Human rights and indian armed forces in low intensity

Human rights and indian armed forces in low intensity CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION â€Å"A bullet fired by the security forces becomes a massacre by the security forces every act of a terrorist or insurgent is attributed as a colossal failure of security† The quote above describes the situation under which thousands of armed forces personnel, deployed to fight the anti national and anti social elements in low intensity conflict operations in the North Eastern region for over five decades and for two decades in Jammu Kashmir. One of the greatest threats to the future of Indian democracy is terrorism which has almost become a way of life in the North Eastern states. Pakistan has been waging a proxy war in Jammu Kashmir since 1989. She has been infiltrating armed militants and promoting insurgency on a very large scale. Failure of the civil administration to control the situation has led to the deployment of the armed forces in low intensity conflict operations. Though, the security forces have been able to bring the situation under control, at the same time has also brought up the issues of violation of human rights from time to time. The situation at present is that, while there is an increasing and widespread demand for human rights observance of by the security forces operating in low intensity conflict operations environment under Armed Forces Special Powers Act, gross violations of the same by the insurgent, militant and separatist organisations continue unabated. In the recent past the demand for repealing of The Armed Forces Special Powers Act has considerably increased. This act is blamed to be a draconian law which violates the basic rights of human beings guaranteed to them by the various provisions of the constitution and international laws and conventions. Armed Forces Special Powers Act was enacted by the Parliament for the first time in 1958, to deal with certain serious threats to the integrity of the nation from some separatist organisations in some of the North Eastern states.  Ã‚   Under similar conditions this act was promulgated in Punjab in 1980s and in the state of Jammu Kashmir in 1990. Some people and organisations believe that Armed Forces Special Powers Act is the single most factor for the human rights violations.   Certain international organisations have also voiced their opinion in favour of the repeal of this act.   However, it needs an in depth study to ascertain whether Armed Forces Special Powers Act is only causing human rights violations and its repeal will help in reducing the same. METHODOLOGY Statement of the Problem Armed Forces Special Powers Act is perceived to be one of the major reasons for human rights violations in low intensity conflict environment. Repeal of Armed Forces Special Powers Act will help in reduction of human rights violations in these areas. Justification for the Study Internal security environment has been deteriorated in various parts of the country since long due to ongoing low intensity conflict operations in their various forms.   Insurgency, militancy and terrorism are the result of some of the peculiar socio political situations, some of which are also engineered and abetted by our adversaries.   These problems have led to increased involvement of the armed forces to assist the civil administration in maintaining the law and order situation in various parts of the country.   Emergence of media especially electronic media and some human rights organisations have resulted into increased awareness of the human rights in the societies. Human rights reports from time to time have indicated that a number of human rights abuses have taken place despite extensive constitutional and statutory safeguards. Violation of human rights by security forces has also been reported by many organisations. Since a very large number of armed forces are deployed in low intensity conflict operations in various parts of the country, the study of the subject is of great relevance. In such a scenario, it is imperative that all members of the armed forces be aware of the various aspects of human rights so that they are respected at all times and also to avoid allegations of violation of human rights while operating in low intensity conflict operations. Scope The scope of this paper is to study the concept and provision of human rights in International Declarations and Indian Constitution, legal aspects of employment of armed forces in low intensity conflict operations, Armed Forces Special Powers Act, Armed Forces Special Powers Act and human rights violations, recommendations on repeal/review of Armed Forces Special Powers Act and recommended measures to prevent human rights violations in low intensity conflict operations environment. Methods of Data Collection The library of the Defence Services Staff College, precies and handouts issued by the Defence Services Staff College, interaction with some prominent personalities, conduct of opinion poll at Defence Services Staff College and articles from the Internet has been the source of information and data used in this paper.  Ã‚   A bibliography of sources has been appended at the end of the dissertation as Appendix A. Preview It is proposed to study the subject by analysing and evaluating the following aspects:- Origin and concept of human rights. Universal Declaration on Human Rights and provision of human rights in Indian Constitution. Legal aspects of low intensity conflict operations and Armed Forces Special Powers Act. Armed Forces Special Powers Act and human rights violations. Recommendations on repealing of Armed Forces Special Powers Act. Remedial measures to prevent human rights violations. Conclusion. CHAPTER II ORIGIN AND CONCEPT OF HUMAN RIGHTS References of the concept of basic human rights can be found in recorded history and ancient scriptures. In India the concept of human rights can be traced down to the Vedic times. There are many references in Vedas which throw light on the existence of human rights . The Rig Veda refers to three civil rights, the liberty of body (Tana), dwelling house (Skridhi) and life (Jibhasi). The importance of the freedom of the individual in a state and rules of war, one form of human rights has been described in Mahabharata. Artha Shastra elaborates on civil and legal rights first formulated by Manu which also include economic rights. In India, the modern version of human rights jurisprudence has taken birth at the time of British rule. The origin of this ideal lies in the struggle for freedom against the British rulers. Modern historians credit the origin of the concept to Magna Carta 1521 AD. On close examination it would be seen that Magna Carta was a petition urging the King to concede certain rights to particular section of the people. Its contents had neither the universality nor   direct relevance to common mans basic freedom. The term â€Å"Human Rights† was introduced in the United States Declaration of Independence in 1776. The French Resolution in 1789 ushered in the Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen.   Much later in 1929, the Institute of International Law, New York, USA, prepared a Declaration of Human Rights and Duties.   In 1945, the Inter American Conference passed a resolution seeking the establishment of an international forum for the furtherance of human rights of mankind. The World War II drew the required attention towards human rights.   The atrocities committed on ethnic grounds by the Axis Powers shocked the conscience of the international community.   The United Nations finally proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Modern human rights can be categorised into three generations of rights. The first generation rights are concerned with the civil and political rights of the individual or the liberty oriented rights. The second-generation rights are those which are security oriented and provide social, economic and cultural securities. Third generation of human rights include the environmental and developmental rights. They are relatively of recent origin. They have evolved in response to various new concerns over which international consensus has emerged in recent years. The concept of human rights is based on equal and inalienable rights of all human beings freedom, justice and peace in the world.   These are sometimes also called fundamental or basic rights.   These are often set out in the constitution of the nation.   All member countries of the United Nations have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The concept of human rights would include the following:- Equality and justice for all, elimination of various distinctions between one human being and another anywhere and on any ground whatsoever. No one to be held without any charge or trial. Right to be produced before a magistrate with 24 hours of arrest. Rights to fair and prompt trial. Freedom from torture or ill treatment by any agency Protection from sexual violations. Rights to life and to be treated humanely, no killings, particularly of innocent person and not even inhuman behaviour. Freedom from arbitrary and unlawful coercion. Rights against any or all other excesses. CHAPTER III UNIVERSAL   DECLARATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND PROVISION OF   HUMAN RIGHTS IN INDIAN CONSTITUTION The United States defined human rights in a policy document in 1978, which says, â€Å"Freedom from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, torture, unfair trial, cruel and unusual punishment and invasion of privacy, rights to food, shelter, health care, education, freedom of thought, speech, assembly, religion, press, movement and participation in Government†. The United Nations Organisation in keeping with its charter to promote respect for fundamental freedom and human rights for all without any distinction, came out with an International Bill of Human Rights consisting of the following:- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966. The International Covenant of Economic Social and Cultural Rights, 1966. The Optional Protocol (1966) providing for the right of the individual to petition international agencies. The principle on which the above are based are:- All human beings, without distinction have been brought within the scope of human rights instruments. Equality of application without distinction of race, sex, language or religion. Emphasis on international cooperation for implementation. Provision of Human Rights in Indian Constitution. India is a signatory to the various conventions proclaimed by the United Nations Organisation. The Constitution of India guarantees to every citizen the basic human rights and fundamental freedom and gives due prominence in the form of fundamental rights enumerated in part III of the constitution   and are also embodied as Directive Principles of State Policy   .   The important aspects are:- Right to equality. )Right to freedom. Right against exploitation. )Right to freedom of religion. Cultural and educational rights. Right to constitutional remedies. CHAPTER IV LEGAL ASPECTS OF LOW INTENSITY CONFLICT OPERATIONS AND   ARMED FORCES SPECIAL POWERS ACT General.   The armed forces have been engaged in counter insurgency operations especially in North Eastern states of India since 1958 and in Jammu Kashmir since early nineties.   It is the constitutional responsibility of the army to ensure the integrity of the country both from external aggression as well as internal disturbances when the internal situation becomes serious and gets beyond the capabilities of the civil administration. Legal Provisions. Several legal provisions exist to provide legal powers and protection to the armed forces to execute internal security duties and aid to civil authorities[x]. These provisions are enumerated below:- Armed Forces (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1947. Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958. Provisions of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973, (Section 45) Constitution of India, Article 246 vis a vis the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967. Indian Arms Act 1959. Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Nagaland Security Regulation, 1962. Armed Forces Special Powers Act Background. To meet the situation arising in certain parts of India on account of the partition of the country in 1947, the Government of India issued four ordinances viz., Bengal Disturbed Areas (Special Powers of Armed Forces) Ordinance, 1947 (Act 11 of 1947), Assam Disturbed Areas (Special Powers of Armed Forces) Ordinance, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947), East Punjab and Delhi Disturbed Areas (Special Powers of Armed Forces) Ordinance, 1947 (Act 17 of 1947) and United Provinces Disturbed Areas (Special Powers of Armed Forces) Ordinance, 1947 (Act 22 of 1947). These ordinances were replaced by the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1948 being Act 3 of 1948. It was repealed by Act 36 of 1957.    The present act was enacted by the Parliament in 1958 and it was known initially as Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act, 1958. The act was preceded by an ordinance called Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Ordinance, 1958 promulgated by the President of India on 22 May 1958. The act applied to the entire state of Assam and the union territory of Manipur. After the new states of Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Nagaland came into being, the act was appropriately adapted to apply to these states in 1972. As originally enacted, the power to declare an area to be a disturbed area was conferred only upon the state governments. By Act 7 of 1972, however, such a power was conferred concurrently upon the Central Government. This act was enacted in the state of Punjab in 1980s and in Jammu Kashmir in 1990.    The Preamble to the act, as amended, reads as Act to enable special powers to be conferred upon members of the armed forces in disturbed areas in the states of xxxxx (as applicable)†. The Act and its Provisions.  Ã‚   The provisions of the act are similar to those of the first passed in 1958.   The basic features of the act are as follows:- Section 1. This section states the name of the act and the areas to which it extends. Section 2. This section sets out the definition of the act. Sub section (a).   the armed forces were defined as Military forces and air forces operating as land forces, and includes any other armed forces of the union so operating.   Sub section (b).   It defines a disturbed area as â€Å"An area which is for the time being declared by notification under section 3 to be a disturbed area†. Sub section (c). It states that all other words and expressions used but not defined in the act will have the meanings assigned to them in the Army Act of 1950 or Air Force Act 1950. Section 3. It grants the power to declare an area disturbed to the Central Government and the governors of the state.  Ã‚   Governor of that state or the administrator of that union territory or the Central Government, as the case may be, may, by notification in the official gazette, declare the whole or such part of such state or union territory to be a disturbed area. Section 4.   It enumerates the special powers of the armed forces, which are deployed in a state or a part of the state to act in aid of civil power. The section reads that any commissioned officer, warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or any other person of equivalent rank in the armed forces may, in a disturbed area, Sub section (a). If he is of opinion that it is necessary so to do for the maintenance of public order, after giving such due warning as he may consider necessary fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death, against any person who is acting in contravention of any law or order for the time being in force in the disturbed area prohibiting the assembly of five or more persons or the carrying of weapons or of things capable of being used as weapons or of firearms, ammunition or explosive substances. Sub section (b). If he is of opinion that it is necessary so to do, destroy any arms dump, prepared or fortified position or shelter from which armed attacks are made or are likely to be made or are attempted to be made, or any structure used as training camp for armed volunteers or utilised as a hideout by armed gangs or absconders wanted for any offence. Sub section (c). Arrest, without warrant, any person who has committed a cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed or is about to commit a cognizable offence and may use such force as may be necessary to effect the arrest. Sub section (d). Enter and search without warrant any premises to make any such arrest as aforesaid or to recover any person believed to be wrongfully restrained or confined or any property reasonably suspected to be stolen property or any arms, ammunition or explosive substances believed to be unlawfully kept in such premises, and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary.    Section 5.  Ã‚   This section states that that any person arrested and taken into custody under this act shall be handed over to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station with least possible delay, together with a report of the circumstances occasioning the arrest. Section 6.   This section confers a protection upon the persons acting under the act. No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding can be instituted against such person in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by this act, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. g.Section 7.Repeal and saving. 7.Dos and Donts for Armed Forces Special Power Act.  Ã‚   Army Headquarters has issued certain Dos and Donts to be followed by the members of the armed forces while operating under Armed Forces Special Powers Act. As per direction of the Supreme Court,   the forces operating under this act shall observe and abide by the following directives in the course of operations under the act:- Dos 8.Actions before Operations.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Act only in areas declared â€Å"Disturbed area† under section 3 of the act.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Power to open to fire using force or arrest is to be exercised under this act only by an officer /junior commissioned officer/ and non commissioned officer Before lunching any raid/search, definite information about the activist to be obtained from the local civil authorities.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   As far as possible co-opt representative of local civil administration during the raid. 9.Actions during Operations.   Ã‚  Ã‚   In case of necessity of opening fire and using any force against the suspect or any person acting in contravention to law and order, ascertain first that it is essential for maintenance of public order. Open fire only after due warning.   Ã‚   Arrest only those who have committed cognisable offence or who are about to commit cognisable offence or against whom a reasonable ground exists to prove that they have committed or are about to commit cognisable offence. Ensure that troops under command do not harass innocent people, destroy property of the public or unnecessarily enter into the house/dwelling of people not connected with any unlawful activities. Ensure that women are not searched/arrested without the presence of female police.   Women should be search by female police only. 10.Actions after Operations. After arrest prepare a list of the persons so arrested. Handover the arrested persons to the nearest police station with least possible delay. While handing over to the police a report should accompany with detailed circumstances occasioning the arrest. Every delay in handing over the suspects to the police must be justified and should be reasonable depending upon the place, time of arrest and the terrain in which such person has been arrested. Least possible delay may be 2-3 hours extendable to 24 hours or so depending upon a particular case. After raid/search operations make out a list of all arms, ammunition or other incriminating material/ documents taken into possession. All such arms, ammunition, store etc should be handed over to the police station along with the seizure memorandum. Obtain receipt of persons and arms/ ammunition, stores etc so handed over to the police. Make record of the area where operation is launched, having the date, time and the persons participating in such raids. Make a record of the commander and other officer/ junior commissioned officer/ and non commissioned officer forming part of such force. Ensure medical relief to any person injured during the encounter. If any person dies in the encounter his dead body be handed over immediately to the police along with the details leading to such death. 11.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Dealing with Civil Court.   Ã‚  Ã‚   Direction of the high court/Supreme Court to be promptly attended to.   Ã‚   Whenever summoned by the court, decorum of the court must be maintained and proper respect paid. Answer questions of the court politely and with dignity. Maintain detailed record of the entire operation correctly and explicitly. Donts Do not keep a person under custody for any period longer than the bare necessity for handing over to the nearest police station. Do not use any force after having arrested a person except when he is trying to escape.    Do not use third degree method to extract information or to extract confession or other involvement in unlawful activities. After arrest of a person by the member of the armed forces, the member of the armed forces shall not interrogate him. Do not release the person directly after apprehending on your own. If any person is to be released, he must be released through civil authorities.    Do not tamper with official records. The armed forces shall not take back a person after he is handed over to the civil police. CHAPTER V ARMED FORCES SPECIAL POWERS ACT AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION Gen Many human rights organisations including United Nations Human Rights Organisation are demanding repeal of Armed Forces Special Powers Act very strongly. They allege this act to be draconian and responsible for major portion of the human rights violations. As per these organisations unprecedented powers have been given to the armed forces under this act, which contravene many of the constitutional provisions and international law standards. They blame that the act is illegal in many respects. Argument Against   Legality of Armed Forces Special Powers Act Various human rights organisations have pointed out many shortcomings of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act and blame it to be illegal. Some of the important aspects are enumerated in succeeding paragraphs. Indian Laws. Several cases challenging the constitutionality of Armed Forces Special Powers Act are pending before the Supreme Court. The following provisions of the Indian laws are alleged to be contravened by this act:- Violation of Right to Life.    Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life to all citizens of the country. This right is violated by section 4 of this act. Violation of Right of Equality.Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees equality before law. People residing in disturbed areas are denied this right due to provision of section 6 of the act which prevents citizen from filing a suit against the member of armed forces without the sanction of the Central Government. Violation of Protection Against Arrest and Detention. Under section 22 of the Constitution, any person arrested should be informed of the causes for the arrest and also he/she should be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. This act violates both these provisions as the armed forces detain people for days and months at times. Preventive Detention Law. If the detention of arrested persons beyond 24 hours is defended on grounds of Preventive Detention Law, it still violates the provision of the law. As per provision of this law any person arrested without a warrant cannot be held for more than three months. Any detention longer than three months has to be reviewed by an advisory board. No such provision has been incorporated in Armed Forces Special Powers Act. The Indian Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The Criminal Procedure Code describes the procedures that the police is to follow for arrests, searches and seizures. Armed forces are not trained on these procedures and hence do not follow them. Criminal Procedure Code also advocates use of minimum force to disperse any assembly. No such provisions exist in Armed Forces Special Powers Act. An executive magistrate or a police officer not below the rank of a sub inspector is is authorised to disperse any unlawful assembly. In Armed Forces Special Powers Act every member of the armed forces less a sepoy has been authorised to do the same job. Criminal Procedure Code does not state use of force to disperse an assembly to the extent of causing death unless they are accused of an offence punishable by death. The same provision does not apply to Armed Forces Special Powers Act. Lack of Remedy to the Victim. Section 6 of Armed Forces Special Powers Act violates the provision of section 32(1) of the constitution that state the right to move to the Supreme Court in case any violation of his basic rights guaranteed by the constitution. State of Emergency. Armed Forces Special Powers Act grants the state of emergency powers to the armed forces without declaring a state of emergency as prescribed in the constitution. International Laws. Human rights organisations like United Nations Human Rights Commission claim that Armed Forces Special Powers Act violates the various provisions of United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights and many other International Laws. They include violation of the rights of free and equal dignity, non discrimination, life, security, no torture, equality before law, no arbitrary arrests etc. Some of the important aspects of International Laws are given in the succeeding paragraphs:- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). As per provisions of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights some of the rights of the citizens e.g. right to life, prohibition of torture etc remain non derogable   even in case of emergencies. Armed Forces Special Powers Act violates both derogable and non derogable rights. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also guarantees that any person who is arrested has the right to know the reason for his arrest. This provision is also violated by the Armed Forces Special Powers Act as no armed forces authorities are obliged to inform the person the reasons for his/her arrest. International Customary Law. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act violates the United Nations Code of Conduct for Law Enforcing Officials in terms of use of force including use of fire arms in addition to the various other provisions which are repetitive of similar provisions in other international laws. Legal Analysis of Armed Forces Special Power Act   In depth analysis of Armed Forces Special Powers Act brings out that the arguments of various human rights organisations on the act being illegal are biased and are misinterpreted. Analysis of the act brings out the following facts:-   Legality of the Act.   Ã‚  Ã‚   Armed Forces Special Powers Act was enacted by the Parliament in 1958 as per the procedures and powers invested on it by the Indian Constitution. Hence this act is absolutely legal. The legality of this act has also been upheld by the Supreme Court in its verdict in the case of Naga Peoples Movement of Human Rights versus Union of India, challenging the legality of the act on 27 November 1997. Misunderstanding of Armed Forces Special Powers Act. A large portion of population does not have a clear understanding of the act. All actions of human rights violation including those by police organisations, assam rifles and other paramilitary forces are also thought to have occurred due to this act. Interpretation of Special Power.The term â€Å"Special Power† in the name of this act is often misunderstood and misinterpreted. There is no special power vested to the armed forces through this act. All provisions of section 4 of this act are vested to the police authorities even in peace time. Police can also arrest a person without a warrant when the person is accused of committing a cognisable offence. History has numerous accounts of k

Hobbes Against Limited Government

Explain and discuss Hobbes' belief that neither limited government (where the sovereign is bound by laws) nor divided government (a system of checks and balances) is a practical possibility. Word Count: 2, 764 words In Leviathan, Hobbes imagines rational self-interested parties in a state of nature choosing among three alternatives: remaining in this state of nature; grouping themselves together under a government with limited, or divided, power and authority; or forming themselves into a civil society governed by a sovereign with unlimited power and authority. He contends, however, that the second alternative is basically illusory. Because of the constant danger of factionalism, civil war, and social disintegration in a group governed by a â€Å"mixarchy† with limited or divided power, such a form of social organization does not provide its members with sufficient security to really remove them from the state of nature. The choice of the parties, according to Hobbes, is therefore reduced to one between absolute sovereignty and the state of nature, and as the state of nature is â€Å"a state of war of all against all† Hobbes concludes that the parties would choose absolute government as the lesser evil. Absolute monarchy is the form of absolute government Hobbes prefers – as this furthers his political agenda of providing a means to resolve the civil conflict devastating his country – but nothing in his theory of sovereignty depends on the preference. In fact his concept of absolute sovereignty can be more convincing when not linked to a monarch, thus in this essay I will Hobbes’s former argument in isolation. Why is absolute sovereignty necessary? Hobbes's primary argument for the doctrine of absolute sovereignty is essentially an argument against right reason. Hobbes claims that any appeal to right reason or â€Å"the truth† comprises a completely inadequate basis for the resolution of disputes, because if disputes are about what the truth actually is, then appealing to these concepts – which cannot be identified without ambiguity or uncertainty – is essentially inconclusive and therefore self-defeating. Concern for the truth or right reason will not resolve isputes successfully or peacefully when people have entrenched and irreconcilable positions, because that is precisely the route to conflict and violence — â€Å"the state of war, of every man against every man. † Hobbes establishes that if each individual were allowed the liberty to follow his own conscience without constraint, then as such consciences vary, peace and harmony in the state would be short lived due to a persistent tendenc y to disagreement and civil disobedience. This diversity of consciences and the unrestrained exercise of individual judgment would render any common action highly uncertain or virtually impossible. Although men, according to Hobbes, are not political by nature, their association depends on an agreement to observe justice among men who disagree about who ought to receive what, thus they need common standards of right and wrong to regulate their affairs. Where it is impossible to obtain a unanimity of wills and agreement a common policy cannot be determined so, Hobbes informs us, an artificial will or person must be created and accepted. This â€Å"artificial right reason† introduces a public level of judgment that takes precedence over private judgments, so the problems of the latter are avoided. A sovereign may produce an incorrect answer which does not correlate with the truth, but the judgment stands â€Å"not because it is his private Sentence; but because he giveth it by Authority of the Sovereign †¦ which is Law. † Even if one believes that the sovereign’s decision is fundamentally wrong, civil disobedience is prohibited. That person has an obligation to obey, or face the consequences of the punishment power exercised by the sovereign. Thus, Hobbes’s sole and unique remedy for the â€Å"state of war against all† supports the concept of absolute sovereignty as a necessary and sufficient condition for the formation of a genuine political union. A possible argument against this contention that states without an absolute government will inevitably deteriorate into a state of war is that there have been numerous small, so-called â€Å"acephalous† societies that exist for long periods without any stable leadership, law or politics in their daily lives. On the small scale at least these societies can get by with the laws f nature alone, yet Hobbes seems to suggest that their existence is impossible to explain. Scholars have suggested that Hobbes’s state of nature is peopled with the men of the seventeenth century, and his theory is designed around the problem of sustaining and policing a large and prosperous society, so this may not be a major defect, as acephalous societies tend to be relative ly rare, small and isolated. Hampton contends that Hobbes's argument fails to prove that people, as he describes them, would institute his definition an absolute sovereign. Hobbes proposes that the creation of an absolute sovereign is necessary to secure peace in the commonwealth, but the very existence of the sovereign is ultimately determined by the people as subjects. Thus, Hampton argues that the subjects cannot create a sovereign who meets the definition given by Hobbes — a ruler who decides all questions in the commonwealth and whose reign is absolute and permanent. Hence, it does not follow that peace and harmony in civil society can be secured and guaranteed by the adoption of Hobbes's scheme. Hampton’s argument is, I believe, a sound one and while it questions the likelihood of establishing an absolute sovereign, its relevance is limited here as the society Hobbes is writing for already have a monarch, which he endeavours to persuade them to obey. Why does Hobbes believe limited government is not possible? Hobbes sets out to demonstrate that civil society can only be truly unified when the state incorporates a single validating authority with clearly defined decision-making procedures, which can arrive at definite decisions and initiate common action — despite a divergence of consciences. Some scholars suggest that Hobbes requires a single human decision-maker and fails to recognise that a group of decision makers would have the same effect, such as a parliament with a set of clearly entrenched rules or laws. However, on a wider reading of his works, it seems to me that Hobbes believed in any form of absolute government – an absolute democracy, aristocracy, or closed oligarchy would also be feasible, so long as the power of the group is absolute. Hobbes’s assumption is that human disagreement is all pervasive; that the subjects of a commonwealth are incapable of reaching a unified interpretation of a constitution and, therefore, an adjudicator (or adjudicative body) will be needed to interpret the constitution for them. Such a body constrained by law would simply fail because laws, and the words which constitute them, can always be subjected to various interpretations. Therefore, some member of the political system must have the authority to determine what the law is with a clear, unambiguous and indisputable answer. Hobbes contends that if there is a power that is limited within a state, then it must be limited by a greater power. So the search for the greatest power in the commonwealth – the sovereign power – will be realised when we come to an ultimate power, that effectively limits all others, but which is unlimited in its own right. The authority that determines the meaning of the laws and can force obedience to those laws by all is effectively the absolute sovereign because the power to reach a final binding decision is located in it, even if that body regularly delegates power to another. So, for example, if the King is dependent on an assembly, then it is the latter body which is ultimately sovereign. In essence, Hobbes claims that a government comes into existence only with the appointment of a ruler with absolute power — a power that effectively transcends all others, and over which there is no appeal. Any authority with that standing and intended to perform that task according to Hobbes must be legally absolute, that is, unchallengeable in the name of any other legal authority. If the authority cannot enforce obedience to the laws by all, then they have no power, and the Government is not constrained by law. Why does Hobbes contend divided government is not a practical possibility? Hobbes believes a government limited by law is also necessarily divided, and this appears sound. Further, he contends that such a divided government, or a system of checks and balances where power is spread between various branches of government, is fundamentally unstable and will inevitably degenerate into civil war. A government with sovereignty divided among different branches was rejected by Hobbes in the following terms: â€Å"For what is to divide the Power of a Commonwealth but to dissolve it; for Powers divided mutually destroy each other. Once again Hobbes maintains that what destroys this kind of constitutional arrangement is the impossibility of agreement as to the interpretation and enforcement of moral rules or principles. The heads of all divided governments necessarily live in a state of nature with respect to one another. Each branch acts for its own self-interest, and with no common power ove r them, will transcend into a state of war with respect to one another. Each branch is assumed to behave just as humans would: in a state of nature, and exclusively motivated by their egocentric and selfish tendencies, civil war will inevitably follow. Hobbes believed a state to be an artificially organized whole run by a person’s mind, so it can be expected to behave as a body does (given that a body too is an organized whole run by a human mind). Hobbes’s vision is of a unitary state with one government run by a mind, or a group of minds, which will behave like a small organization run by a human mind. Problems with these arguments: History is against Hobbes, as in reality divided governments can – and do – work well, certainly they are no more unstable than some absolute governments. The United States of America is a paradigm example, despite the American Civil War of 1861-1865, few would argue that their constitution successfully divides power between the separate branches – parliament, legislature, and judiciary – who each act as a check and balance on the other branches to prevent the abuse of absolute power. It is also conceptually possible to have a limited government which is not seriously divided. New Zealand is close to this model – while the Governor-General has a power to veto laws, by convention this is never exercised. Where such limited governments rule, there seems to be no increased concern of the sovereign abrogating the laws. Both limited government which is not divided, and divided government, can work in a stable way as checks and balances on power effectively impose a minimum standard of competence and thought, which makes for more rationality (and less room for errors) by those in power. History therefore proves there must be an error in Hobbes’s theory. But this does not mean his entire argument is wrong, his theory may be adapted to cope with this development: it is not simply true that a state of nature between human-like actors is necessarily a state of war – for the latter to result the former also requires other factors, including scarcity (which does not generally exist for politicians, hence the success of divided governments). Hobbes’s argument presupposes scarcity between individuals, and it is also true that states may be in situations of relative scarcity with one another – so they too may drift into a state of international war. Another explanation for this phenomenon is that the collective action of members of governmental branches is not the same as individual action. It is too simplistic to argue that such branches behave just like giant robots or individual people would, as they are divided by the varying individual consciences of their members. For a group to behave like an individual its members must subsume their own desires and motivations to peruse those of the group, but there is no proof that primarily selfish people, as Hobbes defines them, would do this. In reality, branch members may be aligned with members of other branches – particularly as they are usually elected by each other – inhibiting a war between the branches of government. This analogy may also extend to the relationship between nations, which in the opinion of this author, are currently generally not in a state of war. The European Union has been remarkably successful at fostering commercial and psychological links between state members – so these hitherto competing nations no longer regularly engage with one another in warfare. Perhaps Hobbes would reply that members of the European Economic Community now exist as a single state, rather than individually. This is doubtful however, as the European Union does not have a collective military force, which Hobbes considered a necessary common power for a government. Thus, at least in Europe, there exist today states which are in a state of nature with respect to one another in Hobbesian sense, yet they are in a state of real peace. Problems with Hobbes’s remedy: Some academics have suggested that perhaps Hobbes’s remedy – absolute government – is worse than the disease he attempts to avoid – the state of war. Under an absolute government there cannot be respect for individual rights in the sense of a law protecting such rights that the sovereign cannot override. But Hobbes argues that if people accept the necessity of absolute government then there is no incentive for that government to systematically violate the rights of human subjects, as if people do not rebel then the government will have no reason to think their power is under threat. Vitally, Hobbes’s theory assumes the rationality of the sovereign, but there are intuitive reasons for thinking that people in powerful positions are not psychologically usual, or rational. Acton’s famous aphorism â€Å"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men,† reflects the historical trend of powerful, aggressive and seemingly irrational leaders such as Stalin and Hitler. In Leviathan, Hobbes himself notes that people may object to exposing themselves to â€Å"the lusts, and irregular passions of him, or them that have so unlimited a power in their hands. His later argument that a sovereign who is already on a pedestal of glory will not desire even more seems dubious, and also seems to directly contradict his argument of a â€Å"general inclination of all mankind a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death. † Furthermore, absolute governments typically have am bitious foreign policy, Hobbes confessed this: â€Å"Kings, whose power is greatest, turn their endeavours to the assuring it at home by laws, or abroad by wars: and when that is done, there succeedeth a new desire; in some, of fame from new conquest. Maintaining a large army to succeed in battle will require heavy taxation and conscription, as Hobbes knew The Royal Government of France had implemented. Hobbes basic proposition is that obeying the government is the only way a peaceful life can be achieved. However, life might still be â€Å"solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short† for people who obey their governments and are conscripted into armies with high casualty rates. The prospect of international war did not seem to concern Hobbes greatly – this optimism probably stems from his personal experiences of the English and French international conflicts, which were far less destructive than the interpersonal conflict observed in civil wars. Hobbes would have known of the incredibly destructive Thirty Years’ War however, and as modern technology has since vastly increased the possibility of international harm, in the opinion of this author, a constant state of international war is a major concern and if it inevitably stems from organised polity, then this is not unquestionably better than a state of nature. Conclusion The alternatives available when Hobbes wrote, given England’s political history, did seem to be only absolute monarchy or anarchy and dissolution. We now know that a middle possibility does exist, a sovereign body may be limited by something that is not a superior body: an elected body of men may enjoy unlimited legislative powers, yet face the possibility of dismissal at the next election. Hobbes emphasised that a government draws its authority from below; its subsequent performance can also be subject to periodic review from below. Electorates† are neither superior decision-making bodies, nor are they organised bodies at all – only all electors taken collectively. Yet their existence may effectively restrain sovereign legislature’s absolute constitutional freedom, thereby avoiding the Hobbesian dilemma that a decision-making authority can be checked only by a rival or by a more powerful body. In his autobiography, Hobbes states that the goal of publishing Thucydides was to â€Å"point out how inadequate democracy is, and how much wiser one man is than a multitude. † Hobbes clearly believed that democracy posed many threats to political stability. But it is probably an exaggeration to think of Hobbes as anti-democratic in a modern sense, in his day democracies – such as ancient Athens – failed to last, and seemed practical only for small states as they required active and continuous participation by the people in their own government. Hobbes should not be assumed to be opposed to the large modern democracies we have today, which he never could have predicted or imagined. References: Finn, S. (2006). Thomas Hobbes and the Politics of Natural Philosophy. Cornwall: MGP Books. Goldsmith, M. (1966). Hobbes’s Science of Politics. London: Columbia University Press. Hampton, J. (1986) Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hobbes, T. Leviathan. (1994). Retrieved on 02 April 2009, from The University of Adelaide Library Database http://ebooks. adelaide. edu. au Hopkins, S. (2009). Hobbes and Absolute Sovereignty. Retrieved on 01 April 2009, from Pathways to Philosophy website http://www. philosophypathways. com Kafka, G. (1983). Hobbes’s War of All Against All. Ethics (93)2, 291-310. Pigden, C. (18/03/2009). Personal Communication. Lecture: Philosophy 227/327. Rogow, A. , & Lasswell, H. (1963). Power Corruption and Rectitude. Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. Shelton, G. (1992). Morality and Sovereignty in the Philosophy of Hobbes. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Sorrell, T. (1986). Hobbes. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Sorrell, T. (Ed. ). (1996). The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Springborg, P (Ed. ). (2007). The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes’s Leviathan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Watkins, J. (1989). Hobbes System of Ideas (2nd ed. ). England: Gower Publishing.

Coffee-The Supply Chain Essay

Nowadays, people use different methods of mass media to express their concern about which sources cause (the ) pollution, and which consequences will be lead from it. This essay will try TO FIND OUT ABOUT (learning) these causes and effects of the pollution. There are different sources, which badly affect our environment. Different kinds of car, trucks on THE street day by day not only cause (the) noise in cities, but also damage clean air. Industrial plants, factories throw into the air huge amountS of waste. Green forests in the past are being cut down for producing wood production or for new areas of land. Dirty water from living buildings/PEOPLE’S HOUSES, from industrial zones is soured/POURED directly into rivers. We now face different kinds of pollution: air, water, noise and lack of green areas. From THE reasons mentioned above, our environment is changing. The air become less clean than ever before, many people now wearing/WEAR maskS when THEY WALK IN THE STREETS going on streets. THE Temperature becomes higher, cities’ air/THE AIR IN CITIES becomes hotter, and water in oceans becomes warmer. Many old green forests are like a bald hill when looking/YOU SEE THEM from ANairplane. The effects cannot be good for the environment itself, as well as for the people. Floods are so dangerous, but they are now very popular/COMMON everywhere in the world and are mentioned daily on TV. At the same time, some green areas return into death/TURN BACK INTO DEAD deserts. Just only these things are capable to damage/OF DAMAGING our world. There are many efforts are begin held for environment protectionWHICH ARE BEING STARTED TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT. But there is one more important thing WHICH must be cared/CARRIED about: we must stop harmful to our /STOP CAUSING HARM TO THE EVIRONMENT BY OUR ACTIONSenvironment actions, before taking/MAKING any effort to protect it Nestlà © is a pioneer in purchasing coffee direct from growers. A growing percentage of the company’s coffee is bought direct from the producer and it is now one of the world’s largest direct purchasers. In countries where this is not possible Nestlà © operates in a way that takes it as close to the growers as possible. Nestlà © began its direct buying policy in 1986 and the amounts involved have steadily increased. In 1998, around 15 per cent of its green coffee purchases were bought directly. As an example, in the Philippines, farmers bring their produce to Nestlà ©Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s buying centers situated in the coffee growing regions. Quality is analyzed while they wait and growers are paid on the spot. In 1998, direct purchases accounted for over 90 per cent of the green coffee destined for its two instant coffee factories in the country. Today, a jar of instant coffee can be found in 93 per cent of British homes and increasingly consumers are trying out different types of coffee, such as cappuccino, espresso, mocha and latte. The expanding consumer demand for product choice, quality and value has led to an increase in the coffees being made available to a discerning public. ‘Value’ is the way in which the consumer views an organization’s product in comparison with competitive offerings. So how does coffee get from growing on a tree perhaps 1,000m up a mountainside in Africa, Asia, Central or South America, to a cup of Nescafe in your home, and in millions of homes throughout the world? This case study explains why Nestlà © needs a first class supply chain, with high quality linkages from where the coffee is grown in the field, to the way in which it reaches the consumer. A supply chain is only as strong as its links. Different relationships exist between organizations involved in the separate stages of the chain – whether it is in the structuring of product distribution, arrangements for payment and arrangements for handling, or in storing the product. At the heart of these relationships is the way in which  people treat each other. Long-term business relationships need to be based on honesty and fairness – parties to a trading agreement need to feel that they are getting a fair deal. Creating wonderful cups of coffee is not only Nestlà ©Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s business; it is the business of everyone involved in the supply chain. It is in everyone’s interest – the farmers’ and Nestlà ©Ã¢â‚¬â„¢s – that farmers receive a fair income from their coffee. This ensures that they will continue to grow coffee, and to invest in increasing their yield and quality, and this in turn guarantees the supply of quality coffee which companies like Nestlà © require.

Sandhya Ramachandran - ThoughtCo