Blueprint For Action

Blueprint For Action exact Book Analysis of Blueprint for Action A Future outlay CreatingBarnett, Thomas P.M. Blueprint for Action A Future Worth Creating. new-fangled York, NY G.P. Putnams Sons, 2005.Thomas P.M. Barnett Weblog. Biography. http//www.thomaspmbarnett.com/biography.htm.Since the block of the Cold war, the United States (US) has struggled to define its role as the remaining superpower. Overnight containment and dissuaderence, the defining schema of the second half of the twentieth century, became questionable and a new dire strategy never emerged to resume its place. Without a clear mint, US tribute constitution since the collapse of the Soviet Union has generally relied on maintaining a balance of power in the inter field of study scheme. Then on 11 September 2001 (9/11), the US was attacked by terrorists and suffered its first domestic strategic multitude shock since the Japanese charge on Pearl Harbor in 1941. In reaction, the US has undergone a historic reorganization of government and is waging an unprecedented global war on terrorism. Yet despite the thousands who have died and trillions of dollars spent since 9/11, the US has non established a coherent, sustainable, and realistic grand strategy that accounts for accepted chance and the future world context.In an attempt to fill this grand strategy vacuum and contextualize the current world environment Thomas Barnett has written a series of books that provide a new paradigm for understanding our current and future world circumstance. In the first book, The Pentagons New Map fight and Peace in the Twenty-First Century, Barnett frames the global dynamics in toll of rule sets that govern globalization and provides a vision for achieving global security department. In the second book, Blueprint for Action A Future Worth Creating, Barnett delivers the specifics of actualizing this vision and is the subject of this essay. Specifically, this paper critically analyzes Blueprint fo r Action because it is inspirational in scope, relevant to the future of US national security strategy, and has implications that warrant honest military consideration.Thomas Barnett is a strategic planner who has worked in national security affairs since the end of the Cold War. Earning a PhD in policy-making Science at Harvard, Barnett served as professor at the Naval War College, senior advisor in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and has been involved with several(prenominal) strategic related Department of Defense activities. Over the net decade, Barnett has authored 2 books, written several articles, and has been widely read by civilian and military audiences.Building off the vision articulated in Pentagons New Map, the dissertation of Blueprint for Action is that in order to close the gap mingled with the encumbrance conjures (healthy and functioning) and the tornado states (unhealthy and disfunctioning) the US must(prenominal) lead a warmheartedness state eff ort to establish the rule sets and institutions that leave behind connect shot states with the benefits of globalization. This in turn will reduce threats to consequence states, promote world(a) inclusiveness, and surrogate global peace. Barnett passionately argues, we need to fetch sure our security rule sets match our growing network connectivity, and that our political rule sets uphold pace with our economic transactions. To accomplish this, the book postulates two fundamental actions to make this a reality.First, a System Administrator Force (SysAdmin) comprised of warmheartedness state cap mogul must be created to ensure that assail intervention into hoo-ha states have the take follow on forces to win the hearts and minds by rebuilding infrastructure, enabling government, etc. Barnett points out that the US militarys warfighting capacity (Leviathan) and the accompaniment US economy is non optimized for securing the security environment lying among war and peace. We apons procurement and service centric force generation intentional to support the Cold War high-end strategies of a bipolar world no longer apply to the multipolar globalized environment where low-end fourth generation warfare (4GW) requirements prevail. given up this, the US must transform its military to promise existing and call security needs and enlist former(a) Core state participation. To this end Barnett posits that dividing the military into a Leviathan force that prosecutes high-end war characterized primarily by US airpower (Air Force and Navy) and a SysAdmin force (Army and Marines) characterized by low-end 4GW proficient content is required to address the war-peace gap. Moreover, the multinational SysAdmin force would be comprised primarily of early(a) Core states and the significant US contribution would be its global logistics capability and 20% of the overall force structure. This approach would then leverage existing Core state military competencies and create a counterbalance to a US dominated Leviathan force.Even if the White House and all four run bought into this argument, the riddle with this construct is that it makes the assumption that Core states will entrust the US with the preponderance of a Leviathan force. Essentially this proposal suggests that non-US Core states command the absolute majority of the soft power and the US command the hard power. Given this, it is dubious that rising powers such as China will find this administration appealing. Similarly, Russia with their resurgence of nationalism along with much or less European nations that comprise the majority of the Core states will also be suspicious of what would appear to be the US trying to corner the market on high-end warfare. Additionally, Core nations in general will be reluctant to support US combat dominance given its preemptive track record over the last five years. Barnetts blueprint suggests that the employment of force would not happen without the meeting of minds of fellow great powers because America would be deterred by the realization without the multinational SysAdmin teensy would change in a targeted Gap state. Unfortunately, this logic does not deter the US from pursuing its own vital interests in spite of former(a) Core state objections. What this construct proposes is that the US will monopolize what matters most hard power and global reach. Therefore, the strategy is idealistic in that it does not provide a compelling case for US or its allies. clear-sighted that a constrained fiscal environment will challenge the bill of US power over the next 50 years, rising powers worry China will be just as inclined to rest out an eventual decline of American strength. What Barnett fails to provide is a more convincing rationale to support his idea. To do this he needs to address how the US will give up its unilateral preemption policy and assuage Core state fears of US monopolizing hard power. For example, high-end weap on system cultivation could be intentionally spread over multiple Core states. By making the US restricted on various unconnected sources for arms manufacturing it would leverage the benefits of globalization, increase the interconnectivity of the Core, and create distributed weapon system colony to keep the US in check militarily. Clearly, many in the US (i.e. military and defense contractors) would object to this, but for a global grand strategy of this nature to succeed checks and balances will need to be structurally imbedded into the institutional framework to foster trust and discourage unilateral tendencies.From a theater strategic joint warfighting perspective, Barnett is proposing a major transformation of US military force structure and strategy that is dependent on other Core state participants as much as they would be dependent on the US. To actualize this blueprint the Army would be optimized for 4GW and the Marine corps should remain a mini-Leviathan within the Sys Admin force. Additionally, Civil Affairs units embedded in the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) would be integrated into the Army. The idea is to reconfigure US military forces into distinct Leviathan and SysAdmin force structures. This transformation also implies developing the ability to synchronize with the SysAdmin forces of other Core states and provide the logistical framework for fast global deployment and sustainment. Given the existing issues involved with US force development the scale and scope of developing synchronized Core wide resourcing, doctrine, training, and supply is questionable.The second postulate that Barnett advances is the requirement to establish global rule sets to deport Core state actions for dealing with politically bankrupt states inside the Gap and individual terrorists. The goal of these rule sets is to create transparency, reduce uncertainty, generate non-zero-sum outcomes, and foster a sense that everyone needs to play by the Cores emerging r ules. The problem with the Gap rule set is that initiation of Core action is dependent on the United Nations (UN) Security Council to achieve consensus. Additionally, the rule set does not address how to reconstitute targeted Gap states politically in their transition to peace. Culture, religion, and other factors will clearly make any national rehabilitation unique, and Barnett fails to lay a fundamental political organizing philosophy. Clear political organizing principles need to be articulated to ensure the transparency. Finally, because the blueprint suggests that SysAdmin military force is structurally shared out among Core states the rule set would need to address how Core states will collectively react to an attack.Without a doubt, Blueprint for Action is a must read because it offers a plausible context for understanding the global security environment and a framework for addressing the threats we face today. More importantly, Barnetts paradigm forces readers to recoil b eyond national constraints and allows for the conceptualization of optimizing civil and military joint capability mulitnationally. Finally, Barnett offers an optimistic future worth creating and plants the seed for an international discussion on proactively securing the future for our planet.

McDonalds Global Expansion

McDonalds Global expansionCompanies al ane(a) over the globe be formulation for expansion and ports of entering new markets which are profitable by means of divers(prenominal) entry modes (Deresky, 2006). Managers suppose at different strategies that lot be utilise to fly off the handle world- abundantly (Deresky, 2006). There are many reasons for companies to go global or expand overseas. There are reactive and proactive reasons for the same. Increased global competition, customer deals, potential opportunities, declining foreign trade barriers, increase expenses in domestic markets are ab egress of the reactive reasons for companies going global. To acquire economies of scale, expanding base for return and profits, cost savings, access to different resources are some of the proactive reasons for companies going global (Deresky, 2006). An example of a richly society which looked to expand beyond its borders is McDonalds, one of the close to advantageful com panies in terms of implying international strategies successfully.2.0 Company OverviewMcDonalds, the to the laid-backest degree renowned lush food chain of the world, started in 1955 by a visionary named Raymond Kroc (McDonalds The Ray Kroc Story, 2010-2011). Kroc played a probatory role in revolutionizing the fast food industry in the States and currently Mc Donalds is serving over 60 million customers in over 117 countries on a daily basis (McDonalds The Ray Kroc Story, 2010-2011). The company has a global brand look on and worldwide recognition. It is one of the most widely recognized icons of the world in the fast food restaurant industry.By reaching saturation levels in the linked States, McDonalds looked to expand internationally amidst increasing regulations. But they move uped with a scheme by controlling regulate products, clean and green environments and Ameri smoke origin. With experience, localization started increasing and the entire poseur was redone to appeal the localites of the foreign country. This strategy has been a turnaround point for McDonalds still it has thed potential of losing brand equity in the future (McDonalds situation single file 2007, 2007).Inspite of an American base, McDonalds respects the markets, cultures, beliefs and likings of a nonher(prenominal)(a) nations. Customers identify with the brand name and the prosperous Arches are recognized not only in America that in foreign countries as well (McDonalds Fact File 2007, 2007).4.1 certification ModelMcDonalds franchising process is that of a strategic network (Hitt, et.al 2007). Around 85% of the restaurants are operated by franchisees. McDonalds follows a standardized striation of procedures across all its restaurants in terms of quality, service, cleanliness and treasure propositions. Basically, the central control is in its home where different financial and strategic controls are utilise to create value for the entire network (Hitt, et.al 2007) .5.0 Expansion Strategies in Different countries1. CHINA The strategy used by McDonalds in China is quite different from the port the restaurants are otherwise bear awayd in the United States. The prime reason for the success of McDonalds in China is the involvement of McDonalds to adapt to Chinese Culture. Local passel manage the operations in McDonalds in China, thereby reaching out in an easier way to the locals of the country. Additionally, the managements ability in Europe slowly changed the try out of the Asian consumers towards fast food which is an unusual aspect of the Chinese culture. Locals in China responded positively to the fast food concept of McDonalds thereby do the investment in China a successful one. near of the other ways the approach in China was different as compared to the United States was that McDonalds customized the menu by adding teriyaki burger which gave locals the flavour of their native food taste (McDonalds Fact File 2007, 2007). Customization of products to oblige local needs is a key work out that should be considered in the global expansion plan.2. randomness Africa A relatively unique strategy has been used by McDonalds to serve customers where they can enchant their meal while shopping and playing. This approach is used in super populated areas with busy lifestyles of South Africa. Additionally, the drive- by dint of approach works well in the South African region. Therefore, there are superior number of drive-through as compared to Australia and United States. This particular facility gives McDonalds an upper hand in South Africa. The base of the approach is to provide comfort to the customers in shopping malls, towns and other areas. Different marketing strategies are used to attract slew from different sections of the society. The returns for McDonalds in South Africa birth surpassed the initial targets of turnover and profits. With over 90 offsetes in South Africa, employment opportunities are towering for local people and are expected to rise. Furthermore, McDonalds is currently using the vertical integration approach to improve its productivity with efficient software packages. All these factors contribute to the noble revenues and with advanced software systems the aim is to rear bottom line as well ((McDonalds Fact File 2007, 2007).3. Brazil McDonalds opened its first branch in Brazil in 1979. The franchise model has been successfully used in Brazil and the management team has been praised for consistent performance and high standards of quality. one and only(a) of the accolades received by McDonalds in Brazil is the Hallmark of Quality. One of the challenges that cost for McDonalds in Brazil is bankruptcy because of which it is difficult to meet the expenses on a monthly basis. Inspite of the fast growth in Brazil, franchisees have bother in reducing costs ((McDonalds Fact File 2007, 2007).4. Saudi-Arabian Arabia other example of adaptation to the local culture is the way McDonalds has managed the business in Saudi Arabia. McDonalds closes five generation in the day for prayers and they do not serve pork to respect the Islamic culture in Saudi Arabia. There are some exclusive outlets of McDonalds in the Holy city of Makkah which serve to Muslim customers only with only Muslim staff in every department ((McDonalds Fact File 2007, 2007).5. India The approach to adapt locally to the country has been a highlight for McDonalds success. In India, the menu is highly customized to suit the Indian tastes and this justifies the inclusion of aloo tikki and paneer burgers. The Big Mac becomes Maharaja Mac in India and another highlight of the menu is having separate vegetarian kitchens with separate utensils and cooks. This feature has been especially taken care off for make sure that the needs and requirements of the vegetarian world are sueed ((McDonalds Fact File 2007, 2007).6.0 Organizational capabilitiesOrganizational capabilities look at a firms ability to manage resources in order to chance on sustainable competitive advantage (Hitt, et.al 2007). The internal analysis of the firm are carried out to understand its strengths and weaknesses either which are existing or are potentially going to exist in the future as compared to its competitors (Deresky, 2006).6.1 Strengths of McDonalds1. Adaptability It is one of the major strengths of McDonalds. Customization of activities and menu to suit local needs is the single most factor contributing to its success. This takes care of blending with the local culture and determine of the foreign country. McDonalds is an example of a company which is concentrate in its nerve but still customizes the menu and the operational activities for local needs.2. Innovation With wide variety of options available from snack wraps to drinking chocolate to burgers to McCafe, McDonalds is very innovative with citation to its products. Also, the processes or the way every country operations are m anaged are innovative in a way that they are suited to fulfill the local needs.3. Corporate Social Responsibility McDonalds has programmes for having a better society. Some of the programmes they have are the greener than ever programme recycle, renew programme living creature welfare program to name a few. McDonalds believes in having sustainable yield chain consisting of 3 ES Ethical Responsibility, Environmental Responsibility and scotch Responsibility (Sustainable Supply Chain, 2010-2011).4. Marketing The McDonalds logo is a popular one amongst children and adults all across the globe. This compliments the marketing efforts which are carried out through market analysis thereby giving positive returns to McDonalds.6.2 Weaknesses1. Customer profit Long queues, insufficient employees at the counters are frustrating for customers and many times the employees are rude in terms of their behaviour with customers.2. Currency fluctuations When companies go global, there is always a r isk associated with currencies as they keep fluctuate based on the markets. This can cause difference in think returns for McDonalds.3. Franchisees Challenges There is an increase in the fee that franchisees have to pay to McDonalds thence resulting in selling of the businesses and dissatisfied franchisees.Additionally, it is important to understand the opportunities and threats that potentially exist for McDonalds to consolidate its global position in the fast food industry.6.3 Opportunities1. Expansion Even though it serves over 60 Million people on a daily basis that accounts for just about 1% of the worlds fit population. There are a lot of emerging markets particularly in the BRIC countries such as Brazil, Russia, India and China.2. Increase in fast food folk Based on statistics from Euromonitor, there is a growing posit for fast food. For example In Australia, sales of fast food grew by 7% in terms of value in 2008 to reach A$ 10,921 Million. This demand is increasing due to stressful lifestyles and constant time pressures (Consumer lifestyles- Australia, 2009).3. Growing need for drive through facilities Drive through facilities is highly visible in South Africa. They can look at expanding these facilities in other separate of the world with dense populations.6.4 Threats1. Competition With globalisation and increased number of companies face to expand internationally, it is a challenge for McDonalds to keep up to or enhance its already existing powerful status in the market.2. Unexpected circumstances Uncertainties such as natural calamities, unexpected diseases can affect the brush up flow of activities for McDonalds in terms of procurement of goods and food contents which can decline the sales drastically.7.0 Organizational Structure to support the international outlineWhile understanding the organisational capabilities and the external environment, it is crucial to understand the organizational structure of McDonalds.McDonalds sets an exempl ary example of a company which implements global strategy and a centralized organizational structure. With operations in over great hundred countries and a huge number of 31,000 restaurants, McDonalds procures its food and packaging from the same set of suppliers. It shows the uniformity of a branch in United States and India. The decision making takes place centrally in the United States (Hebert, 2011).In terms of the way McDonalds organizational structure is oriented, it is relatively organized in terms of how the growth and expansion takes place internationally. But to fulfill the ever changing customer demands and customization strategies in every country, the structure needs to be a junto of centralized and decentralized forms. It also means the structure is relatively a mix of formal and informal forms which is quite a challenge to manage successfully.8.0 RecommendationsAs described in the above sections, McDonalds has huge potential in global markets to venture out in diffe rent areas specially the BRIC countries. As these cities are the centre of research and growth opportunities, McDonalds should focus their internationalization in these areas much more than they are currently doing. McDonalds should focus on high and low areas of population, reaching out to more and more sections of the society.Joint ventures can be taken up with established companies in foreign countries with inclusions of coffee shops, bakery, internet access add-ons in all high profile metropolitan cities McDonalds currently have restaurants. For example in Germany, McDonalds has a tie up with T mobile for hot spots. McDonalds should work on increasing these facilities in a lot of high profile, metropolitan cities across the world. McDonalds can look at diversifying into other areas of food industry for example McDonalds Hotel in Zurich is a distinctive venture.The road ahead for McDonalds should be to increase the nutritive value of the burgers and look at certain health aspects to control the increasing waistlines among children because of high consumption of fast foods especially burgers (Consumer lifestyles- Australia, 2009). They should look at improving their customer services at the counters by avoiding long queues and providing high levels of customer satisfaction.9.0 expiryMcDonalds is the number one brand in the fast food industry. They have successfully implemented international strategies where in they have used localization and customization processes to adapt to the foreign countries along with maintaining its American origin by having centralized procedures as well. The organizational structure is in sync with the strategy used by McDonalds to be ahead of its competitors. It is challenging for managers to consistently keep in pace with the right balance of centralizing and decentralizing the operations. Even though weaknesses and threats exist, the strengths and opportunities make it a strong player in the market in the fast food industry.

Art. 121 of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea

Art. 121 of the UN congregation of the correcteousness of the oceanDiscuss the interpretation of Art. 121 of the UN conventionality of the Law of the ocean later onward the decision in PCA-Case N 2013-19, Philippines vs china. Are in that respect general closures to be drawn which heap assist in a nonher(prenominal) similar bitternesss almost the solid ground?Siderakos PanourgiasIntroductionOn the 22nd of January 2013, the Republic of Philippines commenced, under sum up VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), an arbitration procedure against the Peoples Republic of principal(prenominal) the three estates mainland china. The dispute concerned the randomness china Sea and is mainly kn admit as the South mainland chinaware Sea arbitrament (PCA case number 2013-19). The arbitration was made before the Permanent d anyy of Arbitration (PCA). The Republic of Philippines claimed the violation of the UNCLOS Convention as long as historic rig hts, the source of maritime entitlements, the status of veritable maritime features in the South China Sea were concerned and alike doubted the lawfulness of specialised actions by the Republic of China in the specific commonwealth. In particular, Chinas rights were gainsay e documentarywhere specific islands (island formations indoors the nine-dash line). However, China denied to accept the arbitration and did non participate in the whole procedure as it did not have sex the jurisdiction of the PCA in the specific case.Area of InterestThe South China Sea is a sea in the west Pacific nautical and coers an approximate theater of 3.5 million km. From north, it is surrounded by the mainland of China, chinaw ar and Vietnam, from west there is Philippines, Malaysia and Sumatra and from south there is Borneo. Within this sea there are island and reef formations, from which the virtually important are the Paracel Islands, the Spratly Islands, Pratas, the Natuna Islands and S carborough school day (fig. 1). The wider area of the South China Sea is very unique and interesting because annu aloney, rough one third of the global maritime traffic goes through these waters. The fishing stocks of the area are massive. More everywhere, Japan and South Korea rely mainly on the South China Sea for their fuel and material supply and their trading, too. It is in addition believed by scientists that underneath the seabed, it contains huge reserves of natural gas and crude oil. In addition, the South China Sea is the area which contains steeply considerable, reef ecosystems of high biodiversity importance. All the factors mentioned above have obviously transformed the South China Sea into a very conflicting area with essential, economic and geostrategic benefits for decades now.Main Historical BackgroundThe general dispute all over the South China Sea has begun numerous years ago, from the decade of 1940s after the WWII. More specific, in 1947 the Republic of China (Taiwan) published a interpret of the South China Sea with an el flat-dash line area, which included umteen island formations that claimed to be under its reign. Two of the dashes at the Gulf of Tonkin were later removed in 1949, when the Communist Party of China took over the mainland of China, forming the famous nine-dash line area in the South China Sea (Wu Shicun, 2013).In 1951, Japan renounced all claims to the Spartly Islands of the Republic of China (Taiwan). As a result, the Chinese government proceeded to a specific declaration, reestablishing Chinas sovereignty over the wider area of the South China Sea, including the Spratly Islands.The Philippines, from their side, found their claim for the sovereignty over the Spartly Islands to the geographical proximity.Over the years, many events escalated the dispute. champion of these was in 1956 when the President of the Philippines, Tomas Cloma and a group of his people, settled on the islands, even stole the depicte d object gladiola of China from the Taiping Island, and stated the islands as a protectorate of the Philippines with the name of Freedomland. A couple of months later he returned Chinas flag to the Chinese embassy in Manila and wrote a letter apologizing and claiming that he would not proceed to any similar actions in the future. In the 1970s, some countries began to set upon and occupy islands and reefs in the Spratly Islands.The Peoples Republic of China (PRC) from its side claimed that it was entitled to the Paracel and Spratly Islands because they were seen as integral parts of the Ming dynasty. The Republic of China (Taiwan) took control of the Taiping Island (the largest one in the island formation) since 1946.Vietnam claimed that the islands have belonged to it since the 17th century, using historical documents of possessership as evidence. capital of Vietnam began to occupy the western close islands during this period. In the early 1970s, Malaysia joined the dispute by cl aiming the islands nearest to it. Brunei besides extended its exclusive economic zone and claimed Louisa Reef. discourseThe dispute, as mentioned in the introduction, begun in 2013 when Philippines started a court arbitration with the PRC, quetch about the legitimateity of specific actions in the South China Sea, the legal basis of maritime rights and entitlements in the specific region and the status of certain geographic features. The basis, on which this arbitration and all its results must stand, is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).Philippines accused PRC that the historical rights over the Spratly Islands had no serious evidence, it was responsible for fake-constructed islands that ruined the natural environment and also for the over-exploitation of the South China Sea from Chinese fishermen under its permission and tolerance.UNCLOSThe UNCLOS is a convention that was signed in 1982. Both the Philippines and the PRC are members of it, having it sign in May 1984 and June 1996, respectively. The most basic and essential aim of this Convention was the desire of the rural areas Parties to settle, in a spirit of mutual understanding and cooperation, all issues relating to the law of the sea and aware of the historic significance of this Convention as an important contribution to the maintenance of wild pansy, neverthelessice and progress for all peoples of the man (UNCLOS).The Convention was ratified by the number of 168 States. In its clauses, a very wide range of issues are being analyzed. A small itemization of them includes territorial and internal waters, transit and innocent passage of ships, to Exclusive scotch Zone (EEZ), Continental Shelf and sovereignty on resources. More specifically, it provides the coastal States the framework in recount to establish the zones and their limits, in which they exercise their national jurisdiction. Moreover, in the Convention, a specific organization is authorized in order to resolve peacefully any dispute that willing arise in the midst of States in the future. This organization is the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA).The PCA was the organization that Philippines asked for its tribunal arbitration in the case of the South China Sea, using the backstage VII of the Convention. The most relevant, with our case, zones are the Exclusive economic Zone (EEZ), the Continental Shelf, the High Seas and the Area.However, the PCA was not responsible and of course could not address the sovereignty over land territories, in particular over the Spratly Islands or the Scarborough Shoal. A matter that was all the way stated in the South China Sea Arbitration Award of 12 July 2016.Article 121 InterpretationIn this report, the article that has more importance is the article 121. According to the UNCLOS, the article 121 states that 1. An island is a course formed area of land, surrounded by water, which is above water at high tide.2. Except as provided for in para graph 3, the territorial sea, the quick zone, the exclusive economic zone and the Continental shelf of an island are persistent in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory.3. Rocks which cannot sustain compassionate habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or Continental shelf.The three paragraphs of the article 121 mentioned exactly as in the Convention above, evasive action a major role in the arrangement of the jurisdictions and sovereignties all over the world, as long as there are waters and islands in them. Firstly, paragraph 1 states with great clearance the definition of the island. A of course formed area of land, surrounded by water automatically excludes everything that is by artificial means created. No artificial-constructed islands can be considered as natural. As a result, artificial islands cannot have any maritime zones around them (contiguous zone, EEZ, continental shelf etc.). The still zone that they can legally have is a safety zone that cannot extend to more than 500 meters from its outer edges. The purposes of this safety zone are in all for maritime safety reasons. Moreover, if an artificial island can be officially proved to be a maritime danger according to the foreign maritime safety standards due to abandoning or misuse, it will be completely removed on its whole. (unclos article 60)Secondly, in paragraph 2 it is clearly stated that natural-formed islands have all the legal maritime zones around them as all other land territories do. A very strong statement, that designates many rights but also obligations to the sovereign State as long as the maritime zones are concerned and all their characteristics.Thirdly, paragraph 3 gives the most important statement from the whole article. That is that any small island (rock) with no human habitation or economic life can have no EEZ. A statement that is both clear and logical, because having a small is land with an oil platform, a casino or a military base on it, does not automatically make it a real island with an Exclusive Economic Zone. The human habitation could not be supported by its own powers and the economic life cannot be actual on a hearty basis. If a fact like this could be legal, that would extend the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the owning State 200 nautical miles even further into the ocean, interfering with other coastal States rights and jurisdictions.Chinas interpretation over Article 121It was inevitable that Chinas interpretation over the article 121 would raise many objections from its side. The most important matter for China, that it referred to many times officially, was the Japanese Oki-no-Tori-shima rock. Oki-no-Tori-shima is an atoll, located in the western Pacific ocean between Okinawa and the Northern Mariana Islands, of which only two small portions by nature jump out above water at high tide.(Award)Under that definition, and following instan tly the directions of the Article 121 (3), China denied the existence of continental shelf of the Oki-no-Tori-shima rock as it cannot sustain human habitation or economic life on its own. A rock that is currently under Japanese sovereignty and jurisdiction. A general acceptance of the non-existence of the continental shelf of the current rock, would automatically repress the Japanese rights in the specific area by two cytosine nautical miles. A huge area with many benefits, both affable and economic, as it affects both the local life of people fishing in this area but also the exploitation of possible deposits in the seabed. A possibility, supported by many scientists and theories, which could easily bring in massive amounts of profits to the owning State.Furthermore, China claims sovereignty both on the Spratly Islands and the Scarborough Shoal. Its actions imply that China considers Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Dao in Chinese) as a fully entitled island, naturally formed and wi th all the following maritime zones around it. Such actions (e.g. the extralegalise of fishing north of 12 North latitude and the objection in petroleum surveys and concessions in the area) specifically signifies Chinas thoughts and esteems over the Scarborough Island in the wider area and its rights and jurisdictions on it.Tribunals decisionsThe certified public accountant reached adjudication, mainly rejecting any claims of China in the South China Sea by historic title. Furthermore, in accordance to Article 121, the CPA did not recognize the Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal as naturally formed islands. Therefore, these low-tide elevations cannot generate maritime zones around them. Also, it state that Subi Reef, Gaven Reef (South), Hughes Reef, Scarborough Shoal, Gaven Reef (North), McKennan Reef, Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef, and Fiery Cross Reef are not islands that can sustain human habitation or economic life, so they do not have the right of any maritime zone. Final ly, it declared that the Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal are within the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of the Philippines.In general, as seen above, the CPA did not recognize any sovereign rights or jurisdictions of China related to the nine-dash line area, claiming that this area is completely contrary to the UNCLOS and has no legality. It also stated the breach of Chinas obligations amongst environmental protection of the area and its biodiversity, and also illegal prevention of traditional fishing in the area from the fishermen of the State of Philippines. analogous disputes around the worldAs described above, from the dispute of the South China Sea between the PRC and the Philippines many general conclusions were made. These conclusions can be easily used in similar disputes around the world, however worthy attention must be paid as each emplacement has its own unique parameters.Such areas are many two of the most famous are the Aegean Sea and the Caribbea n Sea. In the Aegean Sea, Greece and bomb have disputes that have started many decades before. These disputes include sovereign rights and jurisdictions over islands in the Aegean and the right of Search And Rescue (SAR) operations in its waters. In the Caribbean Sea there is a dispute along the neighboring States about the environmental protection of the area and the general maritime safety.Firstly, the main conclusion from the South China Sea that is very usable to concentrate on is the fact that an adjudication from which one of the two States does not take part in, is considered to be non applicable. From the moment that China does not recognize the award of the PCA and its jurisdiction, no real facts and results can be expected in the region rather than a continuous conflict with unexpected incidents or accidents. So, almost in every similar case around the world, it is almost for sure that there will never be a unanimous agreement from all the sides of the dispute in order t o reach a peaceful and cooperative agreement. For example, in the Aegean Sea, Turkey has been claiming (mainly under the presidency of Recep Tayyip Erdoan) that many islands are Turkish. The classical government obviously does not accept that, referring to the UNCLOS and the Treaty of Lausanne, claiming that all Turkeys claims are illegal. As a result, Turkey has never accepted to discuss over the conventions and treaties mentioned above, as it serves its own aims and rights in the region of the Aegean Sea.Secondly, another main conclusion is the fact that no artificial islands can be considered to be natural. Therefore, they cannot have any maritime zones around them. This forbids the right to any State that builds an artificial island to claim any jurisdiction or sovereign right around the waters of the island, which could possibly collide to another neighboring States continental shelf from its mainland or a natural island with human habitation and developed economic life on it. Finally, the existence of a rock just emerging over the surface of the sea does not constitute a land, capable of having continental shelf or exclusive economic zone. A conclusion that can be very useful in many disputes around the world and could force many States to reconsider their continental shelves and EEZs. terminalIn conclusion, the case of the Philippines against the Peoples Republic of China over the South China Sea is very interesting and its award and conclusions are very useful for the whole world and the society of the international maritime law. The articles of the UNCLOS Convention were strictly followed by the CPA, reestablishing Philippines rights and jurisdictions on specific regions of the wider area. Moreover, it recognized the illegal actions of China in the area, concerning the protection of the marine environment and the actions against the fishermen of other neighboring States. Although these conclusions can be used for the interpretation and analysis of ot her similar cases and disputes around the world (e.g. the Aegean Sea, the Caribbean Sea), many other factors must be taken into consideration for the final outcome. Factors such as the general geographic status of the area, the already signed Conventions or Treaties of the conflicting States and the geostrategic importance of the area, can completely alter the final outcome of the dispute. In addition, special organizations must be formed in order to resolve similar disputes. Organizations that will be globally accepted, with representatives from all the binding States.It must never be disregarded that a dispute over an area with great profits and benefits, can easily end up in a combat confrontation with many casualties from both sides. An undesirable outcome that does not promote peace in the world between States, one of the most fundamental principles of the UNCLOS. fingers breadth 1 Map of the South China Sea, including the nine-dash line area

Torts and Negligence Case Study

Torts and Negligence Case StudySajesh MaharjanIntroductionAnna, a caf leter, went to the expedition Honey Bee Nature keep Tours operated by Trevor and had injured her knees by and by stumbling down the hill side. She got treatment in the hospital and richly recoered in a month. Now Anna decides to enforce tort law against Trevor who is non only the operator but also the sole owner of the charm company for negligent exemplify and seek 12 months earnings in lost income and punitive restoration. In this regard, Anna is the plaintiff who has domiciliateed soulal speck and Trevor is the defendant who will realize to compensate for change to the complainant if proven illegal in the stage. However, the burden of proof lies with Anna and she must represent following tierce amours on the balance of probabilities that the suspect owed Plaintiff the responsibility of explosive charge, the defendant br to each oneed their traffic of heraldic bearing and the Defendant s actions bind caused the Plaintiff to suffer loss or damage. Trevor has causative scorn as a part of the defence against Anna.Duty of sustentationThe issue is whether the Defendants conduct/actions could cause harms/ combat injury to Plaintiff during the time of tour. In other words, Anna is required to prove that the someoneal injury suffered by her was jolly foreseeable and was a result of the act(s) or omission(s) of the Trevor in order to establish the craft of occupy.The neighbor principle laid out by schoolmaster Atkin in Donoghue v St blushson 1932 is dominantly used in testing whether the Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty of c ar. According to that principle, the Defendant is said to owe a duty to take intelligent care of the Plaintiff where the Defendant would have reasonably foreseen the injury to the Plaintiff by the Defendants action or carelessness. register of the duty of care is more easily recognized in bailiwicks involving open categories such as Parents and their children, employers and their employees, doctor and patients, teachers and students, manufacturers and consumers, etc. These established categories crumb be easily found in cases such as JD v eastbound Berkshire Community NHS Trust and others 2005, Smoldon v Whitworth 1997 etc.Honey Bee Nature Appreciation Tours is solely owned and operated by Trevor. He takes maximum of six lot ( nonrecreational trekkers) once per week on a six hour passing play during daylight to in bird watching and similar activities. The established fellowship of a Professional and their customers can be applicable to the case of Trevor and Anna since Trevor provides master key service of walking tours and bird-watching activities and Anna pays for that service. Moreover, it is reasonably foreseeable that his activities and carelessness have impacts on those who attend his walking tours and owe duty of reasonable care to the paying trekkers. This is supported by the case of Smoldon v Whitworth 1997 where facts were similar. Therefore, it is evident that Trevor had duty of care over Anna who attended the walking tour.BreachAfter duty of care has been well established, the next issue is whether the Defendant breached the duty of care over Plaintiff. Alternatively, the next step is to identify whether Trevors act(s) or omission(s) failed to meet the example of care required by the law. A Defendant will be held liable for negligent conduct that falls below the legally accepted stock of care for the significantly foreseeable risk of injury. It is stated in the s9 (1) of cultivated financial obligation moment 2003 (QLD) that a soulfulness is non said to have breached the duty to take precautions against the risk, unless the risk was foreseeable, the risk was not insignificant and a reasonable psyche in the similar position and circumstances of the Defendant would have taken precaution. sectionalization 9 (2) of courteous obligation Act 2003 (QLD) lists out the factor s that are taken into considerations for determining whether a reasonable person would have taken preventive measures against risk of injury which are as followsthe probability of circumstance of injury/harm without precautionthe likely sincerity of the injurythe burden of taking precautions to avoid the risk of injurythe favorable utility of the activity that cause the risk of injuryThese factors are apply in determining the standard of care that a reasonable person would have taken by balancing the first two factors against the fleck two. The risk of harm/injury is compared against the practicality of taking precautions to avoid the risks.Before the tour, Trevor sensible the tour participants to wear sensible shoes and clothing and that all the walks are conducted during daylight. He also notified regarding several fall injuries in the past because of voyages during iniquity time. He also mentions that the participants will be provided with the water and sandwiches during the hop out. One of the all important(p) facts presented in the case is that he left over(p) the tour participants (trekkers) on their own during the break so as to scout for a new-fashioned location. Moreover, he gets lost in his work and takes much longer that he pass judgment which delayed the return trip and compelled to walk during dark.A reasonable person in Defendants position would not have left the participants unsupervised for such a long time. The facts do not dis shut out whether Trevor instructed to the participants that the alcoholic beverages were allowed during the trip. However, a reasonable person would have clearly indicated whether the alcoholic beverages were allowed during the trip too sensible shoes and clothing. Similarly, a reasonable person would have scouted new places in the beginning the trip. And if the reconnoitring has to be done during the trip, a reasonable person would have taken the note of time and wouldnt delay the return. The only thing which wasnt foreseeable for a reasonable person is that someone would change into richly frump shoes in the middle of the trip during bird observation. Therefore, it can be concluded that Trevor has breached his duty of care from the given facts. This is reinforced by the case of Vaughan v Menlove 1837 where the Defendant did not acted as a reasonable person would have.DamageThe major concern here is whether the breach of duty by Trevor has caused injury to Anna. Anna has to demonstrate to the court that Trevors negligent action was the principal(prenominal) cause, though not necessarily the sole cause, of her damage. department 11(1)(a) of Civil obligation Act 2003 (QLD)clearly states that the breach of duty was a necessary condition of the occurrence of the harm. This calls for the but for test which examines would the Plaintiff have suffered the damage but for the defendants negligence. In addition to the cause, Plaintiff is also required to prove that the damage incurred wa s inside the scope of liability. Anna has to show that her injury was a foreseeable consequence of Trevors negligence.The principal here is whether Trevors negligent action of leaving the tour participants unsupervised during the break, scouting for new location without keeping track of time have caused the Anna to suffer injury. It is true that the Trevors negligent act has caused the Anna to incur personal injury. Firstly, had the Trevor not left the group unsupervised, he could have been able to find that Anna had brought wine for the trip and he could have taken actions which would avoid Anna to consume half the store of wine by herself. Secondly, if Trevor had kept track of time and while he went for scouting location, they could have made the return trip during daylight before sunset when the forest was not dark. Thirdly, Trevor knew that there is risk of fall injuries during the trip made in night or when the forest is dark. Therefore, Trevors negligent act was the cause of Annas injury which is supported by the case of Strong v Woolworths Ltd 2012 and Annas personal injury was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of Trevors negligence as in the case of Hughes v Lord Advocate 1963. defense forceAfter the Plaintiff has established the necessary duty, breach and damage, then the Defendant can institute any defences in order to reduce or eliminate their liability. The common defences are contributive negligence and voluntary effrontery of risk. The issue regarding this case is whether Anna contributed to her loss/injury and voluntarily assumed the risk.For contributory negligence, it is mentioned in the s 23 (2) of Civil Liability Act 2003 (QLD) that the standard of care of the Plaintiff is that of reasonable person in the position of the Plaintiff and what the Plaintiff knew or ought reasonably to have known at that time. In this case, Anna drank half a bottle of wine during break and changes her runners into soaring heel shoes during the return walk . Anna had also offered the wine to other people who walked the tour but everyone refused. A reasonable person in Annas position would not intake alcoholic beverages during walking tour and would not have changed their runners into spunky heel shoes. Moreover, when Anna got injured, she was under the influence of alcohol. Section 47 of Civil Liability Act 2003 (QLD) states presumption of contributory negligence if the person who suffers harm is intoxicated. Therefore, Anna has emphatically contributed towards her injury.Voluntary conjecture of risk arises in cases of recreational sports/activities which involves obvious and inbuilt risk. It is stated in the case that the bush tracks used for walking tours of Bushland border the Bunya Mountains are not particularly strenuous. Thus, there is no voluntary assumption of risk in this case.RemediesThe key concern at this point is whether the damages sought by the Plaintiff recoverable. The issue here is whether Annas claim for 12 mon ths lost in income and punitive damages for Trevors negligence are fully recoverable.Section 52 of Civil Liability Act 2003 (QLD) explains that a court cannot award punitive damage in relation to personal injury damages unless the act that caused personal injury was unlawful intentional act to cause personal injury or an unlawful sexual shock or misconduct. Similarly, it is mentioned in s 54 of CLA 2003 (QLD) that the maximum award a court whitethorn make is for an amount equal to the present prize of 3 times average weekly earnings per week for each week of the period of loss of earnings. Moreover, according to the s 24 of Civil Liability Act 2003 (QLD),In deciding the extent of a reduction in damages by reason of contributory negligence, a court may decide a reduction of 100% if the court considers it just and upright to do so, with the result that the claim for damages is defeated.We are provided with the facts that Anna is transported to the hospital and cured fully in a mon th. Despite full recovery from the injury, Anna unappealing her caf and decides to claim for 12 months in lost income and punitive damages. The facts presented in the case and the prevailing legislation suggest that she would not be awarded for punitive damages since Trevor had no intention of causing damage/harm to Anna. Moreover, she would also not be getting her claim of 12 months earnings since she fully vulcanised in a month and a court could provide a maximum award of 3 times average weekly earnings per week for the period of loss of earnings. Therefore, she may be entitled to welfare of maximum of 3 months earnings with reduction up to 100% because of her high contributory negligence.ConclusionFinally, it can be concluded that Trevor had a duty of care over Anna, breached his duty of care and caused serious knee injury to the Anna. After being fully recovered in a month, Anna decides to close down the caf and sue Trevor. Anna is likely to be awarded with 1months earnings or even less for lost income because of her high contributory negligence.ReferencesLegislationCivil Liability Act2003 (QLD) Section 9(1)Civil Liability Act2003 (QLD) Section 9(2)Civil Liability Act2003 (QLD) Section 11(1) (a)Civil Liability Act2003 (QLD) Section 23(2)Civil Liability Act2003 (QLD) Section 24Civil Liability Act2003 (QLD) Section 47Civil Liability Act2003 (QLD) Section 52Civil Liability Act2003 (QLD) Section 54CasesDonoghue v Stevenson 1932 AC 562JD v East Berkshire Community NHS Trust and others 2005 2 WLR 993Smoldon v Whitworth 1997PIQR P133, CAStrong v Woolworths Ltd 2012 HCA 5Hughes v Lord Advocate 1963 AC 837Vaughan v Menlove 1837 132 ER 490 (CP)