Aquiring Admissable Statements Essay

1. When reviewing the legal requirements to acquire an admissible statement, what similarities did you find among the four states? In general the similarities among the four states pertain to the use of public records such as religious ones, family history, documents more than 20 years old, recorded recollections, the absence of public records, vital statistics, statements about the declarant’s present sense impressions or the declarant’s the existing mental, physical or emotional state, statements about the person’s medical condition. Arizona, Illinois and New York also allow telephone conversations to be admitted into evidence as long as one part has consented to such recording (Pilgrim Software, 2007). 2. What differences did you find among the four states? California requires both parties’ consent to telephone conversation recording for the telephone call to be admitted as evidence (Pilgrim Software, 2007). California has admitted hearsay statements by victims who were murdered, as demonstrated by the (Colb, 2008) Giles v. California. New York Evidence Law (2006) does not allow prior consistent statements. They can only be used to disprove misassigned motive, as demonstrated by People v. Seit, 86 N.Y.2d 92 (1995) (p. 15).However, New York has made exceptions to such statements when they apply to present impressions (p. 15). Out-of-court identifications made by persons not present is treated as hearsay (p. 15). This is also true for California (DiCarlo, 2001). In Arizona, former testimony in a non-criminal action or proceeding is admissible. If it relates to criminal actions or proceedings it is inadmissible (â€Å"Arizona rules,† 2009). Yet, Arizona allows firsthand written accounts of the person’s activities or routines (2009). Illinois (2011) contends that one must â€Å"[†¦] prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original writing, recording, or photograph is required, except as otherwise provided in these rules or by statute† in order to be admitted. If the original is unavailable, exceptions might be made (2011). 3. What do you consider the most interesting concept regarding your comparison of admissible statements for these states? Perhaps, the most interesting concept regarding the comparison of admissible statements and hearsay exceptions for these states lie within the small and pivotal differences between them. Almost every difference is explained by a court case in that particular state. when one considers that each state has a few exceptions to the federal rules of evidence and hearsay, I cannot help but wonder whether such exceptions are constitutional.

Joseph McCarthy Essay

Joseph McCarthy was born on November 14, 1909 in Grand Chute, Wisconsin. At fourteen he stopped schooling only to return six years later. What normally took four years of high school, he finished in one year. The years 1930 to 1935 were spent in Marquette University where got his law degree. In 1939 he became a circuit court judge in Wisconsin. He was a Marines lieutenant in World War II. He ran for and lost a Senate seat in 1944. In 1946, he tried again and won this time as junior senator from Wisconsin. The first years were lackluster for Senator McCarthy. In 1949 he found issues to ride on like the US Cold War and anti-Communists sentiments. He claimed to have a Communists List including employees of the State Department. While that was in February of 1950, he named the alleged communists in government service for a whole of five years. Due to the strong anti-communist climate, even without evidence to support his accusations, his claims had damaged the careers and ruined the lives of his victims. Winning yet in another election in 1952 he had used his position as chairman of the Permanent Investigations Subcommittee to put more government officials and agencies under investigation. He spared no one from his onslaught including President Eisenhower. While hating the senator in private, the President ignored him in public. McCarthy’s downfall came in 1954 when the Army charged him of giving political favors to a consultant, a former army draftee. The Army-McCarthy hearings were held in his own subcommittee. He was found to be irresponsible as well as dishonest by the subcommittee in televised hearings. Unrepentant to the end, he was censured by Senate in 1954. He died at age 47 from liver ailment. The site elaborated on the rise and fall of a man. It helped me understand the complexities in the life of a man whose humble beginnings propelled him to seek out his dreams and the trappings of power brought him down and away from those dreams. Reference CNN Interactive. Com. Knowledge Bank:Profiles. Retrieved April 17, 2008, from http://www. cnn. com/SPECIALS/cold. war/kbank/profiles/mccarthy/

Combating the Threat of Nuclear Terrorism

Statement at end of two-day summit in Seoul pledges strong action and closer co-operation against nuclear terrorism. | World leaders attending a summit in the South Korean capital Seoul have pledged strong action and closer co-operation to combat the threat of nuclear terrorism.In a statement issued at the end of the two-day 53-nation nuclear summit, the leaders reaffirmed â€Å"shared goals of nuclear disarmament, nuclear proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy†. â€Å"Nuclear terrorism continues to be one of the most challenging threats to international security,† it said. â€Å"Defeating this threat requires strong national measures and international co-operation given its potential global, political, economic, social and psychological consequences. The statement welcomed â€Å"substantive progress† on national commitments made at the   first nuclear security summit in Washington in 2010. Action stressed Before the summit concluded, South Korean P resident Lee Myung-bak said nuclear terrorism remained a â€Å"grave threat†, while US President Barack Obama said action was important. Chinese President Hu Jintao urged the group to work together on the issue. â€Å"The planned missile launch North Korea recently announced would go against the international community's nuclear non-proliferation effort and violate UN Security Council resolutions. – Yoshihiko Noda, Japanese PM While the official agenda of the summit was to strengthen measures to track the movement of nuclear materials worldwide, much of the dialogue focussed on efforts to get North Korea to back off a planned rocket launch scheduled for next month and return to disarmament talks. North Korea announced earlier this month that it would send a satellite into space aboard a long-range rocket. Pyongyang has said the launch is part of its peaceful space programme and says a new southern flight path is meant to avoid other countries.Previous rockets have bee n fired over Japan. The secretive North was widely criticised on the sidelines of the meeting, including by main ally China, but host Seoul has explicitly stated Pyongyang's weapons of mass destruction programmes were off the table during the summit itself. Defiant North Korea On Tuesday, a North Korean foreign ministry spokesman said that the launch would go ahead as planned. North Korea †will never give up the launch of a satellite for peaceful purposes†', the spokesman said in a statement in the official KCNA news agency.A report by the KCNA also described the †weather satellite† Pyongyang planned to launch as useful for †the study of weather forecast needed for agriculture and other economic fields†. Yoshihiko Noda, the Japanese prime minister,  speaking at the summit, called on Pyongyang to cancel the rocket launch, saying that it would violate UN Security Council resolutions. Nuclear stockpiles| * Russia: 10,000 * US: 8,500 * France: 300 * China: 240 * UK: 225 * Pakistan: 90-110 * India: 80-100 * Israel: 80 * North Korea: fewer than 10Source: Federation of American Scientists| The planned missile launch North Korea recently announced would go against the international community's nuclear non-proliferation effort and violate UN Security Council resolutions,† Noda said. Obama had urged North Korean leaders to abandon their rocket plan or risk jeopardising their country's future and thwarting a recent US pledge of food aid in return for nuclear and missile test moratoria, considered a breakthrough after years of deadlock. On Monday while speaking at a university in Seoul, Obama said that he  was  pushing for â€Å"a world without nuclear weapons†.Iran's nuclear programme was also on the minds of the summit participants, as Obama met the leaders of Russia and China on the sidelines to work towards a resolution. Obama had said that the threat of nuclear weapons remained a potent challenge for the globe to confront, telling foreign leaders that â€Å"the security of the world depends on the actions that we take†. Neither Iran nor North Korea had participated in the summit. Asia-Pacific | | S Korean minister warns of energy crisis | |Economy minister Hong Suk-Woo says â€Å"unprecedented† power shortages possible after two nuclear reactors are shut down. Last Modified: 05 Nov 2012 09:01 inShare1EmailPrintShareFeedback| S Korea operates 23 nuclear power reactors which meet more than 35 per cent of the country's electricity needs [EPA]| A South Korean minister has sounded a warning  about  Ã¢â‚¬Å"unprecedented† power shortages after two nuclear reactors were shut down to replace components that had not been properly vetted. The two units at the Yeonggwang nuclear complex were shut down on Monday and may remain offline until early January. It's inevitable that we will experience unprecedented power shortage during the coming winter with the two reactors shut,† Hong Suk-Woo, the economy minister, said. However, he said the â€Å"non-core† components posed no safety threat and were unrelated to a string of systems malfunctions at reactors this year that triggered calls for a safety review. Last month, authorities temporarily shut down two 1,000-megawatt reactors at separate nuclear plants after system malfunctions which were also blamed for another reactor at Yeonggwang being tripped into automatic shutdown in July.Engineers will replace more than 5,000 fuses in the units shut down, cooling fans and other parts for which suppliers had provided bogus quality certificates. â€Å"Comprehensive safety check-ups are necessary at these two reactors where the uncertified parts were used extensively,† Hong said. South Korea operates 23 nuclear power reactors which meet more than 35 per cent of the country's electricity needs. It plans to build an additional 16 reactors by 2030. The government has  pledged to continue using nuclea r energy despite public concerns arising from last year's nuclear disaster in Japan.If the two Yeonggwang reactors are not brought back online as scheduled, Hong warned of a â€Å"dramatic† drop in national power reserves to 300,000 kilowatts in January, compared to the government target of 4. 5 million kilowatts. â€Å"Energy authorities are preparing a super-intense power supply emergency plan, which will be carried out in mid-November,† Hong said, without elaborating. All parts supplied for use in South Korea's nuclear plants require quality and safety warranties from one of 12 international organisations designated by Seoul.Eight suppliers cited by Hong faked 60 warranties covering nearly 7,700 items that had been provided at a cost of $750,000, Hong said. Of the total, more than 5,200 parts have been used in five reactors – 99 per cent of them in the two Yeonggwang units closed on Monday. Hong said prosecutors would investigate the suppliers as well as poss ible collusion by officials of the state-run Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power (KHNP). | Inside Story | | Is nuclear terrorism preventable? | |World leaders gather for their second summit to strengthen efforts in securing nuclear material around the world. | Around 50 world leaders have gathered in South Korea to discuss measures to fight the threat of nuclear terrorism, including the protection of nuclear materials and facilities, as well as the prevention of trafficking of nuclear materials. Barack Obama, the US president, used the opening day of the nuclear security summit to set out a series of wide-ranging goals on nuclear policy.He praised achievements made so far, and promised more would emerge from these discussions. â€Å"We have to question whether the rules we have today are adequate, and my view is that they're totally inadequate. There's no uniformity, no requirement to control materials a certain way. â€Å"Kenneth Luongo, Fissile Materials Working Group| The summit repr esents the half way point of a four-year process set out by Obama with the goal of locking down nuclear materials worldwide and preventing their use in a terrorist attack.But this year’s summit takes place against a backdrop of growing tensions over the nuclear standoff with Iran and concerns about North Korea's plans to launch a satellite next month – a launch that the US, South Korea and others believe is a missile test. So, how big a threat is nuclear terrorism? Who sets the criteria for acquiring nuclear weapons? Are there grounds for accusing Western governments of double standards? And can a problem of such magnitude be tackled by voluntary agreements made at the summit?Inside Story, with presenter Laura Kyle, discusses with Richard Burt, the chief US negotiator in the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty who is also the US chairman of Global Zero which seeks elimination of nuclear weapons; Mark Hibbs, a senior associate in the Nuclear Policy Program at Carnegie Endow ment for International Peace; and Riad Kah-waji with the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis. â€Å"Even after New Start [Treaty signed with Russia two years ago], the US will still have more than 15,000 deployed nuclear weapons and some 5,000 warheads.I firmly believe that we can ensure the security of the United States and our allies, maintain a strong deterrent against any threat and still pursue further reductions in our nuclear arsenal. â€Å"Barack Obama, the US president| Nuclear warheads around the world: Though the  exact number of nuclear weapons in each country's possession is a closely-guarded national secret, there are estimates available. Of the countries that are members of the non-proliferation treaty: * Russia is believed to have around 10,000 nuclear warheads * The US is estimated to have 8,500 France is believed to have 300 * China is estimated to have 240 * The UK is said to have 225 Of the non-member countries: * Israel is said to have 80 nucl ear warheads, though  it refuses to confirm or deny whether  it has any * Pakistan is thought to have between  90 and 110 * India is believed to have between 80 to 100 * North Korea is believed to have enough material to  produce up to 10 devices Asia-pacific | | South Korea set to host nuclear summit | | Security and safety on agenda, but diplomatic fallout from North Korea's rocket launch plan could dominate on sidelines. |South Korea is preparing to host the heads of more than 50 nations and international organisations at a nuclear security summit in Seoul. The meeting, starting on Monday,  comes a year after the meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan and participants will  discuss efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and how to restore faith in civil nuclear energy. Participants include US President Barack Obama, who is due to visit the border zone between the two Koreas on Sunday, and Chinese President Hu Jintao. The controversial nuclear programm es of North Korea and Iran are not due to be formally discussed.But Obama is expected to hold talks on the sidelines with both Hu and South Korean President  Lee Myung-Bak over North Korea's plans to launch a satellite into space aboard a long-range rocket next month. Dozens of protesters from South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and Thailand gathered near the summit venue in downtown Seoul on Friday to denounce the gathering, saying  nuclear energy was threatening the safety of their lives. â€Å"The nuclear energy industry told us the industry is safe, but actually, there have been many accidents that happened,† Lee Heonseok, a protester, said. We think those accidents will be repeated in the future. Therefore, we insist the nuclear energy industry should disappear. † Richard Broinowski, a professor at the University of Sydney and former Australian ambassador to South Korea, told Al Jazeera that the summit was aimed at rebuilding confidence in the nuclear industry. â€Å"T he point of the safety nuclear conference should be about terrorism and the breakdown of systems, such as what happened in Fukushima, and what to do about them,† he said. But the summit could be overshadowed by diplomatic fallout from North Korea's announcement of its planned rocket launch.North Korea said earlier this month that it had halted its nuclear programme, weapons testing and long-range missile launches and was ready to return to international talks in return for US food aid. The US says April's rocket launch would violate that agreement, while Japan's defence minister said on Friday he had ordered the military to prepare to shoot down the rocket if it entered Japanese airspace. China, North Korea's closest regional, has also expressed concern that the launch could endanger regional stability. North Korea halts nuclear programme | Uranium enrichment, weapons testing and long-range missile launches to be stopped in return for US food aid. | North Korea has agreed to s top nuclear tests, uranium enrichment and long-range missile launches and to allow international inspectors to visit its Yongbyon nuclear complex in return for food aid from the United States. The announcement, made simultaneously by the US state department and North Korea's official news agency on Wednesday, paves the way for the possible resumption of six-party disarmament negotiations with the Communist state.It also marks a significant policy shift by North Korea's reclusive leadership  after the death of longtime ruler Kim Jong-il in December. â€Å"The DPRK, upon request by the US and with a view to maintaining positive atmosphere for the DPRK-US high-level talks, agreed to a moratorium on nuclear tests, long-range missile launches, and uranium enrichment activity at Yongbyon and allow the IAEA to monitor the moratorium on uranium enrichment while productive dialogues continue,†Ã‚  the  official KCNA news agency said. North Korea is known formally as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK).China, North Korea's only powerful ally, approved the announcement. Foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei said in a statement posted on Thursday that China welcomed efforts by the two sides to improve relations and preserve peace and stability on the Korean peninsula. He reiterated China's willingness to participate in efforts to restart the six-party talks. ‘Profound concerns' The state department was cautious in its response but said Washington was ready to finalise details of a proposed food aid package of 240,000 metric tonnes of nutritional assistance, and that more aid could be agreed based on continued need. Secret talks that led to the agreement were held at the North Korean embassy in Beijing [AFP]| â€Å"The United States still has profound concerns regarding North Korean behaviour across a wide range of areas, but today's announcement reflects important, if limited, progress in addressing some of these,† a state department stat ement said. A South Korean foreign ministry spokesman said the development reflected â€Å"the close work Seoul and Washington have done to try to resolve the nuclear standoff,† while the International Atomic Energy Agency called it â€Å"an important step forward†.Al Jazeera's Kimberly Halkett, reporting from Washington DC, said that its linking â€Å"nutritional assistance† with political  developments was contrary to standard US foreign policy. â€Å"[This move] is certainly going to come under the microscope in terms of US policy. The US has used [food aid] successfully as leverage and there is going to be some talk about that,† she said. The announcement comes as the Obama administration steps up pressure on Iran over its atomic ambitions, which Western governments fear are aimed at producing nuclear weapons.It followed talks between the US and North Korea last week in Beijing, the first such meeting since veteran leader Kim Jong-il's son, Kim Jong -un, succeeded his father as leader. Christopher Hill, the former chief US negotiator in the six-party talks, said it was an important step that Kim's son, Kim Jong-un, had made such a high-profile  decision in the wake of his father's death. He said that the military, which is influenced by Chang Song-taek,  Ã‚  Kim Jong-il's powerful brother in law, had probably played a role in the agreement. I think the first order of business is to try to figure out the terms by which we provide the food aid,† Hill said. â€Å"We're going to have to make sure the North Koreans have  the aid and that we can monitor that the food aid goes to the right people. †Ã‚   Six-party talks North Korea agreed to curtail its nuclear activities under an aid-for-denuclearisation agreement reached in September 2005 by six-party talks bringing together North and South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and the US.Under the terms of that deal, the North agreed to abandon its nuclear programmes in exc hange for economic and diplomatic incentives to be provided by the other parties involved in the negotiations. But the embryonic deal was never fully implemented. Instead, the North held two nuclear bomb tests, in 2006 and 2009, and later disclosed a uranium enrichment programme, giving it a second path to obtaining fissile material for bombs, in addition to its long-standing programme of producing plutonium.The US, South Korea and their allies had been sceptical of North Korea's assertions that it stands ready to return to the six-party talks, and said they would insist on evidence of the country's willingness to denuclearise before any such talks could resume. World leaders: Nuclear terrorism a ‘grave threat' Comments (250) Cannot play media. You do not have the correct version of the flash player. Download the correct version President Obama: †There are still too many bad actors in search of these dangerous materials† Continue reading the main story Related Stor ies * Which countries have nuclear weapons? North Korea's missile programme * Timeline: Nuclear stand-off World leaders have called for closer co-operation to tackle the threat of nuclear terrorism at a summit on nuclear security in Seoul. A communique at the end of the summit reiterated a joint call to secure â€Å"vulnerable nuclear material†. South Korean President Lee Myung-bak said nuclear terrorism remained a â€Å"grave threat†, while US President Barack Obama said action was key. The meeting was dominated by North Korea's plan to launch a rocket. North Korea says the long-range rocket will carry a satellite when it goes up in April.The US says any launch would violate UN resolutions and constitute a missile test. Iran's nuclear programme was also on the minds of the summit participants, with Mr Obama pledging to meet the leaders of Russia and China on the sidelines to work towards a resolution. ‘Bad actors' At the meeting, world leaders discussed measures to fight the threat of nuclear terrorism, including the protection of nuclear materials and facilities, as well as the prevention of trafficking of nuclear materials. Continue reading the main story Analysis Jonathan Marcus BBC Diplomatic CorrespondentThe communique describes nuclear terrorism as one of the most challenging threats to international security. But the responsibility to maintain security over nuclear materials lies firmly with states rather than international bodies. And any effort to try to establish or impose common international standards inevitably raises concerns in some quarters that the world's major powers are seeking to intrude into the nuclear affairs of other countries. That's why this communique reaffirms that measures to strengthen nuclear security will not hamper the rights of states to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.The summit urges states to minimise the use of highly enriched uranium – one of the building blocks for a nuclear bomb . The summit highlights the threat from radioactive materials more generally. But again all the summit can do is urge states to take measures to secure these materials and work towards ratifying international conventions on nuclear security. It is hardly a resounding outcome from a gathering over-shadowed by the more immediate wrangling over North Korea's and Iran's nuclear activities.A joint communique reaffirmed their commitment to nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. â€Å"Nuclear terrorism continues to be one of the most challenging threats to international security,† it said. â€Å"Defeating this threat requires strong national measures and international co-operation given its potential global, political, economic, social and psychological consequences. † But it omitted a reference made in a draft communique last Thursday on the need for â€Å"concrete steps† towards a world without nuclear weapons, AFP news agency rep orts.There are currently no binding international agreements on how to protect nuclear material stored peacefully inside its home country, says the BBC's Lucy Williamson in Seoul. An amendment seeking to do that is still unratified after seven years. Addressing the summit, Mr Obama warned there were still â€Å"too many bad actors† who were threatening to stockpile and use †dangerous† nuclear material. â€Å"It would not take much, just a handful or so of these materials, to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people and that's not an exaggeration, that's the reality that we face,† he said. The security of the world depends on the actions that we take. † Mr Hu called for â€Å"an international environment conducive to boosting nuclear security† to be created and Mr Lee called for concrete action to tackle a threat that posed â€Å"a grave challenge† to peace. The summit was attended by almost 60 leaders from around the world. Rocket l aunch Meetings on Monday were overshadowed by North Korea's planned launch, scheduled to take place between 12 and 16 April. Pyongyang says it is intended to mark the 100th anniversary of the birth of North Korea's founding leader Kim Il-sung.Continue reading the main story Nuclear stockpiles in numbers * Russia: 10,000 * US: 8,500 * France: 300 * China: 240 * UK: 225 * Pakistan: 90-110 * India: 80-100 * Israel: 80 * North Korea: fewer than 10 Source: Federation of American Scientists * Nuclear weapons: Who has what? On Tuesday, a North Korean foreign ministry spokesman said that the launch would go ahead as planned and criticised Mr Obama's stance as †confrontational†. North Korea â€Å"will never give up the launch of a satellite for peaceful purposes†, the spokesman said in a statement in the official KCNA news agency.A KCNA report also described the †weather satellite† Pyongyang planned to launch as useful for †the study of weather forecast n eeded for agriculture and other economic fields†. Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda, speaking at the summit, called on Pyongyang to cancel the rocket launch, saying that it would violate UN Security Council resolutions. â€Å"As such, the international community strongly urges North Korea to exercise restraint and cancel the launch,† he said. The resolutions were passed after a similar launch in April 2009.Japan is particularly concerned as that rocket was launched over the country three years ago. The US and Chinese presidents met on Monday on the sidelines of the summit and agreed to co-ordinate their response to any â€Å"potential provocation† if Pyongyang went ahead with the launch. South Korea and the US say North Korea risks further sanctions and isolation if it does not cancel its plans. Seoul has also warned it will shoot down the rocket if it strays over South Korean territory. Which countries have nuclear weapons? There are an estimated 20,000 war heads in the world's combined stockpile of nuclear weapons.Of these, almost 5,000 are considered operational and about 2,000 belonging to the US and Russia are believed to be ready for use at short notice. Although the exact number of nuclear weapons in each country's possession is top secret, the Federation of American Scientists has made best estimates about the size and composition of national nuclear weapon stockpiles based on publicly available information. Their sources include the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Countries and their nuclear weapons |Country | Operational and strategic weapons* | Total arsenal** | Source: Federation of American Scientists, as of 6 March 2012| Russia| 2,430| 10,000| US| 1,950| 8,500| France| 290| 300| China| 0| 240| UK| 160| 225| Pakistan| 0| 90-110| India| 0| 80-100| Israel| 0| 80| North Korea| 0| Fewer than 10| *Strategic weapons are designed to target cities, missile locations and mi litary headquarters as part of a strategic plan **Total arsenal inventory includes non-strategic and non-deployed weapons as well as stockpiles North Korea's missile programmeContinue reading the main story Related Stories * North Korea rocket plan condemned * N Korea agrees to nuclear freeze * North Korea country profile North Korea is believed to have more than 1,000 missiles of varying capabilities, including long-range missiles which could one day strike the US. Pyongyang's programme has progressed over the last few decades from tactical artillery rockets in the 1960s and 70s to short-range and medium-range ballistic missiles in the 1980s and 90s. Systems capable of greater ranges are understood to be under research and development.According to the Council on Foreign Relations, an independent think-tank, some of North Korea's missiles also have the capability to carry nuclear warheads. However, the country is not yet thought to have developed such warheads. The country's missile programme has mainly been developed from the Scud. It first obtained tactical missiles from the Soviet Union as early as 1969, but its first Scuds reportedly came via Egypt in 1976. Egypt is believed to have supplied North Korea with missiles and designs in return for its support against Israel in the Yom Kippur War.By 1984, North Korea was building its own Scuds, the Hwasong-5 and Hwasong-6, as well as a medium-range missile, the Nodong. Its latest missile combines these technologies to give a long-range missile, the Taepodong. In 2006 and 2009 it test-fired a new missile called the Taepodong-2, which experts say could have a range of many thousands of miles. The missile failed to perform on both occasions. Short range missiles North Korea is believed to be in possession of a variety of short-range missiles, such as the KN-02, which can reach up to 120km and could target military installations in neighbouring South Korea.The Hwasong-5 and Hwasong-6, also known as Scud-B and C, hav e longer ranges of 300km and 500km respectively, according to the US Center for Nonproliferation Studies. These missiles can deliver conventional warheads, but may also have biological, chemical and nuclear capabilities. The Hwasong-5 and 6 have both been tested and deployed, defence experts believe, and would enable North Korea to strike any area in South Korea. Relations between the two Koreas are fraught and they remain, technically, in a state of war. The two countries never signed a peace treaty after an armistice ended their 1950-53 conflict.They are separated by one of the world's most heavily fortified borders and both have strong military capabilities. Nodong missile North Korea went on to embark on a programme in the late 1980s to build a new missile, known as the Nodong, with a range of 1,000km. Its likely target is Japan. But, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, little is actually known about the development, production, and deployment of the Nodong. The institute believes the weapon is not accurate enough for effective use against military targets, such as US military bases in Japan.A March 2006 report by the US Center for Non-proliferation Studies, concluded it had a â€Å"circular error probable† of 2km to 4km, meaning that half the missiles fired would fall outside a circle of that radius. Analysts therefore believe that should the Nodong be used as a weapon against Japan, it could lead to high levels of civilian casualties. Musudan missile The Musudan, also known as the Nodong-B or the Taepodong-X, is an intermediate-range ballistic missile. Its likely targets are Okinawa, Japan, and US bases in the Pacific.Range estimates differ dramatically. Israeli intelligence believes they have a 2,500km range while the US Missile Defense Agency estimates they have a range of 3,200km; other sources put the upper limit at 4,000km. These differences are due in large part to the fact that the missile has never been tested p ublicly, according to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Its payload is also unknown. Taepodong-1 and 2 missiles (including the Unha space launcher) The Taepodong-1 – known as Paektusan-1 in North Korea – was the country's first multi-stage missile.Based on satellite photographs, independent think-tank the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) believes the first stage is a Nodong missile and the second stage a Hwasong-6. Continue reading the main story Missile ranges * Short range: 1,000km or less * Medium range: 1,000-3,000km * Intermediate range: 3,000-5,500 km * Intercontinental: Greater than 5,500km Source: Federation of American Scientists It has an estimated range of 2,200km, but is understood to be even less accurate than the Nodong. The Taepodong-1 is understood to have test flown once in August 1998 as a space launcher.Instead of a normal ballistic missile payload, the missile carried a third stage that was meant to send a small satellite into low Eart h orbit. The FAS believes that although the first two stages worked, the third stage did not function correctly and no satellite entered orbit. The federation also says it is possible the Taepodong-1 was always meant as a space launcher and was never intended to be an intermediate range military missile. The Taepodong-2 – or Paektusan-2 – is also a two to three-stage ballistic missile, but is a significant advance on the Taepodong-1. Its range has been estimated at anything between 5,000-15,000km.The Center for Nonproliferation Studies puts the figure at a maximum estimated 6,000km. Taepodong-2 and its technology has been flight tested twice – in 2006 and 2009. It failed to perform on both occasions. In the early morning of 5 July 2006 (still 4 July in the US), it flew only 42 seconds before exploding – according to US sources. A three-stage space launcher version of the Taepodong-2 was then used in a failed attempt to send a satellite into space in April 2009. The launch was widely condemned by the US and South Korea, among others, as cover for a long-range missile test.North Korea refers to the space launcher version of the Taepodong-2 as Unha – Korean for galaxy – and describes it as a â€Å"carrier rocket†. Although space launches and missile launches follow slightly different trajectories and the rocket may be optimised for one purpose or the other, the basic technology used is the same. This includes the structure, engines, and fuel. If the Taepodong-2 were successfully launched and it reached its maximum estimated range, its increased power could put Australia and parts of the US, among other countries, within range. North Korea profile * Overview * Facts * Leaders * Media Timeline For decades North Korea has been one of the world's most secretive societies. It is one of the few countries still under nominally communist rule. North Korea's nuclear ambitions have exacerbated its rigidly maintained isolatio n from the rest of the world. The country emerged in 1948 amid the chaos following the end of World War II. Its history is dominated by its Great Leader, Kim Il-sung, who shaped political affairs for almost half a century. After the Korean War, Kim Il-sung introduced the personal philosophy of Juche, or self-reliance, which became a guiding light for North Korea's development.Kim Il-sung died in 1994, but the post of president has been assigned â€Å"eternally† to him. Continue reading the main story At a glance * Politics: A family dynasty heads a secretive, communist regime which tolerates no dissent * Economy: North Korea's command economy is dilapidated, hit by natural disasters, poor planning and a failure to modernise * International: The armistice of 1953 ended armed conflict on the Korean peninsular, but the two Koreas are technically still at war; tensions have been exacerbated in recent decades by North Korea's nuclear ambitions Country profiles compiled by BBC Moni toringDecades of this rigid state-controlled system have led to stagnation and a leadership dependent on the cult of personality. Aid agencies have estimated that up to two million people have died since the mid-1990s because of acute food shortages caused by natural disasters and economic mismanagement. The country relies on foreign aid to feed millions of its people. The totalitarian state also stands accused of systematic human rights abuses. Reports of torture, public executions, slave labour, and forced abortions and infanticides in prison camps have emerged.A US-based rights group has estimated that there are up to 200,000 political prisoners in North Korea. Pyongyang has accused successive South Korean governments of being US â€Å"puppets†, but South Korean President Kim Dae-jung's visit in 2000 signalled a thaw in relations. Seoul's â€Å"sunshine policy† towards the North aimed to encourage change through dialogue and aid. Nuclear tensions This tentative reac hing-out to the world was dealt a blow in 2002 by Pyongyang's decision to reactivate a nuclear reactor and to expel international inspectors.In October 2006 North Korea said it had successfully tested a nuclear weapon, spreading alarm throughout the region. Since then, intensive diplomatic efforts have aimed to rein in North Korea's nuclear ambitions. After years of on-and-off talks, a deal was thrashed out in February 2007 under which Pyongyang agreed to shut down its main nuclear reactor in return for aid and diplomatic concessions. But negotiations stalled as North Korea accused its negotiating partners – the US, South Korea, Japan, China and Russia – of failing to meet agreed obligations.North Korean soldiers keep watch over the Demilitarized Zone between North and South Tensions between North Korea and the rest of the world increased steadily again from late 2008 onwards, especially after the new South Korean president, Lee Myung-bak, ended his predecessor's †Å"sunshine policy† of rapprochement with the North. In April 2009 North Korea walked out of international talks aimed at ending its nuclear activities. The following month the country carried out its second underground nuclear test and announced that it no longer considered itself bound by the terms of the 1953 truce that ended the war between the two Koreas.Tensions reached a new high in spring 2010, when the South accused North Korea of sinking one of its warships, the Cheonan, and cut off all cross-border trade. Pyongyang denied the claims, and in turn severed all ties with Seoul. After the US imposed tough sanctions in August, the North began to make overtures again. Its then leader, Kim Jong-il, signalled a readiness to resume six-party nuclear talks during a visit to China, and indicated a willingness to accept Southern aid to cope with major flood damage.Kim Jong-il's successor in December 2011, his third son Kim Jong-un, continued the dynastic policy of sending out mix ed signals. He agreed to suspend long-range missile tests in order to receive US food aid in February 2012, only to challenge the US and the other frontline states almost immediately by announcing a forthcoming â€Å"rocket-launched satellite† for April, to mark Kim Il-Sung's birthday. In October 2012, Pyongyang responded to the unveiling of a new missile deal between Seoul and Washington by saying that it had missiles capable of hitting the US mainland.North Korea maintains one of the world's largest standing armies and militarism pervades everyday life. But standards of training, discipline and equipment in the force are reported to be low. Q&A: North Korea nuclear programme Negotiations over North Korea's nuclear programme have been a stop-start process North Korea's nuclear programme remains a source of deep concern for the international community, amid reports from South Korea suggesting Pyongyang is planning a third nuclear test. The BBC looks at North Korea's nuclear a mbitions and multi-national efforts to curtail them.Has North Korea got the bomb? Not yet. In 2006 and again in 2009 North Korea announced that it had conducted successful nuclear weapons tests. Satellite data from P'unggye-yok, in a remote area in the east of the country, appeared to tally with claims that the experiments had been conducted underground. The North is believed to possess enough weapons-grade plutonium for at least six bombs – but experts say it has not yet solved the problem of making a nuclear warhead small enough to fit into a missile. Opinions vary on how close the regime is to completing this process of â€Å"miniaturisation†.American expert Siegfried Hecker told South Korea's Yonhap news agency late last year that a third nuclear test could be sufficient for them to master the technology. Mr Hecker is one of the few people to have seen the North's capabilities first-hand. In 2010, he was shown a uranium-enrichment facility with 1,000 centrifuges an d said he was â€Å"stunned† by the sophistication of the plant. He said he saw no evidence that the fuel was for anything other than generating power, but added that it could be â€Å"readily converted to produce highly enriched uranium bomb fuel†. What does the regime say about its programme?Over the years Pyongyang has issued brash, contradictory and often inflammatory statements about its programme. After the 2009 nuclear test, an official communique stated that the test was â€Å"part of measures to enhance the Republic's self-defensive nuclear deterrent in all directions†. And in a rare unguarded moment after the 2006 test, deputy foreign minister Kang Sok-ju told reporters: â€Å"Why would we abandon nuclear weapons? Are you saying we conducted a nuclear test in order to abandon them? † Yet Pyongyang also regularly proclaims that it is committed to a nuclear-free Korean peninsula.It has frequently promised to give up part or all of its programme in return for aid. In February 2012, the regime promised to allow UN inspectors back into the country and to suspend uranium enrichment in return for US food aid. But shortly after that it launched a rocket in apparent defiance of UN resolutions banning missile tests, leaving that deal dead in the water. What has the international community done about the programme? Multiple rounds of negotiations have taken place between the North, the US, Russia, China, Japan and South Korea aimed at persuading Pyongyang to give up its nuclear ambitions.In September 2005, after more than two years of on-off talks, North Korea agreed a landmark deal to give up its nuclear ambitions in return for economic aid and political concessions. But implementing the deal proved extremely difficult and the talks stalled in April 2009 over the issue of whether North Korea was fully disclosing its nuclear assets. In July 2011, contact began again between the US and North Korea aimed at restarting the talks. Less t han six months later, North Korea's long-time leader Kim Jong-il died. He was succeeded by his son, the young and inexperienced Kim Jong-un.In February 2012 North Korea suddenly announced it had agreed to suspend nuclear activities. It also said it was placing a moratorium on nuclear and long-range missile tests. Its reward would be food aid from the US. But that deal has now been suspended following Pyongyang's 13 April 2012 rocket launch. What is the current state of the North's programme? The Yongbyon site is thought to be North Korea's main nuclear facility. The North has pledged several times to halt operations there and even destroyed the tower in 2008.But both the US and South Korea have said in the past that they believed the North had additional sites linked to a uranium-enrichment programme. And Mr Hecker's revelations in 2010 of a hitherto undeclared plant suggest that clandestine nuclear work is continuing. In December 2010, US State Department spokesman Philip Crowley s aid that the work being done at the site shown to Mr Hecker could not have been achieved if other related sites did not already exist. â€Å"We're very conscious of the fact that, in the recent revelations to American delegations, what they saw did not come out of thin air,† he said. It certainly reflects work being done at at least one other site. † Why does the issue of North Korea's nuclear capability matter so much? The two Koreas remain technically at war, since no peace treaty was signed after the 1950-53 Korean conflict. Tension has been high since an international panel blamed North Korea for sinking a South Korean navy warship in March 2010, with the loss of 46 lives. Ties were further strained in November 2010, when North Korea shelled a border island, killing four South Koreans.North Korea has a million-strong army and its border with the South is one of the most militarised in the world. Pyongyang's nuclear tests have sparked debate in Japan on allowing its military the option to launch a pre-emptive strike if it fears a missile attack. A fully nuclear North Korea could trigger an East Asian arms race, as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, for instance, consider whether to go nuclear as well. North Korea claims nuclear plant progress Pyongyang says it has made rapid advances in building a light-water reactor and enriching uranium * Share 45 * * * inShare10 Email * Associated Press in Seoul * guardian. co. uk, Wednesday 30 November 2011 07. 38 GMT Pyongyang says it is making rapid progress on work to enrich uranium and build a light-water nuclear power plant Link to this video North Korea says it is making rapid progress on work to enrich uranium and build a light-water nuclear power plant, increasing worries that the country is developing another way to make atomic weapons. Pyongyang's foreign ministry said in a statement that the construction of an experimental light-water reactor and low enriched uranium were â€Å"progressing apaceâ₠¬ .It added that North Korea had a sovereign right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy and that â€Å"neither concession nor compromise should be allowed†. Concerns about North Korea's atomic capability took on renewed urgency in November 2010 when the country disclosed a uranium enrichment facility that could give it a second route to manufacture nuclear weapons, in addition to its existing plutonium-based programme. North Korea has been building a light-water reactor at its main Yongbyon nuclear complex since last year. Such a reactor is ostensibly for civilian energy purposes, but it would give the North a reason to enrich uranium.At low levels, uranium can be used in power reactors, but at higher levels it can be used in nuclear bombs. Earlier this month, North Korean state media said â€Å"the day is near at hand† when the reactor will come into operation. Washington has concerns about reported progress on the reactor construction, saying it would violate UN se curity council resolutions. The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, speaking to reporters on Wednesday at an international aid forum in the South Korean port city of Busan, did not address the North's statement on uranium.She called the US-South Korean alliance strong and mentioned the recent first anniversary of North Korea's artillery attack on a frontline South Korean island that killed four. â€Å"Let me reaffirm that the United States stands with our ally, and we look to North Korea to take concrete steps that promote peace and stability and denuclearisation,† Clinton said. Five countries, including the US, have been in on-again, off-again talks with North Korea to provide Pyongyang with aid in exchange for disarmament. North Korea pulled out of nuclear disarmament talks in early 2009 in protest at international condemnation of ts prohibited long-range rocket test. In recent months North Korea has repeatedly expressed its willingness to rejoin the talks, and tensions between the Koreas have eased. Diplomats from the Koreas and the UShave had separate nuclear talks, and cultural and religious visits by South Koreans to the North have resumed. South Korean and US officials, however, have demanded that Pyongyang halt its uranium-enrichment programme, freeze nuclear and missile tests and allow international inspectors back into the country before resuming negotiations.The North Korean statement on Wednesday accused the U S and its allies of â€Å"groundlessly† taking issue with the North's peaceful nuclear activities. They are â€Å"deliberately laying a stumbling block in the way of settling the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula through dialogue and negotiations†, the statement said. Kim Yong-hyun, a professor at Dongguk University in Seoul, said the North's statement appeared aimed at applying pressure on Washington and the international community to rejoin the nuclear disarmament talks quickly. â€Å"North Korea is expected to step up its rhetoric,† he said.History of Nuclear proliferation The impetus behind the NPT was concern for the safety of a world with many nuclear weapon states. It was recognized that the cold war deterrent relationship between just the United States and Soviet Union was fragile. Having more nuclear nuclear-weapon states would reduce security for all, multiplying the risks of miscalculation, accidents, unauthorized use of weapons, or from escalation in tensions, nuclear conflict. The NPT process was launched by Frank Aiken, Irish Minister for External Affairs, in 1958.It was opened for signature in 1968, with Finland the first State to sign. Accession became nearly universal after the end of the Cold War and of South African apartheid. In 1992 China and France acceded to the NPT, the last of the five nuclear powers recognized by the treaty to do so. In 1995 the treaty was extended indefinitely. After Brazil acceded to the NPT in 1998 the only remaining non-nuclear-weapons st ate which had not signed was Cuba, which joined NPT (and the Treaty of Tlatelolco NWFZ) in 2002. Several NPT signatories have given up nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons programs.South Africa undertook a nuclear weapons program, allegedly with the assistance of Israel in the 1970s, and may have conducted a nuclear test in the Indian Ocean in 1979, but has since renounced its nuclear program and signed the treaty in 1991 after destroying its small nuclear arsenal; after this, the remaining African countries signed the treaty. Several former Soviet Republics, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, destroyed or transferred to Russia the nuclear weapons they inherited from the Soviet Union.The former Soviet republics joined NPT by 1994. Successor states from the breakups of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia also joined the treaty soon after their independence. Montenegro and East Timor were the last countries to sign the treaty on their independence in 2006 and 2003; the only other country to sig n in the 21st century was Cuba in 2002. The three Micronesian countries in Compact of Free Association with the USA joined NPT in 1995, along with Vanuatu. Major South American countries Argentina, Chile, and Brazil joined in 1995 and 1998.Arabian Peninsula countries included Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in 1988, Qatar and Kuwait in 1989, UAE in 1995, and Oman in 1997. The tiny European states of Monaco and Andorra joined in 1995-6. Also signing in the 1990s were Myanmar in 1992 and Guyana in 1993. See also: North Korea and weapons of mass destruction, 2006 North Korean nuclear test,  and Six-party talks North Korea ratified the treaty on December 12, 1985, but gave notice of withdrawal from the treaty on January 10, 2003 following U. S. allegations that it had started an illegal enriched uranium weapons program, and the U.S. subsequently stopping fuel oil shipments under the Agreed Framework[52] which had resolved plutonium weapons issues in 1994. [53] The withdrawal became effective April 10, 2003 making North Korea the first state ever to withdraw from the treaty. [54] North Korea had once before announced withdrawal, on March 12, 1993, but suspended that notice before it came into effect. [55] On February 10, 2005, North Korea publicly declared that it possessed nuclear weapons and pulled out of the six-party talks hosted by China to find a diplomatic solution to the issue. We had already taken the resolute action of pulling out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and have manufactured nuclear arms for self-defence to cope with the Bush administration's evermore undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea],† a North Korean Foreign Ministry statement said regarding the issue. [56] Six-party talks resumed in July 2005. On September 19, 2005, North Korea announced that it would agree to a preliminary accord. Under the accord, North Korea would scrap all of its existing nuclear weapons and nuclear production facilities, rejoin the NPT, and readmit IAEA inspectors.The difficult issue of the supply of light water reactors to replace North Korea's indigenous nuclear power plant program, as per the 1994 Agreed Framework, was left to be resolved in future discussions. [57] On the next day North Korea reiterated its known view that until it is supplied with a light water reactor it will not dismantle its nuclear arsenal or rejoin the NPT. [58] On October 2, 2006, the North Korean foreign minister announced that his country was planning to conduct a nuclear test â€Å"in the future†, although it did not state when. 59] On Monday, October 9, 2006 at 01:35:28 (UTC) the United States Geological Survey detected a magnitude 4. 3 seismic event 70  km (43  mi) north of Kimchaek, North Korea indicating a nuclear test. [60] The North Korean government announced shortly afterward that they had completed a successful underground test of a nuclear fission device. In 2007, reports from Washingt on suggested that the 2002 CIA reports stating that North Korea was developing an enriched uranium weapons program, which led to North Korea leaving the NPT, had overstated or misread the intelligence. 61][62][63][64] On the other hand, even apart from these press allegations—which some critics worry could have been planted in order to justify the United States giving up trying to verify the dismantlement of Pyongyang's uranium program in the face of North Korean intransigence—there remains some information in the public record indicating the existence of a uranium effort. Quite apart from the fact that North Korean First Vice Minister Kang Sok Ju at one point admitted the existence of a uranium enrichment program, Pakistan's then-President Musharraf revealed that the A.Q. Khan proliferation network had provided North Korea with a number of gas centrifuges designed for uranium enrichment. Additionally, press reports have cited U. S. officials to the effect that evidenc e obtained in dismantling Libya’s WMD programs points toward North Korea as the source for Libya's uranium hexafluoride (UF6) — which, if true, would mean that North Korea has a uranium conversion facility for producing feedstock for centrifuge enrichment. [65] The history of nuclear weapons chronicles the development of nuclear weapons.Nuclear weapons possess enormous destructive potential derived from nuclear fission or nuclear fusion reactions. Starting with scientific breakthroughs of the 1930s made by the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom during World War II in what was called the Manhattan Project to counter the assumed Nazi German atomic bomb project. In August 1945 two were dropped on Japan ending the Pacific War. An international team was dispatched to help work on the project.The Soviet Union started development shortly thereafter with their own atomic bomb project, and not long after that both countries developed even more powerful fusion weapons called â€Å"hydrogen bombs. † There have been (at least) four major false alarms, the most recent in 1995, that resulted in the activation of either the US's or Russia's nuclear attack early warning protocols. [1] North Korea Main article: Ryanggang explosion On September 9, 2004 it was reported by South Korean media that there had been a large explosion at the Chinese/North Korean border.This explosion left a crater visible by satellite and precipitated a large (2 mile diameter) mushroom cloud. The United States and South Korea quickly downplayed this, explaining it away as a forest fire that had nothing to do with the DPRK's nuclear weapons program. List of most powerful nuclear tests The following incomplete list contains nuclear tests conducted with a yield of over 10 Mt TNT. Date| Yield| Test mode| Country| Test Site| Remarks| October 30, 1961| 50 Mt| air-drop| Soviet Union| Novaya Zemlya| Tsar Bomba| December 24, 1962| 24. Mt| air-drop| Soviet Union| Novaya Zemlya| Tes t 219| August 5, 1961| 21. 1 Mt| air-drop| Soviet Union| Novaya Zemlya| | September 25, 1962| 19. 1 Mt| air-drop| Soviet Union| Novaya Zemlya| | February 28, 1954| 15 Mt| ground| USA| Bikini Atoll| Castle Bravo| May 5, 1954| 13. 5 Mt| sea surface| USA| Bikini Atoll| Castle Yankee| October 23, 1961| 12. 5 Mt| air-drop| Soviet Union| Novaya Zemlya| | March 26, 1954| 11 Mt| sea surface| USA| Bikini Atoll| Castle Romeo| November 1, 1952| 10. 4 Mt| ground| USA| Eniwetok| Ivy Mike| September 27, 1962| 10 Mt| air-drop| SovietUnion| Novaya Zemlya| | Background Korea has been a divided country since 1945, when it was liberated from the defeated Japan after World War II. The Korean War was fought from June 25, 1950, until an Armistice Agreement was signed on July 27, 1953. As part of the Armistice, both sides, including U. S. forces, conduct military patrols within the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). [citation needed] In September 1956 the U. S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Radford told the U. S. Department of State that the U. S. ilitary intention was to introduce atomic weapons into Korea. From January 1957 the U. S. National Security Council considered, on President Eisenhower's instruction, and then agreed this. However, paragraph 13(d) of the Korean Armistice Agreement mandated that both sides should not introduce new types of weapons into Korea, so preventing the introduction of nuclear weapons and missiles. The U. S. decided to unilaterally abrogate paragraph 13(d), breaking the Armistice Agreement, despite concerns by United Nations allies. 8][9] At a June 21, 1957, meeting of the Military Armistice Commission the U. S. informed the North Korean representatives that the U. N. Command no longer considered itself bound by paragraph 13(d) of the armistice. [10] In August 1957 NSC 5702/2[11] permitting the deployment of nuclear weapons in Korea was approved. [8] In January 1958 nuclear armed Honest John missiles and 280mm atomic cannons were deploy ed to South Korea,[12] a year later adding nuclear armed Matador cruise missiles with the range to reach China and the Soviet Union. 8][13] North Korea denounced the abrogation of paragraph 13(d) as an attempt to wreck the armistice agreement and turn Korea into a U. S. atomic warfare zone. At the U. N. General Assembly in November 1957 the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia condemned the decision of the United Nations Command to introduce nuclear weapons into Korea. [9] North Korea responded militarily by digging massive underground fortifications resistant to nuclear attack, and forward deployment of its conventional forces so that the use of nuclear weapons against it would endanger South Korean and U.S. forces as well. In 1963 North Korea asked the Soviet Union for help in developing nuclear weapons, but was refused. However, instead the Soviet Union agreed to help North Korea develop a peaceful nuclear energy program, including the training of nuclear scientists. China later, afte r its nuclear tests, similarly rejected North Korean requests for help with developing nuclear weapons. [8] Tensions between North and South have run high on numerous occasions since 1953. The deployment of the U. S.Army's Second Infantry Division on the Korean peninsula and the American military presence at the DMZ are publicly regarded by North Korea as an occupying army. In several areas, North Korean and American/South Korean forces operate in extreme proximity to the border, adding to tension. This tension has led to numerous clashes, including the Axe Murder Incident of 1976. In the early 1960s security concerns in the region and an apparent Soviet dismissal of these concerns hastened the DPRK's efforts to acquire the technology to produce nuclear weapons.In the wake of the student-led April 19 movement in 1960 that overthrew the South Korean president Rhee Syngman and the May 16, 1961, military coup d'etat that brought General Park Chung-hee to power in the south, North Korea sought a mutual defense treaty with the Soviet Union and China. Soviet leaders reportedly did not even consider such a pact necessary, despite the military posture of the anti-communist Park regime, as long as the Soviets improved relations with the United States. 14] Perhaps the two most important factors in North Korea's attempts to obtain nuclear weapons and become militarily self-reliant were the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 and the prospect of a US–Japan–ROK alliance following the 1965 establishment of diplomatic relations between the ROK and Japan. Kim Il-sung reportedly did not trust that the Soviets would live up to the conditions of the mutual defense pact and guarantee North Korea's security since they betrayed Castro by withdrawing nuclear missiles in an effort to improve relations with the United States.As a North Korean official explained to Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin in 1965, â€Å"the Korean leaders were distrustful of the CPSU and the Sovie t government, they could not count on that the Soviet government would keep the obligations related to the defense of Korea it assumed in the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance, Kim Il-sung said, and therefore they were compelled to keep an army of 700,000 and a police force of 200,000. In explaining the cause of such mistrust, the official claimed that â€Å"the Soviet Union had betrayed Cuba at the time of the Caribbean crisis. â€Å"[15] However, as recently declassified Russian, Hungarian, and East German materials confirm, no communist governments were willing to share the technology with the North Koreans, out of fear that they would share the technology with China. [16] With the collapse of the Soviet Union, North Korean leaders recognized the need for a new security relationship with a major power since Pyongyang could not afford to maintain its military posture.North Korean leaders therefore sought to forge a new relationship with the United States, t he only power strong enough to step into the vacuum left by the collapse of the Soviet Union. From the early 1990s, throughout the first nuclear crisis, North Korea sought a non-aggression pact with the United States. The U. S. rejected North Korean calls for bilateral talks concerning a non-aggression pact, and stated that only six-party talks that also include the People's Republic of China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea are acceptable.The American stance was that North Korea had violated prior bilateral agreements, thus such forums lacked accountability. Conversely, North Korea refused to speak in the context of six-party talks, stating that it would only accept bilateral talks with the United States. This led to a diplomatic stalemate. On October 9, 2006, the North Korean government issued an announcement that it had successfully conducted a nuclear test for the first time. Both the United States Geological Survey and Japanese seismological authorities detected an earthquake wi th a preliminary estimated magnitude of 4. in North Korea, corroborating some aspects of the North Korean claims. [4] On November 19, 2006, North Korea's Minju Joson newspaper accused South Korea of building up arms in order to attack the country, claiming that â€Å"the South Korean military is openly clamoring that the development and introduction of new weapons are to target the North. † North Korea accused South Korea of conspiring with the United States to attack it, an accusation made frequently by the North and routinely denied by the United States. 17] The United Nations Security Council condemned the test in Resolution 1874. On May 25, 2009, North Korea conducted a second test of a nuclear weapon at the same location as the original test (not confirmed). The test weapon was of the same magnitude as the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in the 2nd World War, (confirmed South Korea and Russia). At the same time of the test North Korea tested two short range missiles (repor ted a South Korean News Network YTN – not officially confirmed). In July 2011, Abdul Qadeer Khan, the key figure in Pakistan's nuclear weapons evelopment, allegedly claimed that North Korea had gained access to Pakistan's nuclear technology in the late 1990s by paying bribes to Pakistan's senior military officials, a claim Pakistan's senior officials disputed. Khan stated that he had personally helped transfer $3 million in gratuities to senior Pakistan's military officers, though he neither provided any proofs to his claims. [18] Chronology of events Main article: Timeline of North Korea nuclear program [edit] Plutonium | This section needs additional citations for verification. (October 2009)| MWe experimental reactor at Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center North Korea has had two operating reactors, both located at the Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center. The older reactor is a Russian supplied IRT-2000 research reactor completed in 1967. [19] Uranium irradi ated in this reactor was used in North Korea's first plutonium separation experiments in 1975. [20] Nevertheless, the primary purpose of the reactor is not to produce plutonium and North Korea has had trouble acquiring enough fuel for constant operation. The U. S.Department of Energy estimated that this reactor could have been used to produce up to 1–2 kg of plutonium, thoug

Service Product Analysis Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Service Product Analysis - Essay Example These factors might seem insignificant but when observed in depth, reveals the fact that they are capable of manipulating the level of satisfaction as well as the behaviour of a customer in a positive and in a negative way. Both the factors of behaviour and satisfaction isn relation to a customer hold huge importance in the service industry. Importance of Servicescape Servicescape is said to be the structure or the physical atmosphere that encircles the service. As the individuals present in this physical atmosphere also form and manipulate the atmosphere, so, the social atmosphere or environment is incorporated in the above definition too. A quite vital role is played by the servicescape in forming the expectations of the customers, differentiation in service, making easy the objectives of the customer along with the employees and manipulating the characteristic of the experiences of the customers. It is capable of manipulating the relationship objectives of customers who are import ant. It begins with drawing the customers to withholding and also in improving the relationship between the customer and the service firm. The appearance and structure of Servicescape assists in drawing customers towards the facility of the offered service. For instance colours, scent, signs and music could be made use to draw customers. After this the Servicescape would assist in providing experience to the customers and manipulate his or her level of contentment through the deliverance of the service (Swartz and Iancobucci 2000). Thus, it can be understood that servicescapes are not only a significant factor in shaping impression of a particular customer but is even a significant basis of fact while assessing along with the service organisation on the whole. It is quite important in the industry of hospitality where the customers interrelate along with the physical atmosphere compared to anything else. It implies that customers relate to the servicescape even before having an expe rience or understanding of the service. Therefore, it is a variety of environmental signs and physical elements which help persons outline a picture that is holistic regarding the whole servicescape (Donovan and Rossiter 1981) The Purpose of Service Environment Servicescapes which is also known as service environment narrates about the appearance as well as style of the physical environment along with other experiential components witnessed by customers at the sites of service organisations. For service organisations which discharge services of high-contact, the structure of the physical setting and the way in which jobs are carried out in the course of contact with the customers by the employees, together play an essential part in forming a specific corporate distinctiveness and outlining the characteristic of the understanding of the customers. This particular physical environment and its associated atmosphere have an effect on the behaviour of the buyer in few important ways. The environment serves as a medium of message creation by employing cues that are representational in order to correspond to the planned audience regarding the distinguishing characteristic and quality of the experience related to the service. It serves as a medium of attention creation in order to make the physical envi

Poverty Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Poverty - Essay Example The cultural concept of the ‘American dream’ is threatened by the concept of poverty. The behavioral poverty theory blames people for their impoverished state. 50.2 Million people are in a food insecure household which represents 23.3% of all children. Conservatives, in order to cut social programs, demonized the poor and classified them as immoral through anecdotal myths. Clients Name Name of Professor Name of Class Date Poverty in America The United States was founded on the ideology of equality, although much of that equality took decades, even centuries, to come close to achieving. The nation is still a work in progress, a continuing social experiment that has the potential to reach a state of enlightened social construction. However, one of the core principles that has framed the ideology of the country has been the principle of the â€Å"American dream†. This dream is based upon the idea that through the freedoms that have been established through law and th rough the beliefs that have become ingrained within the culture, every person can find success. However, while opportunity does exist, the paths to opportunity are fraught with obstacles that not everyone can endure. Poverty has become an obscenity against the concept of â€Å"the land of opportunity† to the point that in some instances it has been criminalized. Cultural belief systems have made it a state of moral decay as well as financial Because of the cultural discourse on poverty, the needs of those who have suffered so many losses that recovery is next to impossible without assistance are so poorly addressed that recovery from poverty is near impossible. In the 1970s and 1980s, a shift was seen in the way that the public considered the state of poverty. In the1980s when Ronald Reagan took the office of the President of the United States, one of his goals was to change the way in which the welfare system addressed the issue of poverty. The amount of resources that were devoted to public assistance were considered too high by the conservatives and reframing the nature of poverty seemed to be the best recourse in lowering the amount of money spent on social services. Therefore, the concept of behavioral poverty was invented which was a theory that looked at the behavior of individuals as being responsible for their financial position rather than socio-economic problems that needed to be addressed. Behavioral poverty outlines a series of behaviors that are connected to being poor. Three behaviors were identified as being central to combating poverty and the behaviors that lead to poor financial resources: â€Å"completing high school, once an adult, get married and stay married (even if not on the first try), and stay employed, even at a wage and under conditions below their ultimate aims† (Stoesz 70). The foundational belief, however, is that the way to combat poverty is to go back to work. Therefore, in order to support this belief system, t he government constructed guidelines and requirements that must be followed in order to qualify for welfare in order to promote a return to work for those who are suffering from impoverished conditions (Stoesz 71). New Paternalism is a set of social policies that are intended as â€Å"a prescription for alleviating behavioral poverty. If the poor suffered from poverty other than absence of cash, and this was attributed to volition, the a logical policy outcome would be to

Personal movie reflection Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Personal movie reflection - Essay Example The latter visits him. Although initially, the two boys disliked each other, Danny was determined to be forgiven of his deliberate mistake. He offers to help Reuven with his studies and the two start a friendship like no other. Reuven was accepted into the Jewish family as if he was their own. However, with Reuven’s father’s fight for the Jewish state, their friendship was marred. Danny’s father demanded him to stop speaking with his friend which he did for more than a year. Confused and hurt, Reuven also stands by his father to fight for the Jewish state. After the proclamation of Israel as an independent state, Danny again approaches Reuven and the latter accepts him back. Knowing that there is no stopping Danny from pursuing his studies, his father calls the two young men and explains why he raised Danny the way he did. Their relationship changes and they become more open to each other. The strong bond that was formed between Danny and Reuven is quite moving. Seldom in times of trial do we find relationships that have such strong foundations, not to mention the start of their relationships. They connected with each other as they found they are not so different after all despite their religious inclinations and beliefs. However, they have hurt each other as well especially at a time when they most needed each other. Their families contributed to such separation. Danny, because he is the son of a Rabbi, had to obey his father’s wishes whose word was powerful in the eyes of his followers. He was not going to be the first insubordinate follower in his father’s house. He chose to support his father despite his personal beliefs, abandoning his best friend. Reuven on the other hand suffered loneliness. He was an only child and his father was always busy with his work. He tried to support him by doing what he thought would help his father’s dreams come true. He stood alone, taking care of his father when he suffered a stroke. When

Comparative Analysis of FDI Trends in China and India Essay

Comparative Analysis of FDI Trends in China and India - Essay Example Foreign Direct Investment â€Å"Foreign direct investment is defined as investment by a resident entity in one economy with the objective of obtaining a lasting interest in an enterprise resident in another economy† (OECD, 2010 p88). Foreign direct investment involves a company in one country investing in another entity in another nation to attain a long-term business interest in a business that exists in another economy. In other context, any investing activities that control and manages value creation in other countries is considered a foreign direct investment (Peng, 2011). These entities are known as multinational enterprises and they aim at creating control either through agreement or equity acquisition in a foreign country to help the firm obtain some advantages in the foreign nation (Peng, 2011). â€Å"Foreign direct investment is defined as an investment involving a long-term relationship and reflecting a lasting interest and control by a resident entity in one econom y in an enterprise resident in another economy† (Takamura, 2011 p245). This definition of FDI focuses on the long-term aspect of FDIs. This suggests that these foreign direct investments seek to attain some relationship that would span into the distant future. This is to be separated from short-term interests which might last for three years or less. Such arrangements cannot be classified as FDIs they are more or less some kind of operational agreement and may not qualify to be viewed as an FDI. Examples of FDIs include building production plants to retain control and acquiring a research and development entity in a foreign country (Neuhaus, 2011). Prompters of FDIs, OLI Theory Every business exists to maximise profits by cutting down costs and...This paper clarifies the real reasons behind China's increasing growth in FDI. It examines why China' FDI levels has continued to increase recently. In doing this, there has been undertaken a comparative analysis of China's FDI trends with the Indian FDI trends. In attaining the aim of the research, the objectives were examined, such as review of the vital factors in the movement of FDI in the global context, analysis of the trends in FDI in China, analysis of FDI trends in India and a comparison with China, observation of the differences between the Chinese and Indian situation in that field. In 2010, the World Investment Prospects Survey released by the UN Conference on Trade and Development showed that China is the most popular destination for foreign trade in the World. China increased its FDI by 20% between 2009 and 2010. The main factor that prompted China to become the leading destination for foreign investment was the changes that occurred within the country's national and legal structures. Foreign direct investment involves one entity investing in a business venture in a foreign country. These investments were often meant to promote control in a foreign country in order to attain power and further their interest in a foreign entity. FDI is meant to enable a given business to attain opportunities in foreign countries. Ownership, Locational Advantages and Internalisation form the crux of FDI. Ownership relates to how a business attains control and rights in a foreign business. Locational advantages relate to the ability of a business to take advantage of the local opportunities in a country. Internalisation refers to how a business uses the advantages that the FDI brings to it.

Wealth and Inequality Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Wealth and Inequality - Essay Example Racial, ethnic, religious and professional rivalries and jealousies have augmented class discrimination, and haves and haves-not observe enormous gulf between them. Hence, taking apposite measures immediately for the eradication of continuously increasing socioeconomic abyss appears to be the need of the hour, which could be performed by including the suppressed and oppressed stratum of society in nation-building programs, so that the society could be protected from becoming the prey to the severe anguish, hatred and bloodshed among the citizens for the future years to come. Before the French revolution, ninety-nine percent of the French population died of hunger and starvation, while remaining one expired due to over digestion. (Mahajan, 2002: 21) Thus, the authorities should move swiftly in order to introduce and implement socioeconomic schemes for the uplift of the poor and down-trodden masses in order to avoid the revolution the world has already observed in the form of French Re volution 1789, Iranian Revolution of 1979, and several other rebellions and revolts. The Paper Wealth serves as one of the most significant social phenomena, which helps the people get involved into the odds and ends of life by purchasing the commodities of their needs and choice, as well as by selling different commodities or offering their services against the wealth in order to keep the wolf from the door on the one hand, and for leading a comfortable and respectable life in society on the other. Since every human is directly or indirectly connected with financial activities, and strives in pursuit of earning more and more money and pecuniary gains, wealth has always been of vital importance in everyday individual and collective life. All that is because of the very reality that wealth decides and determines the status and position of individuals in a social hierarchy; it is therefore people seek professional education and learn technical skills, on the basis of which they work f rom dawn to dusk in various occupations in order to make both ends meet. However, they do not obtain the same amount of wealth according to the proportion of the efforts they make. Wealth is distributed less equally than labor income, total money income or consumption expenditure. While Gina coefficients in developed countries typically range between about 0.3 and 0.4 for income, they vary from about 0.5 to 0.9 for wealth. (Davies & Shamrocks, 1998) Thus, distribution of wealth, resources and opportunities has always been unjust, unequal and unfair since the known history of the social establishment. Inequality of wealth and opportunities is not confined to developing countries only. On the contrary, the developed western states are also undergoing the same problem within their social establishment. Both income inequality and the poverty headcount have risen over the past two decades. The increase is fairly widespread, affecting two-thirds of all countries. Income inequality has ris en significantly since 2000 in Canada, Germany, Norway, the United States, Italy, and Finland, and declined in the United Kingdom, Mexico, Greece and Australia. (OECD, 2008) Taking the example of the US society, it becomes crystal clear that on the one side, the wealthiest business tycoons and entrepreneurs like Bill Gates, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, Sheldon Adelson and others are leading the affluent and luxurious life, and on the other side, one sixth of the total population is living under the UN determined poverty line. Not only this that all social classes have their valuable

Critical Incident Scenario Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Critical Incident Scenario - Essay Example It is believed that a perceived attack on American refinery installations could seriously undermine health and safety in the region, and this would be sharply accentuated should the installation be housed in urban areas with substantial concentration of population. There is nothing that could stop terrorists targeting soft security targets of refineries in US in future, considering the massive trail of death, destruction and damages, these attacks are capable of bringing upon the people, property and environment, spanning several miles of the blasts. For one thing, chemical explosions could release toxic anhydrous hydrogen fluoride into the atmosphere, which could cause environmental poisoning and resultant deaths to human and plant life for several miles. For another, the damages scored could be almost permanent, since chemical leakages into the environment could have far-reaching and severe after effects on local areas. Unlike other installations, an attack on refineries would reduce the entire installation into rubbles, within minutes of its occurrence, leaving nothing to chance or security interventions. Therefore it has become necessary to protect at least 700 sites across the country that could potentially kill or injure more than 100,000 people in a potential attack on these installations. (Art, 2006). Experts ha Preemptive measures One of the most effective methods for reduced threats would be to replace the toxic chemicals with less virulent ones, which would reduce the level of dangers posed to human and ecological life. Experts have determined that for a conversion cost of $20 million to $30 million per refinery, sulfuric acid could replace hydrofluoric acid in the alkylation process used to manufacture high-octane gasoline. (Flynn, 2006). There is an urgent need to assess the risks and taken measures to alleviate or actively control the chemical sites .This could be done by having the plants owners to compulsorily present plans for reducing the risks involved with chemical plants. It would be necessary for the plants to first consider the present levels of available security, vis- a -vis the potential threats, pinpoint the areas of deficiencies, and take appropriate measure to reinforce strengths and neutralize weaknesses, or eliminate them. This is because experts are of the considered opinion that industrial sites having a high concentration of chemicals, presented a unique combination of lethality and vulnerability" (Art, 2006). Another aspect that needs to be considered is it is also necessary to reduce the stock levels of chemicals in the plants in order that losses could be kept at the barest minimum, in the event of attacks. The accumulation of stocks could increase the level of insecurity and dangers posed by an imminent attack on such installations by terrorist's forces. It has been seen that one of the main aspects that fail during terrorists attacks is the communication systems, and therefore, it is necessary that these are maintained at maximum security levels. It is seen that this plant is situated at a remote place, which may not be easily accessible, and this make inter and intra communication more urgent. Regular mock exercises and drills have to regularly conducted, preferably with military forces and Special Task Forces who should be able to reach the vicinity

Change Management and Leadership Research Paper

Change Management and Leadership - Research Paper Example Secondly, the leadership should have the power to motivate and empower the followers so that they become ready to adapt to changes without resistance. Also, they should be encouraged to accept the shared vision and get ready to accept challenging goals. Another important point is that the leadership should be able to enforce enough discipline to execute the plans and policies. Most of the time, organizations come up with impressive strategic plans but they lack the change management skills to properly operate the strategies to reach the expected goals. As Kaminski insists, whenever there is a plan, there should be properly developed performance measures and targets. Thirdly, the leadership should be fully prepared to change at any time as an organization might need to change as a result of environmental changes. So, only a fully prepared leadership can ensure that the organization has an environment that proactively observes and responds to changes in both external and internal facto rs. Finally, the leadership should understand change as a long and continuous process which has to be implemented over a long period of time. Leadership as the Visionary The first role of leadership is that of a visionary. ... Leadership as the Inspirer Leadership should have the ability to inspire and motivate the people under it. It is often achieved by identifying specific benefits to the people and minimizing potential losses. Also, there is participative decision making and open communication which will make the followers feel that there is a compelling reason for change. Leadership as Supporter In fact, leadership acts as supporter through providing enough resources, enough time, recognition and rewards. Also, from time to time, leadership will publicise vivid stories about the success of the change. Moreover, the leadership will provide such a picture that the success of all people is dependent on the success of the change. Leadership as Supporter Leadership also acts as supporter during changes. It actively listens to the problems and criticisms of people. Also, it offers as much empathy and care as possible to the people affected by the change. Leadership and Change Strategies There was a seminar named ‘Transforming Organisations’ organised by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions in Madrid on 23 and 24 September 2003. In the seminar, all the participants agreed to the fact that change management is the most important role of leadership. In fact, most of the changes introduced in organizations are aimed at improving either performance or productivity. The various strategies the companies adopt to ensure transformation range from growth, innovation and skills development, downsizing, layoff, replacements, altering assets and resources, and so on and on (cited in Dhondt, Kraan and Sloten). June Kaminski

Essentials of contemporary communication Assignment

Essentials of contemporary communication - Assignment Example The three skills most in demand are ability for versatile teamwork, problem solving, and communication. People are expected to work well with others and be able to switch easily from team to team, depending on the project. This implies a capacity for quick learning, high adaptability, and composure under pressure. This is an extension of teaming up and versatility a work. People who can recognize problems and implement solutions are esteemed by companies. Not only the management needs them; such people are the darlings of colleagues everywhere, and also of HR managers. Such people are blessed with the traits of thinking creatively, visualizing and suggesting solutions, knowing what to learn and how to do that at the right time. Communication skills are not just for professional advancement. Even as a personal trait it is very essential to be a welcome member of any group in family or society. But it has an added significance in the workplace—from performing the routine work, to securing timely promotions and wage hikes. Today’s communication needs can be classified broadly into three areas—written, oral and technological. Written: lot of documentation, reporting, correspondence and filling up of forms is involved in usual work. Excellence in these areas is necessary to cut one’s way through career goals. Oral: Simple speech communication matters a lot in today’s workplace. Good skills at this is needed for successfully selling your ideas to your manager for project approval, happy appraisal of work done and moving up the career ladder, giving instructions, understanding instructions and implementing things, maintaining rapport with co-workers of different levels and tempe rament, fruitful telephonic deals, interviewing people and gathering information, making presentations and a lot more. Technology: Proficiency with communication channels like telephone, fax, email,

Positive discrimination Essay Example for Free

Positive discrimination Essay New Right Sociologists would argue that this would be a disadvantage to the government as it would lead to an eventual reduction in the nations talent pool. However, it is important to note that the methodology used in the production of The Bell Curve is both dubious and highly doubtful. This is most vividly illustrated by the article Inequality by Design, written by the Sociology Department of UC Berkeley, which claims that the statistics used by Murray and Herrstein were flawed due to omissions and technical errors. On the other hand, New Right Sociologists also argue that ethic groups are disadvantaged because they refuse to integrate into their host society. A refusal to integrate may include a refusal to take on the norms and values of the host culture; or to learn the language. This prevents them from seeking opportunities and hence leaving them at a disadvantage. New Right Sociologists would henceforth argue that the state would have no responsibility whatsoever for self-made choices, and therefore that Positive Discrimination would be pointless and a waste of both time and resources. Neo-Marxists and Social Democratic/Left Wing sociologists would argue that because Ethnic Minorities suffer from ethnic discrimination as well as poorer life chances they require and need Positive Discrimination in order to ensure that they are able to reach the best of their potential. Neo-Marxist Sociologists would refer to the argument, as advocated by Stuart Hall of black people being scapegoat for economic and social problems in times of peril. This shows that people from ethnic minorities are blamed for causing problems, and hence are put at a disadvantage with other groups. This effect is then emphasized through the schema model, in which press coverage and blame of ethnic minorities leads to prejudice, prejudgment and in turn a disadvantage for minorities in regards to a wide range of areas, including life chances as represented through education, health and work. The prejudice caused by scapegoating leads to ethnic minorities being denied jobs in the primary job market, having to get by through the routine, ill paid and unskilled jobs offered through the Secondary Job Market. This in turn impacts greatly on all other aspects of their life, including where they live and the lifestyle they lead. Because ethnic minorities are tied to the secondary job market with lower wages, or languishing in unemployment, they end up residing in inner cities and other areas which are likely to be affected by what is described as the Inverse Care Law as coined by Hart, in which those who need the most access to services receive the least. Statistics from the Office of National Statistics show that ethnic minorities tend to have the worst self-reported health, live in overcrowded housing and smoke the most. This shows the fact that Ethnic Minorities, due to the lack of job opportunities, suffer from lower than average health and lifestyles. This, coupled with the fact that ethnic minority households are three times more likely to live in poor neighborhoods (Commission on Racial Equality, 2003) tells us that ethnic minorities do indeed suffer from lower life chances due to poor health, poorer education due to failing inner city schools and finally a cumulatively lower chance of success in life that other groups due to clear disadvantages in terms of health, education and job prospects. This clearly shows that Positive Discrimination in favor of disadvantaged groups is desirable as it allows for the disadvantages caused by ethnic discrimination and its knock-on effects to be limited if not redressed, hence increasing the nations pool of talent and preventing those who are capable from languishing behind due to disadvantageous conditions. Henceforth it can be said that Positive Discrimination in favor of disadvantaged ethnic minorities is both beneficial and disadvantageous depending on which perspective it is viewed from. However, it could be concluded with a degree of certainty that Positive Discrimination in favor of ethnic minorities is both a good government policy and advantageous to the country in question- as it allows ethnic minorities put at a disadvantage to compete on what amounts to nearer grounds to those from other ethnic groups that may enjoy an advantage, whether it be through wealth, power or better overall life chances. This allows for the meritocratic principles of Functionalism to occur on fair and even grounds- facilitating competition for roles and jobs between everyone on fair and even terms, hence allowing the best and brightest, regardless of ethnicity, to reach the very top and bring mutual benefits for society as a whole.

European Court of Human Rights

European Court of Human Rights Introduction The purpose of litigation at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), is to examine alleged violations and ensure that States Parties comply with their obligations under the Convention, providing individual applicants with effective remedies and just satisfaction under Articles 13 and 41 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The wider objective is to protect and embed locally the three CoE foundation stones; liberal pluralist democracy, human rights and the rule of law to effect structural and institutional change and create a common democratic and legal area throughout the whole of the continent. Yet comprised of 47 member states and 811 million citizens, the CoE inhabits a fundamentally different territorial scope to that in May 1949. Originally a social and ideological counterpart to NATO, it has undergone a central shift in its core modus operandi from an interstate process of protecting the democratic identity of Member States through the medium of human rights to its emerging front line role as an arbiter of liberal human rights through the medium of individual petition. Considerable problems that threaten to undermine what has been achieved over the fifty years during which the Convention has operated lead one to ask whether there is any point taking such cases at all. This brief essay is split in two sections. Section one analyses the tripartite problem outlined within PACE Resolution 1226 (2000); the inadequate clarity and casuistical nature of Court judgements, characterised by doctrinal uncertainty in the margin of appreciation; the systemic non-implementation of judgments and failure to employ necessary reforms that would avoid further violations, with a case study of the Russian Federation; and a critique of the insufficient rigour and failure of the Committee of Ministers (CoM) to exert enough pressure when supervising the execution of judgments. Section two, explores the central debate between individual and constitutional justice; and the potential impact Protocol 14 may have on the asphyxiating6] Court and CoM. Finally I assess the accomplishments of Strasbourg litigation before returning positively to our initial question with a passionate case for individual petition against the backdrop of a tide of human rights abuse in post-communist accession Europe; the utility of the Interlaken proposals; and preservation of the Human Rights Act 1998. Section One: Problems Theoretical Fault Lines: An Unprincipled Margin The extent to which there is any point to Strasbourg litigation is determined in the first instance by the extent to which the Court can effectively balance its role as a supranational judicial guarantor of liberal individualist human rights, within the CoE framework of upholding and deferring to the thread of pluralist democracy; an intrinsically collective ideal. For McHarg, Strasbourg jurisprudence is characterised by the absence of a conceptual framework integrating a preferable rights model with a defensible conception of the public interest. Greer agrees, highlighting unresolved normative, institutional, and adjudicative questions, and the failure of the Court to deliver a concrete body of jurisprudence and constitutional authority. The result formulaic, thin decisions and un-ordered interpretive principles, at best devaluing Convention rights and at worst denying them. This dichotomy is played out through the margin of appreciation doctrine; the latitude given to States Parties based on their better position with the facts on the ground. ECHR protections are not absolute, but relative; they are subject to exceptions permitting infringement of the fundamental right or freedom, specifically defined within paragraph two of Articles 8-11; and under Article 15 (A15) can be erased altogether to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. These express definitional restrictions remind us of Bentham; this, we see, is saying nothing: it leaves the law just as free and unfettered as it found it. Strict judicial interpretation and objectivity are critical to the defence of Convention rights in the context of these exceptions. The flexibility of the margin is for Waldock advantageous to the evolutive nature of Strasbourg Jurisprudence, and for Dr Arai-Takahashi value pluralism being the fundamental prerequisite and virtue of a liberal democratic society, a set of standardised rules would devalue regional legitimacy and richness of cultural values and traditions among member states. The CoE is clear in its aim to promote awareness and encourage the development of Europes cultural identity and diversity.That Convention rights are relative is a moot point for realist theorists, since States Parties would never have been willing to be bound by the Convention in the first place without safeguarding their democratic sovereignty. Yet McHarg notes the paradox in a legal scheme which is supposed to protect the individual against the collective, sanctioning limitations to rights on collective grounds. How far in practice does the ECtHR go towards fulfilling the supervisory function it refers to in Handyside v UK (1976)? To what extent does Osts assertion that there is never an unchallengeable margin hold true? McHarg talks of doctrinal uncertainty while Jones points out that even the Courts president has acknowledged the justification to some extent of criticism of the doctrines lack of precision and use without principled standards. Fiercer critics lambast the abdication of the Courts enforcement responsibility. Dembour questions if Convention rights are so full of contradictions that they are useless? It is intrinsic to the dichotomy between international individual rights protections and the national collective interest that the margin of appreciation occupies a middle position between subjectivity and objectivity; between a burden of proof firmly on the government on one hand and on the other of wide deference to it. In Lawless v. Ireland (1961), Waldock asserted: a Governments discharge of responsibilities is a problem of appreciating complex factors and balancing conflicting considerations of the public interest; once the Court is satisfied that the appreciation is on the margin the interest the public itself has in effective Government and maintenance of order justifies and requires a decision in favour of the legality of the Governments appreciation; Simpson saw this reflecting an implicit determination to back the authorities. Dembour and Jones respective assessments of further A15 derogations demonstrate consistently deferential applications of the margin, and reluctance to objectively scrutinise the existence of an emergency or of the measures implemented to tackle it. In Greece v. United Kingdom (1958), the Commission argued that the assessment whether or not a public danger threatening the life of the nation existed is a question of appreciation; determining the validity of the repressive measures employed, the UK government enjoyed a certain discretion. Such a position is clearly evident in Ireland v. United Kingdom (1978), confirmed in Brannigan v. McBride (1993), both concerning A15 derogations of Article 5 with regard to the detention of suspects in Ireland. Several problems arise from the rationale employed in these cases. Dembour draws our attention to the absence of a factually and theoretically strict analysis impossible to justify in human rights terms. Indeed, the inevitability of a wide margin in the context of A15 derogations, led Judge Martens to assert that there is no justification for leaving a wide margin because the Court, being the last resort protector, is called upon to strictly scrutinise every derogation. Jones contends a state of emergency objectively determinable if a national government has evidence of such a situation, he asks why this is not capable of assessment by an international Court? Implementation: A pessimistic view is well founded Strasbourg jurisprudence has demonstrated the capability of the Court to robustly uphold Convention rights from major shows of arbitrariness, ensuring a degree of justice for applicants and families, international attention, accountability in relation to serious violations, and domestic legislative change. Notwithstanding the significance of such supranational decisions, analysis of the pending caseload (some 116,800 cases in October 2009), reveals a Court facing unsustainable pressure from repetitive cases concerned with structural problems in civil, criminal and administrative proceedings; serious pervasive human rights abuses; and unacceptable delays in the implementation of judgements. Implementation remains the Achilles heel of the Convention system, A brief case study of Russia underscores the gravity of the situation. It is the irony of history that the Russian Federation now occupies a key position in the very organisation established to provide European unity and security in the face of Soviet communism. Comprising 27.3% (31,850) of all pending applications at the ECtHR, the Medvedev Government faces protracted challenges in its attempts to develop civil and economic freedoms ending the legal nihilism that is seriously hindering modern development. I write following the death in Butyrka prison of Sergei Magnitsky, an anti-corruption lawyer acting for HSBC / Hermitage Capital in the $230m tax fraud case. This case and the ongoing second Khordokovsky trial are emblematic of structural defects in the Russian criminal justice system and procuratura that have lead to the accusation and incarceration of many innocent persons. Other important cases demonstrate the gravity of the situation, including Gusinskiy v Russia, Ilascu and Others v Moldova and Russia, the first six Chechen cases, Shamayev and 12 others v Russia and Georgia and Aleksanyan v Russia. Leutheusser-Schnarrenbergers recent PACE report on politically motivated abuses of the criminal justice system is a powerful indictment of the failure of the Russian Federation to entrench a meaningful institutional framework that engages with the rule of law. The report highlights a multi-layered problematic of political and hierarchical vectors of pressure on judges to secure convictions; retrogressive legislative proposals that call into questions Putins implementation of jury trial; the endemic failure to safeguard defence lawyers from coercion and realise a truly independent objective procedure for their selection and quality; serious investigative flaws; and unremitting legal nihilism. The systemic pervasive abuse of human rights in Chechnya represents perhaps the most serious Convention violations. It is here that PACE and the CoM face their most urgent challenges. Bowring draws our attention to the recent memorandum on the North Caucasus, exposing violations by security forces, including enforced disappearances, torture, extrajudicial executions; and impunity for these violations of international law; while Leach candidly outlines the scope and extent of the crisis; the first Chechen cases demonstrate the real limitations of the individual rights mechanism of the European Court as a forum for resolving wide scale, systemic and serious human rights violations. In his recent visit to Birkbeck College, Leach vividly underscored the paradoxical and lamentable and legally unsatisfactory problem of non-disclosure (ND) of domestic case files, in spite of repeated requests made by the Court. 33 of the 37 Chechen judgments have been characterised by this problem, notably Basayeva and Others v. Russia and Bitayeva and X v. Russia and Isayeva, Yusopova and Bazayeva v. Russia. The Court in Bazorkina v. Russia pointed out that documents of the criminal investigation are fundamental to the establishment of the facts and their absence may prejudice the Courts proper examination of the compliant both at the admissibility and merits stage. Chechnya aside, Leach identifies a further threefold problem of implementation vis-Ã  -vis Russia, confirmed in Pourgourides 2008 CLAHR Report; deficient judicial review over pre-trial detention, resulting in excessive periods of detention and overcrowding; the Nadzor procedure supervisory review of final judicial dec isions; and the urgent complex problem of the non-enforcement of domestic judicial decisions against the state In the context of these problems, can there be any hope for optimism? Bowring draws our attention to the often ignored historical context which has characterised Russia as part of a long and complex relationship with human rights and with the rule of law and judicial independence, which are its essential underpinning. It is in this context he argues that the ECHR, rather than an alien implantis to a large extent a restoration of the reforms of the 1860s. Ghorkova contends current legal reforms and the creation of the rule of law and a civil society with the appropriate structures and mechanisms to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms as well as the participation in the activities of the Council of Europe, are wholly in line with Russian Interests. Behind Russias posturing is, according to Bowring a serious engagement with international law its commitment in terms of diplomatic and financial resources is substantial; and compliance with its obligations indeed, in 2007 the ECtHR heard 192 complaints against Russia. Russia won just 6 and paid in full the orders for compensation in every case. In addition, in a wider sense, Leach points out the pre-eminent position of the CoE vis-Ã  -vis Russia in view of the inability of the United Nations effectively to sanction Russia over human rights abuses, and as a result of Russian suspicion about the motives and aims of the OSCE. Entrenching the rule of law in Russia will be a slow process. However, the mechanisms for its success are at least in legislative terms visible. It is my contention that through the work of the CoE and ECtHR, the Russian Federation will make a true engagement with human rights. As we shall explore below, the right of individual petition is an essential part of this process. It is easy to dismiss the Court as having failed in its mission when confronted by the ongoing abuses of rights in Russia. Yet this depends on how one defines success. From Systemic Individual Justice to an Abstract Constitutional identity The critical mass of applications lodged coupled with systemic non implementation of Court judgements has led Wildhaber to a paradoxical observation; that the quantum leap in recognising the individual as a subject of international law, has reduced the capability of the ECtHR to ensure the safeguarding of the individual from violations of Convention rights. That the Courts well noted asphyxiation is intrinsically related to the right of individual recourse is clear. De Vries April 2009 CLAHR Report lays bare the unsustainable increase in applications, principally in the wake of post-communist accession, underscoring the urgent need to tackle obviously inadmissible cases; repetitive cases that concern established systemic defects; and to concentrate on the most important cases. The inferences drawn from these stark figures have been decisive shaping proposals to ameliorate the crisis; but moreover reveal the wider battle for the soul of the ECHR borne out of competing understandings of the Courts function. The crippling application rate is for Greer emblematic of the intrinsic failure of the CoE structure to systematically deliver individual justice; intrinsic since individual recourse is a flawed paradigm. Foremost, the Convention system was, according to Greer, simply not designed as a conduit for the fulfilment of individual human rights through the medium of individual petition, but rather the protection of democratic identity through the medium of human rights. Its contemporary utility is thus encouraging European public organisational, legal and ideological parity though articulation of an abstract constitutional model member states should then apply. Greer goes on to cast doubt over the possibility of the ability of the Convention system to deliver systematic justice to every applicant, concluding that given this individual justice becomes arbitrary. Finally, he argues that where cases are adjudicated in favour of the applicant, they are often hollow victories marked by symbolic rather than instrumental awards of just satisfaction, but beyond that little else. Consequentially he argues the urgent need to that the cases the Court does select for adjudication represent the most serious Convention compliance problems in Europe, and that they are settled with maximum authority and impact. Wildhaber agrees, the need for the Court to concentrate its efforts on decisions of principle However, for Sir Stephen Sedley, the proposal to introduce a discretion to refuse to entertain cases which are legally admissible is a counsel of despair; to do this would be to abandon the Courts crucial role, which is not that of a Supreme Court, but that of a tribunal of last resort for citizens of non-compliant states. This, he argues may be attractive to judges but is less attractive to citizens of sates which persistently or systematically fail to observe the convention. And this is less attractive still in light of the concern that amendments to the admissibility criteria will restrict the right of individuals to seek redress at the European Court, without ade quately tackling the problem of the increasing number of Convention violations across Europe. Conclusion: Why Bother? Camerons renewed pledge to repatriate the Human Rights Act (1998) (HRA) with a British bill of rights to better tailor, but also strengthen, the protection of our core rights may soon be a reality. DPP Kier Starmer has made an impassioned defence of the HRA and broad impact of Convention jurisprudence on the CPS: the common law sometimes struggles with a coherent approach to human rights; the Human Rights Act is an essential component of the framework within which everyones rights may be protected. The ECHR has shored up the right to a fair trial in the UK, the CPS underscoring the relationship between Article 6 and its work securing the fairness of trial proceedings in criminal proceedings. It was central to the development of PACE (1984), ensuring formality of interrogation and ending miscarriages of justice through uncorroborated evidence. Regina v Fulling (1987) demonstrates the efficacy of PACE safeguards against evidence collected under oppression, contrary to the ECHR; the meaning of the term (oppression) reflects the wording of Article 3. Starmer underscores the positive obligation on the state to take reasonable steps to protect potential victims from a real and immediate risk to their lives from criminal activity. When they (victims) unfortunately acquire that status, they have the right to an effective investigation. These are rights that spring from the Human Rights Act, not rights that conflict with it. Critically, they are now enforceable in court. Through the application of the ECHR, challenges may be made under Section 78 PACE as to the admissibility of the evidence obtained; and victims have the right to challenge decisions not to prosecute, particularly where they can point to poor decision-making or inappropriate consideration of irrelevant factors in that process. The HRA is central to legal certainty and transparency, and development of a modern public prosecution service prosecuting firmly and fairly, in an open, transparent and independent way; supporting victims and witnesses by enabling, encouraging and supporting their effective participation at all stages in the criminal justice process; and a commitment to respect and protect the human rights of all those affected by our decisions, whether they be victims, witnesses, suspects or defendants. Klug demonstrates the tangible protection of freedom under the Human Rights Act in sixteen important areas; freedom of association; private and family life; freedom of expression and the media; terrorism; torture; jurisdiction in Iraq; protecting the right to life; investigations into deaths; marriage; asylum seekers; disability; mental health; restraint of young people in secure training centres; sexual orientation; race; and gender. A few examples of Case law in these areas make a powerful case for Strasbourg litigation. A and others v UK (2009) held that the incarceration of suspected international terrorists under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 without charge or trial was disproportionate and discriminated on the ground of nationality or immigration status. In R (H) v Mental Health Review Tribunal, the rights of those detained under the Mental Health Act (1983) were bolstered by the shifting burden of proof for continued detention onto the health authority. Prisoners rights have been enhanced, including the granting of voting rights in Goldberg and Others v. Minister of Prisons (1979); the freedom from censorship of correspondence, in Silver and Others v. UK (1980); and changes to cell policies following the racist murder of a prisoner in R (Amin) v SSHD (2003). R (Baiai) v SSHD (2008) was important ensuring the sacrosanct right to marry under Article 12 was free from discrimination on the grounds of immigration status. Leach, in his recent visit to Birkbeck College drew attention to the heart-rending fact finding missions in Anchora in the early 1990s, highlighting serious pervasive violations of the Kurdish minority in South East Turkey. The deplorable case of Aydin v. Turkey (2005) is emblematic of the effect of individual petition and its fundamental importance to the effective protection of the substantive rights and freedoms provided for in the Convention. It is perhaps through this significant programme of litigation, setting key standards in violations of Articles 2, 3 and 5, and delivering access to justice to those most vulnerable and marginalised members of society that the true point of litigation in Strasbourg is made. For those in the North Caucuses, 2009 has been a frightful year, symbolised by the death in Grozny in July of Natalia Estimirova, followed a month later by Zarema Sadulayeva and Alik Dzhabrailov. Through the delivery of constitutional justice those most vulnerable people whose voices so desperately need to be heard will be cut off from the most advanced international system for protecting civil and political liberties. Barkhuysen and Emmerick contend that the Courts constitutional legitimacy and moral authority are derived through providing legal protection to individuals by breaking the State Partys sovereignty. This unique achievement, unprecedented in international must be defended. It is here that the point of Strasbourg litigation is to be found.