Developing a sociological perspective about government systems and Essay

Developing a sociological perspective about government systems and other sociological concepts related to developing countries - Essay Example Developing a sociological perspective about government systems and other sociological concepts related to developing countries The breaking up of tribal units, urbanization and missionary activity have all been features of â€Å"modernization† and it is clear that there are multiple consequences of these different forces. The most obvious difference between developed and less developed countries is that of wealth, but the cultural differences are perhaps even more important. One factor which has come through very strongly in the course is the concept of â€Å"cultural pluralism†. There is a big difference between the nation states of the West, with their extensive government systems and very strong sense of national identity and the much more complex mix of identities that is apparent in places like India and Africa. The impact of alien colonial ideas and the move from a rural and tribal setting to urban centres, in search of work and prosperity has created a very intriguing situation for millions of people in the modern world: â€Å"Cultural pluralism exists because individual actors include among their repertory of social roles one or more culturally defined identities.† The diaspora, or spreading out of different groups caused by factors like slavery, economic migration, persecution and war means that in developing countries people often have complex and multiple identities including aspects of nationality, tribe, race, and religion, as well as their current location which may not be linked with any or all of these.

Final exam - international law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Final exam - international law - Essay Example This was in answer to a question certified by the UN General Assembly, "Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance permitted under international law?" The answer was No, nuclear warfare is not permitted. Nevertheless, the Court considers that it does not have sufficient elements to enable it to conclude with certainty that the use of nuclear weapons would necessarily be at variance with the principles and rules of law applicable in armed conflict in any circumstance (The world court and the bomb, n. d) Legally, the above ruling of International court of justice clearly prohibits country B from using nuclear weapons even if country A uses chemical weapons against them. The unique characteristics of nuclear weapons made it more dangerous than the chemical weapons. Chemical weapons have less after effects compared to that of the nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons can create immense damage even after years of its use on a particular place. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are better examples of the long term damages nuclear weapons can cause not only to human generations, but also to the entire living organisms. At the same time, the question of how can country like Country B defend its sovereignty when countries like Country A uses chemical weapons. ... For example, Iraq was accused of possessing chemical weapons during the Saddam regime. Suppose, Iraq used their chemical weapons to kill Israeli people, how can Israel stay away from using nuclear weapons? That is why the international court of justice stayed away from completely banning the uses of nuclear weapons. A threat or use of nuclear weapons should also be compatible with the requirements of the international law applicable in armed conflict particularly those of the principles and rules of international humanitarian law, as well as with specific obligations under treaties and other undertakings which expressly deal with nuclear weapons (Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, 1996) Â  The international court of justice is of the opinion that use of nuclear weapons result in violation of various international laws like Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Geneva Conventions, The Hague Conventions etc. it urged the countries to think in terms of rule of necessity , rule of proportionality, principle of neutrality etc before using nuclear weapon. In other words, only at unavoidable circumstances like when the country’s sovereignty is jeopardy, Country B can think of using nuclear weapons. Moreover, Country B should attempt to do so only to attain neutrality in the war; not for gaining supremacy. The principles of humanitarian law are applicable both to Country A and Country B. If United Nations failed to stop Country A from using chemical weapons against Country B, then Country B would have no other options left behind. The uses of biological and chemical weapons are prohibited just like the prohibition of nuclear weapons. Under such circumstances, Country B cannot remain silent when their civilian people