Modern Day Nationalism Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Modern Day Nationalism - Research Paper Example Modern-day nationalism encourages regionalism and formation of regional political groups or trade unions. Furthermore, it advocates cooperation and commitment to the liberation of the poor and vulnerable in various societies across the world. Modern-day nationalism is based on the globalization and regional government concept. Most countries in different regions are changing their view of nationalism. Today, most people view and pride themselves as members of a given area or organization rather than community or tribe. According to Sutherland, through various example from across the world, it is evident different regions have plans to move away from national governance and adopt regional governance (para 2). The East Africa community that is Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania are perfect examples of countries that are planning regional governance. Similarly, sub-states such as Scotland and Catalonia also prefer regional integration and governance as opposed to individual states or communiti es. These groups desire to identify themselves with a particular region. Additionally, the formation of trade union and regional organizations such as East Africa Community (EAC) in Africa and the National American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) in the America continent shows that countries are past tribal or cultural based cooperation (Sutherland para 2). Furthermore, these organizations are formed as a way of enhancing domestic legitimacy and national prosperity among various states across the world. In addition, modern time’s nationalism greatly contributes to the global development and protection of human rights. Currently, many people feel committed to larger communities and the interest of various people across the world (Ezzat para 3). As a result, nationalism builds a sense of identity and cooperation between various people from different religions, countries or even tribes (Weeks).  

Terms 'necessity' and 'duress of circumstances' Case Study

Terms 'necessity' and 'duress of circumstances' - Case Study Example "It includes the definition of specific offenses and general principles of liability." Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Ed. Apart from other actions that lead to harm to the community, and for which civil responsibility can be fixed, "criminal law is the primary instrumentality for preventing people from intentionally or recklessly destroying life and property" Simester, A P. and Sullivan, G. R. Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine (2004) 2nd edition, (revised 2004) Hart Publishing. Criminal liability can be ascertained from two basic constituents of an action: "actus reus (actually doing an act of a criminal nature), and mens rea (the intention to carry out a criminal act)." Ashworth, A. (2003). In some criminal actions, the rule of strict liability is applied even if one of above is missing like in cases murder, assault damage to the property etc. However, common law principles provide for a defence to the accused. "The defendant is now seen as possessing a moral right to defend his autonomy, which is rendered superior to the assailant's rights by assailant's aggression." Ashworth, A (2003). Necessity and duress of circumstances are both defences based on excuse or justification. The main characteristic in the defence of justification available to the accused the main factor is that the act can be tolerated by society. According to Fletcher, this utilitarian attitude towards the non-punishment of harm-causers is supplemented by the intuitions of justice and retribution, to give an accurate account of the theory of justification. Ibid at pg. 285. Simon-Brown J elaborated upon English law on the "necessity" defence. He opined that English Law does in extreme circumstances, recognize a defence of necessity. It can arise from objective dangers threatening the accused or others in which case it is conveniently called "duress of circumstances". Secondly, the defence is available only if, from an objective standpoint, the accused can be said to be acting reasonably and proportionately in order to avoid a threat of death or serious injury. Thirdly, assuming the defence to be open to the accused on his account of the facts, the issue should be left to the jury, who should be directed to determine these two questions: (1) Was the accused, or may he have been, impelled to act as he did because as a result of what he reasonably believed to be the situation he had good cause to fear that otherwise death or serious injury would result' (2) If so, may a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the characteristics of the accused, have responded to that situation by acting as the accused acted' If the answer to both these questions is yes, then the jury could acquit, and a defence of necessity would have been established. Duress of circumstances cannot excuse the commission of an offence after the time when the threat has