Examine The Legality Of Military Humanitarian Intervention International Law Essay

Examine The Legality Of Military Humanitarian Intervention International Law Essay The general prohibition on the use of force contained in Article 2(4)  [1]  of the UN Charter forms a cornerstone of public international law. That prohibition is subject to a very narrow category of exceptions, all of which arise from the right to self-defence codified in Article 51 of the UN Charter.  [2]  A more controversial exception to the use of force that has been claimed to arise as a rule of customary international law is that of humanitarian intervention. This essay looks at the arguments in support of the proposition that humanitarian intervention is now established in international law as a lawful exception to the general prohibition on the use of force and assertions against such a proposition. The theoretical debate Ever since the question of the legality of humanitarian intervention first arose, there has been both vocal support and opposition to it. Lauterpacht famously put forward the rationale behind humanitarian intervention. He stated that one had to go back to the purpose of the general prohibition on the use of force, and that was to ensure peace. He considered that ultimately, peace is more endangered by tyrannical contempt for human rights than by attempts to assert, through intervention, the sanctity of human personality.  [3]  He thus considered that humanitarian intervention was justified if a state committed atrocities against its citizens in such a way and to such a degree that it interfered with those citizens fundamental human rights. However, it has always been appreciated that there are problems with the very idea that a state would expend its own resources and risk its own security simply for the good of the citizens of another state. Such a view might be considered to be cynical, but there is no doubt that history has shown that whenever humanitarian intervention is claimed as the legal basis for military force in another country, it is mixed with other reasons why a state would military intervene in another state.  [4]  Furthermore, humanitarian intervention is often put forward as a basis for legality of force without the citizens of the state who have suffered the intervention asking for such intervention to take place.  [5]  One can therefore question the theoretical underpinnings of such intervention. This problem is only exacerbated when one considers that humanitarian intervention is intervention that is undertaken by states on a unilateral basis outside of the precepts of the Security Council. The purpose of setting up the United Nations and the Security Council was to provide for peace throughout the world and engage in military intervention when required, as authorised by the Security Council. The Security Council is thus authorised with powers under Chapter VII of the UN Charter that allows it to authorise military use of force in another country. In doing so, the Security Council is able to take into account the fact that a particular country is facing human rights violations at the hands of its government and/or leaders.  [6]  Thus for example, in 1991, when the oppressive government of Iraq being led by Saddam Hussein took disproportionate military action to repress the Iraqi civilian population, the Security Council passed Resolution 668 under Chapter 7 of the UN Cha rter demanding of Iraq to immediately end the repression and insist that it allowed access to international humanitarian organisations to enter Iraq.  [7]   Any force authorised by the Security Council may be politically contentious, but there is no doubt that it would be lawful under the rules of force in international law. Given that there is such a power in the Security Council, one would question why there was a need for humanitarian intervention.  [8]  Indeed, providing that there is a right for humanitarian intervention available to states that can be exercised independently of the UN and the Security Council would greatly undermine the function of the Security Council as the body entrusted with authorisation of military force.  [9]   Humanitarian intervention is thus a doctrine which has long been debated in the courts. The real debate lies however in the practical instances that have arisen in the past where humanitarian intervention has been alleged as a justification of force. The section below shall go on to analyse these practical instances and asses to what extent humanitarian intervention can be said to now be a norm of international law. Practical instances of humanitarian intervention One major problem that arises when assessing the legality of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention is that one must distinguish between instances where the doctrine is invoked in rhetoric and public relations only and instanced where humanitarian intervention is actually relied on as a legal basis for justifying use of force in another state. The latter is a lot rarer than the former. The problem however is that it is only the latter incidents that is actually evidence of state practise of the right to humanitarian intervention. One of the earliest incidents to deal with the concept of humanitarian intervention commented on by commentators was that of Indian action in Bangladesh. In early 1971, following subjugation to Pakistani rule, Bangladeshi nationals were rebelling and seeking to establish Bangladesh as an independent country. India provided extensive military aid to Bangladesh to allow this to happen, aid without which arguably Bangladesh would not have won the conflict. In public theoretic, India stated thats is actions were based on humanitarian intervention since the Bangladeshis were suffering human rights violations under Pakistani rule.  [10]  This was highly criticised however for the fact was that India in having long-standing conflict with Pakistan itself did have vested interests in helping Bangladesh gain independence.  [11]  Indeed, India did not go on to utilise humanitarian intervention as a legal basis for its action and sought to rely on the doctrine of self-defence instead.  [12]   This pattern was repeated in many more incidents that occurred. Tanzania intervened militarily in Uganda in 1979 to enable rebels there to overthrow the repressive leader Idi Amin.  [13]  In 1978 Vietnam invaded Cambodia stating that it wished to prevent Cambodia from suffering at the hands of its government. Both stated that they wished to help the citizens of the respective countries they intervened in. This was however continuously rejected by the international community, with France and the US specifically stating that human rights violations did not justify the use of force, thus clearly indicating that it was not accepted at that time that humanitarian intervention was considered to be a legal basis for intervention.  [14]   Chronologically, the next major incident of humanitarian intervention that took place was that of Australian intervention in East Timor. Rebels in East Timor seeking to establish it as in independent country were facing repression from the state of Indonesia resisting independence. Human rights violations in the situation ensued resulting in several UN Resolutions calling for peace and eventually in a UN referendum, the results of which indicated that the majority of people wished for independence. The Australian government thus took the lead in providing military assistance to East Timor to repel Indonesian presence and establish an independent state.  [15]  In doing so, the Australian government expressly relied on the right to humanitarian intervention.What must be pointed out however is that the UN was involved in that situation, and most commentators regard that the intervention in East Timor is more akin to an incident where the UN regulates force for purposes of humanitari an intervention rather than when the right is employed unilaterally by a state.  [16]  Thus, the intervention in East Timor was seen to be highly similar to the US intervention in Somalia in 1992 which had been acted upon only after the UN had specifically called for humanitarian intervention.  [17]   Perhaps the most famous incident of humanitarian intervention was that in Kosovo. Kosovo, now an independent country, used to be part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and consisted of a mix of ethnicities, with 90% being ethnical Albanians and the minority being Serbians. In the 1990s the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia started to break up with each different country announcing its independence. The state of Kosovo also suggested breaking off from the FRY, to regain the independence Kosovo once had before Yugoslavia was established in the first place. This was met by much resistance from the Serbians both in Serbia and in Kosovo. A regime of ethnic cleansing of the Albanians in Kosovo started to prevent the calls and efforts by those peoples to make Kosovo an independent country and one of the worlds worst conflicts started, with human rights violations reaching epidemic proportions.  [18]   This matter was brought to the attention of the Security Council, and on 31 March 1998 it adopted Resolution 1160,  [19]  which imposed an arms embargo on the FRY and called for it to work with the Kosovar Albanians to achieve a peaceful solution to the matter. Following this however the violence in Kosovo only intensified and Resolution 1199 was adopted which determined that the situation in Kosovo amounted to a threat to peace and security in the region.  [20]  The problem was however the presence of the veto in the Security Council. Every permanent member of the Security Council has the right to veto any Security Council resolutions made. Russia being a major part of the former Soviet Union that existed was highly reluctant to take any action further to the two resolutions already adopted against the FRY and indicated that it would use its veto if any resolution were attempted to be passed which authorised military measures to be taken against the FRY. There was little cha nce that the Security Council would therefore be able to take action in response to the situation that was ongoing in Kosovo.  [21]   As a result of this, NATO states came together to discuss military intervention in Kosovo. NATO declared that the FRY had not complied with Resolution 1199 and that NATO would therefore institute military action against Russia. Extensive military action was undertaken via an aerial campaign, attacking FRY forces both in Kosovo and in the FRY itself to attempt to stop the attacks that were taking place against Kosovo. The campaign commenced ion 23 March 1999 and did not end several months later, on 10 June 1999 when the FRY forces agreed to a case-fire and signed the military-technical agreement with NATO on 9 June 1999.  [22]   There was no doubt that the military action undertaken by NATO had been successful in bringing peace to the region. Despite the fact that there was no apparent basis at the time for military action, there was no international objection to the force used (other than by the states to whom the military action was targeted against). It was apparently accepted that the action undertaken by NATO was lawful.  [23]  From this, one can deduct that there must have been a valid theoretical underlying to the force taken. It was clear that the action was not authorised under the Security Council resolutions, for while the resolutions were relied on in justifying the military action undertaken, it was always accepted that the resolutions did not authorise military force and indeed did not attempt to do so because of the veto that would be exercised by Russia. There was no question that the Serb forces had carried out an armed attack against NATO countries or anyone in the region of NATO countries and so the doctrines of self-defence or collective self-defence could not be relied on. The only remaining doctrine that could have possibly justified the military force undertaken by NATO forces was therefore that of humanitarian intervention. Indeed, the situation in Kosovo appears to be the one that elevated the doctrine of humanitarian intervention from what was seen to be a less than credible basis of justification of use of force to one that was apparently widely accepted.  [24]   Thus commentators who point out that the doctrine was accepted as applying to the case of Kosovo point to the wide apparent acceptance of the international community that the acts of NATO in Kosovo were legal. In March 1999 the states of Belarus and Russia introduced a draft resolution to the Security Council which stated that the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was illegal. This was rejected by a majority of 12 votes. In 1999, the UN Commission on Human Rights passed a resolution finding that the intervention by NATO had been lawful, with only Russia and Cuba (both communist states) finding against such a resolution.  [25]   Kosovo is therefore at least one incident where the right to humanitarian intervention was both relied on and appears to have been accepted. The difficulty lies in the fact that while the military action undertaken against Kosovo was considered to be morally justified, concerns continue to be expressed by academic commentators that the incident should not be seen to act as precedent, for doing so would effectively widen the category of exceptions that existed in relation to the use of force and undermine the well-established rules of Article 2(4).  [26]   Perhaps the next most famous incident where the right of humanitarian intervention was relied on, but one where the basis of such a right was considered to be much more contentious, was that of Iraq.  [27]  Coalition military intervention in Iraq in 2003 was one of the most contentious use of force that took place and the legality of the war continues to be debated to the current day. Different bases were offered by the coalition states that went to war at different times. Saddam Husseins brutal treatment of his people and the human rights violations that they had suffered were often pointed to when the rhetoric on whether a war should take place was entered into.  [28]  What is notable however was that although apparently doing so in the period preceding the war, neither the US nor the UK legally relied on the doctrine of humanitarian intervention to justify its war in Iraq. Rather, the UK relied on interpretation of Security Council resolutions while the US argued for the r ight of self-defence, both pointing to the fact that Iraq was in possession of weapons of self-destruction (an assertion which was later discovered to be invalid).  [29]  The fact that humanitarian intervention was not relied on despite the fact that Iraq was suffering a humanitarian catastrophe and had been for several years indicates that neither of the worlds leading states considered that the right to humanitarian intervention had established itself as a legal norm and would not, formally at least, be accepted by the international community as a bass for military intervention. Responsibility to protect The humanitarian intervention doctrine has evolved in recent times and international law has come to develop the responsibility to protect doctrine, often referred to as the R2P doctrine. The very existence of this doctrine supports the idea that humanitarian intervention is not only regarded as a moral justification of the use of force in states where human rights violations are being committed, but is a positive duty on the international community to act and intervene in states where there is inadequate respect for human rights. UN Secretary General Kofi Anan brought the tensions that were apparent behind the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4) and the fact that intervention was required as a result of increasing human rights violations that were seen around the world to the fore in 1999. At that date, the atrocities in Rwanda were being discussed by the international community, and the committee that had been set up to investigate how the genocide in Rwanda had taken place came back with reports attributing much blame to the UN for failing to take action in Rwanda in what was seen as a preventable genocide.  [30]  Annan therefore requested the General Assembly to answer the question of: if humanitarian intervention is, indeed an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we response to Rwanda, to a Srebrenica to gross and systematic violations of human rights?.  [31]   The Canadian government in response to this question set up the ICISS. In 2001 the ICISS produced a report where the doctrine of the responsibility to protect was advanced.  [32]  In 2004, the High-Level Panel on threats, challenges and changes that had been set up by the UN secretary-General stated that the R2P doctrine was an emerging norm of collective international responsibility to protect.  [33]  The Secretary-General went on to endorse this finding. In a 2005 world summit, the R2P doctrine was expressly accepted and referred to.  [34]   Perhaps the most pertinent recognition of the R2P doctrine is that the Security Council specifically referred to the doctrine in Resolution 1674 (2006) when it was regarding the question of how civilians in armed conflicts should be protected.  [35]  The Resolution referred to the R2P doctrine as a doctrine of international law apparently conferring upon it a status of customary international law or otherwise. The problem with the fact that R2P now appears to be part of international law is the emergence of further questions, namely what the relationship of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention with the R2P doctrine is. Is the R2P doctrine simply any other way of describing humanitarian intervention? Or are the two concepts entirely different? If so, is humanitarian intervention subject to the doctrine of R2P? Debate on these questions commenced ever since the R2P doctrine was put forward and has ensued ever since. One might consider that the R2P doctrine is in fact simply another way of describing the doctrine of humanitarian intervention, and one that seeks to grant the doctrine a more elevated status. The language of responsibility no doubt confers more powers than the language of rights does for while the latter grants states discretion in whether to exercise the particular rights of concern, the former does not. If one were to accept such an argument, then the fact that R2P now appears to be a doctrine of international law means that humanitarian intervention is also a rule of international law and such intervention legalises use of force in other states. However, the ICISSs formulation of the R2P doctrine is on the basis that it is an entirely different concept to the doctrine of humanitarian intervention. The ICISS report thus stated that humanitarian intervention should not be seen to be the prime concern in the modern world where catastrophic human rights violations such as Rwanda were taking place. The Commission argued that there was a need for a new doctrine, which governed the need to intervene in the affairs of states who committed human rights violations. Such a doctrine should not be seen as a right to intervene that was granted to the intervening state, as humanitarian intervention might do, but rather as a responsibility on other states to intervene as a result of the right of the state that was suffering human rights violations to be protected.  [36]   R2P also introduced a new method of dealing with the concept of state sovereignty. As set out above, the doctrine of humanitarian intervention does not tie in well with the concept of state sovereignty, for it effectively allows a sate to intervene in another states affairs on the ground that the former state is of the opinion that the latter states treatment of its own citizen is in accurate. Such a concept can be seen to go against the very idea of equality of states in international law.  [37]  The R2P doctrine proposes to deal with this tension by proposing that the concept of state sovereignty to control its citizens with that of sovereignty as responsibility to protect its citizens. Once again, there was a shift from rights to responsibility. The R2P doctrine effectively re-characterises the conception of state sovereignty as one that is a right of governments to control their citizens, to one where there is a duty on governments to protect its citizens, and rights are gran ted to citizens to be protected. Where these rights were not being complied with and a government was not protecting its citizens and was in fact committing human rights violations against it, then the sovereignty to protect was not being effected and this sovereignty did not exist. As such, any exercise of the R2P doctrine through the use of military force would not contravene any idea of sovereignty.  [38]   Such a proposal can be commended for its view of the principle of state sovereignty. The fact is that the concept of state sovereignty and the idea that a state is able to control its citizens as it wishes is one that while remaining in theory can be seen not to have continued on an international basis. International law has long adjudicated to govern the relationship of a state and its individuals. A prime example of this can be seen to be in international human rights protections which essentially impose standards on states with regards to a states treatment of its citizens which must be complied with.  [39]  The very concept of the international community and of the United Nations necessitates a limiting of the concept of state sovereignty. The reformulation of the concept of state sovereignty from one which sees sovereignty as control to that to protect might be considered to be ingenious in that it resolves the theoretical tensions that exist between the right to military in tervention in states where human rights violations are committed and sovereignty of that state. However, the fact is that the concept of sovereignty as sovereignty to protect still poses the same problems that the traditional concept of state sovereignty controls: Sovereignty to protect allows a third state to intervene in a states matters when protection of citizens is not being undertaken adequately. Which state is to decide however when citizens protection is being undertaken adequately and when it is not? To what extent does the protection of citizens in a state have to be undermined before military action can be allowed in that state?  [40]   Thus, whether or not R2P is the same or a different doctrine to that of humanitarian intervention, the same difficulties that are faced by humanitarian intervention proponents remain, and perhaps the most major of these problems is the wide floodgates the idea of a responsibility to protect opens. Practical incidents have shown how in the past humanitarian intervention has wrongfully been used by states, often on a post-facto basis, to justify use of force and intervention in other states. The R2P doctrine in fact provides for a wider scope of humanitarian intervention for as pointed out above, a responsibility imposes a larger duty and therefore a larger scope of power on states to take action than a right to intervene does, and the R2P doctrine therefore arguably exacerbates the problem that humanitarian intervention traditionally faced. In this vein however it must be noted that the proponents of the R2P doctrine point out that unlike humanitarian intervention, the R2P would impose a duty on states to employ a wide range of measures, along a continuum, to regulate states behaviour. Thus the R2P doctrine envisaged that preventative measures should be used to prevent human rights atrocities, and duties included rebuilding societies that had been affected by human rights violations. Such a doctrine is therefore very commendable in theory.  [41]   Furthermore, it must be pointed out that the R2P doctrine apparently appears to have been envisaged to be utilised within the provisions of the Security Council rather than impose duties or rights on states to act on a unilateral basis to military intervene in other countries. If that is the case, then the R2P doctrine has not really helped towards resolving the questions surrounding humanitarian intervention at all.  [42]   Conclusion The above discussion has shown that there are many questions regarding the legality of humanitarian intervention in international law as a justification for use of force in another state. There is little doubt that in the past the doctrine was not regarded as a valid justification for the use of force. Thus the international community tended to reject attempts by states to justify use of force with the concept of humanitarian intervention, not least because such justification was often posed on an ex facto basis and was usually tied in with some other form of justification that was put forward. The position appeared to change however in the NATO intervention in Kosovo when the international world apparently accepted the legality of the action. The war in Iraq in 2003 however appeared to reverse the position once again, when attempts to rely on humanitarian protection were rejected almost from the outset and indeed the coalition states eventually went on to rely on other basses to jus tify the use of force that was undertaken. The doctrine of humanitarian intervention does have its proponents and certainly is a very attractive concept in international law. In the writers view however the dangers posed by the doctrine outweigh the advantages that it offers. The doctrine effectively widens the scope of exceptions that exist to Article 2(4) and allows states to unilaterally take force. This undermines not only the concept of state sovereignty but also the purpose of the United Nations and the Security Council as being relevant bodies to regulate international peace and security. The R2P doctrine that has been put forward as a doctrine of international law is in many ways preferable to that of humanitarian intervention. The R2P doctrine provides for rights of citizens rather than rights of states and importantly it envisages that military action will be undertaken by the Security Council rather than on a unilateral basis. The writer is therefore of the opinion that the R2P doctrine should be distinguished from the idea of humanitarian intervention R2P should be recognised as a principle of international law and one that allows the Security Council to take military action in state when required. It should not however be seen to extend the doctrine of humanitarian protection. Indeed it is the writers view that humanitarian protection does not exist as a legal right in international law, both in theory and in practise. The doctrine goes against all ideas of state sovereignty and against the prohibition of the use of force in general. Furthermore, states do not appear to have accepted that the doctrine is a norm of law. In this vein, the case of Kosovo can be considered to be an exception in international law.  [43]  In that case, the only reason the Security Council did not take action was because of the presence of the Russian veto, but otherwise there was international consensus that military action should

Benefits Working Overseas

Considering the multiple opportunities offered by international jobs, more and more people are attracted towards working abroad. Most of such work opportunities are available in developing nations, where population continues to increase. Foreign countries are ready to welcome skilled professionals across a wide range of industries. Though there are many people who want to be employed abroad for leisure and other reasons, the majority of jobseekers decide to work abroad for excellent financial benefits. Apart from being financially rewarding working abroad offers plenty of other benefits that stir interest in jobseekers. Explore Cross-Country Cultures One of the biggest benefits of working abroad is that you get to meet people from different cultural backgrounds. Since you continue to meet with a wide range of people, you have an excellent opportunity to network with people from different countries of the world. While working, you can even find people who will ultimately turn into lifetime friends. In addition, you get to know about different customs and traditions that people from different cultural background may have. Opportunity to Hone Your Language Skills Working overseas also gives workers an excellent opportunity to meet with native speakers. If you are looking to polish your language skills, you have a great chance to do the same while working abroad. The best method to fine-tune your foreign language skills is to interact with the native speakers of a specific language. Financial Benefits This is one of those benefits that attract most of the jobseekers for taking up jobs abroad. Salaries for most of the jobs vary according to the geographical location. With a bit of research, you can find out which country will offer you the best salary for your skills and working experience. There are many countries where the cost of living is lower than the salaries offered. Therefore, reduced cost of living and high salaries will bring you excellent financial career benefits. Self Motivation Yes, working abroad also brings motivation to workers. When you continue to meet with new people from different walks of life, you get self-motivated. And motivating yourself gives your career an extra edge over others. When you stay away from home, you become even more responsible and develop the capability to handle pressure on your own. While being motivated, you can think further about working towards your career growth and development. Exceptional Work Experience. The competitive job market has made employers more selective. In today's job market, employers prefer hiring candidates who possess a wide range of skills and extensive work experience. Experience of working abroad attracts employers even more, as it showcases your capability to adapt to diverse workplaces and perform well under pressure. Employers look at the candidate's extra language skills as an additional beneficial asset. Extra language skills bring a lot of benefits in today's global business environment. Future Employment Opportunities Working abroad also brings you the benefit of establishing business contacts. By being constantly in touch with your professional and influential contacts, you will be paving ground for employment opportunities that may be offered to you in future. Undoubtedly, taking up work abroad has plenty of benefits to offer. While you prepare yourself for the increasingly global work environment, you gain a competitive advantage over other jobseekers in your industry. Your intercultural and interpersonal communication skills are improved a lot when you work overseas. Your work experience of doing a job abroad proves to employers that you the capability to work efficiently with diverse groups of people and teams.

Marketers Persue the Shallow Pocketed

Is the information being discussed in this article another example of colonialism? Why or why not? Identify two potential positives and two negatives direct marketing of the poor has on people and their economies. What theory of development is most applicable to the expansion of global markets to poor, low income, and indigenous communities? After reading the information in chapter 8 and the information in the article, â€Å"Marketers pursue the shallow pocketed†, it is my conclusion that the information being discussed in this article is a clear example of colonialism.As stated in the textbook, Colonialism tended to deprive a society not only of its wealth and freedom, but also of its very character, leaving the local people intellectually and morally disoriented (Fanon, 1963), this is a lot like the article which shows that marketing to the poor has become a very hot subject. Identify two potential positives and two negatives direct marketing of the poor has on people and th eir economies. One positive thing that direct marketing of the poor has on people and their economies is that the people will be able to purchase items they need and want at lower prices.Another positive aspect of direct marketing is that the economy improves as more money is being spent. One of the negative aspects of direct marketing is that products will be provided in excess however the items may be of a lower quality, and the second negative aspect is that the poor people are being encouraged to purchase unnecessarily and perhaps overindulging in things that are not necessarily needed. RESOURCES: Nowak, B. , & Laird, P. , (2010), Cultural Anthropology- 8. 2: Modern States: Industrialization and the Global World: Economy   Retrieved from https://content. ashford. edu/books/AUANT101. 10. 2/sections/sec8. 2

What Happens When Preparation Meets Opportunity - 1009 Words

Imagine. You, at the ready A camera whirrs. Bright lights blind Palms sweat Heart Pounds Mind races. This moment has a lifetime behind it, and one person decides your fate. Your hard work and preparation comes down to this. Will this finally be it? Will it be your big break? Will all of your hard work and dedication finally pay off? ACTION! The answers of the future are unknown. But, what got you here? BACK TO ONE â€Å"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.† People think that actors and actresses have it easy. They think that actors and actresses don’t have to put very much effort into their jobs - they are just playing pretend. This, misconception is in no way true. Behind all of the glitz and the glamour there is so much more that goes on behind the scenes that most people are unaware of. Rejection, long hours, and traveling for auditions are just some of the obstacles actor face in landing their dream role. Overall, there are a lot of things that actors and actresses have to go through that people don’t take into account when they think of the idea of â€Å"acting†. Acting is a job. It requires hard work, dedication and time. As I mentioned before, actors and actresses go through a lot of hard ships such as rejection. An actress myself, I have to attend hundreds of auditions just to get one job. Rejection can be really hard for actors that are just starting out. We have to learn how to cope with more rejection than most any other job outShow MoreRelatedLuck Is A Matter Of Preparation Meeting Opportunity725 Words   |  3 Pagesmoment, the perfect moment will pass you by.†- Quote found inside a fortune cookie. Oprah said it best, â€Å"Luck is a matter of preparation meeting opportunity.† I recently asked my eldest daughter, high school graduate of 2016, what it means to be lucky. Her response was simple; being lucky is a state of mind, anyone can be considered lucky or unlucky. How is this even possible when there are so many different ways we claim things are lucky? The rabbit’s foot keychain attached to the keychain of someoneRead MoreWhen Preparation Meets Opportunity !854 Words à ‚  |  4 PagesWhen Preparation Meets Opportunity! By Pat Mussieux | Submitted On February 13, 2013 Recommend Article Article Comments Print Article Share this article on Facebook Share this article on Twitter Share this article on Google+ Share this article on Linkedin Share this article on StumbleUpon Share this article on Delicious Share this article on Digg Share this article on Reddit Share this article on Pinterest Expert Author Pat Mussieux How often have you attended an event and found that youRead MoreIncorporating Tools And Training For Artist Preparedness Into The Art School Environment1383 Words   |  6 Pagesthe respondents indicated little or no preparation of financial and business management skills; 74% indicated little or no preparation of entrepreneurial skills. 53% indicated that they are currently working artists. If these statistics are a mirror of what is happening overall in arts institutions, we are not doing what we need to do in terms of preparing students for success as artists and/or entrepreneurs. No one ever taught me about safe storage. So when I lost 7 years of print production, drawingsRead MoreNrs430V859 Words   |  4 PagesRunning head: Educational Preparation Educational Preparation Grand Canyon University: Educational Preparation The purpose of this educational preparation is to discuss the differences in competencies between nurses prepared at the associate-degree level versus the baccalaureate-degree level nursing. Nursing is a dynamic and complex discipline that needs increase knowledge and skills. Now days a nurse isRead MoreStudents Scores On The Sglsst Be Improved1120 Words   |  5 Pagesn students’ scores on the SGLSST be improved? How should the curriculum and instructional process relate to preparation for the SGLSST? How should the results of the SGLSST be used in instructional planning? How do these suggestions impact students with special needs? The teachers, administrators, parents and students at Resthaven Elementary are all facing a huge dilemma. It’s clear that the teachers are frustrated and perplexed on how to effectively teach their students. The parents are becomingRead MoreQuestion 1: Importance Of Performance Assessment. Understanding1445 Words   |  6 Pagesimplication of not meeting this objective could be increased transport costs, as twice as many trucks are required to transport the same amount of freight, which is extremely inefficient and would likely increase expenses. Performance assessment provides opportunity for YT management to improve the alignment of operations with the objectives, and improve any failings (The State of Queensland , 2016). It assists with ensuring goal congruence, by analysing and addressing the agency problem, as this should ensureRead MorePersonal, Value, And Personal And Career Values969 Words   |  4 Pagesvalue is a principle, a standard, or a quality that you conside r worthwhile or desirable. Everyone has values. They are the personal beliefs that tell you what is the right or just way to think, believe, be and live. Values direct you when you are deciding what choices to make in everyday life. It is important to know what your values are when you are making career and business decisions as you do not want to find yourself involved in something that does not match your values. Read MoreEssay on Roman Catholics Beliefs About Marriage and Family869 Words   |  4 Pagesthe first place, it is important to prepare for it and this preparation takes place during the engagement. Couples must sit down together and seriously look at their future life’s together and see what they both want from the marriage. One way for preparing for marriage is learning to communicate with your future partner. This is one of the most important things you can do while preparing for marriage and when you are married as if you can talk to each other comfortablyRead MoreTeam Communication832 Words   |  4 PagesAbout Problems Before They Arrive Proverbs 18:13 says, â€Å"If one gives an answer before he hears, it is folly and shame† (English Standard Version). As time moves an organization forward, the team’s wealth of victories should increase. For this to happen, the team should explore how they listen to one another and the appropriate response. All associations of people whether it is to promote sales, a sport, religious activities or think tanks need to have good communications. A team that wants to haveRead MoreHuman Resource Management Essay791 Words   |  4 PagesInstructor: Gwnedolyn McCants-Allen April 24, 2013 A performance appraisal helps with developing information on an employee, which will help determine if the objectives that were set forth have been met, and what needs to be improved to help with the success of the company. This evaluation happens once a year to help the employer determine whether or not an employee is a great asset for the company. Performance appraisal is very important for staff motivation, communicating, and an individual’s contribution