creating a political ideality of reference that will enable the creation of a mindset and of positioning.
It must be noted that the epistemological view of anthropocentrism is often overlooked and sometimes denied in the environmental ethic debates. However, most non-anthropocentrists grant great concern to the ontological and ethical views; since these scholars use and combine these two positions in their critiques of anthropocentrism as well as in their positive non-anthropocentric proposals. But as Tim Hayward (1997) pointed out, ontological and ethical views are not necessarily compatible: This is to say that one can support the ethical anthropocentric position without holding the ontological view, furthermore the criticism of the ontological cannot bear credibility to the criticism of the ethical position. Sometimes, anthropocentrism is
The key differences between international law and domestic law are: structure of law system, and effectiveness of enforcement. The international law system is more dynamic and decentralized than that of domestic law; by lacking a formal executive, legislative, and judicial system there is a lot of gray area. Rather than the traditional branches of government, international law relies on its three main adjudicators: the state, the UN Security Council, and the international courts (Lecture, 2014). The states must decide to take action. The UN Security Council was supposed to have the executive power, however they can only veto, they cannot establish or clarify rules, nor enforce them.
Demands that are being made by the citizens of the country, are often ignored or set aside. And demands that are turned into inputs, often do not get processed into outputs. The issue of sanitation in the township of Khayelitsha, provides one with a view into a broken political system. The City of Cape Town Municipality has been pressured by the residents of the settlement to draw up a revised sanitation plan to solve the current problems. According to a social audit that was conducted by the Social Justice Coalition, the current situation is unsanitary, unsafe and many people lack access to this basic facility.