Suchergebnisse

ABSTRACT: From its beginnings, the human being has known the phenomenon of aggression, especially among members of the species, against the background of the ease with which certain primary needs could be met. This led to the need for a tailored response against constant attackers who threatened the proper conduct of the individual's life, which is why these defense mechanisms were coded in the genetic structure and passed down from generation to parent. With the emergence and development of human societies, as social roles became more hierarchical, tribal leaders were forced to find ways to control human impulses. Thus, during the evolution of the human species, legal norms have been developed to regulate social relations in ways that ensure peace, collaboration and mutual aid between citizens. However, due to the longtime of individual human existence compared to the new form of social organization, these animal instincts could not be completely eliminated, which is why the state offers citizens the opportunity to act with some degree of aggression. The article aims to analyze in detail the factors that determined the need for the Romanian state to allow aggressive behavior in the form of self-defense in response to existing social dangers and how this permission is legislated in legal norms belonging to the Romanian Criminal Code. KEYWORDS: history, aggression, self-defense, overcoming self-defense, excess, psychology, Romanian legislation, environmental factors

Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to investigate the disciplinary measures that teachers apply to student participants in violent altercations and how protestations of self-defense and a violent record affect the measures taken.


Design/methodology/approach
– Israeli teachers (326) were shown fictional vignettes that recounted violent conflicts between students and were asked whether and how they would punish them. The vignettes portrayed students in three roles: aggressor, confirmed self-defender, and unproven self-defender.


Findings
– Confirmed self-defenders are much more leniently disciplined than unproven self-defenders and aggressors. Unproven self-defenders are disciplined almost as severely as aggressors. A violent record results in much more severe punishment of unproven self-defenders and aggressors but has only a slight upward effect on the disciplining of confirmed self-defenders.


Social implications
– The study reveals a difficulty in complying with a zero-tolerance approach to school violence because it collides with the right to self-defense. The intensity of discipline applied to self-defenders appears to depend on their ability to "dig up" witnesses to prove their case. Therefore, socially isolated self-defenders may be punished severely whereas social accepted ones would not.


Originality/value
– The results may enhance the understanding of arbitrators' decisions in conflicts that defy attempts to determine "who started it." They break new ground by describing the disciplinary measures taken against different role-players in fracases and are immensely important for understanding peacemaking measures in school and the "real world."

Re Reference by Governor in Council Concerning Certain Questions Relating to Secession of Quebec from Canada.Supreme Court of Canada, August 20, 1998.In an attempt to clarify the legal context in which continuing Canadian constitutional conundrums arise, the federal executive referred three questions to the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the legality under both Canadian constitutional law and international law of a potential unilateral declaration of independence by the Province of Quebec. The Court declared that unilateral secession is not permitted under either Canadian constitutional law or international law. The "underlying principles that animate" the Canadian Constitution preclude secession, even though there is no specific text prohibiting the dismantling of the Canadian state. However, if Quebecers were to vote yes to secession by "a clear majority on a clear question," democratic legitimacy would be conferred on the secessionist project and a constitutional obligation to negotiate would arise binding the other provinces and the federal authority.

Many international legal scholars and foreign governments have argued that the recent war in Iraq violated international law. This paper, published as part of an Agora in the American Journal of International Law, criticizes this view on two grounds. It explains that these scholars have failed to properly read existing United Nations Security Council resolutions that authorized the use of force against Iraq. Even putting the United Nations to one side, this paper explains that the use of force could have been justified, at the time of the invasion of Iraq in the spring of 2003, as an exercise of self-defense. It argues that traditional notions of self-defense, which permit the anticipatory use of force before an offensive attack occurs, have changed to take into account the greater magnitude of destruction of weapons of mass destruction and the behavior of rogue states.