IT in Finance Industry Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

IT in Finance Industry - Essay Example If I have to do this project again, I will plan a version management system and instruct the team members to strictly follow it and verify the version of the files before uploading them to the live server. First and foremost, always have up to date reliable anti-virus software with an Internet Firewall installed in the system. It is not possible to eliminate all threats as hackers and malware programmers cannot be eliminated. So the best policy is to prevent such attempts. In case a threat is encountered, the user has to report the issue to the anti-virus software provider, so that the provider can issue a fix for that threat as well. The system administrators can have security certificates and encryptions included in their web applications so that it is impossible for anybody to include viral software in the web application and spread it across the web. As far as a backup system is considered, reliability is far more important than the features included. The main reason for using a backup system is to restore the original system if it encounters a sudden threat or gets corrupted. The backup system has to be reliable and error free so that it can actually serve its purpose. Limited features are sufficient for a backup system, as they do not play major role. In order to provide uninterrupted service to the end users, it is always essential that the backup system is reliable and is always ready to be used as a substitute. In this case, resolving the problem depends on the nature of the issue and at times, even on the level of technical knowledge of the user. In any case, the basic things to check in the event of a complaint are: The first thing to do is to stop continuing the changes try and reverse the changes done recently. It is best practice to take a screen shot or record the steps that are being taken. The database has to be checked to verify if the

The Four Prototypes of Community Justice Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

The Four Prototypes of Community Justice - Essay Example The main goal of community justice is preventing community crime, community policing, defending the community, community prosecution and restorative court systems. The idea is formed around the notion that the community takes control of its policing activities in collaboration with the police system (Hayes & Bryant, 2002). This management of the community’s own public safety is essential because it gets everyone involved. This improves the flow of information to the authorities. The methodology that will be employed in this analysis will involve an in-depth analysis of books authored and online discussions on the prototypes. This analysis will look to summarize and evaluate the extent of these prototypes and their application in the practical community setting. The idea of community justice will also be evaluated in general, and its practicality analyzed. A study of books authored on this subject will provide an essential source of material in the analysis. The study is also mainly meant to analyze the four different prototypes of the community justice system and their overall effectiveness. Citizen involvement in activities of crime prevention has become a normal practice in many communities. This has led to collaboration with the police to achieve reduced criminal activity in the communities. Because the community structure has changed, the dynamics of the nature of crimes has also increased (Cadora et al., 2011). The community struggles to keep up with these changes. Mobilization is one of the ways of ensuring that the changes felt in the community are achieved. In the mobilization model, police look to act as leaders in the community and mobilize members of the community. This mobilization is done to individuals and also to business representatives, educational institutions, both local and state owned, social providers and the youth. These and other groups are mobilized

Howard Schultz Essay Example for Free

Howard Schultz Essay Organization culture has been defined and studied in many and varied ways. Culture is defined as the set of key values, beliefs, understandings, and norms shared by members of an organization (Daft, 2012). The culture of an organization is going to play a big role in the success of the company. No matter how big or how small the company is, maintaining a culture that all employees can live by. Having all employees on board with the company’s mission will pay off a great deal in the long run. Starbucks is one of the premier coffee shops in the United States and their mission tell consumers what they do to maintain a huge customer base, to inspire and nurture the human spirit – one person, one cup and one neighborhood at a time (www. starbucks. com). This paper will help consumers understand Starbucks’ organizational culture and the key leadership and management traits used to execute the business strategy. When people think coffee, they think Starbucks. Starbucks has become a hot commodity when it comes to consumers and their coffee. When people go to a Starbucks, they already know what they are getting, specialty coffee, great customer service and a nice cozy place to relax and just kick back. From the CEO on down to the baristas, Starbucks has developed a culture that sets them apart from other coffee shops around the world. Their success can be credited to the customer service. Anyone in a business knows that customer service is very important and can determine the success of a company. Starbucks thrives on ensuring that the baristas develop positive relationships with all customers. By doing this, customers will start to become loyal to the company. Loyal customers will keep Starbucks competitive in a market that a lot of people seem to be fond of because when people get up in the morning, nothing may be more refreshing then a cup of coffee. The Starbucks organization wants all its customers to feel like they are part of something special when they purchase a cup of Starbucks coffee. To help strengthen the culture, Starbucks focuses on being active in communities, in addition to their environmental responsibility, business ethics, open door policy, and their concern for the employees, customers, and stockholders, all these things make a strong positive organizational culture (Campbell, 2009). Within the organization, from the Starbucks executives down to the baristas, when it comes to maintaining the positive organizational culture that has been laid out for all employees, Starbucks separates themselves from many other coffee shops. The Starbucks management team has not based their success off of several things. Within the company the stores offer things that not many restaurants offer, such as Wi-Fi, exotic styles of coffee and a comfortable place to relax and enjoy a hot or cold coffee beverage. These things differ from other coffee spots in the world, so it makes Starbucks very unique. The innovative coffee styles that Starbucks uses attract the traditional coffee fanatic, as well as a new customer base. The styles of coffee will maintain customer loyalty and loyalty is one of Starbucks main focuses. The dedicated customers consist of business professionals and students. These are the individuals that Starbucks employees will see the most. The environment is made for them as well. For example, business men and women may go to Starbucks for lunch. It is comforting, quiet, and the store gives off a positive vibe. For students, it gives them a chance to indulge in a good beverage as well as take time out of their day to kick back and read a book or even catch up on a few homework assignments, whatever the case may be Starbucks offers an environment that others do not. To some consumers, having the coffee may just be a bonus; they really enjoy the environment Starbucks offers. According to brand expert Priya Raghubir, â€Å"Starbucks stands for coffee; it’s converted that into an experience, â€Å"People really have gotten to know Starbucks as the quintessential coffee shop, where they can sit and be welcome over a cup of coffee† (Shayon, 2013). As discussed previously, customer satisfaction is very important to the brand and company. Making customers feel at home by making Starbucks a cozy environment and providing free Wi-Fi keeps customers happy and keeps customers coming back. The management team coming up with these concepts really puts what they are trying to do as a company in prospective and also gives consumers an idea of what their company culture is. Throughout the company there are different management positions. It is the job of this team to attain organizational goals in an effective and efficient manner through planning, organizing, leading, and controlling organizational resources (Daft, 2012). Within the Starbucks culture one of the main focuses is the customers. With that being said a good management competency to have is communication. This is a very important skill to have because at Starbucks employees are constantly dealing with customers. Even at the executive level of management, communication is even more important because these are the individuals that are making the decisions that could affect the entire company as a whole. When those decisions are made they need to get communicated down to the baristas and everyone else in between. Communication fits perfectly within this company’s culture. Communicating things from the top to bottom tells all the employees what the main purpose of the company is. Communication helps maintain the culture throughout the whole company as well. For an organization like Starbucks were the focus is to keep customers coming back, the employees must communicate with them at a level that employees from other coffee shops just are not use to. With how Starbucks operates as a whole, they have made themselves the place to buy coffee, which they are not really known for. They are recognized for their great communication with the customers, with other employees, and the management team, and the goal is maintain this level of professionalism so the new and existing customers re-enter a Starbucks and always get the same exact experience no matter the location. â€Å"We’re not in the coffee business. It’s what we sell as a product but we’re in the people business hiring hundreds of employees a week, serving sixty million customers a week, it’s all human connection† (Gallo, 2012). Chief Executive Officer Howard Schultz is the man behind how this culture was developed; he is the one that drives the bus today. Back in the 1980’s Schultz had a vision to enhance the way people drink their coffee and he did just that. Starbucks coffee speaks for itself; it is the culture Schultz put in place that makes Starbucks unique and a nice environment to be in. Starbucks opened its first store March 30, 1971 with more than 17, 000 locations around the world (Gallo, 2012). Without Schultz, this company would not be what it is today. Since the early 70s the company has managed to emerge as a premier coffee in the world, and in the 80s with Schultz at the helm. In 2000, with Schultz not in the mix, things did not go as well as expected when he resigned. Eight years after his resignation; he was appointed as CEO again to help the company from the downward spiral they were on. Schultz stressed that is was going to take a lot to get Starbucks back to where they needed to be. It is clear that Schultz made a big impact on Starbucks when he was CEO, and when he was not CEO, the company took a bit of a plunge. Without Schultz, over time it seems like Starbucks may have not lasted. Answering the question, would Starbucks achieve long-term sustainability as a global leader in the coffee industry without Howard Shultz, the answer would have to be no. Just in a short period of time, the company managed to get away from the culture Shultz brought to the company. As an organization, it is their job to live up to the culture that was put in front of them. There have been many times in business where new leaders are appointed and they just do not live up to the expectations. This is a problem that can be fixed if communication is sustained as well. All companies develop or have a culture set in place already. Management plays a key role in developing and ensures that the culture is maintained. Starbucks is an organization that thrives off their culture and this is the reason why they are successful in the business world. They have set themselves apart from other coffee shops by focusing on things other than just the coffee, like the customers, the environment, and for business professionals and students, the Wi-Fi. The organizational culture at Starbucks may not be the best, but they are making a strong case for the organization. References Campbell, A. (2009, November 09). Organizational culture. EZine Articles, Retrieved from http://ezinearticles. com/? Organizational-Cultureid=3203513 July 23, 2013 Daft. (2012). Management. (10th ed. ). Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Gallo, C. (2012). Starbucks ceo: Lesson in communication skills. Forbes, Retrieved from http://www. success. com/articles/1272-rekindling-the-heart-soul-of-starbucks? page=2 July 23, 2013 Shayon, S. (2013, March 08). [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://www. brandchannel. com/home/post/Starbucks-Customer-Loyalty-030813. aspx July 23, 2013 .

The Iraq War and International Law

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

technology :: essays research papers

Introduction Even now, customer relationship management (CRM) is in its growth stage. Until recently, diverse individuals defined this concept differently. As the name suggests, the primary focal point is placed on the customer. If a company develops better customer relationships, it also improves business processes as well as its profits. In general CRM, is a more efficient automated method used to connect and improve all areas of business to focus on creating more solid customer relationships (CRM Research Center, 2001). All forces are coupled together to save, improve, and acquire greater business to customer relationships. The most common areas of business that are positively affected include marketing, sales, and customer service strategies (Digital Consulting Institute, 2002; CRM Research Center, 2001). CRM helps create time efficiency and savings on both sides of the business spectrum. Through correct implementation and use of CRM solutions, companies gain a better understanding of their s trongest and weakest areas and how they can improve upon these. Therefore, customers gain better products and services from their businesses of choice. In order to achieve better insight on CRM, it is essential to consider all of its components. Analogous to other technologies, CRM has its goals, costs, implementation strategies, and success and failure stories. Goals   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  If successful, CRM can assist businesses with many customer-oriented processes. In general, companies will be able to offer better customer service. By keeping track of customer preferences, a company will have a better idea of what type of questions to expect (Bannan, 2001). Through well-organized call centers they can provide faster more intelligent solutions to customers' questions and complaints. Costs   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  CRM does not come without its costs, however, according to a recent survey conducted by The Data Warehousing Institute, nearly half of the people surveyed stated that their CRM project expenses were less than $500,000. This demonstrates that not all CRM implementation has to be costly. On the other hand, this survey also presented that quite a few participants had budgets of more than $10 million (CRM Research Center, 2001).

Yes...There Is Too Much Sex :: essays papers

Yes...There Is Too Much Sex In today's media driven society, it's not unusual that teenagers spend more time in front of the television than they do in the classroom. So, needless to say, teens are seeing and learning a lot from television. The problem is, they are learning and seeing too early. And they are learning too much. What are teens learning you might ask? They are learning about sex, sex on the media. In the U.S. alone, children will see an average of 15,000 sexual images each year on television. Now, that normally may not be a problem, teens today are very mature for their age and can handle seeing those images. The problem is, the messages that are sent along with those sexual images. Messages about sex being so nonchalant and so not a big deal; that poses a problem. Saying that sex can only be romantic if it's spontaneous; also, three out of four teens say that television shows and movies make sex seem normal for teenagers to experience. With that, the amount of high school students that are having sexual intercourse has gone up to 60% since the 50% it was at in 1999. So the question again is†¦is there too much sex in the media? There are many shows that teens watch that show sexual images. The thing is, they don't show people using contraceptives of showing the consequences of their actions. The show "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is a perfect example. The show will have the main character, Buffy having sex with her many partners that she has had. And never once worry about pregnancy or STD's. And with that, it shows that its cool to have sex and to be promiscuous and naà ¯ve about it. Now its not that "Buffy" is a bad show, they just don't show the scary sides of sex, they don't show real life. "FRIENDS" on NBC is another example. The show constantly shows the characters sleeping around and having a "good time" about it. Only within the past 2-3 seasons have they shown consequences for their actions. Rachel got pregnant after having a one-night stand with Ross. The difference between this show and reality is that Rachel is in her mid 30's and has a career and can afford to have a baby. Most high scholars aren't ready for that responsibility yet. And the fat that the message is put across that sex is fun, and that no responsibilities are needed to worry about.

Incarceration of African American Males Essay

Introduction The trend of African American males between the ages of 25 and 29 has seen a dramatic increase of incarceration. Attention has been focusing on areas of housing, education, and healthcare but the most prominent problem for African American males is the increase in the incarceration rate. African American males between the ages of 25 and 29 incarceration rate has been thought, by many, to be caused by economic factors such as under employment or unemployment, poor housing, lack of education, and lack of healthcare. Yet, others believe it is due to the imbalance of minorities within the criminal justice system, such as judges, lawyers, and lawmakers. This paper will explore two different outlooks; society has come up with so far, as to why African American Males between the ages of 25 and 29 are increasingly incarcerated. Finally, the information will give awareness to the problems that is faced by African American Males between the ages of 25 and 29. Prevalence – Problem 1 More than 40% of all American prisoners, men and women, are African American men, yet they make up just 13% of the U. S. male population (Roberts, 2004). This statistic does not include those African American men who are in local jails nor does it include those African American men under custodial supervision (Table 2). They enter the state and federal prison system, at the prime of their economic and reproductive lives and yet they exit prison behind both economically and socially. The high rate of incarceration among African Americans has been noted by the interconnection of poor economy, lack of affordable housing, mental illness, substance abuse, domestic violence, absence of a strong black male role model, lack of access to education, or some type of combination of these factors. Statistics don’t even give African American males a good chance to stay out of jail. They have a one in four chance of being incarcerated, while Hispanic American males have a one in six chance, and white males only have a one in twenty three chance of incarceration. The color of African Americans sets them apart and makes them targetable. Prevalence – Problem 2 There is evidence, in our American Justice System, of structural inequality as seen in the percentages of minorities to the percentage of majorities employed in high ranking positions, within the system. The percentage of United States judges by race are 79% Caucasian, 12% African American, and 2% Hispanics American (Federal Judicial Center, 2012), as for the thousands of lawyers in the United States it is approximate of 3% are African American (National Law Group, 2010-2011), and about 1 in 4 police officers are members of a racial or ethnic minority in 2007 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2013). An investigation into racial profiling showed that African American and Hispanic American offenders, who often are young unemployed males, are more likely than their white counterparts (Spohn, C. , 2000). Their prison sentences are also typically longer or they receive differential benefits from guideline departures than do similarly situated white offenders (Spohn, C. , 2000). We must acknowledge the problems of racial disparity within the criminal justice system, communicate racial disparity within the criminal justice system with those we who are not informed of the problem, and stay committed to changing racial disparity within our justice system for change to begin. Causes In researching the high rate of incarceration in America it is more likely than not that the increase in African American Males being incarcerated is due to the War on Drugs (Table 1). It is public knowledge that drug crime ranks high among the effects of poverty. These poor neighborhoods not only endure crime they have poor schools, poor food, cramped living areas, and shortage of jobs if any jobs at all. Drugs and drug crime has become regularity in low income communities, arrests of Hispanics made up 55% of cocaine powder offences and 52% of marijuana offenses and 49% involving opiates: African Americans were suspected in 75% of crack cocaine cases; White males were suspected in 41% all methamphetamine cases (Motivans, M. , 2011). Decades of failed public and private remedies for chronic disparities and disadvantages in communities of color invite us to reexamine systems and institutions that provide and restrict opportunity in new ways (Lawrence, K. , 2011). The causes seem to be intertwined being poor equals, equals a poor education, equals lack of employment, and ultimately equals an increased rate of crime. Consequences The causes seem to be intertwined being poor, equals lack of education, which equals lack of employment, which equals increased rate of crime which equals impossibility to join criminal justice system. Also, many of these men are incarcerated while all the other non-incarcerated American young men are finishing school, starting careers, earning seniority at work, marrying and having children thus gaining capital. Even when released from prison, these men return back to their communities with a felony record that will pose extreme problems for them. The incarceration leads the released convict into a lower social class even if they were considered lower class Americans prior to their incarceration; they now are lower in social class standing in most instances. This leads to a poor African American community, perhaps as many as 50% of the male population will have been in prison. These incarcerated African American Males, who are in their prime of life, also are leaving half the families in this community facing such things as poverty, lack of affordable housing, mental illness, substance abuse, violence, absence of a strong black male role model, lack of access to education, or some type of combination of these factors. The community ultimately will become poverty stricken, struggling to survive, and ultimately vulnerable to the situation repeating. Solutions – How can this be changed? There are four key aspects to addressing racial disparity, in my opinion: 1. Acknowledge 2. Communication 3. Setback = Strength 4. Commitment Not only is the problem of racial disparity under recognized by society it is not being communicated effectively to make change. Majority groups needs to acknowledge racial disparity and minority groups need to communicate their knowledge regarding racial disparity. As each group majority and minority begins to become share their information with each other and work together for a common solution acknowledging there will be setbacks but with continued commitment systemic change will happen. Conclusion By refusing to tolerate disparate treatment of people of color or anyone within the criminal justice system we empower ourselves and our country. It is time that everyone including our legislators, law enforcement, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges work collectively and courageously to eradicate this negative stigma. Despite, America being known for its equal rights we are living proof that in this era inequality is a factor that cannot be taken lightly. The statistics that are surrounding African American males is astounding. We need to empower African American males with the knowledge that they have a one in four chance of becoming incarcerated. It is also important to know that Hispanic males have a one in six chance, and white males have a one in twenty three chance of incarceration. All of these statistics need to be addressed to empower each and every one us. Throughout history we have not seen a change in majority groups (White, Male) and minority groups (Women, anyone that is not White) although we have seen numbers of minorities increasing at a fast pace. Today, however, the election of Barack Obama, not once but twice, may set the new ideal of what an American actually is. As we embrace different cultures and their ethnic backgrounds society will prosper. As society increases their knowledge, in regards to each person’s differences, they will acquire greater strength and prosperity. The only issue, that can occur, will be in the short term empowering others to embrace diversity. When we look beyond short-term, focus will shift to diverse empowerment through embracing the knowledge of our differences thus making us stronger as a society. TABLE 1: BLACK PROPORTION OF DRUG ARRESTS, EXCLUDING MARIJUANA POSSESSION YEAR BLACK % 1999 40. 1 2000 39. 3 2001 39. 1 2002 35. 8 2003 33. 8 2004 33. 1 2005 33. 2 Data calculated from drug arrest figures by race provided by the Uniform Crime Reports division of the FBI TABLE 2: FBI CRIME REPORT Arrests By Race, 2006 [11,249 agencies; 2006 estimated population 216,685,152] Total White Black American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian or Pacific islander Total White Black American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian or Pacific Islander TOTAL 10,437,620. 7270214 2924724 130589 112093 100. 0 69. 7 28 1. 3 1. 1 Drug abuse violations 1376192 875101 483886 8198 9607 1000 63. 6 35. 1 0. 6 0. 7 DUI’S 1034651 914226 95260 13484 11681 100 88. 4 9. 2 1. 3 1. 1 Liquor laws 466323 398068 50035 12831 5389 100 85. 4 10. 7 2. 8 1. 2 Drunken-ness 408439 344155 54113 7884 2287 100 84. 3 13. 2 1. 9 0. 6 Dis-orderly conduct 5117264 325991 179733 7606 3934 100 63. 0 34. 7 1. 5 0. 8 (The FBI: Uniform Crime Report, 2010) References Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2013, http://bjs. ojp. usdoj. gov/index. cfm? ty=tp&tid=71 The FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2010, Table 43, http://www. fbi. gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u. s/2010/crime-in-the-u. s. -2010/tables/table-43 Federal Judicial Center, 2012, Overview of the United States Court System, http://www. fjc. gov/public/pdf. nsf/lookup/FJC_Standard_PPT_English_June_2012. pdf/$file/FJC_Standard_PPT_English_June_2012. pdf Lawrence, K. , 2011, Race, Crime, and Punishment: Breaking the Connection in America, http://www. aspeninstitute. org/sites/default/files/content/docs/pubs/Race-Crime-Punishment. pdf Motivans, Mark, 2011, Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, http://bjs. ojp. usdoj. gov/content/pub/pdf/fjs09. pdf National Law Group 2010-2011, http://blacklawyers. net/ Roberts, D. , 2004, Measuring the Social and Moral Cost of Mass Incarceration, in African American Communities, http://www. law. fsu. edu/faculty/2003-2004workshops/roberts. pdf Spohn,C. ,2000, Thirty Years of Sentencing Reform: The Quest for a Racially Neutral Sentencing Process, http://www. justicestudies. com/pubs/livelink3-1. pdf.