Recent orders
Defenses of the career on damage to cargo-Montreal Convention
Defenses of the career on damage to cargo-Montreal Convention
Q. 1 what defences is available to a carrier in relation to damage to goods?
Montreal Convention, also known as Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air is a treaty which establishes or unifies rules relating to international carriage of passengers, cargo or baggage by air. Article 18 (1) of this convention stipulates that the career is liable for the loss of or damage to goods that may during the transit by air (The Institute of International Commercial Law, 2010). However, Article 18 (2) provides defenses to the career in certain cases. This section exonerates the career from this liability in the event that the loss or damage occurs as a result of inherent defect, quality or vice of the goods. Secondly, the article stipulates that the career will not be liable if the loss or damage results from defective packing of the goods performed by other individuals other than the career or its agents or servants. In addition, the career will not be liable under the Montreal Convention if loss or damage on cargo resulted from an act of war or an armed conflict.
Q2: What if the goods are damaged as a result of a customs examination – is the carrier liable? If not, why not?
The career will not be liable in the event that damage to goods occur as a result of customs examination. Article 18 (2) (b) of the convention stipulates that the career will not be liable in case destruction, loss or damage to cargo occurs as a result of an act of a public authority during the exit or entry of the cargo (The Institute of International Commercial Law, 2010).
References
The Institute of International Commercial Law, (2010), Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air – Montreal, 28 May 1999, Pace University, White Plains, New York
Defense of Abortion
Name
University
Course
Tutor
Date
Defense of Abortion
Human being a noble race, anything that is done in ill willed spirits elicits some heated debate. So many schools of thought have come up to with many definitions regarding abortion.some say is the act of detachment from non bodily components, some say is the unwilled termination of unwanted pregnancies. Nevertheless, this is the process by which the fetus is prematurely removed from the mothers womb intentionally or unknowingly(Lunneborg) To some extent in the normal it refers to pregnancy loss irregadless of the causation factors. Warren, for instance argues that for a person to have qualities of animacy and to be precisely humanity, and the right to exist, he must assume the position of feeling pain and pleasure to some extent, also he must show emotions, that come with different feelings of sadness and happiness ,in addition, he should be able to reason tackling the challenges positively which he’s faced with are faced with. Above all he should be able to pass on information effectively via relaying messages correctly to the intended parties around him. In Warren’s statement, fetuses have none of these factors, and the result therefore is that fetus claim on life. This is supposedly true, since the termination of the fetus due to be born not inflict any suffering upon them, because their emotions and feelings are not yet shaped up (Potts). In her argument, Jarvis seems to be inclined to the situation that leads one into pregnancy than the fetus itself. Especially when she uses the analogy that, rape and kidney operation gives the woman unpleasant right to maintain pregnancy, hence this leaves here with the option to terminate it.
Critics of Jarvis
According to Marquis, nobody has the right to risk his own life at the pretext of another. Using the example of violinist, whereby she supposedly gives an analogy in which one discovers that the life of violinist has been lodged into his, the risk rest with the disconnection from the violinist, and if so it happens then he would be embattled with death of the violinist . The rationale behind this is that since he is under no responsibility to ensure the survival of the violinist he can choose to detach himself.
Some opponents argued that there are other ways one might have acquired a right to the use of someone’s body than by having been allowed to use it by that person. For example if a woman voluntarily engages in intercourse, knowing of the probability it will result in pregnancy, and then, she does contract pregnant; the question critics ask, “is she not in part accountable for the presence, and the very existence, of the unborn child?”. No doubt she did not solicit for it. But her partial responsibility for its occurrence gives it a right to make use of her body.Furthermore, some critics relates this episode of wanting to a abort with the act of boys stealing the chocolates, and in smidgen like one unplugging from the violinist. They argue that doing so would be depriving the fetus of what it does have a right to, and thus an injustice to it.
How critics defend the stand on abortion
On the other hand, critics of abortion flexes the muscles, They maintain that the unborn person has a right to its mother’s body to the limits that if her pregnancy resulted from a self willed act, undertaken in full knowledge and complacency of the chance a pregnancy might occur from it. It would exclude entirely the unborn child whose existence is as the result of rape. Pending the propping of some further views, then, they feel left with the conclusion that unborn people whose existence is due to rape have no right to make use of their mothers’ bodies, hence aborting them doesn’t deny them anything they can access rightly, and hence they conclude it as not unjust killing.
Again, some supposes that if pregnancy only lasted for an hour, and posed no threat to life or health. While some supposes that if a woman became pregnant due to rape. Admittedly she did not choose by herself to do anything that brings about the existence of a child. Undoubtedly she did nothing whatsoever which would give the unborn child reason of her body. All the same, they say, as in the newly hutched violinist story that she ought to permit it for that hour because that would be indecent of her to refuse.
Successes of these criticisms
Even though there has been much orchestrated voices on abortion this seems to have taken the ancient proverbial muse of dodo and the great auk. According to Warren stand, is that the voices and debates put on abortion have realized less, even to an abhorable length different states have made it illegal. This implies that the positivities realized and gained from this situation do not measure up. On a calculated scale, their is a rise in death of young girls who tempt the act of abortion. The main cause still is not new but the rationale that they are all the time being kept on a hide and seek game leading to inability and fear in accessing the hospitals for hygienic and proper medicatin.This leads them to dingy places where they feel un revealed to practice the act. Moreover in this underground places their safety is never guaranteed hence even succumb to death due to crude and un sterilized tools used in carrying out abortion (Stotland). Such matters can be tamed by governments through the making of laws that govern matters of abortion. In warrens view, it probable and possible for the maters concerning abortion to well addressed in hospitals, hence proper treatment for girls.
Comments
Therefore, the matters concerning pregnancy and birth are better and will be better addressed by women and not backstreet preaching on abortion hence good laws give women the chance for making informed decisions.
Works Cited
Lunneborg, Parma W. Abortion: a positive approach towards ones decision. New York : Thrift publishers, 2009.
Potts, MacDonald Abortion as a good practice . London:Antoinne and sons inc, 2008.
Stotland, Nadham L. Tuth and feelings on abortion. . New York : Hader publishers, 2007.
Defendants Rights, The bill of rights
Defendant’s Rights, The bill of rights
Name
Institution
Abstract
The bill of rights is meant to safeguard the rights of all Americans against violation by the very government meant to uphold the law. These rights and privileges also apply to citizens accused or convicted of crimes. Specifically, the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments provide safeguards and protections and privileges for defendants as well as convicts. These provisions have over time influenced the criminal justice system in different ways. A good example, is the Fifth Amendment right to be free from self incrimination, as well as to be subjected to the due process of the law, which has even led to the rise of aspects such as the Miranda warning; currently an integral part of law enforcement. The implementation of these four amendments has greatly affected, not just law enforcement, but also the courts and the correctional facilities.
Defendant’s Rights
The bills of rights normally acts as the main source of citizen’s rights, and are captured in the constitution, as the first ten amendments. These amendments usually safeguard the American people from being taken advantage of by their government. Specifically, four bills usually provide guidance and procedures that apply to citizens who have been accused of crime, are defendants in criminal cases, as well as inmates in prisons or jails. These bills include: the Fourth amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth amendment and the Eighth amendment. The Fourth amendment protects defendants from being subjected to unreasonable searches or the findings of such searches being seized. The Fifth Amendment not only provides the defendant with the privilege against self incrimination, but it also promises the “due process of law and ensures safe guards against double jeopardy (the government trying a defendant twice for the same offence). The Sixth Amendment outlines the basic conditions that must be met before criminal trials proceed; amongst them being the right of the defendant to counsel. Finally, the Eighth Amendment focuses on inmates and their welfare by forbidding the government from subjecting them to unusual and cruel punishments (Hall, 1960). These protections also include protections against state or local governments. Failures by government or state organs to follow these set procedures usually results in suppression of statements made by the defendant or evidence arising from such statements. As such, these four amendments have significantly influenced criminal justice over the years, governing not just law enforcement, but also profoundly determining the course of a number of criminal trials over the years.
In particular, the Miranda warning, based on both the Fifth and the Sixth Amendments and named based on the outcome of the famous Miranda versus Arizona trial (384 U.S), has taken centre stage in a number of trials, with the failure to follow the required procedures being responsible for the suppression of evidence on numerous occasions. The Fifth Amendment specifies that the defendant is privileged from self incrimination and must be subjected to due process, part of which overlap into the provisions of the Sixth amendment, on requirements that must be met before a trial can proceed. The Miranda warning forms part of the substantive due process which requires that police officers make defendants aware of their rights regarding statements they may make and their usability. Further, the warning must also include information regarding the defendant’s right to an attorney and an affirmative response indicating that they understand. The warning, therefore, offers a clear outline of the basis of interaction between law enforcement and the defendant. Overall, the warning requires that a defendant must intelligently, voluntarily and knowingly waive the rights provided within these amendments, especially the Fifth Amendment, in order for the government to be able to use statements the defendant makes, as evidence. Based on the precedent set by the Supreme court in whereby it ruled that a admitting a statement elicited from the suspect without having informed them of their Fifth Amendment rights, amounted to violation of the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right (Ernesto Arturo Miranda in this case). Furthermore, the court also found that it went against the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to consult counsel and to have counsel present before speaking to law enforcement officers (Fletcher, 2000).
Other subsequent prominent cases in which the question of Miranda rights and violations of the Fifth and Sixth amendments have taken centre stage include: United States v. Patane, in which even though physical evidence (a gun) obtained through an un-Mirandized statement was initially suppressed, it was subsequently allowed by the Court of Appeals. In a different case, Pennyslvania vs. Muniz, the court convicted the defendant even though the incriminating statements and evidence were obtained during a field sobriety test without the administration of the Miranda warning. The courts held that the un-Mirandized statements were actually unsolicited, making them admissible. In a totally different dimension to the case the courts found that the defendants confessions were inadmissible simply because the defendant had confessed under the belief that his attorney was present while that was not the case (Kanovitz, J. & Kanovitz M., 2008).
Personally, I do agree with how the right has been implemented so far, as it not only safeguards the rights of the defendant, but it also encourages professionalism and an adherence to the law. Although at times the loopholes provided by the need for and application of the Miranda warning are exploited by defendants, its existence ensures adherence to due process, which ensures that there is no miscarriage of justice (Williams, 1983). On the other hand, the Miranda warning is a simple manifestation of the different interpretations that can result from the same laws, as different circumstances call for different interpretations and application of the Fifth Amendment. For instance in the case of Miranda v. Arizona, the court upheld that his rights had been violated, while in the cases of Muniz and Patane, the courts failed to uphold such rulings. This indicates that despite the existence of such laws safeguarding the rights of defendants, when the due process is followed, justice often prevails (Gross, 2005).
References
Fletcher, G. (2000). Rethinking Criminal Law. Oxford University Press.
Gross, H. (2005, reissue). A Theory of Criminal Justice. Oxford University Press
Hall, J. (1960). General Principles of Criminal Law. Lexis Law Pub.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Kanovitz, J. R. and Kanovitz, M. I. (2008). Constitutional Law (11th ed.). Matthew Bender andCompany, Inc. Newark, NJ. 694-697
Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (1990)
Williams, G. (1983). Textbook of Criminal Law. Stevens & Sons.