The Decline Of The Beginnings Of Civilization - 2439 Words

Introduction Ever since the beginnings of civilization, mankind has sought to find the most profitable use of his resources. Because humanity is mortal in nature, the amount of time devoted to one individual life is constantly growing smaller. The individual, aware of this fact and in an effort to make the most of his or her time allotted in life, devotes most of their mental and physical energies toward bettering them self and ensuring their survival. In early human times, this meant having many children, having an ample supply of food and having adequate shelter. As mankind continued to advance, groups of people with similar interests began to find one another and form communities. With the advent of communities and tribes, labor†¦show more content†¦Over time, two main economic and political societies were formed. The individual based society had values and traditions emphasizing independence. Members of these societies were encouraged to stand alone, go against the crowd and t o be successful. On the other hand, the group based society raises it’s young to a different set of values, respect for elders and family, conformity, and sacrifice of self for the sake of the whole. From the individualistic system of values, capitalism was born. And from the group-centered society, socialism was formed. Both systems have their own merits and failures, but Capitalism is the only moral system, the only system in which freedom is preserved, the only system in which a human being is still a human being, the only just system. Capitalism Adam Smith proposed the basic principals of capitalism in 1776 with the publication of his book, The Wealth of Nations. Smith emphasized four main points: Laissez Faire, Self Interest, Specialization, and Free Trade. Laissez faire means no government involvement in the economy. In Smith’s day, governments were corrupt and government involvement in business meant certain business would be favored above others. Smith also emphasized self-interest, meaning that each individual should pursue their interests and seek to better their own life. The result is a society indefinitely getting better. Specialization is division of labor into specific tasks. For example, one man is

Animals in Captivity Free Essays

string(50) " animals such as penguins that live in captivity\." The zoo is packed with children, running everywhere. They laugh and smile as they watch the animals at the zoo sleep. What these children do not realize is that these animals are dying on the inside. We will write a custom essay sample on Animals in Captivity or any similar topic only for you Order Now Animals that live at the zoo are extremely depressed. These animals can suffer severe psychological disorders from being out of their natural environment. But others argue that keeping these animals in captivity will help keep endangered species alive. However, the disadvantages of keeping animals in captivity are becoming more and more serious, and more people are beginning to believe that animals should not be held captive. Animals should not be kept in captivity because of the negative impact it can have on their life. On Christmas Day, in the year 2007 a tiger broke out of its enclosure at the San Francisco Zoo. Once out of its cage, the tiger attacked 3 people, severely injuring two people, and killing one. Unfortunately, this was not the first time that this tiger had shown aggression towards people. A year before this incident, this tiger had injured a zoo keeper during a public feeding (Roberts, 2008). In captivity animals are isolated from their natural habitat, and are provided with very little physical and mental stimulation. According to the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA), facilities with potential dangerous animals, must have appropriate safety procedures in order to prevent attacks by these animals. Sadly, these procedures were not followed at the San Francisco Zoo (Roberts, 2008). Another incident like this occurred with a killer whale and its trainer. Dawn Brancheau was drug to the bottom of her killer whale’s tank at Sea World in Orlando, Florida. Although these whales are called, â€Å"killers† there is no record of them killing human beings in the wild. According to the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, attacks by killer whales in captivity happens more than you think (McCarthy, 2010). Why do these animals attack in captivity and not in the wild? The answer to this question is believed to be linked to captivity related stress. In the wild, these animals are very social, living with 10 to 20 other whales. Placing these animals in captivity alters their behavior, and leads these animals to have unpredictable anger. Because of this animal welfare campaigners believe that killer whales should not be placed into captivity, but you can not just place the animals that were so easily caught into the wild again (McCarthy, 2010). People argue that keeping these kinds of animals in captivity provides the world with numerous educational benefits, but accidents like this are happening more and more. These incidents make a person wonder if these animals were never to be placed into captivity, would these tragedies have happened. Animals should not be kept in captivity because it has been proved to have a negative impact on their lives. Generally, animals that live in zoos suffer from poor well-being. Although, these animals receive veterinary care that they normally would not receive in the wild, they can suffer from severe stress. Evidence has been found that psychological needs of these animals are not being met. Not only do these animals suffer mentally, but they also suffer physically too. After being placed in captivity, some animals can become susceptible to opportunistic infections such as jaw abscesses (Mason, 2009). Also the giraffe has a short lifespan in captivity then it would normally have in the wild. The reasoning behind this is that they have low energy intake in the wild and poor nutritional status (Mason, 2009). Many animals that live in captivity do not seem the flourish in the same way that they would in the wild. Many animals that live in captivity do not get the kind of exercise that their bodies need, especially elephants (Smith, 2008). Being locked up in a facility might be helping these animals avoid poachers, but the lack of exercise is causing cardiovascular disease. Elephants that live in captivity do not live nearly as long as they would in the wild. 7 elephants were examined at a British zoo, and only 11 of them were able to walk correctly. It is said that advancements are being made to improve elephant environments in captivity, but numerous zoos have shut down their elephant attractions (Smith, 2008). Many people are attracted to keeping wild animals as pets. They believe the wild animals to be interesting and exciting. At a young age, the animals may seem easier to tame, but the older these animals get, the more aggressive they tend to become. Many problems can develop from keeping a wild animal as a pet. Wild animals have specific needs that have to be met, in order for them to prosper. â€Å"Only the most exceptional zoos and wildlife centers provide a living area that somewhat resembles the natural habitat of these animals, but it is virtually impossible to provide sufficient space for larger species†(CFHS). In captivity animals do not lose their wild instincts. They can be extremely unpredictable, and if provoked they can cause severe harm to people. Some wild animals, such as reptiles and hedgehogs can actually carry bacteria called salmonella, which is very easily transmitted to humans. Exotic animals can be very social, and need to have a companion of the same species living with them. If the animal is kept isolated from its kind, then it can suffer psychologically (CFHS). Many wild animals that are kept as pets often get abandoned because the owner was not able to meet of its needs. Others try to place the animal back into its natural habitat, but after being in captivity for many years, the animal is not able to re-adapt to this environment. When these animals are abandoned, it is difficult to find a new home for them. Sadly, most of these animals end up being humanely euthanized, or die from stress of being moved from one environment to another (CFHS). There are strict guidelines for some animals such as penguins that live in captivity. You read "Animals in Captivity" in category "Papers" In some areas of the world, it is actually illegal to hold these animals captive. Due to some of the elements that penguins are exposed to in captivity, some can become very ill, or even die (Penguin Facts, 2009). Although, a lot of these facilities are cleaned regularly, the illnesses can spread extremely fast to members of the penguin colony without warning. If the illness continues to spread throughout the colony then the penguins are all at risk of becoming ill, or even possibly dying (Penguin Facts, 2009). When new members are added to a colony, penguin may feel the urge to migrate, which is an instinct they must ignore in captivity(Penguin Facts, 2009). In zoos, it is commonly seen that two males or two females will have a relationship, but in the wild this is not seen (Penguin Facts, 2009). Another animal that does not do well in captivity is the monkey. Behind bars these animals are well fed and safe, but they will never be able to socialize with other types of monkeys like they normally would be able to in the wild. Victor Hugo explains, â€Å"People think they can tame these wild creatures because they’re so cute when they’re babies – but they inevitably bite someone and then become a problem†(Macaskill, 2011). Monkeys are believed to be cute and cuddly creatures, but this animal can actually feel threatened by this kind of attention from a human. Eventually, leading to attacking what it feels threatened by, as it would do in the wild. According to Victor, â€Å"Every day a monkey spends in captivity makes a difference and once they’ve become too humanized, they become non-releasable† (Macaskill, 2011). An argument many have placed in the defense of zoos is educational benefits and conservation. Not all zoos are bad. According to Michael Hutchins, PhD, director and William Conway Chair of the Department of Conservation and Science for the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, there are two kinds of zoos, zoos that meet AZA standards and zoos that just aren’t up to par (Keuhn, 2011). He also discussed that in the past few years, zoos have changed from focusing on preserving species by captive breeding to preserving habitats and species that live in the wild. Zoos support conservation by educating members of society, and raising money for conservation projects. They can also help develop technologies, and with scientific research (Keuhn, 2011). It is said that by observing animals in captivity, scientists can find valuable information that they would not be able to gather in by observing animals in the wild. However, conservation is not justification for zoos. Dr. Hutchins says that animal welfare is equally important. The AZA has taken a number of steps to improve animal welfare. They must promote natural habitats, and ensure quality care of their animals. They have also outreached to substandard zoos, to help close down the worst facilities (Keuhn, 2011). Some people argue that animals do not have rights. They believe that in order to keep endangered species alive, the animals must be captured. Zoos can also provide animals with safety from poachers and wildlife predators (Nakate, 2010). Some zoos do treat animals in a harsh manner, but there is improvement being made in the quality of care being provided to animals. There are many educational benefits that zoos and conservation centers provide people with. These places are trying to make more people aware of the environment (Nakate, 2010). Many schools take field trips to zoos in order to educate children, early in their lives about animals, and their environment. Teaching children about the environment, at a young age will help raise awareness about environmental issues later on in their lives. Terminating all zoos would hinder knowledge about some animals. For many scientists, it is hard for them to get a good look at animals in the wild. By placing some of these creatures in captivity, it enables scientists to get a closer look at these species and their behavior. Without zoos, conducting research would become a hassle. Scientists would have to go into the wild for several days to track the animal down, then once found, they would have to try to observe from a safe distance. Most penguins seem to do fairly well in zoos, and conservation centers. Captivity is beneficial to penguins that have been injured in the wild, and would have died without the help from animal caretakers (Penguin Facts, 2009). In the wild, penguin eggs have the chance of being destroyed by predators, but in captivity there is a chance for all the eggs to survive. Also, this gives animal caretakers a chance to help feed the baby penguins that the adults will not care for (Penguin Facts, 2009). Ultimately, captivity is very beneficial to the penguin population. Although, it may seem like zoos and other conservation centers provide people with educational benefits that is not always the case. Most children, who visit the zoo, do not even read the informational guides that are placed at each exhibit. Generally, people spend a few moments at each display, to take pictures of the animals then move on to the next without even taking a glance at any information given. While, not all zoos are bad, many zoos out there do not take proper care of their animals, leading them to a lifetime of misery, and pain. Without proper care, animals cannot function normally. Animals that do not live in their natural environment do not get the right amount of socialization that they need. This can cause severe physiological effects on them. The stress of moving animals from one environment to another can be harmful as well. Even though these animals are captive, they are still wild animals, and have natural instincts to protect themselves. If an animal in captivity believes it is in danger, it will attack a human, causing severe injury, or death. Some animals in captivity will attack just because it is in their nature. Once placing an animal in captivity, it cannot be placed back into its natural environment. Animals have a hard time re-adapting to the wild. Placing animals in captivity has its obvious benefits, but do these benefits outweigh the disadvantages that it has on an animal? When placing animals in zoos, people are not thinking about the natural well-being of them. They are only thinking of the scientific benefits and entertainment values that these animals bring to the world. Keeping animals in zoos may help out endangered species, but they will never be able to prosper outside of the cages of those facilities. Is an animal truly an animal when it’s trapped behind bars? How to cite Animals in Captivity, Papers

Terrorism And The International Criminal Court †Free Samples

Question: Discuss about the Terrorism And The International Criminal Court. Answer: Introduction It can be stated that Global terrorism has a seen a significant rise in the last decade. Global acts of terrorism are being reported every year. In numerous regions of the world, acts of global terrorism have become an agenda of discussion and controversy. It can be noted that the international community has taken a lot of measures to prevent and restrain the act of terrorism but significant results of the same are yet to be seen. However it is important to mention that the International Criminal Court has still kept terrorism out of its jurisdiction. Proposal given by state parties for inclusion of terrorism in the Roman Statute of the International Criminal Court It can be noted that for several years recommendations had been made to the International Criminal Court for the inclusion of terrorism by the state parties. The state parties who voted for the inclusion of terrorism in the Roman statue were Tunisia, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, and Cuba. However it can be noted that the proposition of inclusion of terrorism was in contrast with the initial intention of the establishment of the International Criminal Court by Trinidad and Tobago[1]. It was later recognized that there were many complexities involved for the inclusion of terrorism in the International Criminal Court. It can be noted that state parties could not agree on a definition of terrorism. Some state parties suggested that if war crimes, terrorism and drug crimes are to be included in the Roman statute, it would strain the resources of the court in prosecuting such crimes. However it can be noted that many other states suggested that crimes of such severity and heinousness sh ould not be kept out of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. It is to be mentioned that a resolution was adopted at the Roman Conference[2]. The resolution adopted recommended a Review Conference to be held for discussing the possibility of inclusion of terrorism in the jurisdiction of the court. The inclusion of terrorism failed in the Roman conference due to several reasons. However it can be mentioned that Netherlands during the fourth round of consultations suggested that terrorism should be included in the Roman Statute. It can be noted that the proposal had submitted the proposal to the secretary general of the United Nations. Netherlands had suggested that since there was not clear definition of terrorism, the definition of crime of aggression should be accepted for terrorism. Netherlands had also suggested that an informal working group should be established by the Review conference for examining the extent to which the statute can be adopted for the inclusi on of terrorism within the jurisdiction of the International criminal court. Reasons of failure of inclusion of Terrorism in the Roman Conference It can be mentioned that the failure to include terrorism in the Roman statute of the International Criminal Court was a result of the ambiguous and incomprehensive definition of terrorism[3]. It can pointed out that the article 2(1)b of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism[4] is the first legitimate definition of terrorism. It states that any act caused to bodily injure or kill any individual with the purpose to threaten the population of a particular region or to compel the government of the particular region to act in a particular way or to restrain from doing so is called terrorism. However, it can be noted that the United Nation Security Council stated that terrorism is a threat and danger to achieving worldwide peace and stated that every state of the United Nations must adopt such measures in coherence with the legislation which aim at prohibiting the commencement of such act by enforcing legal provisions[5]. However, it can be noted t hat the majority of the states of the United Nations have their own definitions of terrorism according to the legal provisions of the respective states. Thus, it can be said that the United Nations has failed to provide a global definition of terrorism whichcan be adopted by the International Criminal Court. Thus, it can be stated that the International Criminal Court only has jurisdiction over the persons who aim to harm the population and the government of any country but fails to address terrorism as a global issue. According to the Roman Statute, the International Criminal Court has no authority over terrorism[6]. It is to be mentioned that the aforementioned Criminal Court cannot identify terrorism as a distinct offense as the members of the United Nations have different definitions of the same according to their respective legislation. However, it was suggested that terrorism should be given specific definition[7]. It was suggested that terrorism should be put under one of the three categories of crimes as listed in the International Criminal Court. It is to be noted that the first of the suggestions stated that terrorism should be treated as a separate crime, the second suggestion stated that terrorism should put under the category of six already existing conventions of terrorism. The third suggestion stated that terrorism should be put under the category of using firearms and explosives to promote violence, indiscriminate in nature on the people with the intention to bodily injure the same and to commit indiscriminate killing. However it is to be noted that the suggestions of the states to include terrorism in the Roman statute was rejected by majority of the state parties of the United Nations. There were several reasons for the rejection of inclusion of terrorism in the Roman Statute. It can be notedthat the most important reason for the rejection of inclusion of terrorism in the Roman Statute was lack of proper definition of terrorism and what constitutes the same[8]. Another reason to not include terrorism in the Roman Sta tute is that a majority of the states of the United Nations held that terrorism does not constitute as great threat to the world as the other heinous crimes as those against humanity, war crimes and mass killing of people for the fulfilment of a political objective[9]. However eventually it was made clear to the world by the acts of terrorism that it is no way a less severe or heinous crime than the aforementioned ones. Another reason for the rejection of terrorism in the Roman Statute was that terrorism had not been viewed as a global crisis previously. It was viewed as a territorial crime and the same was believed to have no effect on international boundaries[10]. However, it is to be mentioned that with the more frequent occurrences of terrorism acts all over the word the need for global cooperation has been felt to deal with the same. It can be said the drafters of the Roman statute believed that the most atrocious and the most heinous crimes would be the subject matter of the I nternational Criminal Court. They did not want to over burden the International Criminal Court with the acts of Terrorism happening on a small scale just as they did not want to over burden the International Criminal Court with petty crimes. Conclusion Thus to conclude it can be stated that Terrorism considered as a treaty crime previously but with the widespread outbreak of terrorism all over the world and the heinousness of the same has shocked the world with its disastrous results. The inclusion of terrorism in the International Criminal Court was prevented due to the lack of an unambiguous and ubiquitous definition. It can be noted, that all the different states of the United Nations had different definitions of Terrorism and therefore arose the problem of accepting a single definition. It can be also noted that terrorism was considered to be global threat to humanity and not considered a heinous crime thus it was kept out of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. References International Convention For The Suppression Of The Financing Of Terrorism(2017) Un.org https://www.un.org/law/cod/finterr.htm. Politi, Mauro.The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: a challenge to impunity.Routledge, 2017. Werle, Gerhard, and Florian Jessberger.Principles of international criminal law.OUP Oxford, 2014. Politi, Mauro.The International Criminal Court and the Crime of Aggression.Routledge, 2017. Schabas, William A.The international criminal court: a commentary on the Rome statute.Oxford University Press, 2017. van der Wilt, Harmen G., and Inez L. Braber. "The case for inclusion of terrorism in the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court." (2014). Khan, MinhasMajeed, and Abbas Majeed Khan Marwat. "International Criminal Court (ICC): An Analysis of its Successes and Failures and Challenges Faced by the ICC Tribunals for War Crimes."Dialogue (Pakistan)11.3 (2016). Aksenova, Marina. "Conceptualizing Terrorism: International Offence or Domestic Governance Tool?."Journal of Conflict and SecurityLaw 20.2 (2015): 277-299. International Criminal Court - Some Questions And Answers(2017) Legal.un.org https://legal.un.org/icc/statute/iccqa.htm