John Locke V Thomas Hobbes Essay

Locke and Hobbes both had detailed accounts as to what the state of nature is. I will start with Hobbes and what he felt the state of nature is made up of. Hobbes believed in defining the state of nature as what it is instead of what it ought to be. So he focused in on the nature of people and came to a very descriptive conclusion as to how survive in this particular state of nature. He stated that man was equal in ambition, cruelty, and treachery, which in turn makes humans equal in the ability to kill each other. This is important because he believes that people can not live in peace in the state of nature because of those reasons. Also because of this he states that there are three principals of quarrels; competition, diffidence, and glory. Hobbes feels that because of human nature these three reasons to fight would take over and make the state of nature a state of war. Locke also has an opinion to the state of nature. He feels that men would respond to things and people around them with reason and rationality. Therefore he feels that a state of nature for the most part peaceful and pleasant. He also states that the natural law would guide humans in a state of nature. He thinks that people know right from wrong and are capable of doing both but it is upon the individual to carry out these values. In order to deal with the state of nature each of the two suggests a social contract. Whatever the contract is should be the obligations placed upon the people. They both believe in this particular agreement they just differ as to who it should be between. Hobbes speaks of the Leviathan and believes that the contract should be between the ruled and the ruler. He states that a strong ruler is the only way to enforce the social contract. He says that all me are born with three rights: the right to property, liberty, and life. He believes that the only important right is the right to life because without that right you cannot have a chance to enjoy the other two. So his contract consists of the subjects giving up the other two to the leviathan so that he can ensure the right to life. Locke’s social contract differs in many ways. One of them is Locke does not believe that individuals should not give up liberty, but instead give up the right to punish people who commit wrongdoings and leave that up to a overwhelming force, in this case the popular sovereignty. His belief of the state of nature which is that man would use their reasoning and be rational when dealing with other people. So his contract is between the elected and the people. Locke and Hobbes social contract may be different but in ways they are similar. They both believe in revolt if the contract is broken, but they state it differently. Hobbes believes in the monarch so the revolt against him would be different then Locke’s society of popular sovereignty, but in short it both of them called for persecution in such case. Still the case that called for persecution would naturally be different because of the different types of governments these men called for. For example Locke says it is time to revolt when a ruler tries to get absolute power of the people; but Hobbes states that the leviathan needs to have absolute power and the only time to revolt is if the monarch is not able to protect the people he rules over. Hobbes explains the relationship between the subjects and ruler as do what you told and you will not be killed. This means that these people could not say anything about the way the sovereign is running the kingdom or you are subject to death. This is so in the way Hobbes looked at it because the only way to control the people is a state strong enough to persecute someone for this particular reason. The monarch that Hobbes feels is the only way to govern should not be questioned by anyone as so long he is able to protect the people of the land. Locke’s view of the relationship is really different. Based on the concept of popular sovereignty the sovereign are the people; so the relationship is more give and take or democratic. This is a very important concept to Locke’s ideas because this is what differs him the most from Hobbes. His democracy is broken down into three branches; executive, legislative, and federal. The elected officials in these positions are an extension of the people so the people who make up the state serves the people until the people are tired of them. What Hobbes and Locke say about people moving into a political society from a state of nature is pretty similar and all most the same. Both say that contracts between people were necessary, but the dilemma in that is that in a state of nature there is no one to enforce the contracts between people. Both of them thought about this concept and figured that in order to move in to a political society someone was needed to enforce these contracts. Hobbes believes that the only one strong enough to force contracts is the monarch. Locke believes the same thing about someone being strong enough to force the contracts but he thinks it should be the elected doing so. Locke’s two treatises limited sovereignty more so than it has before. Locke called for a separation of powers. He broke it down into three sections and combined it with the popular sovereignty; therefore the many limitations were in place. I believe Locke included this idea into is first and second treatise because he wanted to not allow the abuse of power that is so evident in a monarchy. This is important because this is what our American system of democracy is based upon. Hobbes system of government there is very little limitation. The only limitation I can see is when the monarch does not provide for the security of the people and they revolt. Though that limitation is called upon by Hobbes the rest of the terms of the monarch have no limitations. The monarch is the ruler and no one can go against him because he is the divine and going against him is going against god. So the limitations of a monarch are pretty much is inexistent in Hobbes’s the Leviathan. The rights of the subjects according to Hobbes are the right to live and that is it. The other rights now belong to the Leviathan; this is needed according to Hobbes to ensure security. A monarch that gives too many rights to the people is too weak to defend them. This is so because if the monarch is questioned a lot it takes away the fear of the ruler. Hobbes says that fear is needed to keep the people in check. Therefore a sovereign must practice a policy known as shock and awe. Without this strategy someone would feel that they might be able to challenge the monarch. So rights that the subjects hold on the sovereign are limited to the right to revolt if the monarch fails to protect them. Locke thinks that people should hold more rights to the elected. The subjects have the right to put people in the state and take them out. Locke gives people the right to liberty and property. This is different from Hobbes because Hobbes said to give those rights up. Locke says that you can have rights that Hobbes said would not work in transforming into a political society. Hobbes says that subjects cannot ensure that the sovereign roles for the greater good. Because if they are alive it is the greater good according to Hobbes; so what can they do to ensure that the ruler is operating for the greater good? According to Hobbes nothing because you can not go against the Leviathan on how he is ruling, and to do so can result in you getting killed. So once again the subject has very little to say in the Hobbes ideology. Locke also has a conflicting view with Hobbes on this ability to check the sovereign to make sure he is operating for the good of the people. The main thing that allows them to ensure what the government doing is right is the ability bring charges against any wrongdoings. This is powerful because it does not only kick those people out of office but also brings persecution to them. Another powerful way to make sure government is doing the right thing is the ability to vote or not to vote for people who make up the state. Both Locke and Hobbes are modern political philosophers with different ways of reaching the same objective. Their objective is to transform a state of nature into a political society. Though they disagree on what a state of nature is and they disagree on which is the better political society, but both were apparently right. This is so because both of the philosophies can be applied to life today, which is in a whole different context of their time.

Historical Background of the 1987 Constitution Essay

The history of the 1987 Constitution began on 11 April 1899, the date when the Treaty of Paris between the United and Spain of 10 December 1898 became effective upon the exchange of instruments of ratification of both countries. But the sources of the 1987 Constitution are (i) McKinley’s Instructions to the Second Philippine Commission; (ii) Spooner Amendment; (iii) Philippine Bill of 1902; (iv) Jones Law of 1916, otherwise known as the Philippine Autonomy Act; (v) 1935 Constitution; (vi) 1973 Constitution and (vi) Freedom Constitution of 1986 and its implementing orders. Treaty of Paris Under the Treaty of Paris, the Philippines was ceded by Spain to the United States. Spain relinquished its sovereignty over the Philippine Islands, and with this, all laws of a political nature were automatically abrogated. The Treaty provided that the civil and political status of all inhabitants of the islands was to be determined by the US Congress. The Philippines in turn, was not given the status of an â€Å"incorporated territory† (as to make it a candidate for statehood) and so ex proprio vigore, the US Constitution did not apply to the Philippines unless the US Congress expressly enacted its provisions. McKinley’s Instructions President McKinley, legislating as Commander-in-Chief, issued on 7 April 1900 his â€Å"Letter of Instruction to the Second Philippine Commission † under Taft. It set up a â€Å"divided civil and military government† with the existing Military governor as the Executive, and a Philippine Commission, created on 1 September 1900, as the Legislative, both representing the US President as Commander-in-Chief. It also extended to the Philippines all the rights in the Bill of Rights of the US Federal Constitution, except the right to bear arms (because the country was in rebellion) and the right to a trial by jury (because the Americans distrusted the Filipinos capacity to be a just judge of his peers). The right to jury trial of an American charged with a crime in the Philippines was denied by the courts in US v Dorr, 2 Phil 332 (1903) by virtue of the Letter of Instruction. This was the first Organic Act (a law which establishes the structure and limitations of the government) of the Philippines. What it lacked, as a constitution, were the ratification by the people, and the right of amendment (which was reserved solely to the US President). The judiciary was subsequently established on 11 June 1901, with a Supreme Court, Courts of First Instance, and Justice of Peace Courts. Spooner Amendment On 4 July 1901, the Spooner Amendment, which was actually a rider to the â€Å"Army and Navy Appropriations Act,† changed the then â€Å"divided, military and civil government† into a fully civil government, under the US Congress. All acts of the Philippine Commission would now begin: â€Å"Be it enacted by the authority of the US government,† and no longer by authority of the US President. Philippine Bill of 1902 The US Congress now in control of the Philippines, ratified all the organic acts of the President, in order to prevent disruption of government, and on 1 July 1900, passed the Philippine Bill of 1902, which was to be organic act of the Philippines from 1902 to 1906. The organic act introduced significant provisions to constitutional history. The Philippine Commission was the upper house. It was under the Governor-General who retained all the executive power, including the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus upon recommendation of the Philippine Commission. It established an elective lower house called the Philippine Assembly, composed entirely of Filipinos. It called for the first election in the Philippines to fill up, the membership in the lower house, as soon as the Philippine insurrection stopped and there was a condition of general peace, except in the Moro and Non-Christian provinces. A census was taken and completed on 28 March 1903 and with a certification of peace and of Filipino acceptance of the US government made by the Philippine Commission on 29 March 1907, the election for the Philippine Assembly was conducted on 10 July 1907, with Osmena as speaker. The Bill also defined for the first time who the citizens of the Philippines were. They were all the inhabitants of the Philippine islands who were subjects of Spain as of 11 April 1899, who continued to reside therein, and all the children born subsequent thereto. This definition is still good law today. Jones Law On 29 August 1916, the US Congress passed the Jones Law, otherwise known as the Philippine Autonomy Act. It established a tripartite government with real separation of powers; this was the prototype of our present set-up. The executive power was in the hands of an American Governor-General, who was independent of the Legislature, and who was given the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and impose martial law without the recommendation of the Legislature. The Legislature was composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives, all composed of Filipinos. The judiciary continued to be made up of the Supreme Court, the CFIs and Justice of Peace Courts. Under this set-up, while the Filipinos has all the legislative power, the Americans had all the executive power and thus, also the control of the government. Thus, in the Board of Control (National Coal Corporation) cases, the US Supreme Court ruled, despite the dissent of Holmes and Brandeis, that the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House could not vote the stocks of the NCC and elect its directors because this was a political function. Only the Governor-General could vote the government shares, said the court. The definition of who were citizens of the Philippines first enunciated in the Philippine Bill of 1902, was carried over by the Jones Law. Tydings-McDuffie Law Although this was not an organic act, it is important in the constitutional history of the Philippines because it was to be the enabling statute, providing the mechanism whereby the constitution of an independent Philippines could be adopted. The law, upon its acceptance by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines, provided for (i) the calling of a Constitutional Convention to draft a Constitution for the Philippines, (ii) the adoption of a Constitution that established a republican government, with a Bill of Rights, and a separation of church and state, (iii) the submission of the draft to the US President for certification that the Constitution was in conformity with the conditions set by the Tydings-McDuffie Law, and (iv) its ratification by the people in a plebiscite. Complete independence was to take place ten (10) years after its effectivity. 1935 Constitution Accordingly, on 30 July 1934, an election was held to choose the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Claro M. Recto was elected President of the Convention. On 8 February 1935, the Concon approved the draft. On 23 March 1935, the draft was certified by the President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt as conforming to the Tydings-McDuffie Law. On 14 May 1935, it was ratified by the people in a plebiscite, with the provisions on the qualifications of the President, Vice-President and members of Congress taking effect upon ratification. In September 1935, the first election under the 1935 Constitution was conducted with Manuel Luis Quezon as President and Sergio Osmena as Vice- President. On 15 November 1935, upon the inauguration of the Commonwealth, the 1935 Constitution took effect. This Constitution was to serve as the charter of the Commonwealth, and upon withdrawal of US sovereignty, of the Republic. The Constitution provides for a tripartite government, with the executive lodged in the President who had a six-year term, the legislative in a unicameral National Assembly, and the judiciary in a Supreme Court, CFIs and Justice of Peace Courts as before. In 1940, it was amended to provide for (a) a bicameral Congress with a Senate and a House of Representatives; (b) a term of four years for the President, but with re-election and (c) the establishment of an independent constitutional body known as the Commission on Elections. War ensued, and the Philippines was so devastated that the declaration of its independence, due 15 November 1945 had to be postponed. At any rate, on 23 April 1946, the election of the first officials of the Philippine Republic was held, and on 4 July 1946, the Republic was inaugurated and the Philippines became â€Å"politically† independent of the US. Theoretically, to an extent that sovereignty is never granted to a people but is earned by them as they assert their political will, then it is a misnomer to say that 4 July 1946 was the day US granted independence to the Philippines. More appropriately, it was the day when the US withdrew its sovereignty over the Philippines, thus giving the Filipino people an occasion to assert their own independence. But not â€Å"economically†. On 30 April 1946, one week after the election, the US Congress passed the Bell Trade Act which would grant Philippine prime exports entry to the US free of customs duties from 1946 to 1954, and a gradual increase in duties from 1954 to 1974 (Laurel-Langley agreement), provided that the Philippines would grant US citizens and corporations the same privileges, and in addition, the right to explore natural resources of the Philippines in parity with the Filipinos, and to operate public utilities. This must be accepted by Congress, embodied in an Executive Agreement, and reflected as an amendment in the Constitution. The Senate approval of this bill gave rise to the case of Vera v Avelino, 77 Phil 192 (1946). The Senate then had 11 Nacionalistas and 13 Liberals. Three Nacionalista Senators-elect (Vera, Diokno and Romero), known to be against the Bell Trade Act, were prevented by the rest of the Senate, in what is known as â€Å"exclusion proceedings,† on grounds that their elections were marred with fraud. The political motivation was clear but the SC was conned into lifting the injunction it issued for the withholding of the suspension, because of the unfulfilled promise that the Senate would not carry out the suspension. With the balance of power offset, the Bell Trade Act was passed. Subsequently, the SC had to dismiss the petition on the ground that the principle of separation of powers, it could not order a co-equal branch to reinstate a member. The Senate authorized President Roxas to enter into an Executive Agreement, which he did on 3 July 1946, the eve of the declaration of Philippine Independence. Then came the amendment of the Constitution in order to include the Parity Rights Agreement, which gave rise to the case of Mabanag v Lopez Vito, 78 Phil 1 (1947). Under the Amendatory Provisions of the 1935 Constitution, Congress, acting as constituent body, needed 3/4 vote to propose an amendment to the Constitution. But with the three Senators still suspended, only the 21 remaining were used as the basis for computing the 3/4 requirement. When this was raised in court, it begged off from ruling on the ground that it was a political question. It also used the Enrolled Bill Theory. So with the amendment proposed, it was subsequently ratified on 5 March 1947. The third time the Constitution was amended (1940, 1947) was in 1967. A Resolution of both houses provided for (a) the amendment of the Constitution by a Convention, (b) the increase of seats in the House of Representatives to make the Concon sufficiently representative, and (c) allowing members of the House as delegates without forfeiting their seats. The first was approved, the second and third were rejected. This became the subject matter of Gonzales v COMELEC. Election of delegates to the Concon took place on 10 November 1970. Then the ConCon met on 1 June 1971. Before it finished its work, it came up with a resolution calling for an amendment to the 1935 Constitution reducing the voting age from 21 to 18, so that a wider base could vote in the ratification of the Constitution then being drafted. A plebiscite was set by the COMELEC for 8 November 1971 but this was enjoined by the SC in the case of Tolentino v COMELEC, the court ruling that a piece-meal amendment was not allowed by the 1935 Constitution since it provided that the amendments were to be ratified at â€Å"an election† which meant only one election. The Court upheld its jurisdiction over the ConCon by arguing that since the Concon derived its power from the Constitution, it was thus limited by the Constitution. But it was subsequently overtaken by Martial Law. On 30 November 1972, the Convention submitted its â€Å"draft† to the President, who called on a plebiscite to ratify the Constitution. This was questioned in the case of Planas v COMELEC, 49 SCRA 105 (1973) on the ground that there can be no freedom of expression under Martial Law. But the case was rendered moot and academic when the President cancelled the plebiscite and instead held a citizens’ assembly on 10 to 15 January, 1973. On 17 January 1973, the President came up with a proclamation that the Constitution had come to full force and effect after its overwhelming ratification by the people in a viva voce vote. 1973 Constitution The validity of the ratification process was questioned in the case of Javellana v Executive Secretary, 50 SCRA 30 (1973) but the failure of the SC to come up with the necessary votes to declare the act as unconstitutional forced it into the conclusion that â€Å"there are no further obstacles to considering the constitution in force and effect.† The 1973 Constitution was amended four times. The first, in 1976, gave the President, legislative powers even if the Interim Batasang Pambansa was already operating. The second, in 1980 was not significant. It merely raised the retirement of justices of the SC from 65 to 70 as to keep Fernando for five more years. The third, in 1980 changed the form of government from Parliamentary to Presidential. The fourth, in 1984, responded to the succession problem by providing for a Vice-President. The start of the end of the Marcos years, of course, could be treated as early as 21 August 1983. But its immediate precursor was the Snap Election which the President was forced to call and set on 7 February 1986 to respond to the clamor for popular mandate. The validity of the â€Å"Snap Election Law† called by the Batasang Pambansa was raised in the case of Philippine Bar Association v COMELEC, 140 SCRA 455 (1985). The issue was raised because of the conditional letter of resignation sent by Mr. Marcos to the Batasan, making his resignation effective only upon (i) the holding of a Presidential election, (ii) the proclamation of a winner, (iii) the assumption into office by the winning candidate. It was contended that a conditional resignation was not allowed under the 1973 Constitution, for it did not create a vacancy, and without a vacancy, there was no reason to call for an election. But the SC failed to issue a preliminary injunction to enjoin the COMELEC from preparing for the election, thus making â€Å"the initially legal question into a political one.† In the meantime, the political parties have started campaigning and the people were so involved in the election that to stop it on legal grounds would frustrate their very will. And so, failing to come up with the majority to hold the Snap Election Law unconstitutional, the SC could not issue the injunction prayed for. The election went ahead. The rest is history. The results of the election were proclaimed by the Batasan, naming Marcos and Tolentino as the winners. But the February 2 to 25, 1986, EDSA revolution took place. On 25 February, Marcos was proclaimed in Malacanang by Makasiar, while Aquino was proclaimed in Club Filipino by Teehankee. Later that evening, Marcos fled to Hawaii. A. The February 1986 Revolution and the Proclamation of Provisional Constitution. Freedom Constitution What was the basis of the Aquino government? Did it assume power pursuant to the 1973 Constitution, or was it a revolutionary government? Proclamation No. 1, 25 February 1986 (Provisional government).– But Proclamation No. 3 which announced the Provisional Constitution, seemed to suggest that it was a revolutionary government, since in one of its whereases it announced that the â€Å"new government was installed, through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people assisted by units of the New Armed Forces,† referring to the EDSA revolution. The better view is the latter view. The Aquino government was not an offshoot of the 1973 Constitution for under that Constitution, a procedure was given for the election of the President — proclamation by the Batasan — and the candidate Batasan proclaimed was Marcos. Lawyers League v Aquino (GR Nos. 73748, 73972 & 73990, May 22, 1986).– This view was affirmed in Lawyers League v Aquino where the legitimacy of the Aquino government is questioned on the ground that it was not established pursuant to the 1973 Constitution. The SC ruled that petitioners had no personality to sue and their petition states no cause of action. â€Å"For the legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter. It belongs to the realm of politics where only the people of the Philippines are the judge. And the people have made the judgment; they have accepted the government of President Aquino which is in effective control of the entire country so that it is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a de jure government. Moreover, the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the present government. All the eleven members of this Court as reorganized, have sworn to uphold the fundamental law of the Republic under her government.† The Aquino government was a result of a â€Å"direct state action.† It was not as if a small group revolted and succeeded in wresting power in the end. Rather, the entire state revolted and overthrew the government, so that right from the beginning, the installation was already lawful and the government was at all times de jure. In this regard, it must be noted that there is no such thing as a constitutional right of revolution. A revolution, from the point of view of a State, is always lawful since a State can never go wrong; it can change its government in whatever way the sovereign sees fit. But this right of revolution, inherent in sovereignty, cannot be recognized in a Constitution, for this would be self-destructive. The nature of a Constitution is to set-up a government and provide for an orderly way to change this government. A revolution contradicts this nature. Proclamation No. 3, March 25, 1986 (Provisional Constitution).– At any rate, the Provisional Constitution or Freedom Constitution was adopted on 25 March 1986 through Proclamation No. 3. It abrogated the legislative provisions of the 1973 Constitution, modified the provisions regarding the executive department, and totally reorganized the government. (Its use of the 1973 Constitution, however, is not be to construed that it was a continuation thereof.) Then it provided for the calling of a Constitutional Commission, composed of 30 to 50 members appointed by the President within 60 days. (In our history, all major constitutions — Malolos, 1935, 1971 — were drafted by elected delegates.) The President appointed 48 Commissioners, who worked on the Constitution from 1 June to 15 October 1986. The draft was submitted to the people in a referendum on 2 February 1987. On 11 February 1987, the President, through Proclamation No. 58, announced its overwhelming ratification by the people and that, therefore, it had come into force and effect. In Re: Saturnino Bermudez (145 SCRA 160)(1960).– In the case of In Re: Saturnino Bermudez , the SC held, quoting the previous case of Lawyers League v Aquino, that: [T]he legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter. It belongs to the realm of politics where only the people of the Philippines are the judge. And the people have made the judgment; they have accepted the government of President Aquino which is in effective control of the entire country so that it is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a de jure government. Moreover, the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the present government. All the eleven members of this Court as reorganized, have sworn to uphold the fundamental law of the Republic under her government.

Women on the Texas Frontier Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Women on the Texas Frontier - Assignment Example Jacqueline Reiner points out various barriers that hindered Southern Women from moving out of the woman’s sphere; creating a scenario where only a few were able to move out of the woman’s sphere. The first barrier is associated with the fact that majority of the public offices were not open to the nineteenth century women (Jacqueline, pg. 53). The other issue that might have contributed to the essence of few women moving out of the woman’s sphere is the fact that women were only allowed to participate actively in churches, schools as well as in voluntary religious activities. The institutions of slavery during the early nineteenth century, especially among the Southern Women might have also contributed to the wide acceptance of the woman’s sphere among the white and the black women (Jacqueline, pg. 57). However, after the American Civil war, some of the Southern Women were compelled by social necessities to extend the essence of woman’s sphere to other social setting, thus they worked in public places like bars as bar tenders while a few were provided with opportunities for formal education (Jacqueline, pg. 58). On the other hand, some few women managed to join women’s organizations as well as clubs creating a scenario where only a few managed to move out of the woman’s

Cultural Event Report Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 4

Cultural Event Report - Essay Example t shows (as any Museum should) it was also plainly obvious that it was also the mission of the Air and Space Museum to impress you with the resources of the American government, and the American people and what they have done for air and space travel generally. Many of the exhibits were historical in nature, such as Amelia Ehardht’s plane, or rockets used to get people into space, or return vehicles from the mission to the moon. While I attended, however, there was an exhibit going on Entitled â€Å"NASA ART: 50 Years of Exploration,† which detailed art that had been made as a result of NASA’s effort. Two of these pieces struck me especially, â€Å"Fluid Dynamics† by Tina York and â€Å"Remembering Columbia† by Chakaia Booker. They are basically at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of what they do artistically, but both are incredibly interesting, and show the immense influence science has on our culture. â€Å"Fluid Dynamics† was a very interesting piece: the artist spent several years working with NASA scientists research fluid dynamics before making it, and was trying to represent the motion that is inherent in his field of study through a still medium (Smithsonian 2011a). It really showed the huge impact that science has on art: we understand natural beauty, but science can help simulate it better, and can create a huge influence on the mind of the artist. â€Å"Remembering Columbia† was, as mentioned previously, on the opposite end of the spectrum. It consisted of strips of rubber worked together to almost look like a bow (as in on a present, not the weapon), or a knot – or possibly an atom. This piece has physicality to it, and was created to remember those who lost their lives on the Columbia disaster in 2003 (Smithsonian 2011b). The pieces of rubber included those collected from the tire of the space shuttle itself, which were donated for the cause. This shows how deeply space exploration has entrenched in our culture: astronaut are

International marketing Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words - 8

International marketing - Essay Example This article aims at addressing the various styles used by organisations in building relationships as well as providing a comparison between Britain and India with some recommendations concerning the best practice for dealing with cultural differences for an international marketer. The various reasons for entering in B2B relationships influence the style used by the organisation in building the relationship. These styles may take the form of partnerships, strategic alliances, joint ventures, interlocking directorates, trade associations as well as the establishment of trade networks (Bagdoniene & Zilione 2009). Currently, because of the process of globalisation of world trade, most companies tend to diversify their operations and operate in more than one country and hence the establishment of networks continues to gain more popularity over the other methods. However, the organizations that intend to establish networks require the skills required for building and maintaining such networks. This means that the ability and the capability of establishing networks depend largely on the knowledge and experience of the management team. An organization deeply rooted in a country like Britain where the labour is more skillful is thus likely to develop networks more eas ily than an organisation deeply rooted in India where labour is less developed. This means that the necessity to acquire more skills in Britain is less than in a country like India. This means that in Britain, the move to acquire more managerial skills is lower and hence less likely going to engage in partnerships with the aim of gaining knowledge and skills. While organizations operating in India are most likely going to collaborate with a substantial organisation to acquire skills to deal with the managerial problems, it faces in the current globalised economy in which intense competition is the most describing feature (Ghemawat &

The Measure Stage -- General Electric Coursework

The Measure Stage -- General Electric - Coursework Example These are correct transactions and customer complaints. The number of correct transactions can be automatically withdrawn from the company’s system whereas the number of customer complaints can be obtained from customer feedbacks and recorded complaints during sale or after sale of company goods and services. For the ten months from February to November, the number of customer complaints was identifiably more than the number of incorrect transactions for each month. For this reason, the team should focus on improving issues that arise during customer complaints. This is because this section recorded the highest values every month when measured against the number of incorrect transactions. General Electric Company’s inability to assure its customers of utter satisfaction comes as a result of the high number of customer complaints. This is evident from the graph in the process baseline estimation section above. This is an indication that stringent measures ought to be taken in order to curb customer complaints within the company. The mission of this project, as indicated in the define stage of this project, is the improvement of General Electric company’s six sigma with the aim of ensuring utter customer satisfaction. For this reason, the data collected in the process baseline estimation section above supports the purpose of the project. The data, therefore, shows that there certainly is room for performing better as far as ensuring utter customer satisfaction is

Employment Law Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words - 1

Employment Law - Case Study Example The 2004 Regulations clearly state that "it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a person . . . on the grounds of religious belief". The exact nature of "religious belief" was much debated in the drafting of the Act, but it was apparently kept deliberately vague in order to cover as many cases as possible. If the religious belief directly effects a person's performance on the job (or lack thereof) then it would appear that an employer cannot be held liable for discrimination if the employee is fired. Two recent cases are very relevant to Sandeep's possible action. In Hazmi vs. Headfield Church of England Junior School a recent employment tribunal dismissed three claims of discrimination and harassment on religious grounds made by a Muslim woman, Aishah Azmi, who refused to remove her veil in the classroom. The school she was working ofr sacked herThe main thrust of Azmi's argument was that she was prepared and even willing to remove her veil in front of children, but not when male colleagues were present. The tribunal agreed that she had been victimized, but disagreed with her other claims. It said that her sacking was legitimate. Another case, Eweida vs. British Airways involves company policies regarding a dress code. Naida Eweida is a devout Catholic who wore a crucifix pendant on her uniform. British Airways asked her to remove it if she wanted to work in the check-in area, but she refused. The airline offered Eweida a job behind the scenes. She again refused. Eweida lost two levels of appeals against her sacking, but British Airways has since changed its dress code policy to allow the wearing of crosses. This case has yet to be fully resolved. Advice to Sandeep He could bring a case for discrimination based on the 2004 Act, but ethical obligations would require me to advise him that he would be unlikely to win the case. First, the problem of whether his "cult" would be regarded as a real religion for the provisions of the Act to take place would be a problem. Second, the wearing of pink, long hair and an earring would clearly interfere with his ability to conduct business as a salesman. This is a legitimate concern of his company and it would probably be irrelevant whether his attire was based upon his religion/cult beliefs or not. The fact is that he could not function as a successful salesman because of his clothing beliefs. Sandeep should ask for a job within the same company that does not require contact with the public/customers. If the company refuses to rehire him under these circumstances (assuming there are jobs for which Sandeep is qualified) then a discrimination suit might be brought. Mike, who works as a receptionist and porter, was diagnosed as suffering from osteoarthritis two years ago. He has never told anyone at work about this. However, his condition is getting worse and it is taking him increasing amounts of time to carry out the portering part of his job. The Head of Customer Relations complains about Mike to Phil, who is Mike's line manager and Phil institutes disciplinary proceedings against Mike. Legal Principles The major legal principle here is whether Mike is being discriminated against because of a disability. The fact that he has told no-one about his condition, which is disabling him, makes any chance of winning his case rather remote. The Law Under the Disability Discrimination Act of 1995 it is unlawful to