#Austin Concept of Sovereignty

[renatoferreiradasilva]

Genealogies of Medieval Justice: Legal Pluralism and Critique of State Formalism

Abstract

This article examines medieval justice (5th–15th centuries) through a genealogical lens, drawing on Foucault, Bourdieu, and Agamben to analyze justice as a plural, symbolic, and performative system. It challenges the linear narrative of legal evolution by exploring how medieval legal orders embodied multiple normative systems, including Roman law, Germanic customs, canon law, and local statutes. By integrating recent debates on decoloniality and community justice, the study provides a critical mirror to contemporary legal formalism and state-centric models of dispute resolution.

1. Introduction: Why Study Medieval Justice Today?

Modern legal discourse often relies on assumptions of rationality, universality, and centralization. These concepts are historically contingent and politically situated. By tracing the genealogies of justice in the medieval period, we can unsettle these assumptions and uncover alternative models of normativity grounded in ritual, locality, and multiplicity.

2. Methodology: Genealogy and the Critique of Anachronism

We adopt a Foucauldian genealogical method, combined with the historical sociology of Pierre Bourdieu and the theory of juridical sacrality in Agamben. Methodological caution is taken to avoid anachronism, privileging micro-historical approaches (Levi, Ginzburg) and a critical reading of normative pluralism (Grossi).

3. Legal Pluralism in the Medieval West

3.1 Roman-Germanic Hybridities

Legal orders after the fall of the Western Roman Empire were shaped by the fusion of Roman jurisprudence (e.g., Corpus Iuris Civilis) and tribal customs (e.g., Lex Salica, Lex Visigothorum). These sources operated concurrently rather than hierarchically.

3.2 The Canonical Turn and the Ius Commune

The rise of the canonical tradition (from Gratian's Decretum onward) and the Bologna school of jurists produced a pan-European normative grammar, but did not erase local statutes. Instead, overlapping jurisdictions and competing sovereignties were the norm.

3.3 Eslavic and Islamic Legal Encounters

Expanding beyond Western Europe, we consider the Russkaya Pravda and the Fiqh traditions in Sicily under Norman rule. Both offer examples of coexisting legal orders negotiated through ritualized mediation and social memory.

4. Ritual, Performance, and Justice

4.1 Judicial Ordeals as Technologies of Truth

Following Gauvard and Ginzburg, we interpret ordeals not as superstition, but as embodied procedures of truth-making. These were grounded in the symbolic logic of sacred kingship (Bloch) and the theatricalization of power (Foucault).

4.2 Performativity and Legal Semiotics

Using Austin's concept of performativity, we analyze trial rituals, public penance, and symbolic gestures (e.g., placing hands on relics) as constitutive acts of legal reality.

5. The Limits of Legal Unity: Fragmented Sovereignties

Contrary to Berman’s narrative of legal rationalization and centralization, this article posits that medieval legal multiplicity was not a deficiency but a structural feature of the period. Normative fragmentation allowed for contextualized justice, negotiated authority, and embedded legitimacy.

6. Dialogues with the Present: Justice Beyond the State

6.1 Indigenous Jurisdictions and Community Mediation

By comparing episcopal mediation in the Middle Ages to indigenous justice systems today, we highlight shared features: oral procedures, symbolic restitution, and social reintegration over punishment.

6.2 Risks of Romanticization

Care is taken to avoid folklorizing non-state legal forms. Instead, the article advocates for a historically grounded pluralism that resists both state co-optation and liberal universalism.

7. Conclusion: Toward a Critical Legal History

Medieval justice should not be idealized. Yet its plural, embodied, and negotiated nature offers a critical vantage point to reflect on our contemporary legal architecture. The genealogy of justice displaces the state from its normative pedestal and opens possibilities for restorative, localized, and participatory paradigms of dispute resolution.

References

Agamben, Giorgio. The Kingdom and the Glory.

Berman, Harold. Law and Revolution.

Bloch, Marc. The Royal Touch.

Bourdieu, Pierre. The Force of Law.

Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish.

Gauvard, Claude. De Grâce Especiale.

Ginzburg, Carlo. The Judge and the Historian.

Grossi, Paolo. A History of European Law.

Levi, Giovanni. On Microhistory.

Santos, Boaventura de Sousa. Toward a Democratic Justice System.

Stock, Brian. The Implications of Literacy.

[ignoumatic]

Explain the pluralist's critique of John Austin's concept of sovereignty

John Austin's concept of sovereignty, as outlined in his influential work "The Province of Jurisprudence Determined" (1832), posits that sovereignty is the ultimate, supreme power vested in a determinate human superior, such as a monarch or a legislative body, which is not itself subject to legal limitation. Austin's theory of sovereignty emphasizes the legal validity of commands issued by a sovereign authority and the absence of legal restraints on its power. However, pluralist scholars have critiqued Austin's conception of sovereignty on several grounds, challenging its assumptions about political power, authority, and the nature of the state. One of the key criticisms leveled against Austin's concept of sovereignty is its overly simplistic and monistic view of political power. Pluralists argue that sovereignty is not a unitary or absolute phenomenon but rather a dispersed and fragmented attribute of governance. They contend that political power is not concentrated in a single sovereign authority but is instead dispersed among various institutions, groups, and actors within society. Pluralists highlight the existence of multiple centers of power, such as interest groups, political parties, bureaucratic agencies, and civil society organizations, which exert influence and shape public policy independently of the state. Furthermore, pluralists challenge Austin's emphasis on the legal validity of sovereign commands and the absence of legal limitations on sovereign power. They argue that sovereignty is not solely determined by legal authority but is also subject to social, economic, and cultural constraints. Pluralists point to the role of informal norms, conventions, and public opinion in shaping political behavior and constraining the exercise of power. They contend that even sovereign authorities are bound by societal norms and expectations, and their legitimacy depends on their ability to govern in accordance with the will and interests of the governed. Moreover, pluralists critique Austin's state-centric approach to sovereignty, which focuses exclusively on formal political institutions and ignores the role of non-state actors in the exercise of power. They argue that sovereignty is not confined to the state but is distributed across a diverse array of actors, including multinational corporations, transnational organizations, and global networks. Pluralists highlight the interconnectedness of domestic and international politics, where state sovereignty is increasingly challenged by supranational bodies, regional alliances, and global forces. Additionally, pluralists challenge Austin's static and ahistorical view of sovereignty, which fails to account for its dynamic and contested nature. They argue that sovereignty is not a fixed or immutable concept but is subject to change over time in response to evolving social, economic, and political conditions. Pluralists emphasize the importance of historical context and institutional dynamics in shaping the exercise of power and authority within societies. They highlight how struggles for recognition, inclusion, and representation have shaped the expansion and redefinition of sovereignty throughout history. In conclusion, pluralist scholars offer a multifaceted critique of John Austin's concept of sovereignty, challenging its assumptions about political power, authority, and the nature of the state. Pluralists argue that sovereignty is not a unitary or absolute phenomenon but is instead dispersed among various actors within society. They emphasize the role of informal norms, social constraints, and historical dynamics in shaping the exercise of power and authority. By highlighting the complexities and contingencies of sovereignty, pluralists enrich our understanding of the nature and dynamics of political governance in modern societies. Read the full article

[legalupanishad]

John Austin's Theory of Positivism: All You Should Know

This article on 'John Austin's Theory of Positivism: All You Should Know' was written by an intern at Legal Upanishad.

Introduction

The theory of positivism, also known as legal positivism, is considered to be one of the most influential schools of thought in the subject of jurisprudence. The emergence of this theory was first seen in the 18th and 19th centuries and was developed by two well-known philosophers and jurists of the time, John Austin and Jeremy Bentham. Later, this theory was popularised by many influential jurists, like Herbert Lionel Adolphus Hart and Joseph Raz. This article briefly explores John Austin's Theory of Positivism.

Who is John Austin?

John Austin was a prominent British jurist and philosopher whose writings greatly influenced the definition of law as a whole. This work, ‘The Province of Jurisprudence’ published in 1832, defined law as a 'species of command' and sought to differentiate positive law from morality. He is best known for his work on legal positivism, a school of thought within the philosophy of law. Austin's theory on positivism, particularly his concept of "command theory," had a significant influence on the development of modern legal philosophy. Although he had little influence on people during his lifetime, his works received the recognition they deserved after his death.

Contact Us and avail the best assignment help for students available online!

Theory of Positivism

Austin’s theory of positivism is one of the most important contributions to law. The theory sought to define what law is. He wanted to gain a precise and in-depth understanding of the law and its fundamental concepts, especially those used for legal reasoning. Austin chose to exclude all factors that might influence the study of law, which includes concepts such as history. This allows a person to completely indulge in gaining access to the first principles of law as they are, without considering whether the law is ‘good’. ‘bad’, or 'morally worthy.’ This way of interpreting the law is known as reading ‘Law as it is’ or ‘Positum’ also called ‘Positive Law.’ John Austin continued to emphasize that laws are essentially commands issued by those in power rather than being based on ideas of justice and morality. He defined law as a rule given by an authority to guide the behaviour of individuals. His ideas were quite different from the concept of laws being based on what's right or wrong. Austin divided the laws into a few categories. Firstly, he separated laws into those set by God (the law of God) and those created by humans (human laws). For him, laws that mainly reflected his own utilitarian beliefs served as the law of God, as he saw them as a principle of utility. When it comes to human laws, Austin further divides them into two categories proper laws and improper laws. Proper laws are commands that have been issued by a sovereign to their subordinates or laws created by individuals who have specific legal rights granted to them. For example, a guardian's rights over their ward are proper laws because they come from the authority granting those rights. On the other hand, improper laws are laws that don’t come from a political sovereign or are not directly related to man-made legal systems. It includes laws or rules such as ‘rules of a club’, ‘rules for fashion’, and, to an extent, international law too. Austin referred to this category as "positive morality." There's also a subgroup called "laws by metaphor," which includes expressions of natural patterns, like scientific laws. Austin believed that there are four key elements in positivism, or positive law. These are command, duty, sanction, and sovereignty. He states that it is a sovereign who makes a command that imposes a duty, which, if not followed, calls for legal sanction. Let us understand these features in detail: Sovereign: According to Austin, a sovereign is a political body that has the ultimate authority and which the people living in its jurisdiction habitually obey. This superior can either be a single person or a group of individuals. The sovereign is the only source of power and the creator of laws. It has the power to make laws without any legal or "de jure" limits. However, there can be practical or "de facto" limits to its power because the effectiveness of its commands and people's obedience have territorial limits. The only restrictions on the sovereign's power are practical limitations. When applied to a real situation, this concept means that laws, whether created by a parliament or a similar body, must be followed by the people, regardless of the nature of the statute.  Command: The term command is often referred to as the Command Theory or the Imperative Theory of Law. This theory defines law as a rule that sets out a general course of action that has been mandated by an authority that exercises sovereign power. This power may be exercised through physical force or other forms of compulsion. Duty: The term duty in this theory represents a legal obligation imposed on the people who are subjected to the authority or sovereign. Every command that has been given by a sovereign creates a legal duty for the individual. Legal Sanction: A legal sanction refers to the power the sovereign has to punish and penalize individuals for not complying with the laws. The fear of facing legal sanctions, as a negative consequence of disobedience, serves as the primary motivation for people to follow the law and is an essential part of the theory. In essence, Austin's main focus was on comprehending laws as commands that are issued by a sovereign authority, rather than being based on moral or ethical principles. He believed that the study of jurisprudence should primarily concern itself with these positive laws and their origins in a clear, determinable law-giver, such as a sovereign or governing body within a political society.

Criticisms

Austin’s view of the sovereign being the creator of laws ignores the fact that the very foundation of laws lies in the common consciousness of the people and is manifested in customs. One of the major sources of laws are customs developed in varied cultures around the world, and this theory overlooks customary law as a whole. Personal laws such as the Hindu laws or the Muslim laws existed long before the sovereign came into existence. The legal character of a law is evident when it is applied by a court of law in the administration of justice. Legal sanctions, although created by the "sovereign," are only used through the courts. However, courts may sometimes misinterpret a statute or reject a custom. During this process, the court often establishes precedents or case laws that are strictly followed in future cases. Austin’s theory does not apply to constitutional law. The sovereign, no matter how powerful it is, will always come under and be subjected to making laws as per the basic structure of the constitution. The command of the Constitution and a sovereign cannot have equal standing because the Constitution is the highest law of the land and it comes before the state. The definition mainly applies to a monarchical police state that creates laws and has the authority to harm those who do not comply. In modern times, there are laws and rights for citizens that empower and enable them. Hence, they cannot be considered commands in their true sense. For example, the right to vote or not The most important criticism of this theory lies in the definition of law itself. Law, first and foremost, is a tool used to achieve justice. Any definition that fails to acknowledge that the end of the law is justice is considered incomplete.

Conclusion

In summary, John Austin's theory of legal positivism, particularly his command theory of law, focused on the idea that laws are commands issued by a sovereign authority and that their validity is determined solely by their source and the presence of sanctions, without regard for their moral content. While his theory has been subject to criticism, it played a foundational role in the development of legal philosophy in the 19th and 20th centuries.

References

- “Summary of John Austin’s Legal Positivism”, Brandeis University, available at: https://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/Summary_of_John_Austin_s_Legal_Positivism.pdf - Kavya Gupta, “John Austin’s Analytical Approach to Positive Law: Explanation, Appreciation and Criticism”, IPleaders Blog, 31 May 2019, available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/john-austins-analytical-approach-positive-law/ Read the full article

[onlinenotebank2021]

Austin Concept of Sovereignty

AUSTIN’S CONCEPT OF SOVEREIGNTY The legal view, also called the monistic view or traditional view of sovereignty, was propounded by John Austin (1779-1859), a great jurist, in his book, Lectures on Jurisprudence (1832). According to Austin, “If a determinate human superior, not in the habit of obedience to a like superior, receives habitual obedience from the bulk of a given society, that…

[onlinenotebank]

Austin's Concepts of Sovereignty

Austin’s Concepts of Sovereignty

AUSTIN’S CONCEPT OF SOVEREIGNTY The legal view, also called the monistic view or traditional view of sovereignty, was propounded by John Austin (1779-1859), a great jurist, in his book, Lectures on Jurisprudence (1832). According to Austin, “If a determinate human superior, not in the habit of obedience to a like superior, receives habitual obedience from the bulk of a given society, that…

[theculturedmarxist]

Decolonization is not a metaphor

Kind of sucks for a lot of reasons, many of which I think are illustrated in their section about Occupy Oakland. (pg 25, 26)

As  detailed  by  public  intellectuals/bloggers  such  as Tequila  Sovereign(Lenape  scholar Joanne Barker), some Occupy sites, including Boston, Denver, Austin, and Albuquerque tried to engage  in  discussions  about  the  problematic  and  colonial  overtones  of  occupation  (Barker, October  9,  2011). Barker  blogs  about  a  firsthand  experience  in  bringing  a  proposal  for  a Memorandum  of  Solidarity  with  Indigenous  Peoples,18 to  the  General  Assembly  in  Occupy Oakland.  The memorandum, signed by Corrina Gould, (Chochenyo Ohlone-the first peoples of Oakland/Ohlone), Barker, and numerous other Indigenous and non-Indigenous activist-scholars, called  for  the  acknowledgement  of  Oakland  as  already  occupied  and on stolen  land; of  the ongoing  defiance  by  Indigenous  peoples  in  the  U.S.  and  around  the  globe  against  imperialism, colonialism,  and  oppression;  the  need  for  genuine  and  respectful  involvement  of  Indigenous peoples  in  the  Occupy  Oakland  movement; and  the  aspiration  to  “Decolonize  Oakland,”  rather than  re-occupy  it. From  Barker’s  account  of  the  responses  from  settler  individuals  to  the memorandum,

Ultimately,  what  they  [settler  participants  in  Occupy  Oakland]  were  asking  is whether  or  not  we  were  asking  them,  as  non-indigenous  people,  the impossible? Would their solidarity with us require them to give up their lands, their resources, their ways of life, so that we –who numbered so few, after all –could have more? Could have it all? (Barker, October 30, 2011)

These responses, resistances by settler participants to the aspiration of decolonization in Occupy Oakland, illustrate  the  reluctance  of  some  settlers  to  engage  the  prospect  of  decolonization beyond  the  metaphorical  or  figurative  level. Further,  they  reveal  the  limitations  to  “solidarity,” without  the  willingness  to  acknowledge  stolen  land  and  how  stolen  land  benefits  settlers. “Genuine solidarity with indigenous peoples,” Barker continues, “assumes a basic understanding of  how  histories  of  colonization  and  imperialism  have  produced  and still  produce the  legal  and economic possibility for Oakland” (ibid., emphasis original). 

For  social  justice  movements,  like  Occupy,  to  truly  aspire to  decolonization  non-metaphorically, they would impoverish, not enrich, the 99%+ settler population of United States. Decolonization eliminates settler property rights and settler sovereignty. It requires the abolition of land as property and upholds the sovereignty of Native land and people.

The only thing more shocking than already impoverished people rejecting the call to impoverish themselves further because of events that occurred hundreds of years before they were born is that a majority of the GA supported the endeavor, just not enough for it to actually carry.

SUNDAY AFTERNOON GA: DECOLONIZE

Although I had participated in many of the marches and demonstrations in the fall, including the stunning shutdown of the Port of Oakland, my involvement really began December 4, 2011.  That week, the Sunday GA moved from the evening to 2:00 in the afternoon.  We met in Oscar Grant Plaza (OGP), the Oakland civic center previously named Frank Ogawa Plaza.  It was renamed when it was the site of the OO encampment, which was violently evicted; it was now tenuously claimed by an ongoing 24 hour vigil and the GAs several times a week.

There were a lot of people at this GA.  I had no idea that we would be considering a highly contentious proposal.  A group of Native people were proposing renaming Occupy Oakland—to be called “Decolonize Oakland.”  A term describing colonization and expropriation was not one they wanted to claim for our movement, and they wanted their history acknowledged.

GAs began with an introduction, including the hand signals of approval (twinkling fingers), disapproval (limp fists nicknamed “Quan hands” after our mayor) and impatience (rolling arms to signal time to wrap up a rambling or off-topic speech).  Then we separated into smaller groups for the “forum discussion.”  The topic this week was “What does Occupy mean to you?”  This turned out to be ambiguous and led many groups to focus on the proposed name change.  There were many groups of about twenty people each.  In my group the participants were diverse, respectful and lively.

What was supposed to happen next was report backs about forum discussions, with people summarizing what went on in different groups.   It soon became clear that dozens of people were lining up “on stack” for a chance to speak for or against the motion.  It seemed impossible to maintain the GA agenda structure.  As I remember it, the facilitators took a straw pool to check in about changing the sequence, although some were disgruntled by this procedural move.

I was impressed by the diversity of speakers, the range of opinions, the level of passion and the skill of the two young facilitators.  At one point one of them slowed things down by reminding us all of the emotions expressed at this GA—anger, pride, anxiety, conviction, excitement—I don’t remember the specifics but I remember thinking, “I’ve gone to political meetings for decades and I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone speak explicitly about the feelings in the room.”

The defenders of the Occupy “brand” spoke about the national impact of the shared name, but I remember thinking, “if we can’t even change our name after four months, how can we change the world?”  I even got on stack to say this, but there was a very long line ahead of me and I had to leave before getting a chance (by then the GA had lasted more than three hours).

At that time the operating rules of the GA considered a 90% vote to be a consensus, approving the proposal, and allowed for amendments if 70 to 90% of the group voted in support of a proposal.  I found out later that 68% had voted in favor and that the supporters of Decolonize had separated from OO as result.  A couple of weeks later, on December 16, the GA shifted to the concept of a “living document” that could be amended on the spot, if the proposers agreed.  I wonder whether that GA could have endorsed a compromise hybrid name like Decolonize/Occupy Oakland, and what might have been different if we had–or if we hadn’t been able to even do that.

I was impressed with the GA I attended as a vivid example of “direct democracy.”  At the same time, the damage was evident.  Some supporters of the indigenous people resented disrespectful treatment of their elders, while some of their allies made accusations of racism against the people who wanted to hold onto the name of Occupy.  As I understand it, Decolonize Oakland continued to exist as a separate group and sometimes participated in shared actions with OO, but this GA prevented greater ongoing unity.

(Note: the minutes of this GA can be read at http://occupyoakland.org/2011/12/ga-minutes-12-4-11/  and the proposal can be read at http://occupyoakland.org/2011/12/emergency-proposal-3-on-queue-for-december-4-2011-ga-proposal-to-decolonize-oakland-creating-a-more-radical-movement/)

From the minutes:

F: We’re going to change this topic.  Please discuss: What does this movement mean to you?

The historical context of “occupy” doesn’t fit with the goals of this movement.

Newer people who are just discovering that they are oppressed need to respect the work and presence of those who have already been in the struggle.

People are responding to what we are doing, not to our name.  They are excited about the larger connection to the national movement.

As a daughter of Texas and as a single mom, I think we should stay in keeping with ancestors and elders to rename the space.

We, the congregation of First Christian Church of Oakland,  advocate that this movement be renamed Decolonize Oakland.  We would also advocate for CoExist in Oakland, to embrace all people.

The original intent was to occupy the seat of power.

The term occupy is racist.  In these movements across the country, few people of color are involved.  We have this opportunity to step up.

The history of Wall Street is built on the colonization of the indigenous people, and the slavery of Africans on the land.  The seats of power are within us – we do not need to use the same paradigm of “taking seats of power.”

F: Many people are speaking about a proposal in queue, and are not speaking about the topic, “What does this movement mean to you?”  Please make your comments about the topic.

This must be divine timing.  We did talk about the forum topic.  We accept the concept of “occupy” but we think that it’s time for a change that will reflect everyone’s histories and voices.

In our group, some people liked the term “occupy” because it’s a good brand and it connects to OWS.  We agree that all people’s voices should be heard, but we don’t know how to make decolonize, liberate, and occupy meld together as one.  Some people in our group preferred “liberate” than “decolonize” because “de-“ sounds negative.

This is an opportunity to hold corrupt systems accountable and to protest people who are vulnerable in these systems

F: Let’s see who would like to go straight to the vote?  Who would like to go to pros and cons?  We could try hearing 2 pros and 2 cons.  It seems like many people would like to speak.  We will hear as many as we can.

Pros

I am in support of this proposal as a white person.  I stand in solidarity with all people in the movement. We need to support this proposal on the principle of people who are left out of this movement.

We need to acknowledge that some of us have white privilege.

As Jewish person, I cannot support Palestinian people in a movement named “Occupy.”

We will only be weakened when using the language of our oppressors. The divisiveness here today is a symptom of colonization.  We need to listen to those who are most affected.  Let’s do it.

This language shows how colonized our minds are.  Let’s change the status quo.

I will vote yes on this if the people behind the proposal put their lives into increasing the movement.

I do not want to fly on the coattails of imperialism.

People can understand that we are a part of the global movement, just like “Arab Spring” or “Los Indignados.”

One way that violence is perpetuated is through language.

This issue is not just about indigenous people.  It’s about recognizing the history of the shoulders we stand on.

This proposal has pushed the envelope of this conversation.  It has made you uncomfortable – welcome to my world.  This emergency has been on hold for over 500 years. 

We are more than a brand. Let’s occupy, decolonize, and liberate this.

Cons

Feelings are more important than words.  Words change.  Occupy is used throughout the movement, so we should keep that word. We have broken the process by allowing an emergency proposal to be heard that is not an emergency. 

We have also allowed proposers to speak for 10 minutes.  I am an occupant.  I live here.  I’m not stating an opinion about the name change.  We have not had time to develop this conversation.

[...]

Vote Results:

68.5 % approval: THIS PROPOSAL HAS BEEN TABLED

YES: 198

ABSTAINED: 19

NO: 91

(After some cheering, much confusion and agitation ensued.   Several people started chanting “Decolonize Oakland” for about five minutes.) IMPROMPTU ANNOUNCEMENT(This was said in the midst of the crowd with the People’s Mic, not within the GA process). No matter how you voted, please realize something. Everyone has a place here.  We all need to recognize the power of this conversation.  We want people to come out and be part of Occupy Oakland.  Figure out what you want.  Start listening to the people!  Be about it!  I love you all!! (Another voice…partially muffled – I couldn’t hear everything amidst arguing and people have side conversation). We might  hold our own GA.  Stay connected with us.  We have more work ahead of us.

======================================================

So a movement divided and a bunch of time wasted over a name change because some people didn’t think that their cause was being acknowledged enough. And even after a vote in which most people actually supported the motion and then actually left to form their own Decolonize Oakland group or whatever, they still get libeled as a bunch of callous “settlers”.

Between DINAM and Settlers, if these are the products of Decolonization theory then I can’t see any good in it. It sounds like it wants to pretend to be egalitarian and anti-property, while at the same time privileging one group above all others and ensuring their own property rights to their land, at the expense of everyone else living on it. And yes, at the expense of everyone else living on it:

Not unique, the United States,as a settler colonial nation-state, also operates as an empire-utilizing  external  forms  and  internal  forms  of  colonization  simultaneous  to the  settler  colonial project. This  means,  and  this  is  perplexing  to  some, that  dispossessed  people  are  brought  onto seized   Indigenous   land   through   other   colonial   projects.   Other   colonial   projects   include enslavement,   as   discussed,   but   also   military   recruitment,   low-wage   and   high-wage   labor recruitment     (such     as     agricultural     workers     and     overseas-trained     engineers),     and displacement/migration  (such  as  the  coerced  immigration  from  nations  torn  by  U.S.  wars  or devastated  by  U.S.  economic  policy).  In  this  set  of  settler  colonial  relations,  colonial  subjects who  are  displaced  by  external  colonialism, as  well  as racialized  and  minoritized  by  internal colonialism, still occupy and settle stolen Indigenous land. Settlers are diverse, not just of white European  descent,  and  include  people  of  color,  even  from  other  colonial  contexts.  This  tightly wound  set  of  conditions  and  racialized,  globalized  relations  exponentially  complicates  what  is meant by decolonization, and by solidarity,against settler colonial forces.

So when they’re saying “to support us you have to impoverish all the settlers, ie, everyone that isn’t us,” they’re being very literal. It’s just more bourgeois identity politics cooked up by privileged people in academic institutions.

Into the trash it goes.

[fatehbaz]

Colonial unknowing; imperial amnesia and agnosia; wastelanding; “neoliberal colorblindness”; actively ignoring racialization to feign ignorance and claim innocence:

Sorry to be annoying, didn’t want to waste more space on your post @anarcblr​

Wanted to add some stuff about colonial unknowing. The term was popularized by Alyosha Goldstein, who is familiar with another writer, Iyko Day. Day invokes colonial unknowing when talking about how amnesia and “un-worlding” are related to Indigenous subjugation and resource extraction. Day has focused on uranium, what she calls “nuclear colonialism,” and dispossession in Navajo country and abroad, so she invokes the concepts of “non-sites” and “wastelanding,” too.

I like how colonial unknowing here is framed as active.

From: “Introduction – On Colonial Unknowing” by Manu Vimalassery, Juliana Hu Pergues, and Alyosha Goldstein for Theory & Event Vol. 19 Issue 4 (2019).

Colonial unknowing takes many forms. For instance [...] the idea of colonial agnosia conveys how colonialism remains pervasive but not comprehended as an extensive and constitutive living formation by those situated in complicity with colonial occupation […]. How do we understand our locations in the colonial present as we contemplate and work toward the ongoing imperative of decolonization?

In North America and the Caribbean, the predominant lack of acknowledgement or engagement with the histories and contemporary relations of colonialism – especially with regard to the specificities of Indigenous peoples and colonial entanglements of differential  racialization – is not simply a matter of collective amnesia or omission. The magnitude of this disavowal is not primarily a matter of a forgotten or hidden past, at least to the extent that forgetting might be viewed as a passive relation or a concealed past might suspend culpability. Instead, this ignorance – this act of ignoring – is aggressively made and reproduced, affectively invested and effectively distributed in ways that conform the social relations and economies of the here and now. Colonial unknowing endeavors to render unintelligible the entanglements of racialization and colonization, occluding the mutable historicity of colonial structures and attributing finality to events of conquest and dispossession. As with Jodi Byrd’s theorizations in The Transit of Empire, we emphasize how colonialism requires a constitutive relation to Indigenous peoples and differential racialization for its claims to place, employment, and worldings […].

--

I like that they describe how amnesia can be (or often is) active, so that, maybe slightly different from passive amnesia, Empire’s benefactors are less able to absolve themselves of complicity when they’re called out for the deliberate/active un-worlding.

Another term that I see used in writing about colonial unknowing is “neoliberal colorblindness.” Iyko Day invoked colonial unknowing concept when writing about uranium extraction in Navajo country is related to resource extraction in Inuit lands, the Congo, etc. (Empire requires simultaneously un-making/re-worlding of multiple landscapes, subjugation of diverse peoples, etc.)

Written by Austin Huffmin: ‘On March 29, 2019 [...] the panel “Undermining Indigenous Sovereignty: Techniques of Wastelanding and Welfare Provision,” [...] part of the Racial Capitalism symposium. The panel featured the following talks: “Settler Colonialism’s Hiroshima,” by Iyko Day (Mt. Holyoke) and “‘There for the Taking’: Colonial Entitlement and the Relations of Reproduction,” by Alyosha Goldstein (U New Mexico).’ Under the blog heading “Defining the Social Technologies of Non-Worlding: Challenging Nuclear Hegemony and Neoliberal Colorblindness,” Huffmin summarizes Day’s presentation:

Day began her talk, “Settler Colonialism’s Hiroshima,” by taking up the question of how the 1945 atomic bombings in Japan structure our knowledge of a post-war, nuclearized world, and how the dominant  perceptions of this event rely on forms of “colonial unknowing,” a concept that Goldstein helped theorize. By mapping capitalism’s logistical networks, she traces a “supply chain of violence” back to the sites of accumulation that allowed for the production of these weapons  of mass destruction in the first place. Some of these sites include the  Belgian Congo, the Northwest Territories in Canada, and Navajo  communities in New Mexico. These areas have been disastrously affected  by uranium mining, radioactivity, and nuclear testing. Uranium mining in particular requires hyper-exploitable and disposable labor; yet even  though Indigenous lands, resources, and workers are essential to nuclear modernity, they are construed as non-places and non-persons by the settler colonial state. […] How can such a magical hegemony be challenged? How might the violent non-worlding of Indigenous peoples and the occlusion of living labor be subverted?

---

[newstfionline]

Thursday, February 18, 2021

Climate Change Means Trouble for Power Grids (NYT) Huge winter storms plunged large parts of the central and southern United States into an energy crisis this week, with frigid blasts of Arctic weather crippling electric grids and leaving millions of Americans without power amid dangerously cold temperatures. The grid failures were most severe in Texas, where more than four million people woke up Tuesday morning to rolling blackouts. Separate regional grids in the Southwest and Midwest also faced serious strain. As of Tuesday afternoon, at least 23 people nationwide had died in the storm or its aftermath. Analysts have begun to identify key factors behind the grid failures in Texas. Record-breaking cold weather spurred residents to crank up their electric heaters and pushed power demand beyond the worst-case scenarios that grid operators had planned for. At the same time, a large fraction of the state’s gas-fired power plants were knocked offline amid icy conditions, with some plants suffering fuel shortages as natural gas demand spiked. Many of Texas’ wind turbines also froze and stopped working. The crisis sounded an alarm for power systems throughout the country. Electric grids can be engineered to handle a wide range of severe conditions—as long as grid operators can reliably predict the dangers ahead. But as climate change accelerates, many electric grids will face extreme weather events that go far beyond the historical conditions those systems were designed for, putting them at risk of catastrophic failure.

‘A complete bungle’: Texas’ energy pride goes out with cold (AP) Anger over Texas’ power grid failing in the face of a record winter freeze mounted Tuesday as millions of residents in the energy capital of the U.S. remained shivering with no assurances that their electricity and heat—out for 36 hours or longer in many homes—would return soon or stay on once it finally does. “I know people are angry and frustrated,” said Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner, who woke up to more than 1 million people still without power in his city. “So am I.” In all, between 2 and 3 million customers in Texas still had no power nearly two full days after historic snowfall and single-digit temperatures created a surge in demand for electricity to warm up homes unaccustomed to such extreme lows, buckling the state’s power grid and causing widespread blackouts. More bad weather, including freezing rain, began arriving Tuesday night. Making matters worse, expectations that the outages would be a shared sacrifice by the state’s 30 million residents quickly gave way to a cold reality, as pockets in some of America’s largest cities, including San Antonio, Dallas and Austin, were left to shoulder the lasting brunt of a catastrophic power failure, and in subfreezing conditions that Texas’ grid operators had known was coming.

Military recruitment (Foreign Policy) A meager job market has given military recruitment a boost around the world, the Wall Street Journal reports. In Canada, applications to join the armed services surged 37 percent over the last nine months of 2020 compared to the previous year. Australia reported a 9.9 percent annual increase in applications. The United Kingdom met its military recruitment targets for the first time in seven years and in the United States, 92 percent of eligible personnel re-enlisted, compared to just 83 percent the previous year.

Volunteer paramedics patrol streets of Venezuela’s capital (AP) Venezuela’s deepening crisis has gutted emergency ambulance services, so a group of volunteer paramedics has stepped into the void to offer life-saving help on the tough streets of Caracas. Calling themselves Angels of the Road, the volunteer corps relies on donated medical supplies and funding from international organizations. Despite receiving no paychecks, its roughly 40 paramedics are ready at a moment’s notice to jump onto motorcycles and fire up their single ambulance and race into the streets. Jonathan Quantip, 44, said he and co-founder Zuly Rodiz launched the project two years ago after watching their native Venezuela precipitously decline over years of political and social crisis. “We Venezuelans have to solve our own country’s problems,” Quantip said. “We have to use the skills we’re each good at.” The group works on a shoestring budget with nothing left over for wages, so each paramedic relies on another source of income. Some donate their off-time after working in hospitals and firehouses. Others flip burgers in fast-food restaurants.

‘We are like captives’: life in Britain’s quarantine hotels (Reuters) Mohamed Noor faces 10 days in COVID-19 quarantine in a hotel room near London’s Heathrow Airport after falling foul of new border controls because of a flight delay. “I don’t have a book. I don’t have a Koran. I don’t have nothing here,” Noor, a 55-year-old Muslim, said by phone after his arrival on Monday, a day later than planned, landed him with a 1,750-pound ($2,400) bill. In another hotel nearby, 61-year-old Sole, who declined to give her surname, said she realised too late that the new rules would kick in before she returned from visiting friends in Chile. “We are like captives in these rooms,” she said. Britain says the measures, effective since Monday, are needed to protect its COVID-19 vaccination programme and guard against new coronavirus variants. People returning from any of 33 “high-risk” countries where travel to Britain is banned must pay 1,750 pounds for a 10-day quarantine hotel package. After being taken by bus to government-contracted hotels, they must spend most of the time in their rooms and have meals delivered to their door.

Toothless travel restrictions (Foreign Policy) Irish holidaymakers have suddenly shown a keen interest in dental hygiene as they attempt to shirk strict lockdown measures to escape the bleak North Atlantic winter. Traveling for “essential medical, health or dental services” is allowed under Ireland’s coronavirus restrictions, leading to a surge in dental surgery appointments in Spain’s Canary Islands. Roberta Beccaris, a receptionist at a dental surgeon’s office on the island of Tenerife, reported taking multiple calls from prospective Irish clients, who have demanded e-mail confirmations of the bookings. Police can issue fines to rule-breaking travelers of roughly $600, although they are powerless to stop those with proof of a medical appointment. “Obviously as they are not turning up, we now understand it is just an excuse for a holiday,” she told RTÉ radio.

Spain betting on vaccine passports to revive summer tourism (Reuters) Spain hopes the introduction of vaccination passports combined with pre-travel COVID-19 testing will allow British tourists to return to Spanish destinations this summer, a tourism ministry source told Reuters on Tuesday. The government has no plans to introduce quarantines on foreign visitors, and was also counting on a wider agreement to be hammered out between Europe and Britain to remove restrictions on non-essential travel, the official added. Over 2020, as global travel was dramatically curtailed by the coronavirus pandemic, foreign tourism to Spain—one of the world’s most visited countries—fell 80% to just 19 million visitors, a level not seen since 1969.

China steps up online controls with new rule for bloggers (AP) Ma Xiaolin frequently wrote about current affairs on one of China’s leading microblogging sites, where he has 2 million followers. But recently, he said in a post, the Weibo site called and asked him not to post original content on topics ranging from politics to economic and military issues. “As an international affairs researcher and a columnist, it looks like I can only go the route of entertainment, food and beverage now,” the international relations professor wrote on Jan. 31. Ma, who often posted on developments in the Mideast, is one of many popular influencers working within the constraints of China’s heavily censored web who is finding that their space to speak is shrinking even further with the latest policy changes and a clean-up campaign run by the country’s powerful censors. Beginning next week, the Cyberspace Administration of China will require bloggers and influencers to have a government-approved credential before they can publish on a wide range of subjects. Some fear that only state media and official propaganda accounts will get permission. The latest move is in line with ever more restrictive regulations under President Xi Jinping that constrict an already narrow space for discourse. The Chinese leader has made “digital sovereignty” a central concept of his rule, under which authorities have set limits and increased control of the digital realm.

Japan’s ruling party wants more women at meetings—unless they talk (Reuters) After a sexism row sparked by Tokyo Olympics chief’s saying women talked too much at meetings, Japan’s ruling party wants women at key meetings—but only if they don’t talk. The ruling Liberal Democratic Party has proposed a new plan that allows five female lawmakers to join the party’s key meetings as observers. Toshihiro Nikai, the party’s 82-year-old secretary general, said on Tuesday that he heard criticism that the party’s board is male-dominated, but added that the board members are elected. But it is important for the party’s female members to “look” at the party’s decision-making process, he said. Those female observers can’t speak during the meetings, but can submit opinions separately to the secretariat office, the daily newspaper Nikkei reported. Requiring female observers at meetings to remain quiet has drawn criticism that the party is out of touch.

Big protests across Myanmar as UN expert fears violence (AP) Demonstrators in Myanmar gathered Wednesday in their largest numbers so far to protest the military’s seizure of power, as a U.N. human rights expert warned that troops being brought to Yangon and elsewhere could signal the prospect for major violence. U.N. rapporteur Tom Andrews said he was alarmed by reports of soldiers being transported into Yangon, the biggest city. “In the past, such troop movements preceded killings, disappearances, and detentions on a mass scale,” he said in a statement issued late Tuesday by the U.N. Human Rights office in Geneva. “I am terrified that given the confluence of these two developments­—planned mass protests and troops converging—we could be on the precipice of the military committing even greater crimes against the people of Myanmar.” Wednesday’s turnout in Yangon appeared to be one of the biggest so far in the city. Protesters have adopted a tactic of blocking off streets from security forces by parking vehicles in groups with their hoods up and the excuse of having engine trouble.

Anti-Chinese Sentiment in Myanmar (Foreign Policy) Widespread protests against the Feb. 1 military coup in Myanmar have taken on an increasingly anti-Chinese tone, with rallies held outside the Chinese Embassy in Yangon, Myanmar and calls growing for boycotts of Chinese goods and services. Misinformation is spreading, including rumors that Chinese soldiers have infiltrated Myanmar and that Chinese software will be used to set up a Great Firewall. On balance, it seems unlikely that China supported the coup, especially given its relatively good relationship with the National League for Democracy. Anti-Chinese sentiment has a long history in Myanmar, both on the national level and at the local level, due to conflicts among ethnic Chinese communities and others. Chinese investment projects have been major flash points, especially the Myitsone Dam, which was suspended in 2011 following the move toward democracy. Locals have decried the environmental impacts and forced relocations associated with such projects, while Beijing has been keen to get them restarted. There is also growing anti-Chinese feeling across Southeast Asia. Many young people see parallels between the 2019 Hong Kong protests and their own resistance against local authoritarianism. China’s tactless authoritarianism and resentment toward outsiders contributes to that solidarity, but the main driver is the willingness of local autocrats and the uber-rich to suck up to China for their own ends. That can mean, as in Myanmar’s case, that China is blamed even when it hasn’t actually done much.

Sidelining MBS (Foreign Policy) The United States will downgrade its engagement with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman as part of the Biden administration’s drive to “recalibrate” relations with the kingdom, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said on Tuesday. President Joe Biden will instead conduct diplomacy through Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz, dealing a blow to the crown prince’s standing in Washington.

Gunmen kidnap at least 20 boys from Nigerian boarding school (Washington Post) Gunmen stormed a north-central Nigerian boarding school early Wednesday, kidnapping at least 20 teenage boys, the local governor said—the second mass abduction of children to shake the country in three months. The attackers raided the Government Science Secondary School in the town of Kagara before sunrise and dragged the classmates into the dense woods. Three teachers and 12 family members also vanished into the night, Abubakar Sani Bello, the governor of Niger state, said on television. Schools in the region have been shuttered. Helicopters hovered over the treetops as security forces continued their search and, by midmorning, authorities were still counting the missing.

[kny111]

From respected leaders like NCAI Chair, Brian Cladoosby, to just about every Native high school or collegiate valedictorian giving a graduation speech, someone you encounter today will likely invoke this ubiquitous phrase.

Just who are the Seven Generations and how do we show proper respect for them? And what does this concept have to do with our modern nations, particularly, for the seventy Native governments that have cut individuals or entire families from their citizenship rolls? After more than twenty years of following this trend, it is clear that much can be learned from nations that respect their ancestors, themselves, and those to come. Such nations exemplify the true meaning of the Seven Generations by maintaining their integrity as peoples.

Vine Deloria, Jr. spoke of the Seven Generations in very practical terms. In his cantankerous way, he would express extreme annoyance at the romanticism of the concept as it was popularly used. Because, as explained to him, the generations we are sworn to protect and revere are the seven we are most immediately connected to.

Think about it for a moment. It is possible that many of us have known or will know our great-grandparents, grandparents, parents, our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Even if we aren’t fortunate enough to have been in the physical presence of those who came before us, we usually have stories, songs, and photos that have been shared so that we feel a connection. We also want to make sure our kids and grandkids are healthy, safe and aware of where they come from. So, counting our own generation—ourselves, siblings, and cousins—we are accountable to those seven generations, not some imagined futuristic peoples two hundred years down the road.

Deloria’s articulation of the Seven Generations makes so much more sense on a human scale and does away with the destructive myth of mystical, all seeing Natives. In truth, our peoples were visionary but not in a passive, new-age way. We actively tended our families and our clan-ties by holding the lives, memories, and hopes of all Seven Generations close. Each generation was responsible to teach, learn, and protect the three generations that had come before it, its own, and the next three. In this way, we maintained our communities for millennia.

Consider what happens when we think of the Seven Generations as only flowing from each of us as individuals, as seems to be the dominant interpretation today. Then we live in a world where we owe nothing to our predecessors, where we have only a tangential connection to our present-day relations, and where we have but a vague notion of the “future generations.”

We all know the dangers in this kind of thinking. When tribal leaders focus only on themselves and what it takes for them as individuals to succeed, then we have the basis for the surge of disenrollments we witness every day, where both the living and the dead are cast out and hope for the future is deeply compromised.

These disenrollments occur for a number of reasons. Some, such as fraudulent enrollment, dual membership, or failure to maintain contact with the home community are arguably legitimate; others, however, are fundamentally tainted and bear the mark of rank injustice—political power plays, economic greed, and pseudo-scientific arguments about insufficient blood quantum, among others.

And while the number of unjustified disenrollments continues to plague Indian Country, a small but determined and diverse chorus of individuals, organizations, and even a few Native nations (Spokane most recently), are raising substantive challenges to the egregious practice of dismembering otherwise legitimate citizens. It raises hope for those that have already been terminated and gives succor to those who face imminent dismemberment.

We have to keep in mind that nearly 500 of the currently recognized Native nations are not engaged in these acts of suicidal sovereignty. It behooves us, then, to ascertain what it is within those communities that has precluded them from cannibalizing their own kin. All nations have struggled mightily with the core question of who is entitled to clanship, citizenship, or membership. We are left with the legacy created by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and other federal agencies and departments as they imposed regulations and policies designed to reduce the number of Native citizens deemed “eligible” for federal or even treaty-based benefits.

Yet, despite the five centuries of colonial intrusions and the subsequent devastation that ensued, the large majority of Native nations seldom acted, prior to the modern era, to forcibly terminate otherwise bonafide relatives. Even now the dismemberment process is being engaged in by less than 12% of Native governments. Seventh Generation thinking appears relevant in precluding the vast majority of Indigenous peoples from disenfranchising their fellow citizens when they are otherwise lawfully enrolled.

Deron Marquez, former chair of the San Manuel Band of Serrano Indians in Southern California, points to the small population size of his community (a little over 200 members) as a key to their community health and membership stability. He believes that this simple fact is conducive to political and social cohesion as citizens are keenly familiar with one another and behave with a measure of respect based on a sense of kinship.

He also emphasizes the importance of San Manuel’s governing structure: a general council arrangement, whereby the membership adopts ordinances and sets policy for the Nation. This means that the people control the tribe’s officers so that no one person or small group can claim substantive authority. The entire community gathers monthly to discuss and guide the community’s affairs, providing every member an opportunity to raise questions, express concerns, or discuss grievances in a way that forestalls lingering resentments and retaliation. San Manuel citizens continuously respect and tend their familial bonds with one another.

For 38 years, W. Ron Allen, has served as the Chair and CEO of the Jamestown Band of S’Klallam, a small Washington state people. He exemplifies the role that dedicated and long-serving tribal leaders can play in facilitating a stronger dose of community cohesion and respect for the sovereignty of the people. Such leaders, by the dint of their character and length of time in office, provide stability and a frame of reference for community members and outside agents alike

Allen emphasizes that his small nation (around 600) also has in place a clearly articulated legal and political infrastructure. Their accompanying governing documents, including a constitution, provide due process safeguards for everyone and guide both policy makers and the people. The Jamestown Band of S’Klallam thus remembers their origins and pass the knowledge forward.

Finally, Ron Haven, a respected tribal attorney for the Dine Nation, our largest Native nation—nearly 300,000 strong—suggests that shared cultural values provide a principled foundation that, while not preventing conflict, seems to enable the Dine, an ever increasingly diverse people, to get along without resorting to the termination of political rights of fellow citizens.

Our conversation reminded me of an excellent book by Raymond Austin (Dine), a former Navajo Supreme Court justice, who analyzed how the Dine courts have sought to apply traditional values, especially theses—k’e (kinship through positive values), hozho (harmony, balance, and peace), and k’ei (the Dine clan system)—to deal with contemporary legal, political, and cultural conflicts.

Austin emphasized that Dine philosophy views the three central values as interrelated, and one of the goals of his book was to encourage other Native peoples to employ “their own cultural norms, values, and traditional institutions” to address current challenges. These values are a guide to tending the Seven Generations.

These are just three examples from three very different Native nations that highlight a few variables—demographics, committed and qualified leadership, community established legal and political institutions and procedures, and philosophical principles—that appear, at least for these nations to produce a degree of social cohesion that helps maintain membership stability.

Of course, we can easily find contrary example of small tribal nations that are disenrolling; nations with long-tenured leaders who wield virtually autocratic powers, including the power to terminate their fellow citizens; and nations where those who call themselves “traditional” sometimes exercise a harsh, almost fundamentalist, cultural code that can sometimes lead to the dismemberment of those viewed as too progressive or lacking sufficient blood quantum.

[loyallogic]

AIBE: An Exhaustive Quiz on Jurisprudence

Solve the amazing and exhaustive quiz containing the questions for major portion of Jurisprudence for All India Bar Examination.

1.) The Natural Law School, as propounded by Salmon, claims that positive law derives its standard from 

A.) Consensus 

B.) An objective norm that has to be followed in the interest of order in society 

C.) Superior moral standards 

D.) Command of the sovereign 

E.) None of the above 

2.) According to Ronald Dworkin, what is indispensible in order to interpret and apply laws? 

A.) legal authority 

B.) introduction of moral judgments 

C.) a body of judges who are capable of keeping personal value judgments out of reach of laws 

D.) a robust system of courts 

E.) Both (c) and (d) 

3.) Ronald Dworkin’s ‘Original Problem’, based on Riggs v. Palmer, 115 NY 506, is used to illustrate the principle that Law is not merely a system of Rules but there are also ‘principles, policies and other sort of standards’ that govern the legal system. What was the case scenario in Riggs v. Palmer? 

A.) the judge trying the case was himself a witness 

B.) a man sued his father who struck him in self defense when the former attempted to kill him 

C.) a defamation suit was filed by a man who knew the aspersions against him were true 

D.) a man sought to sell the property of the person he killed 

E.) none of the above 

4.) Legal Positivism directly clashes with which theory? 

A.) Normative Jurisprudence 

B.) natural law theory 

C.) Legal Realism 

D.) Constructivist theory 

E.) None of the above; they are all compatible 

5.) Who among the following scholars is not a proponent of Legal Positivism? 

A.) Ronald Dworkin 

B.) John Austin 

C.) Joseph Raz 

D.) H. L. A. Hart 

E.) None of the above 

6.) What is the fundamental problem in finding an analogy of Austin’s political sovereign in India’s Constitution? 

A.) Austin’s sovereign cannot be identified 

B.) Austin’s political sovereign it turn, does not himself habitually obey some other person or persons 

C.) Austin’s concept is radically flawed 

D.) ‘We, the people’ as a political sovereign is too diffuse a body to locate sovereignty with certainty. 

E.) both (b) and (d) 

7.) Since Hart asserts that there is ‘no necessary connection between law and morality’, what then, is the difference between Hart’s Inclusive Legal Positivism and Exclusive Legal Positivism? 

A.) Inclusive Legal Positivism does not completely discount the possibility of interface between law and morality 

B.) There’s no difference as such between the two 

C.) The former rejects conventional morality while the latter rejects critical morality 

D.) The former rejects critical morality while the latter rejects conventional morality 

E.) Both c and d are true 

8.) The functional approach to understanding Law is best explained as: 

A.) A key to morality of law 

B.) an evolution of the society by social and economic circumstances 

C.) Divine infallibility of the law-maker 

D.) a code of conduct that man has devised 

E.) None of the above 

9.) One way to grapple with the problem of conflicting claims over limited resources according to Amartya Sen would be: 

A.) Adopt socialism 

B.) The communist approach to distribution 

C.) Ensure justice is served irrespective of means 

D.) Replace ‘obsession with justice’ with an aim of reducing Injustice 

E.) All of the above 

10.) Harm Principle would be: 

A.) a rider on the liberty of persons can only be justified to avoid harm to a larger segment of persons 

B.) a tenet that harm should be avoided at all costs 

C.) that individual cannot be harmed even if it causes society to suffer harm 

D.) that injustice is harmful to the society 

E.) none of the above 

11.) Which of the following scholars and the theories they endorse is matched wrongly? 

A.) Dworkin – Law is not merely a system of rules 

B.) Hart- There are liberties which override ordinary considerations of utility. 

C.) Hart- There are liberties which override ordinary considerations of utility. 

D.) Devlin- a society has a right of self-defence against any harm that may ensue to the moral code that binds it 

E.) None of the above 

12.) Who among the following is not an analytical positivist? 

A.) Jeremy Bentham 

B.) John Austin 

C.) Hans Kelsen 

D.) H. L. A. Hart 

E.) None of them are analytical positivists 

13.) Illustration: While interpreting a statute, one has internal and external aids to construction. Question: Which of the following in not an Internal aid to construction? 

A.) long title 

B.) preamble 

C.) headings 

D.) definitions 

E.) Parliamentary history 

14.) What is the problem with defining ‘Law’ as a ‘Command’? 

A.) Nothing, law can be so defined 

B.) Obligations are sometimes entered into voluntarily by parties and the Law does not mandate them to do so 

C.) Command has to be obeyed, unlike law 

D.) Law has a lower threshold of expectation than command 

15.) Illustration: People who act contrary to rules ought to be liable for punishment. Principle: Austin said, “[t]he existence of law is one thing; its merit or demerit is another. Question: What then, gives a rule the force of Law? 

A.) The idea of a sanction is built into the very notion of law 

B.) Its rigidity 

C.) Considerations of utility and efficient management of resources that Law contemplates 

D.) Its incorporation of temporal moral value 

E.) All of the above 

16.) The significance of the classification as ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ rules indicates that secondary rules ……………….. 

A.) are subservient to Primary rules 

B.) cannot exist without Primary rules 

C.) can never become law. 

D.) are unimportant and can be applied in an unorthodox manner 

E.) none of the above 

17.) Which is correct?. 

A.) A.19(1)(a) that denies the State the power to take away an individual’s liberty such as freedom of speech and expression. 

B.) A. 19(1) that provides the ‘reasonable restrictions’ of ‘public order, decency and morality’ 

C.) A. 21

D.) A. 14

E.) All of the above 

18.) Identify the wrongly matched source/origin of law: 

A.) Devlin – Reliance upon marriage laws to prove his theory 

B.) Joseph Raz – Exclusive legal positivism 

C.) Andrei Marmor – Exclusive legal positivism 

D.) eremy Bentham – Functional approach to law 

E.) None of the above 

19.) Identify the stage of law that is not a part of Maine’s comparative and anthropological approach: 

A.) A time when law was made by the commands of a ruler, acting under ‘divine inspiration’ 

B.) Where such commands gain wider currency as customary law 

C.) The emergence of a minority, such as priests, who have control of the knowledge and administration of customary law 

D.) The promulgation of law as a code 

E.) None of the above 

20.) Principle of Liberty and Difference Principle, mentioned in a theory of justice was written by: 

A.) Savigny 

B.) Austin

C.) John Rawls 

D.) Hart 

E.) Maine 

21.) Illustration: Other Backward Classes (OBCs) have a reservation of 27% in Government Educational Institutions. Question: This is an example of a particular idea of justice. Pick the right one: 

A.) Mill’s Harm Principle 

B.) Rawls’ Liberty Principle 

C.) Rawls’ Difference principle 

  D.) Fuller’s Inner Morality 

E.) None of the above 

22.) Illustration: In claiming a seat in an engineering college, for example, there are competing but sometimes equally strong claims. Amartya Sen’s suggestion of a way out of the conundrum is: 

A.) survival of the fittest 

B.) an across-the-board standard of Merit 

C.) Need-based discrimination 

D.) Appropriate measure to be identified by examining what reduces all forms of ‘injustice’ the best 

E.) auction of seats 

23.) Which of the following is an example of Jural Correlatives? 

A.) Liberty: Privilege 

B.) No right: No claim 

C.) a and b are jural correlatives of each other 

D.) Harm: Welfare 

E.) None of the above 

24.) Examples of jural opposites 

A.) Right: Claim & No right: No claim 

B.) Liberty: Privilege & Duty 

C.) Duty & Right: Claim 

D.) Both a and b are true 

E.) None of the above 

25.) Illustration: A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that a Member of Parliament enjoys immunity under Aa.105(2) or 105(3) of the Constitution from being prosecuted for allegations of bribery for the purpose of speaking or giving his vote in Parliament or in any committee thereof. 

Question: Keeping Hohfeld’s matrix in mind, examine the Supreme Court’s judgment to be an illustration of: 

A.) The presence of ‘immunity’ in the Member of Parliament necessarily implies the absence of ‘liability’ in himself. 

B.) Unforeseen eventuality 

C.) Presence of ‘immunity’ in Member of Parliament implies the presence of ‘disability’ in the court of law of to prosecute for an offence of bribery 

D.) All of the above 

E.) Both (a) and (c) 

26.) While applying the literal rule of interpretation, it is important to keep in mind the: 

A.) language 

B.) theme 

C.) context 

D.) applicability 

E.) All of the above 

27.) Jurisprudence would be the study of: 

A.) what is law 

B.) the ‘why’s of law 

C.) legal philosophy 

D.) all of the above 

E.) none of the above 

28.) A basic premise of natural law theory is: 

A.) existence of objective moral principles 

B.) a code of conduct being the essential nature of the universe 

C.) no human being is above the Law 

D.) all of the above 

E.) none of the above 

29.) The point of conflict between natural law theorists and positivists is: 

A.) there are objectively valid moral propositions 

B.) moral propositions constitute a superior law 

C.) failure to conform to such a superior law deprives ordinary positive law of all legality 

D.) both b) and c) 

E.) Their theories are consistent 

30.) Following are scholars and their theories. Identify the wrong one: 

A.) Thomas Acquinas- rules of positive law that conflict with natural law are invalid 

B.) Lon Fuller- any genuine legal system ought to abide by certain moral principles 

C.) H. L. A. Hart- the introduction of moral judgements is necessary in order to interpret and apply laws 

D.) Devlin- a society has a right of self-defence against any harm that may ensue to the moral code that binds it 

E.) Henry Maine- there exist objective moral principles which depend on the essential nature of the universe and which can be discovered by natural reason 

31.) les injusta non est lex, or ‘unjust law is no law’ is a necessary consequence of the understanding of which legal theory? 

A.) traditional natural law theory 

B.) inclusive legal positivism 

C.) exclusive legal positivism 

D.) historical School of the functional approach to Law 

E.) sociological school of the functional approach to Law 

32.) The problem with Devlin’s theory is that: 

A.) He does not consider that if a minority dissents from the moral code that supposedly binds the entire society together, it would be an appropriate response on the majority’s part to lead by example and resolve to follow the model code in letter and spirit rather than mounting attack on others 

B.) society’s moral code is stuck in a time warp 

C.) both a) and b) 

D.) It overtly stresses on society’s right to interfere with the liberties of an individual 

E.) He assumes a critical morality instead of conventional morality 

33.) Who among the following is an analytical positivist? 

A.) Jeremy Bentham 

B.) John Austin 

C.) Hans Kelsen 

D.) all of the above 

E.) none of the above 

34.) Following are schools of Law/Scholars and the corresponding source of Law. Identify which is matched wrong: 

A.) Natural law- law as the command of a sovereign 

B.) Functional approach- law as the result of the evolution of society 

C.) Savigny- or common consciousness of people 

D.) Salmond- Volksgeist 

E.) None of the above 

35.) Identify the scholar who describes Law as a tool and a means of harmonising social interests that may be in conflict. 

A.) Roscoe Pound 

B.) Ronald Dworkin 

C.) John Austin 

D.) H. L. A. Hart 

E.) Devlin 

36.) In the case of S.R. Batra v. Smt. Taruna Batra, the daughterin-law petitioned the Supreme Court to declare the house where she was living after marriage as the ‘matrimonial home’. The house in question was owned by the mother-in-law, and not Smt. Taruna Batra’s husband. The Supreme Court held that the rights of Smt. Taruna Batra available under any Indian law could be enforced only against her husband, and not against her father-in-law or mother-in law. 

A.) the presence of ‘liberty/privilege’ in mother-in-law implies the presence of ‘no-right/no-claim’ in the daughter-in-law 

B.) The presence of ‘liberty/privilege’ in mother-in-law’ necessarily implies the absence of ‘duty’ on behalf of the mother-in-law 

C.) The presence of right/claim of daughter-in-law implies presence of duty in mother-in-law 

D.) Both a) and b) 

E.) None of the above 

37.) What Statute is an aid in the interpretation of Statutes? 

A.) General Clauses Act, 1897 

B.) Interpretation of Statutes Act, 1897 

C.) Law of Legislations, 1897 

D.) All of the above 

E.) Such a legislation does not exist; the definition section in the Statute to be interpreted is the only legislative aid to interpretation 

38.) Illustration: In the phrase ‘horses, cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, or any other farm animal’, the general language ‘or any other farm animal’ — despite its seeming breadth — would probably be held to include only four-legged, hoofed mammals typically found on farms, and thus would exclude chickens. 

This is an example of which rule of interpretation? 

A.) Ejusdem Generis 

B.) noscitur a sociis 

C.) Literal Rule 

D.) Both a) and b) 

39.) Illustration: In Hindustan Lever Emplills Company Limited (TOMCO) and Hindustan Lever Limited was in dispute. The employees of both Hindustan Lever Limited and TOMCO were concerned about the amalgamation. One of the grounds of attack against the scheme was the absence of approval of the central government as required under S.23 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. That, however, was deleted in 1991. The Supreme Court stated that it is significant to take into account the mischief that was sought to be cured through the amendment of the statute. Accordingly, the court held that once the said section has been deleted from the statute book, the requirement of prior approval of the Central Government cannot be brought back through the backdoor. The Supreme Court was applying what rule of interpretation? 

A.) Deletion Rule 

B.) Mischief Rule 

C.) Literal Rule 

D.) Ejusdem Generis 

E.) both a) and d) 

40.) Which of the following is the most accurate description of the Golden Rule of Interpretation? 

A.) Justice must be served 

B.) Literal meaning must always be adopted without fail 

C.) Literal meaning must always be adopted except when it leads to absurdity 

D.) ) All of the above 

E.) Context must be understood properly 

Answer Key 

1.) D 2.) B 3.) D 4.) B 5.) A 6.) E 7.) A 8.) B 9.) D 10.) A 11.) E 12.) D 13.) E 14.) B 15.) A 16.) B 17.) A 18.) D 19.) A 20.) C 21.) D 22.) D 23.) D 24.) D 25.) A 26.) C 27.) D 28.) D 29.) D 30.) E 31.) A 32.) C 33.) D 34.) D 35.) A 36.) D 37.) A 38.) C 39.) B 40.) D 

To know more about, laws of taxation for AIBE, please Click Here

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skill.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/joinchat/J_0YrBa4IBSHdpuTfQO_sA

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.

The post AIBE: An Exhaustive Quiz on Jurisprudence appeared first on iPleaders.

AIBE: An Exhaustive Quiz on Jurisprudence published first on https://namechangers.tumblr.com/

[tlatollotl]

When you take a close look at the flowery but meticulous lettering in the 17th-century book, you can see that many people wrote the script, at different times. The book includes everything from sermons to poems, and there’s a dedication to Pope Urban IV.

The Libro de Sermones Varios en Lengua Quiche, from 1690, is the oldest manuscript in the collection of the Smithsonian’s National Anthropological Archives. It provides not only a fascinating look at the evolution of the Maya K’iche’ language, but it also tells a stark tale of religious history.

“When I see a document like this it just blows me away to see the care with which the language was put on paper by so many different people,” says Gabriela Pérez-Báez, curator of linguistics in the anthropology department at the National Museum of Natural History. She says the book is written in four different languages, including K’iche’, Latin, Spanish and Kaqchikel. “The paper is thicker, the book smells differently, it is really amazing to see the care with which it was written,” Pérez-Báez marvels.

The Libro de Sermones is part of the Objects of Wonder exhibition now on view at the National Museum of Natural History. The book has also been digitized so that scholars can peruse the book both to answer questions about history, but also to document the changes in the K’iche’ language as the Spanish were taking over the Maya empire (THERE WAS NO MAYA EMPIRE! COME ON SMITHSONIAN!) in the 16th century. The text in the Libro de Sermones is very similar to the K’iche’ language that was spoken before contact with the Spanish. The book was given to one Felipe Silva by Pablo Agurdia of Guatemala in 1907, and Silva apparently donated it to the Smithsonian Institution sometime after that, but there are no documents explaining exactly how that happened. Today, Pérez-Báez says the book is quite relevant and important to scholars.

“K’iche’ is a Mayan language which dates back several thousand years. It certainly precedes Spanish by hundreds of years. It is a language which is spoken in Guatemala, so Mayan languages are still in use across what is now Guatemalan Mexico and have spread as far as the Northern third of Mexico. But otherwise they are concentrated in Mesoamerica—the South of Mexico and in a little bit of Central America, Guatemala and so on,” Pérez-Báez says. “Languages change naturally, but they also change when they come into contact with other languages… . Once contact with a Colonial language becomes very intense … the influence of a language like Spanish on indigenous languages is greater and greater over time.”

K’iche’ is spoken today by more than one million people, and thousands of K’iche’ speakers now live in the United States, according to Sergio Romero, a professor in the department of Spanish and Portuguese at the University of Texas at Austin.

“Lots of migrants, especially in the last two decades, are K’iche’ speakers. I am often called to translate on behalf of K’iche’ speakers who don’t speak Spanish,” Romero says, adding that K’iche’ is one of 33 different Mayan languages. “There are different dynamics to each of these 33 languages, and each of them has a lot of regional variation. So between K’iche’ and Ixil, another Mayan language, there is as much difference as between English and … Hindi.”

Romero says one of the reasons the Libro de Sermones is important, is that in the 19th century around the time of Guatemalan independence, K’iche’ lost its status as the official language in the region. But there are many documents including wills, land deeds and various sorts of chronicles and other texts written in K’iche’ from the 16th and 17th centuries. There are also pastoral texts, catechisms and confessionals used by priests to both learn the language and try to convert the K'iche.’

But Romero says the K’iche’ resisted being converted to Catholicism, and there is evidence of that in the book, which he says is a “crucial” tool in illustrating that fact.

“It’s the way in which the K’iche’ were able to cope with the Spanish invasion and the Christian invasion … . They didn’t assimilate,” he says. “What they did was appropriate certain elements of Spanish culture to be able to adapt and defend and protect their own spaces of political and cultural sovereignty. So K’iche’ religion today is really a hybrid religion that has elements of Spanish origin and elements of Christian origin and this document shows that very well. You can see how certain words were actually bent by the Spanish to be able to convey certain meanings and you can see how those certain words were interpreted in a different way by the K’iche.’”

Romero points to the word mak, which is used today to reference sin, as in Christian sin. But in the 15th century it meant ‘will,’ as in your will to do something. Sin, Romero says, didn’t exist as a concept to the K’iche’ because they were not Christian. Dominican missionaries took that particular word and shifted its meaning so it could be used to convey the theological notion of sin.

“The only way to resist was to adapt,” Romero says, “but the adaptation was not decided upon by the Spanish.”

He adds that even today, the Catholic hierarchy in Guatemala still cannot accept the fact that Christian practices among the K’iche’ are simply different than those of non-indigenous Catholics. Romero says the K’iche’ religion of today is the result of this “interesting dialogue” between Dominican missionaries who wanted to impose a certain brand of Catholicism and the K’iche’ who just picked whatever was interesting and useful to them.

The Smithsonian’s Pérez-Báez, who was raised as a Catholic in Mexico City, explains that even in an urban Spanish environment children are taught that one must be a good person, or they will burn in hell. She is not a K’iche’ expert, but Pérez-Báez thinks that the sermons in this book likely contain similar rhetoric that was used to coerce people into converting to Christianity.

To her, Libro de Sermones is a reminder of what she calls the brutally violent mandatory conversion to Catholicism. The Spanish colonization involved forced labor, and the Mayas who refused to give up their original religion were often jailed and tortured for heresy. Maya artifacts were deliberately destroyed, and most of their sacred texts were burned. Pérez-Báez says the book was likely produced by native speakers of K’iche’ whose original, indigenous names had already been replaced with Spanish names, who were being converted against their will.

“To me, being an advocate for linguistic diversity in this respect of human rights, it’s very difficult to hold a document that was an important part of the conversion to Christianity and all of the abuses. This book was representative of an era during which colonialism and the associated conversion to Christianity oppressed the indigenous population in often violent ways,” Pérez-Báez explains.

She is also disturbed by the thought that native speakers of K’iche’ were hired, or used, in the production of a book that was being used as an instrument to force the conversion of the remainder of the K’iche’ population.

“This is evidence of that conversion process that was very damaging to the languages, the cultures, the local knowledge, but especially the physical and emotional well-being of the people,” Pérez-Báez says.

Both she and Romero think the digitization of the Libro de Sermones is vitally important for scholars, even though the ancient text had to be laid nearly flat page by page to get a good digital image. Pérez-Báez says the book has gone through conservation, and is in pretty good shape for the Wonder exhibition. Allowing access to the document to scholars around the world is critical, Romero says. It also makes for better preservation.

“We’ve gotten to a different age in the study of colonial manuscripts of indigenous languages. … For us, having access to these manuscripts online is crucial because we need to have concordance between different text,” says Romero. He explains that sometimes a particular text doesn’t have the full story. That means scholars then have to consult different documents being reviewed by other colleagues that may include the missing fragments.

“Many libraries are actually digitizing their manuscripts and making them available online for scholars… .  It allows us to work across political lines and borders… .  So now we can use digital copies of manuscripts to be able to work together on the same text and that makes for a much more rich and interesting dialogue.”

[brettzjacksonblog]

Bitcoin Educator Jimmy Song Isn’t A Big Fan Of Ethereum (Or JP Morgan Coin)

Over the past weeks, some of the world’s largest institutions, namely Facebook and JP Morgan, have announced intentions to launch blockchain ventures. While many crypto enthusiasts have welcomed this news, there’s one caveat, these projects are likely going to be centralized beyond compare.

And to some, this simple fact isn’t something to be excited about.

Ethereum, JPM Coin, FB Coin — It’s All Permissioned

In a recent debate at South By Southwest 2019 — a tech-heavy, crypto-friendly conference held in Austin — Jimmy Song argued that there are only two subsets of blockchain technologies: private (permissioned) and public (permissionless). In reference to the whole “if you control your own keys, you control your own Bitcoin” argument, Song explained:

 “You either have control over your stuff or you don’t. It’s a zero or a one… Blockchain is really useful for bitcoin. Everything else has a central point of failure.”

Per CoinDesk, the longtime Bitcoin educator and industry commentator then went on to draw attention to Ethereum, noting that he believes it is entirely permissioned. He cites the hack of The DAO, especially the part of the story where developers and other stakeholders reversed the effects of the game-changing imbroglio through a blockchain rollback.

Decentralized: no one can take your property away.

Centralized: someone gives you permission to keep possession of said property.

That's why decentralization is binary, not a spectrum. You either have self sovereignty over your own property or you don't. There is no in between.

— Jimmy Song (송재준) (@jimmysong) March 14, 2019

While Song didn’t explicitly mention cryptocurrencies backed by corporate America, like Jamie Dimon’s newfangled stablecoin or the rumored social media-centric offering from Facebook’s bustling blockchain team, his logic can be extended here.

As the Bitcoin Core client developer isn’t a fan of Ethereum, it would hard to argue why he would be amicable towards JP Morgan’s iteration of Quorum, a private ledger based on Ethereum’s technologies.

Related Reading: Facebook’s “Crypto” Currency Expected to Add Up to $19 Billion in Revenue

Some Crypto Insiders Beg To Differ

Although Song is vehemently against centralized blockchain systems, some industry insiders have been a bit more open to the concept. Per previous reports from NewsBTC, Ari Paul, the founder of BlockTower Capital, noted that while the so-called “coporatecoins” will operate in an intranet-esque fashion, they aren’t all bad per se.

Paul elaborates that while these assets are inherently “uninteresting” to fervent crypto crusaders, who are enamored with censorship resistance, immutability, security, and peer-to-peer systems, centralized cryptocurrencies will “increase global interest dramatically.”

Laying out a hypothetical scenario, the BlockTower chief investment officer notes that 30 million of Facebookcoin users (10% of Paul’s hypothetical audience of 300 million) could eventually “stumble across Bitcoin,” meaning that the (decentralized) cryptocurrency’s community could double in size, no questions asked. Not only would this bolster adoption, but this influx of users would also increase Bitcoin’s network value, thus increasing the actual value of BTC.

Featured Image from Shutterstock

The post Bitcoin Educator Jimmy Song Isn’t A Big Fan Of Ethereum (Or JP Morgan Coin) appeared first on NewsBTC.

from CryptoCracken SMFeed https://ift.tt/2JmpuaL via IFTTT

[michaelbennettcrypto]

Bitcoin Educator Jimmy Song Isn’t A Big Fan Of Ethereum (Or JP Morgan Coin)

Over the past weeks, some of the world’s largest institutions, namely Facebook and JP Morgan, have announced intentions to launch blockchain ventures. While many crypto enthusiasts have welcomed this news, there’s one caveat, these projects are likely going to be centralized beyond compare.

And to some, this simple fact isn’t something to be excited about.

Ethereum, JPM Coin, FB Coin — It’s All Permissioned

In a recent debate at South By Southwest 2019 — a tech-heavy, crypto-friendly conference held in Austin — Jimmy Song argued that there are only two subsets of blockchain technologies: private (permissioned) and public (permissionless). In reference to the whole “if you control your own keys, you control your own Bitcoin” argument, Song explained:

 “You either have control over your stuff or you don’t. It’s a zero or a one… Blockchain is really useful for bitcoin. Everything else has a central point of failure.”

Per CoinDesk, the longtime Bitcoin educator and industry commentator then went on to draw attention to Ethereum, noting that he believes it is entirely permissioned. He cites the hack of The DAO, especially the part of the story where developers and other stakeholders reversed the effects of the game-changing imbroglio through a blockchain rollback.

Decentralized: no one can take your property away.

Centralized: someone gives you permission to keep possession of said property.

That's why decentralization is binary, not a spectrum. You either have self sovereignty over your own property or you don't. There is no in between.

— Jimmy Song (송재준) (@jimmysong) March 14, 2019

While Song didn’t explicitly mention cryptocurrencies backed by corporate America, like Jamie Dimon’s newfangled stablecoin or the rumored social media-centric offering from Facebook’s bustling blockchain team, his logic can be extended here.

As the Bitcoin Core client developer isn’t a fan of Ethereum, it would hard to argue why he would be amicable towards JP Morgan’s iteration of Quorum, a private ledger based on Ethereum’s technologies.

Related Reading: Facebook’s “Crypto” Currency Expected to Add Up to $19 Billion in Revenue

Some Crypto Insiders Beg To Differ

Although Song is vehemently against centralized blockchain systems, some industry insiders have been a bit more open to the concept. Per previous reports from NewsBTC, Ari Paul, the founder of BlockTower Capital, noted that while the so-called “coporatecoins” will operate in an intranet-esque fashion, they aren’t all bad per se.

Paul elaborates that while these assets are inherently “uninteresting” to fervent crypto crusaders, who are enamored with censorship resistance, immutability, security, and peer-to-peer systems, centralized cryptocurrencies will “increase global interest dramatically.”

Laying out a hypothetical scenario, the BlockTower chief investment officer notes that 30 million of Facebookcoin users (10% of Paul’s hypothetical audience of 300 million) could eventually “stumble across Bitcoin,” meaning that the (decentralized) cryptocurrency’s community could double in size, no questions asked. Not only would this bolster adoption, but this influx of users would also increase Bitcoin’s network value, thus increasing the actual value of BTC.

Featured Image from Shutterstock

The post Bitcoin Educator Jimmy Song Isn’t A Big Fan Of Ethereum (Or JP Morgan Coin) appeared first on NewsBTC.

from Cryptocracken WP https://ift.tt/2JmpuaL via IFTTT

[angrycollectordaze-me-blog]

Essay代写：Authority of law

下面为大家整理一篇优秀的essay代写范文- Authority of law，供大家参考学习，这篇论文讨论了法律的权威。法律的权威是法律得以实施的重要保障，也是法律理论发展史上不少学者为之争论不休的一个问题。在实证主义法学看来法律的权威地位的确立与法律中主权者的作用和地位分不开。在法律理论史发展的历程之中，法律权威概念的暴力概念正不断减弱。从法律权威的发展历程可以看出，法律本身所具有的物质强制力也在向合法性论证的方向转变。

The enrichment and development of law in modern society is largely due to the continuous establishment of the independent status of law in recent centuries. In this process of independence, jurists continue to inherit the traditional legal theory and at the same time from the theology, philosophy and political science to explore and separate the legal factors, and their re-combination and interpretation, and then form a unique legal system. The basic concept of jurisprudence plays a decisive role in any legal theory system. They assume the unique mission given by the author, and often have a strong purpose. In the forming process of positivist jurisprudence, this characteristic is very obvious. In terms of positive jurisprudence in particular, such examples abound, such as "rights", "obligations", "rules" and so on. The presentation or reformulation of each concept is the formation of a new legal concept or the revision of the traditional legal concept. Such is the concept of sovereign. Moreover, in positivist jurisprudence, the sovereign and its related factors occupy a fundamental position in the whole legal system. Its formation process reflects the attempt of positivist jurists to solve the legal problems they must face. Hobbes and austen used it to re-establish the authority of the law, giving it certainty and independence. From the moment it appeared, the "sovereign", bearing the authority of the world, gave orders to his inferiors. This image was taken to the extreme by austen, who was often used as a spokesman for the theory of legal violence. In his opinion, the legal system based on this concept is very effective in the development of legal theory. However, as the violent nature of the modern state diminishes, so does the coercive nature of the law. The concept of the sovereign as the supporting point of law enforcement is constantly reviewed and criticized. Especially in hart's self-sufficient rule system, the uniform acceptance of officials as the guarantee of effectiveness and various legal rules as the rigorous logical framework have eliminated the violent color of the order of the sovereign. Furthermore, hart's interpretation is regarded as the standard interpretation of austen's theory by later generations. With the weakening of modern state governance and the strengthening of management, the sovereign, the core concept of positive jurisprudence, seems to have retired after fulfilling its mission. What catches our eye now is "ruleless governance", in which the violent "sovereign" must be re-examined in the context of a high degree of autonomy.

Taking positive jurisprudence as an example, the emergence of the concept of sovereign is loaded with an important mission, and a series of important legal propositions need to be solved, among which the most important is the subjectivity and authority of law. In the early years of legal positivism, its core proposition was that the sovereign commanded and the law imposed sanctions by the state. These two propositions were connected with the proposition of "the distinction between law and morality" until Austin, and formed the triangulation proposition of legal positivism thereafter. In these three propositions, it is said that the distinction between law and morality is the product of the methodology of empirical science, that is, the distinction between "ought to be" and "fact" in research methods, while the other two propositions are directly from the empirical reality, that is, how to demonstrate the status and legitimacy of legal authority in theory. Positive science itself strengthens the legitimacy of the legal system and demonstrates the rationality of the legal order under the rule of the state. In a word, the social sciences shaped by the positivism spirit in the background of science are all developed around the country and serve the country. Legal positivism theoretically supports the supremacy of national sovereignty, and sovereignty, national will and national coercive force have become the key words of legal positivism. On the micro level, legal positivism shapes the technical thinking of scientific reasoning and the legal subject required by modern society.

Exploring the origin of the concept of the sovereign can help us better understand the problems that jurists use it to solve and the universality and abstract image of legal authority. Just as the ancient Roman legal system provided the source for many European civilizations, the origin of sovereignty can be traced back to ancient Rome. On the other hand, we can see that the sovereigns had a lot to gain from Roman law. This is largely attributed to austen's dedicated study and research of Roman law before he took up the post of jurisprudence faculty. In feudal times, sovereignty had little influence because of the way the vassals ruled. Its re-emergence is largely due to the fact that modern jurists combined the "imperial power" with the "governance" in Roman law and the sovereignty in feudal times, thus establishing the concept of sovereignty in modern legal system. The legal theory of sovereignty can only be traced back to the beginning of the Roman empire. Sovereignty is common to all peoples. In order to enable one person to exercise the powers contained in sovereignty on behalf of all the people, the Romans delegated sovereignty to the head of state through the law of the king. As a result, the emperor consolidated the powers that had been vested in different institutions during the republic. Gradually, the exercise of the emperor's power became a fixed system, and the emperor's power was no longer exercised by the authorization of the people. Justinian's "ladder of law" says: "the emperor's decision also has legal effect, because according to the law of the king that gives him power, the people hand over to him all their authority and power. Therefore, all the ordinances of the emperor, all the decisions in the judgment of the case, all the provisions in the summons, are of course the law; all these are called constitutional ordinances. According to this account, the emperor's orders were only one source of law. But he can equate his will with the law. He has the right to impose his will on others, because his power has the property of requiring universal obedience. But that changed in feudal Europe. Social classes coordinate their relationships through a set of hierarchical contracts. Obligations and rights are often in the same person, interdependent. A feudal Lord is not the same as a Roman emperor. He must make a promise of himself before he can get it from others. However, the theory of sovereignty has not disappeared, it has been preserved in the imperial power of Germany and other countries. Until later, the power originally possessed by the emperor was combined with the concept of "ownership" in Roman law, and the power to issue orders was regarded as a proprietary right similar to property. Thus the theory of sovereignty took its full shape. From this we can see that the power of the sovereign comes from the power of governance and governance is its core content. It has never been of a legal character to that of a legal character and has grown in strength. The jurist bodin defined sovereignty as "absolute and enduring power within a state." The first and most fundamental feature of sovereignty is the ability to issue orders to society as a whole or to individuals without the consent of others. Moreover, gradually, the sovereignty was separated from the content of governance and became the general term of the power exercised by the king. Thus sovereignty became an indivisible, inalienable institution, and thus the representative of the will of the state, and has not changed much since. The only difference is that after the rise of the revolutionary theory, the sovereignty of the king was replaced by the sovereignty of the state. This theory can be best represented in Rousseau's argument. From then on, sovereignty evolved from the ownership of specific individuals to the special attributes of abstract personality subjects. The emergence of the concept of social contract endows the sovereign with legitimacy and enables the sovereign to become the bearer of the general will, thus making it a useful analytical concept in both traditional and modern societies.

In the early period of positivist jurisprudence, the establishment of legal authority was inseparable from the thought of social contract. In the history of the theory of sovereign, Hobbes' exposition has the significance of connecting the past and the future to the relationship between sovereign and law. Hobbes recognized that the central element in traditional religious relations is authority or obedience to power. The power of the mystical, the power of the mystical gods dwarfs everything else. It is out of fear and fear of these powers and authorities that we have established religion, and among its institutions the most perfect and strict authority on earth, and a whole body of authoritative theories. More importantly, the whole system and theory can also give authority derived from mysterious forces to secular figures. In the secular world, not all of us can hold power, because then we would be left in chaos. After describing human nature and the natural state of man, he said: "it is evident, therefore, that men are in what is called a state of war when there is no power to frighten them. This kind of war is everybody's war against everybody... The nature of war also lies not in actual combat, but in the well-known propensity for war throughout a period of no guarantee of peace. All other periods are peacetime. So Hobbes' view is now extreme: there was no justice, no way of distinguishing right from wrong, good from good, before the emergence of governing power. Hobbes rejects the idea that there is some kind of standard independent of human social thought. The idea is that there is a natural standard by which we are guaranteed to judge the nature of justice or injustice that we want. But it is hard to say that such a standard exists, and such a standard is not provided by the natural state. But people are able to form a group of judges, and this combination can provide us with some kind of power, prestige and standard. He argued that when everyone in the group agrees to be represented by one person, they become a single personality. It is only when this personality is sustained, and is the sole representative of it, in a group of people who are in conflict and struggle, that unity or unity of standards can be produced, and so can the authority of law and politics.

Therefore, it can be argued that legal power is an institution, but it is not a spontaneous structure, but an individual creation. In fact, according to Hobbes, sovereignty is an institutionalized power that combines the powers that individual members of society relinquish, and is allowed to act within the powers that are relinquished. Of course, to understand it this way, the authority and foundation of law is created by the fact of social contract. A social contract is a way of establishing universal power over society. Thus the relationship between the sovereign and the subject is established.

Hobbes introduced the relationship between the sovereign and the subject and provided a new epistemological and legal basis for the power of the ruler. If we break the shackles of the church and stop believing in god as the sole core, we will see a complex pluralism of views. To see the world as an open world that can be transformed from within also shows that we no longer see the world as the authoritative property of nature. Hobbes maintains this pluralism through a new kind of contractual construction, a kind of secular power, a kind of secular authority.

想要了解更多英国留学资讯或者需要英国代写，请关注51Due英国论文代写平台，51Due是一家专业的论文代写机构，专业辅导海外留学生的英文论文写作，主要业务有essay代写、paper代写、assignment代写。在这里，51Due致力于为留学生朋友提供高效优质的留学教育辅导服务，为广大留学生提升写作水平，帮助他们达成学业目标。如果您有essay代写需求，可以咨询我们的客服QQ：800020041。

51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。

[thefusedigital]

Why SEO is Important?Powerful Benefits for any business.

Talking about the term SEO comes up with the multiple things and thoughts in the mind, this concept is getting wider as the day reaches to the end having a proper SEO knowledge and skills is that vital for the business to get a potent growth, managing to adopt punchy SEO services is all it calls for cause this single term has the sovereignty to get your website between the rife searches. And this can happen only when it’s done in an appropriate way.

The FUSE Digital LLC an SEO Company austin manages to stand at the midpoint of the coveted and workable SEO services which are punchy, potent and discerning at the same time.Have procuring the viable sources for your projects is what we are here for and will always be, germinating the ideas and tactics is good enough at the initial stage but actually putting them in real calls for a sagacious suggestions and this is something we do for that matter, our subtle endeavor and consistent support ensures you to make you reach where you always wanted yourself to be.

Our SEO company chicago has attained quite prodigious projects and has set the benchmark in the arena of digital marketing, not only knowledge but keeping the goal to keep your client satisfied in mind is something which leads you to attain your objective that is something The FUSE Digital LLC Digital Marketing Agency Chicago believes in. Our clients and their conviction regarding our services drive us to keep our good work going and client satisfaction is all we toil for, we organize every project as if it’s our own and this manner of dedication make our client believe in us.

Why everyone doesn’t focus on SEO?

There is a specific reason that why do folks keep underestimating this concept, just because it doesn’t call for instant effectual it is a time-consuming procedure. It must be infrequent when it gives you prompt indications and upshots it calls for a specific period of time which not really considerable into the fixed figures, that actually depends upon how manifestly and fervently you are putting in your toil. Well if you’re consistently inclined towards the norm then you are surely gonna conferred with something which you were wishing to have in short per

[homedevises]

The 15 Steps Needed For Putting What Happened To The Garden Of Eden Into Action | what happened to the garden of eden

‘); } abroad { $(“.fotorama-caption”).addClass(“remove_caption”); } }) .fotorama();

Religion | Austin Macauley Publishers USA – what happened to the garden of eden | what happened to the garden of eden

What do Christians, Jews, and Muslims accept in common? The three apple monotheisms, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, all accept in the Genesis annual of creation; the aboriginal bodies in the Garden of Eden; and the abatement of altruism back Adam and Eve abandoned the Creator. The blow of the apple calls the Adam and Eve adventure a myth; not accordant with science on the actualization of the animal species.

Two naked people, a talking snake, and a bake-apple timberline with appropriate admiral — An analogy, a alpine tale, or a accurate adventure to appearance and acquaint how God’s accouchement accept the ability of acceptable and angry and disobeyed? But the body of the adventure focuses on animal abandon — the abandon to accomplish their own choice. But God additionally categorical the aftereffect of their best — death.

Enter the Bible, the Torah, the Quran.

Bible: The name for the complete 66 books in the Old Testament and the New Testament.

Torah: The Hebrew name accustomed to the bristles books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

What Happened To The Garden Of Eden – what happened to the garden of eden | what happened to the garden of eden

Quran: The axial religious argument of Islam, which Muslims accept to be a adumbration from God (Allah).

The Bible, the Torah, and the Quran accept that Jesus was Jewish, his disciplines were Jewish, and the bodies who initially followed them were Jewish. However, they alter on the character of Jesus.

Christians accept Jesus is God in animal anatomy — messiah, redeemer, saviour.

In Judaism, some attention Jesus as a Jewish teacher, a rabbi, while others see him as a apocryphal prophet.

For Islam, Muhammad was the architect of Islam and a prophet. “The Quran absolutely makes acknowledgment of Jesus, one of 26 prophets alleged in the Muslim angelic book,” according to an commodity in the Arab Weekly (www.thearabweekly.com/).

What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden?: And Rebuttal … – what happened to the garden of eden | what happened to the garden of eden

Enter a history of conflict, stifve, and religious wars.

The accompaniment of Israel was accustomed in 1948. The Israeli Occupation refers to the acreage captured during the 1967 war that abide beneath aggressive control, including the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, and Gaza.

The Israeli-Palestinian decades-old battle is ongoing. Israel is home to angelic sites for both Judaism and Islam. Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs both appetite the aforementioned allotment of land.

“Israelis and Palestinians are bent in what could be alleged a “cycle of denial”. The Palestinian civic movement denies Israel’s legitimacy, and Israel in about-face denies the Palestinians’ civic sovereignty. The aeon of abnegation has authentic this aggregate actuality back the conception of Israel 70 years ago,” according to a 2018 commodity in The Atlantic.

On December 6, 2017, US President Donald Trump recognised Jerusalem as the basic of Israel — an accident connected accessible by pro-Israel American Jews, the nation of Israel and evangelical Christians about the world. But Jerusalem is additionally angelic absolute acreage to Arabs and Muslims.

070527 David True Worship Psalm 15 Dale Wells – what happened to the garden of eden | what happened to the garden of eden

Christians remained the better religious accumulation in the apple in 2015, authoritative up about a third (31 per cent) of Earth’s 7.3 billion people, according to a Pew Research Center demographic analysis. “More babies were built-in to Christian mothers than to associates of any added adoration in contempo years, absorption Christianity’s connected cachet as the world’s better religious group,” according to a 2017 commodity on the Pew website (www.pewforum.org/).

Globally, Muslims accomplish up the second-largest religious group, with 1.8 billion people, or 24 per cent of the world’s population.

Judaism is the oldest of the world’s three abundant monotheistic religions (serving one God).

And Judaism, Islam, Christianity, all are acerb angry to the age-old burghal of Jerusalem. It was the basic of King David’s Israel in the Hebrew Bible, as able-bodied as the burghal area David’s son Solomon congenital his temple. According to the Quran, Jerusalem was the aftermost abode the Astrologer Muhammad visited afore he ascended to the blast and conversed with God. Palm Sunday, the Sunday afore Easter, is a anniversary of Jesus’s celebrating access into Jerusalem. Jesus was crucified at a atom alfresco Jerusalem alleged Golgotha.

Judaism, Islam, Christianity; the aforementioned alpha — what happened?

Become a Tree of Life: What really happened in the Garden … – what happened to the garden of eden | what happened to the garden of eden

Melissa Martin, PhD, is an author, columnist, educator, and therapist in the US. Send comments to the Observer or melissamcolumnist@gmail.com (http://bit.ly/2Q5y2kE)

The 15 Steps Needed For Putting What Happened To The Garden Of Eden Into Action | what happened to the garden of eden – what happened to the garden of eden | Welcome to help my personal website, with this time period I’m going to demonstrate concerning keyword. And from now on, this can be the 1st impression:

An Interview with Yossi Klein Halevi: On His Personal … – what happened to the garden of eden | what happened to the garden of eden

How about impression over? is usually which wonderful???. if you feel consequently, I’l d show you several image all over again below:

So, if you desire to receive the wonderful pictures about (The 15 Steps Needed For Putting What Happened To The Garden Of Eden Into Action | what happened to the garden of eden), click on save link to download these shots to your pc. There’re all set for down load, if you love and want to own it, just click save logo in the web page, and it’ll be instantly saved to your computer.} At last if you would like obtain unique and latest graphic related with (The 15 Steps Needed For Putting What Happened To The Garden Of Eden Into Action | what happened to the garden of eden), please follow us on google plus or save this page, we attempt our best to present you regular up-date with all new and fresh photos. Hope you like staying right here. For some up-dates and latest information about (The 15 Steps Needed For Putting What Happened To The Garden Of Eden Into Action | what happened to the garden of eden) images, please kindly follow us on twitter, path, Instagram and google plus, or you mark this page on book mark section, We try to offer you up grade regularly with fresh and new shots, love your surfing, and find the right for you.

Here you are at our website, articleabove (The 15 Steps Needed For Putting What Happened To The Garden Of Eden Into Action | what happened to the garden of eden) published .  At this time we’re excited to announce we have discovered an extremelyinteresting topicto be discussed, that is (The 15 Steps Needed For Putting What Happened To The Garden Of Eden Into Action | what happened to the garden of eden) Many people looking for info about(The 15 Steps Needed For Putting What Happened To The Garden Of Eden Into Action | what happened to the garden of eden) and of course one of these is you, is not it?

Adam and Eve – What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden – YouTube – what happened to the garden of eden | what happened to the garden of eden

Marshmallow Supernova: [Fiction] What Really Happened in the Garden … – what happened to the garden of eden | what happened to the garden of eden

Garden of Eden – Wikipedia – what happened to the garden of eden | what happened to the garden of eden

The Story of Adam and Eve in the Bible – Jewish History – what happened to the garden of eden | what happened to the garden of eden

Garden of Eden | Answers in Genesis – what happened to the garden of eden | what happened to the garden of eden

What Happened In The Garden Of Eden by Rev. Dr. G. Derek Neriah Paul … – what happened to the garden of eden | what happened to the garden of eden

Garden Eden (thegardeneden) on Pinterest – what happened to the garden of eden | what happened to the garden of eden

Did The Serpent In The Garden Of Eden Have Legs – Garden … – what happened to the garden of eden | what happened to the garden of eden

Jesus asked me to do something for him: Gods Punishment … – what happened to the garden of eden | what happened to the garden of eden

from WordPress https://gardeneden.club/the-15-steps-needed-for-putting-what-happened-to-the-garden-of-eden-into-action-what-happened-to-the-garden-of-eden/