Critical contexts of law - Essay Example

Critical contexts of law Q. Is there currently (2009-10) a legal basis under international law for Sylvia Baller’s call for military intervention in the affairs of East Kazakhstan? Based on current rules (2009-2010) could or should President Kasprov be made subject to the jurisdiction and justice of the International Criminal Court? Ans. Military intervention for many reasons is one of the most controversial issues in the world today. It raises fundamental questions about how countries relate to one another. Sylvia Baller may think it right to call for military intervention in the affairs of East Kazakhstan. She wanted to investigate the doings of the powerful man Karl Kasprov. No body knew any of his criminal background. Even she, Sylvia knew that he had killed her employer that’s all, but he has long records of crime in his kitty. Humanitarian agencies have been intricately involved with the international community’s use of military force in situations of gross human rights violations and grave breaches of international humanitarian law. Humanitarian agencies have called outright for military intervention and not got it. There is the option to call for the military intervention. So here in Sylvia’s case the UN may reject or even give permission of military intervention based on the severity of the issue. People fear of military intervention since there is lot of loss of life, property and the like. Many believe the intervention should be done as the very last option, where every other opportunity has been exhausted. Generally UN suggests of non military intervention where the government officials are denied visas to visit other countries unless they follow rules and remain disciplined. They need a solid and good reason for intervention. The question is does Sylvia have a solid reason apart from inhumane treatment towards his subjects? What ever he has done is a great crime but the court needs full proof of his crimes, solid proofs. The International Criminal Court (ICC), governed by the Rome Statute, is the first permanent, treaty based, international criminal court established to help end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community. The ICC is an independent international organization, and is not part of the United Nations system. The Prosecutor can initiate an investigation on the basis of a referral from any State Party or from the United Nations Security Council. In addition, the Prosecutor can initiate investigations proprio motu on the basis of information on crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court received from individuals or organizations. President Kasprov can be made subject to the jurisdiction and justice of The International Criminal Court provided the proof which Sylvia places is strong enough. Even though Sylvia knows that the president is the murderer of her employer, she has no solid proof to present the court to fight for justice. She already gave the description of the murderer to the then police but nothing happened and she knew this. She loved her employer and wanted to take revenge on her murderer. Later when Sylvia became the EU Commissioner for External Affairs, she thought that she would avenge him, by calling the military intervention on his country. She also demanded that investigations be made on him by the international criminal court on grounds of actions committed contrary to humanitarian law. But Kasprov is smart enough to fight for his defense and hence Sylvia may have to face defeat. But again there is a question will she further fight justice for her employer after she comes to know that her employer had accidentally killed an innocent nanny? Work Sites: 1.http://books.google.co.in/books?id=QT5aOlisNlIC&dq=debates+on+military+intervention&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=y2eXHvgCFI&sig=QwUYCE7pjdXZSKfJCCxqiyMwN-8&hl=en&ei=xUxRS--JKI-gkQXo_p2lCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CB8Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=debates%20on%20military%20intervention&f=false 2.http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/About+the+Court/ Assignment 2 Q. Explain the legal concepts of duty of care and breach of duty of care by reference to the characters in the story. What moral or family relationships would not give rise to a legal duty of care? Duty of care may be very wide, far reaching, and also a grey area subject to argument. In the story the husband didn’t seem to take much care of his family. He never even took care of his employees in the factory. Basically, parents owe their infant a duty of care in everything. As the infant grows to be a child, to be an adolescent, an adult, the duty of care and its scope become less and less. Muriel could herself have attended to her youngest daughter. She was into maternity leave but on duty for campaigning to extend maternity leave. If she had been with her baby the nanny wouldn’t have gone out and the murder could have been avoided. Fundamentally, a duty of care is a moral duty to care. When legal acknowledgment is extended to this moral obligation, then this duty becomes a legal requirement. Inversely, the legislature sets the duty in the statute. Then we consider this duty as legal and amoral. Once it is established that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff /claimant, the matter of whether or not that duty was breached must be settled. The test is both subjective and objective. The defendant, who knowingly exposes the plaintiff/claimant to a substantial risk of loss, breaches that duty. The defendant who fails to realize the substantial risk of loss to the plaintiff/claimant, which any reasonable person in the same situation would clearly have realized, also breaches that duty. Breach of duty is not restricted to professionals or persons under written or oral contract; all members of society have a duty to exercise reasonable care toward others and their property. A person, who engages in activities that pose an unreasonable risk toward others and their property that actually results in harm, breaches their duty of reasonable care. Gabrielle was under Muriel’s care. Muriel in a fit of anger shot her. But this was unintentional. She thought that Gabrielle had abducted her kid since she was away for a long time with the child. She thought the gun was a fake one. This deed took away her life. If she had been with the baby this wouldn’t have happened or at least she could have spoken to the nanny on late coming. It’s understood that ambitious parents don’t take good care of their children. So, they should forbid from giving birth to them. Charles was least bothered about his daughters. Alcohol was his only passion. Bill was the loyal servant to Charles. Even though Muriel was on maternity leave she left the four month old daughter in the care of Gabrielle. Muriel never investigated the nanny. She recruited her only because she was cheap. Gabrielle on her part also breached the duty of care. She shouldn’t have gone taking the baby along with her, but she had no choice, she couldn’t leave the baby with the loyal servant and that too during her duty hours. She should have taken permission from her employer and seen to it that the baby was in safe hands. She came into the words of her brother who promised to give a better job with good salary. The other two daughters were at school and no one cared to pick them up from there. Even though Bill knew this he just tried to call on the parent’s mobiles. Their mobiles were switched off and so he left messages on them. But the thing was he never bothered to look up into the problem later. Muriel did enquire about her kids and got assured of the two daughters who were at the school safe. But she got angry at the nanny to have disappeared without any notice. Muriel cared for those people who can take care of themselves. She liked to have intelligent and learned people around her. So she cared for Sylvia. Sylvia is an interesting character here. She cared for her employer. She found a role model in Muriel, but little did she know that Muriel was a murderer. She did know her employers’ murderer; hence she immediately gave the description of the criminal but all in vain. She attained a good position as an EU Commissioner for External Affairs and planned to avenge the death of her employers. This family lacked unison. Every member was leading his or her own separate life. The lady of the house only thought of her as a cheap nanny and also insulted her on her physique and dressing sense. She was not a good mother first of all. She was too ambitious and was only thinking of her political career. Her background made her like that. She saw her mother hit her father, who ran away never to return. Her poor state of life made her rough and selfish. The father never was interested in kids. He was interested in drinking and enjoying a problem free life. He was more interested in his gay servant, who was very loyal to his master no matter what. He did save his wife from police but not for love but for her position in the parliament and the money he got from it. Parents should have a good understanding and should not entirely believe a nanny. They also had a not so trustworthy servant who limited himself to his work alone. The parents’ lack of unity and care gave rise to a legal duty of care. Karl Kasprov who later on became the president never cared for his sister. He was a liar and a cheat. He lied to his mother saying that his sister was safe in Germany. For some money’s sake he was ready to sell his poor innocent sister. Work Sites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_diligence Assignment 3 Q. Can or should the principles of “access to justice” and /or human rights be used to assist the position of any of the characters in the story? Answer: Yes, access to justice should be used to assist the position of Gabrielle. Muriel the employer was on the look out for a babysitter and none of the English ladies impressed her. So she looked for nannies from other countries. She also felt that they were cheaper and hard worker. She was selfish and wicked, since she thought the person from other countries will not have any friends so they will not waste time indulging in social activity and if their work was not up to mark they can be thrown out of the country. So the nanny named Gabrielle from Almaty Kazakhstan was appointed. Gabrielle was to live in the extension to Bleak Hall. This now opened up to the back of the main building and conveniently directly connected with the ground floor kitchen, scullery and the reconstructed Victorian nursery. When Gabrielle first arrived Muriel had experienced some faint tang of disappointment. Unlike her image of young Kazak women and unlike other girls from post-Soviet countries now also lodged in Islington households, Gabrielle was not beautiful or glamorous. She was quite plump, short and quiet. Some might have thought her attractive in a domestic way, but no one in the Mandox household considered her as more than a servant. Gabrielle spoke little English on arrival and just learned a few more words in two years. However, she was obedient and even when Muriel was forced to address her sharply or strictly, she never complaint. Gabrielle was also economic. Here considering Gabrielle’s situation the family could have paid her more and this could have consequently improved her living conditions. To amuse her husband Charles’ friends Muriel had mocked Gabrielle’s fatness, forced her to wear a maid’s outfit (two sizes too small) and, in mock seriousness, locked her in her room, Gabrielle still remained obedient. Why was Gabrielle like this? She could have spoken something in her defense. But no, she had no where to go. She was even cheated by her own brother. She was ill treated at her work place but she had to obey and be patient. Her brother showed confidence in getting her a new and better job. Poor Gabrielle she fell for his plans and didn’t know the trap that lay ahead. Fortunately she was spared by getting sold by her brother due to the baby she was carrying. That made her brother angry. He lied to his sister, made her even more insecure. She was scared what treatment she would get at her employers house after her absence with the baby. Her brother fooled her and pleaded that he needs a night’s stay and slipped a small pistol into her belongings, the pistol which took her life. She was unnecessarily punished. She was killed. Even before she knew what life had in store for her, she was shown the way to the heavens. Her brother did avenge her death but for his selfishness not for any love towards his sister. Her murderers were guilty but they forgot about it as the days passed by. They even forgot her anniversary. Who did justice to her murder? None. Well no outsider knew of her murder. The beloved servant will not talk against his master, since he was a loyal slave. The husband naturally will support his wife. Even though Muriel the murderess didn’t intend to kill the nanny, she didn’t die of guilt either. The only outsider was her brother Karl, who didn’t avenge legally. He didn’t report to the police, since he was a criminal himself. He had no love for his sister. Thus, Gabrielle’s offenders remained unpunished. Read More