Free Legal Essay Marking!

[jamonwindeyer]

Hey, was wondering if one of you guys could read my draft before its due on Monday and see where i can improve on

Hey Deng! Welcome to the forums, I'd be happy to provide some feedback! Essay is attached in the spoiler below with comments throughout:

Spoiler

Evaluate the effectiveness of the law in resolving conflict in family relationships


A family is defined as the fundamental group of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State” under the Family Law Act 1975(CTH)(FLA). The laws governing conflict within family relationships in Australia are relatively effective in terms of divorce and the legal consequences of separation. I'd like to see a more sophisticated opening than a definition of family (everyone does this). Perhaps instead talk about WHY conflict emerges in family relationships, thus leading into the necessity of the law in addressing it. The law is seen to be effective in these areas due to its ability to meet society’s needs, be accessible, protecting rights and resource efficient. In contrast, the laws governing domestic violence are ineffective due to the lack of enforceability.  Nice, succinct Thesis here and good integration of judgement with criteria, nice! I would try to integrate a list of what you will be discussing in each paragraph, just as a structural fix.

Laws governing divorce in Australia reflect society’s needs with the introduction of the ‘no-fault’ concept under the FLA. Try to make your judgement in each area apparent from the get go, it should be the focus of each topic sentence! The legal termination of marriage only requires parties to state that there is an irretrievable breakdown of marriage, removing the previous need for spousal blame under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1959 (CTH)(MCA). Remember that your marker knows about this content already, they don't need this info, they only want analysis! This law reform has proven to be effective as it improved the ease and accessibility of divorce, meaning couples were no longer trapped in unhappy or dangerous unions. It also meant custody arrangements were not affected on the grounds of one party being ‘at fault’. The effects of reform saw divorce rates in 1975 jump from 13,000 to 63,320 in 1976 . Excellent inclusion of a statistic to prove your evaluation, fabulous! The FLA also saw the creation of a “kiss and makeup” clause which allowed parties to reconcile without having to restart the 12 month waiting period before applying for a divorce. The clause advised couples to attend alternate dispute resolutions before attending court ensuring a better outcome for both parties and being more resource efficient. The reform of the MCA reflects the laws ability to meet society’s needs. Overall a very nice paragraph! I would trade some of the description of the laws for more analysis and evidence, the content does nothing for you. Make the judgement obvious in the conclusion!

The FLA effectively protects the rights of children in family conflict by placing the best interest of the child first. Better, included a judgement this time, nice!  The FLA(Sect 55A)(CTH) and the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006(CTH) reflects the FLA role through the creation of the Family Court. The Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) created the notion of shared parental responsibility which attempts to create meaningful relationships with both parents resolving conflicts surrounding children. Furthermore, the Court can issue parenting orders under the Family Law Reform Act 1995 (CTH) Section 60CA where the court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration . Again too much content and not enough judgement and analysis! This is demonstrated in in Harris v Harris(2009), where the mother requested the children live with her due to school, but under shared parental responsibility, the court issued a parenting order where the children would spend half the time at their fathers’. This reflects the laws effectiveness in resolving conflict between families surrounding children. Nice case inclusion, but again, try and shorten the case description and blend your judgement to make it one sentence. Succinct = Powerful. However, under the FLA SECT60CC  , the court has the ability to determine a child’s best interest where a meaningful relationship with both parents may not exist. This was demonstrated in Lewis v Wackett where the court did not make a parenting order of shared cared when one of the parents were seen as a risks to the child thus overriding the notion . Overall, the court’s ability to determine the best interest of the child depicts its effectiveness in resolving conflict. Another effective paragraph, and this one adds the judgement in the conclusion, you are proving your points quite well.

The Family Court has jurisdiction over property decisions under S.79 and S.75(2) of the FLA. Property is a reference to the financial aspects of a relationship which is a common cause of conflict. At the time of divorce both parties are given 12 months to settle any financial matters before the court will impose a decision. If a couple manages to reach a decision, they can have it enforced by the Court as a Consent Order. Replace those four sentences with an evaluative introduction, and then one brief sentence describing everything you just said. The marker knows what property is, knows about the 12 month cooling off period for divorce, etc. This is effective as it is resource efficient as it does not require court intervention. However, if a couple fails to reach an agreement, the court will split all assets 50/50 before taking into prior commitments such as financial position prior to marriage and contributions during marriage and future needs. Thus showing effectiveness/ineffectiveness? The court’s ability to settle conflict surrounding property is reflected in Morre v Moore(2008), where the husband alleged the wife had failed to put in commitment towards the family and marriage, being distracted by interests outside of the family resulting in a revision of the Consent Order. The court’s role in property disputes demonstrates its effectiveness through the enforceability of its decisions. This paragraph doesn't have a strong analysis or evaluation, it is mostly content. Definitely not to the same standard as the first two.

The Court is an expensive measure thus limiting its effectiveness. An SMH article, “Australia's most expensive divorce: Woman fights $10.5m legal bill”   demonstrates how expensive litigation is. The legal system has attempted to fix this through the creation of the Family Circuit Court and Family Relationship Centres. The FCC has the same jurisdiction as the Family Court but for lesser matters, whilst the FRC is a form of ADR. This is seen as an effective way the law has attempted to be resource efficient. The efficiency of the FRC is seen in SMH article “Savings in Family Law” shows that the FRC’s are resource efficient for every $1 is equal to $1.48 in court time as well as having more cooperation between parties. The law’s increase access for families to resolve conflict reflects its ability to meet society’s needs. I would like to see more evidence here, perhaps integrating some cases, it just seems very bare compared to the length of your other paragraphs? The evaluation however, is quite good!

In the area of domestic violence, the law has seen a decrease in its effectiveness in resolving conflict. Nice topic sentence! The creation of ADVO’s through the Crimes (Domestic Violence)Amendment Act (1982)(CTH) can be seen as an ineffective measure in resolving conflict. “Call for war on domestic violence as half of all AVO’s fail”  show that “in the year to last September courts issued 26,491 domestic AVOs. According to the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research figures, there were 11,788 or 44% breaches.” . The article also highlights the increasing level of domestic violence and the laws inability to resolve this as “At the end of the day an AVO is a piece of paper” . Absolutely fantastic analysis there, excellent! It works better without content description! There has been attempts to protect society through the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007(CTH), where police are now able to take out an AVO, making the recriminations against police rather than the victim. However, the statistics above show that an AVOS lack enforceability and the deterrent itself do not deter recidivism. This was seen in the recent Leila Alavi case where she was murdered despite an ADVO on her husband. Try to use the proper referencing style where possible. Thus, the lack of enforceability of ADVO’s demonstrates the laws ineffectiveness in resolving conflict surrounding domestic violence. This is a great, fantastic paragraph.

Australia’s laws can be seen as effective in resolving conflict in family relationships. However, due to the increasing number of domestic violence and the decreasing effectiveness of the legislation surrounding it, it limits the effectiveness. The law deals with divorce and the legal separation of marriage effectively and efficiently, however the price of litigation can deny some families access. Nice succinct conclusion, awesome!

This essay is absolutely fantastic Deng! Very very effective analysis in most sections (particularly your last paragraph) and good inclusion of judgement. Nice Intro and conclusion, good structure (though I'd like to see you set out the topics of your paragraph in the intro, and I think the "cost of courts" paragraph feels lacking and out of place).

The main improvement I would suggest is to remember that your marker is a Legal Studies teacher. They know the content. They know what legal terminology means. You do not need to define your terminology or go into detail about what a law covers. Your focus should be analysis and evaluation, you should NEVER mention anything without making some kind of judgement on it for a question like this. It won't contribute to your mark, and thus, it is wasted time 

On the whole, an absolutely fantastic essay! Read my comments throughout and let me know if anything needs clarification, good luck for tomorrow! 

[Deng]

I edited my property paragraph i guess but i still dont think i gave enough of an analysis and not sure what else to chuck in. Was wondering what could i add to make this paragraph up to par

The jurisdiction and power of the Family Court over property decisions are under S.79/S.75(2) of FLA illustrating the enforceability of the law in resolving conflict. Conflict surrounding property can either be settled in court or outside of court through ratifying a Consent order. A consent order can be seen as resource effective due to the reduction of court time thus effective. However, if a couple fails to reach an agreement, the court will split all assets 50/50 before taking into prior commitments such as financial position prior to marriage and contributions during marriage and future needs. Thus again showing the effectiveness of the law in resolving conflict surrounding property. The court’s ability to settle conflict surrounding property is reflected in Morre v Moore(2008), where the husband alleged the wife had failed to put in commitment towards the family and marriage, being distracted by interests outside of the family resulting in a revision of the Consent Order. The court’s role in property disputes demonstrates its effectiveness through the enforceability of its decisions.

Thanks

[jamonwindeyer]

I edited my property paragraph i guess but i still dont think i gave enough of an analysis and not sure what else to chuck in. Was wondering what could i add to make this paragraph up to par

Cool! Some brief comments:

Spoiler

The jurisdiction and power of the Family Court over property decisions are under S.79/S.75(2) of FLA illustrating the enforceability of the law in resolving conflict. This is good, but try and start with a more general statement of effectiveness. This topic sentence restricts you to discussing enforceability only. Conflict surrounding property can either be settled in court or outside of court through ratifying a Consent order. This is content description, unnecessary for marks! A consent order can be seen as resource effective due to the reduction of court time thus effective. Little iffy wording there, and, what is effective about it? However, if a couple fails to reach an agreement, the court will split all assets 50/50 before taking into prior commitments such as financial position prior to marriage and contributions during marriage and future needs. More content description, you can remove it! Thus again showing the effectiveness of the law in resolving conflict surrounding property. The court’s ability to settle conflict surrounding property is reflected in Morre v Moore(2008), where the husband alleged the wife had failed to put in commitment towards the family and marriage, being distracted by interests outside of the family resulting in a revision of the Consent Order. The court’s role in property disputes demonstrates its effectiveness through the enforceability of its decisions. You have discussed things besides enforceability.

This paragraph does need something more to sustain effective analysis. Perhaps look at including another case, or talk about how accessibility has been improved for property matters involving De Facto couples? The Property (Relationships) Act 1984 (NSW) would be worth discussing, for example. Do some experimenting with those ideas, just remember to focus on analysis! 

[Deng]

Should i just focus on the Property Relationships ACt? i had a part about it but i removed it because i was over the word limit

[jamonwindeyer]

Should i just focus on the Property Relationships ACt? i had a part about it but i removed it because i was over the word limit

Potentially! It's up to what you feel more comfortable discussing in that paragraph, there is definitely lots in that act 

[Deng]

I reworked my old paragraph but i cant seem to find any case/media articles on it

Constant law reform for same-sex relationships has seen increased effectiveness of the law in resolving conflict. The Property (Relationships) Act 1999(NSW) was reformed to allow same-sex couples to be considered de-facto giving them rights in regards to property division. Prior to this act, the surviving partner would have to lodge a claim under the Family Provisions Act 1982(NSW) as a dependant. This reflects the effectiveness of the law, as same-sex couples had the same access to the law as with heterosexual families. Furthermore, the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and other Measures) Act 2008(CTH) gave equality for same-sex couples under family law by allowing access to Courts for property settlement nationwide. The ability for same-sex couples to access Federal courts whilst disputing property matters highlights the increasing effectiveness of the law when dealing with conflict surrounding same-sex families. Thus the law can be perceived to be increasingly effective when dealing with property matters of same-sex couples.

Thanks

[jamonwindeyer]

I reworked my old paragraph but i cant seem to find any case/media articles on it

Constant law reform for same-sex relationships has seen increased effectiveness of the law in resolving conflict. The Property (Relationships) Act 1999(NSW) was reformed to allow same-sex couples to be considered de-facto giving them rights in regards to property division. Prior to this act, the surviving partner would have to lodge a claim under the Family Provisions Act 1982(NSW) as a dependant. This reflects the effectiveness of the law, as same-sex couples had the same access to the law as with heterosexual families. Furthermore, the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and other Measures) Act 2008(CTH) gave equality for same-sex couples under family law by allowing access to Courts for property settlement nationwide. The ability for same-sex couples to access Federal courts whilst disputing property matters highlights the increasing effectiveness of the law when dealing with conflict surrounding same-sex families. Thus the law can be perceived to be increasingly effective when dealing with property matters of same-sex couples.

Thanks

That paragraph works quite well! I think you could work on making your expression a little more succinct by removing some of the content, for example:

In recognition of same sex relationships, the Property (Relationships) Legislation Amendment Act 1999 was a vital improvement over the Family Provisions Act 1982 (NSW), allowing same sex couples the same rights as heterosexual de factos, thus...[/b]

This is only if the word limit is proving an issue for you, otherwise what you did works well  I think this paragraph is still a little lacking though, you'd need just a tiny bit more, perhaps address the Marriage Equality Issue? Otherwise, bring your property paragraph back and just used some of this stuff as an example? 

[Son of Thatcher]

Hello again guys!

I was just wondering whether you would be able to look at this essay sometime today. I don't mean to pressure you but it's due tomorrow and I would really like some feedback. Don't worry, if you guys are busy I totally understand - I shouldn't have left it to the last minute!

The question is on workplace law and is written inside the document. I know this sounds shallow but what I would particularly like to know is whether it is band 6 material. If not, what improvements could be made to make it so?

Thanks again!

[jamonwindeyer]

Hello again guys!

I was just wondering whether you would be able to look at this essay sometime today. I don't mean to pressure you but it's due tomorrow and I would really like some feedback. Don't worry, if you guys are busy I totally understand - I shouldn't have left it to the last minute!

The question is on workplace law and is written inside the document. I know this sounds shallow but what I would particularly like to know is whether it is band 6 material. If not, what improvements could be made to make it so?

Thanks again!

Hey Thatcher! No worries, I'll have a quick read now for you! I didn't do Workplace so my feedback might not be quite as useful as it could be, but I'll do my best! 

Spoiler

It is true to a significant extent that law reform has been, on balance, generally effective in addressing workplace discrimination, particularly over the preceding 40 years. I'd like to see a little sentence on exactly what law reform is in the area of workplace discrimination (responding to shifting social values and all that), just to give your argument a bit of context from the get go. Also, "on balance," sounds a little off there. Through domestic, international, common and statute law and in response to changing community values, law reform has revolved around a concerted effort to eliminate workplace discrimination, partial or unjust treatment of certain people based on particular attributes. Nevertheless, while gender and racial discrimination are where these efforts have been most prominent, law reform has been more effective in reducing other types of discrimination. I'd like a more conclusive judgement, like a, "Thus, on the whole, ..." Also a list of what your discussing in each paragraph would be a good inclusion! Besides that, excellent intro!

It is irrefutable that gender discrimination has been a key target of law reform, with partial success. Excellent! Internationally, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), proclaimed in 1948, was the first major effort in enunciating a common commitment to gender equality in the workplace. Under Article 23 which states ‘everyone, without any discrimination, has a right to equal pay for equal work’, the act was a clear example of international law reform, which although largely unenforceable, acted an an unequivocal guide for individual nations, particularly Australia, to legislate on in the future. A further, more targeted approach, this time, by the Commonwealth government was evident with the passage of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) which theoretically outlawed any direct discrimination on the basis of sex, including sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination. This is evident in Roberts v King (2009) where an apprentice hairdresser was verbally abused for seeking time off due to her pregnancy. As a result, the woman was awarded over $10 000 in damages, highlighting the efficacy of this act. Fantastic analysis, I'd like to see slightly more evaluation happening earlier on, you hint at the ineffectiveness of the UDHR (unenforceable), examine that specifically. On the other hand, although the act was effective in enshrining into statute law the government’s commitment to law reform, evidence illustrates that the act has failed to eliminate gender discrimination. I'd like to see a slightly more conclusive end to this paragraph before you jump into the negatives.

It has been discovered that despite being offered tentative protection under this act, women, who mainly experience gender discrimination, were still being treated unfavourably because of their gender (‘Discrimination Law Fails Pregnant Women Who Lose their Jobs’, 2016, The Conversation). This is further reinforced by a 2014 survey conducted by the Australian Human Rights Commission where over half of its respondents admitted to experiencing ‘some form of unfavourable treatment during pregnancy, maternity leave or on return’, with only 4% of respondents actually reporting this to a government body. Good inclusion of statistics here.. This has occurred despite being in total opposition the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals to ‘eliminate all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere’. Further, the extent of the gender discrimination would also seem to indicate that in recent years and despite initial success, the aforementioned act has largely been ineffective in providing the requisite legal mechanisms for those complaining of gender discrimination to feel as though they can be safely heard. Thus it is clear that law reform while initially successful, has been in recent years, partly ineffective and non-responsive in alleviating gender discrimination in the workplace. Fabulous argument, excellent work.

Furthermore, law reform has also focused on eliminating racial discrimination in the workplace, again with only some efficacy. The first major stride in attempting to address racial workplace discrimination was the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination which entered into force in 1969 and of which Australia is a signatory of. Little messy in wording in that last phrase. Although a largely symbolic gesture due to the convention’s lack of enforcement procedures, it was nonetheless an effective first step in demonstrating a global commitment to racial equality, especially in the workplace. Good. The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) introduced by the Whitlam government was the first manifestation of law reform dedicated to eliminating racial discrimination in the workplace, prohibiting the treatment of different people on the basis of membership to a particular cultural or ethnic group. Not that you need to take it out, but the "Whitlam government" bit is unnecessary, it won't do anything for your mark. Under sections 15 and 16 of the act, racial discrimination in the workplace with respect to employment and the advertising of employment respectively, was unequivocally banned. This act, reflecting a growing desire to recognise racial equality in all aspects of Australian society, was a moderately effective measure in tackling racial discrimination in the workplace, explicitly outlawing the practice and instituting punishments for violations. This principle of racial equality was upheld in Abdulrahman v Toll Pty Ltd (2006) where it was found that the plaintiff had been referred to as ‘Osama Bin laden’ while working at the company, Toll Express. As a consequence, the court ruled that racial discrimination had indeed occurred and the plaintiff was awarded damages of $25 000 plus court costs. Make a judgement of effectiveness for this case.

However, there is still nonetheless a high incidence of racial discrimination in the workplace, therefore highlighting the act’s partial ineffectiveness. A 2012 report by Balance Recruitment, found that of the 1 000 workers surveyed, 30% stated they had experienced racism firsthand in the workplace while a further 72% believed racism existed in their industry. This finding is therefore illustrative of a broader weakness in statute law to adequately deter racial discrimination in the workplace, further highlighting the act’s ineffectiveness. Hence, it is evident that law reform has been partly successful in reducing racial discrimination in the workplace. I feel like these paragraphs would benefit from being a little more succinct with your wording (perhaps removing some description of what the laws do, which is mostly unnecessary, you don't need more than a phrase or even half a phrase) and blending the positives and negatives together, integrating a little more.

Moreover, other forms of workplace discrimination have also been the subject of law reform, to much greater success. The Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) passed by the Wran government was the first meaningful stride aimed at eliminating all forms of discrimination including that of sexual orientation, age and disability. The act was therefore considerably effective in attempting to prohibit discrimination in the workplace, not only reflecting a change in community attitudes, but an attempt to guide them. This act also introduced the Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW, a statutory body designed to administer the act while promoting ‘equal opportunity principles’. This body is effective as a product of law reform in addressing workplace discrimination, chiefly due to it’s capacity to achieve justice by being able to reward up to $40 000 in compensation. I'd like to see something a little more clever here, this is just a description of its capability. Is it enforceable? Accessible? Nevertheless, although the act had been a mostly effective first step, its non-specific focus, extending well beyond the workplace and focusing on many types of discrimination, meant that it was partly ineffective. This is a little bit vague, how is targeting discrimination broadly ineffective? Try and give a specific example to back yourself up.

However, this weakness was addressed by subsequent legislation. This is evident in The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) which outlawed the discrimination of those because of their sexual preference, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), forbidding discrimination based on disability, whether it be physical or mental and the Age Discrimination Act 2004 (Cth) which made it illegal to force an employee to return due to age. Collectively, these acts are representative of the responsiveness of the legal system, specifically addressing several many types of discrimination, especially in the workplace and ensuring that there exists adequate legal protections. Thus, other forms of discrimination are an apt illustration of the effectiveness of law reform in addressing workplace discrimination. This type of broad analysis (listing a lot with little detail) is usually less effective, but you back it up elsewhere, so this works nicely. I'd still like to see a case inclusion in this section.

In summation, it is evidently clear that on the whole, law reform has been mostly effective in eliminating workplace discrimination, instituting many fundamental measures that essentially safeguard potential victims. Nevertheless, despite many years of trying, there remains areas in need of further reform. This conclusion needs a little more beef. Re-state the importance of law reform, go into the argument you have explored properly. the conclusion should be at least half as long as your Thesis (in my opinion).

Is this Band 6 material? I don't really like saying this sort of thing, I'm not a HSC marker and so take my opinion with several large grains of salt. However, yeah, I think you have a Band 6 essay here!! For me I'd say it is sitting in the low Band 6 range (keeping in mind I didn't study this Option), so fantastic work!!

To push yourself up further, it's mostly little things. Ensuring you have evaluation CONSTANTLY throughout the essay, a few little structural qualms, and maybe a few more bits of evidence (one more case in the final paragraphs would suit well, and perhaps some more media inclusion, reports and legislation/treaties are excellent), just to prove that you know your stuff to a exemplary level. To make room if you need to keep below a word count, you can drop back on exactly what each law does, remember the marker knows this content. You can mention the law, describe its intention with a single phrase, and move on, just about being a little more succinct in a few places (most of the time you are fantastic) 

That said, I'm totally nitpicking, this is a bloody fantastic essay and you should be super super proud of what you've done!! I'd be very surprised if this didn't score a Band 6 level result 

[Son of Thatcher]

Thanks so much for the prompt response and such detailed feedback! It really is appreciated!

[Jimmy Barnes]

This is a state sovereignty question I have done, but it is my first World Order essay ever and I am sure there are a bunch of areas that can be improved, would you be able to have a look over it and give me some basic pointers?

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated - BTW big thanks to the stall you guys had at the HSC expo earlier this day, it was a godsend

[jamonwindeyer]

This is a state sovereignty question I have done, but it is my first World Order essay ever and I am sure there are a bunch of areas that can be improved, would you be able to have a look over it and give me some basic pointers?

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated - BTW big thanks to the stall you guys had at the HSC expo earlier this day, it was a godsend

Hey Jimmy, welcome to the forums!! Thanks for coming to see us, we feel very loved 

Absolutely, essay is attached with comments throughout in bold! 

Spoiler

Examine the role of sovereignty in assisting or impeding situations that threaten peace and security.

As set out by the Montevideo Convention in 1933, Sovereignty refers to the authority held by nation states to create laws within their territorial jurisdiction and a state’s ability to make treaties with other states. State sovereignty, as addressed in Ban Ki Moon’s quote provided, is a fundamental principle of international order. However, as alluded to in this quote, state sovereignty is a double-edged sword and can be used to assist or impede situations worldwide that threaten peace and security, thus sovereignty is only somewhat successful in this pursuit. This assertion is exemplified through numerous world order situations, including the gradual disarmament of the US and USSR along with worldwide disarmament which assist peace, but are threatened by issues such as nuclear proliferation and testing in North Korea along with the inability to regulate nuclear armaments, as seen in Iran. Stellar introduction!! Not much I can recommend here, you could add one extra sentence to the end that is a bit more "conclusive," something like a, "Therefore, state sovereignty can be viewed as ______", or, "Thus, it becomes clear that _______." Just to wrap it up in a nice little bow.

State sovereignty has assisted in situations that threaten peace and security through the disarmament of nuclear weaponry between the US and USSR. State sovereignty gave both the superpowers of the US and the USSR the ability to do what they pleased; however due to bilateral treaties between the two such as START 1 (1991) (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) and SORT (2002) (Strategic Offence Reduction Treaty), both countries have reduced their nuclear arsenals since 1991 by exercising their sovereign right to enact these treaties. Due to the inherent nature of nuclear weapons, they threaten peace and security at an international level, therefore both superpower states not using their ‘sovereignty … as a wall’ allows for a higher degree of safety in the international community. Inherent may not be the best word choice there. These bilateral treaties between both the US and USSR have reduced the amount of nuclear weapons stockpiled in the countries, however a new initiative know as New START (2010) (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) aims to continue this nuclear disarmament between the US and the USSR, decreasing the remaining nuclear warheads down two-thirds of what they are currently. Be careful to be succinct, and non repetitious, you mentioned 'reduction of nuclear arsenals' twice. Expression is great in general, try making your statements even more succinct to make room for more evidence. Both states exercised state sovereignty to assist the current threat of the nuclear situation through their gradual nuclear disarmament. This is an excellent paragraph! Perhaps a little bit more evidence needed to really make it impressive, but it is quite a narrow focus in this part of the essay, so perhaps not, aha! What you are discussing here (as well as the fact that it is important for nation states to not use state sovereignty as a barrier to cooperation) is the idea that state sovereignty enables nation states to conduct negotiation and engage in bilateral treaty agreements, try and make this a little more clear, and perhaps even reference the part of the UN Charter that allows this.

Due to the nature of state sovereignty, it gives way for contingencies that impede situations that already threaten peace and security, as is the case in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea who use their state sovereignty as ‘a wall or a shield’ to allow for nuclear proliferation and testing. North Korea routinely exercises their state sovereignty, most notably in their continued testing of nuclear weapons after withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 1968. As detailed in this media article, “North Korea Withdraws From Nuclear Treaty” (The Guardian 2003). Link this into the next sentence. State sovereignty allows the DPRK to continue the construction of nuclear weapons, despite various attempts from the Security Council to dissuade them through resolutions such as S/RES/2094, which is ‘demanding that the DPRK immediately retract its announcement from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’. However, due to state sovereignty, the DPRK is able exercise their sovereign right to govern as they see fit, rendering both the treaty and resolution obsolete. To really take your essay far, try and abstract this evidence a bit, what does this specific situation regarding North Korea showing us about the limitations of state sovereignty? What effect does it have on international law? This proliferation of nuclear weapons is beginning to threaten peace and security, as depicted in the media article, “North Korea readying another nuclear bomb for test – Kim Jong Un” (The Guardian 2016) as the DPRK continually tests their atmospheric devices, causing unrest throughout the international community, as seen in “China Warns North Korea Nuclear Threat Is Rising” (2015), which emphasises the abuse of state sovereignty and the political will of the DPRK to ignore international laws.

The nuclear threat is currently a situation that threatens peace and security at an international level, therefore the persistent disarmament worldwide due to states exercising their state sovereignty and adhering to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 1968 is a testament to the crucial role state sovereignty plays in assisting situations that threaten peace and security. This treaty has reduced the current extent of nuclear weaponry worldwide as the treaty currently has 190 signatories. This could be expressed a little more clearly, maybe even just by adding "as evidenced by the 190 signatories." Just seems ever so slightly askew right now. This treaty ceased all nuclear weapon creation, in combination with the Comprehensive Treaty 1996 (CTBT), which bans all nuclear explosions in all environments. State sovereignty has yet again assisted in reducing the current nuclear situation that threatens peace and security as of the 182 signatories to the CTBT, 157 have ratified it. These 157 states that have ratified it have exercised their right to state sovereignty to assist in minimising the nuclear threat, as they don’t view their sovereignty as ‘a wall or a shield’. However, countries that aren’t signatories to the convention and haven’t ratified it, such as India, Pakistan and Israel, as seen in ‘India is Building A Top Secret Nuclear City To Produce Thermonuclear Weapons, Experts Say’ (Foreign Policy 2016), demonstrating the ability to negate internationally recognised conventions and impede situations that threaten peace and security as nation states aren’t required to become signatories due to their sovereignty. I'd break this last sentence into two parts, its quite loaded! Doing this will also give you a more definite conclusion to the paragraph; you should always have finished stating your last idea, then conclude separately to that (new sentence).

Another aspect of the sovereignty, which impedes situations that threaten peace and security is that it makes the regulations of armaments nigh impossible. Something feels a little strange about calling it "the sovereignty." This is exemplified in The International Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission’s report, Weapons of Terror: Freeing the World of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical arms” (2006), where the commission says that the Security Council has not achieved its role in creating ‘a system for the regulation of armaments’. State sovereignty makes this ‘system’ impossible to achieve, and any regulation causes disputes, as seen in ‘Downed US Drone: How Iran Caught The Beast’ (CS Monitor 2011), which depicts America’s encroachment into Iran’s jurisdiction to monitor their nuclear facilities through the use of a drone, which was hijacked by Iran. Another sentence that could do with a cut in half. Further, WHY does state sovereignty make the system impossible to achieve? Exactly what element causes the issue? Flesh your examination out just that little bit more. This incident has inflated tensions between the two states, as seen in ‘Iran Warns Further US Drone Invasions Will Trigger ‘Frightful’ Response Targeting US Bases Worldwide’ (Environmentalists Against War 2011), which highlights the inflamed relations between Iran and the US as Iran uses their sovereignty as ‘a wall’ and ‘a shield’ to protect from investigation into their speculated proliferation of nuclear armaments, further impeding the nuclear threat and threaten global peace and security. Again, try a conclusion that is completely separate from the ideas you are exploring, you should have a sentence at the end exclusively for concluding.

While the basal role of state sovereignty is the authority of a nation state to govern itself without interference, this role is often ineffective in the assistance of situations that threaten peace and security despite the odd situation where sovereignty proves useful in aiding situations that threaten peace and security. You definitely need a bit more meat in this conclusion. Mention what you've discussed, and the sorts of patterns that have arisen in your examination that lead you to the conclusion you have stated. Try and get 3-4 sentences in a conclusion so your argument is properly summarised.

This definitely doesn't LOOK like your first world order essay, in fact its really incredible! Brilliant argument that is sustained quite effectively throughout, although I would like to see you flesh out some conclusions about state sovereignty a little more effectively. Take the specific situation you are examining, and use it to draw some kind of conclusion about state sovereignty impedes/assists threatening situations AS A WHOLE. You do this in areas, but I'd like to see a little bit more of it.

Your LCTMR is fantastic; heaps of media articles, lots of treaties (cases are hard in World Order). Be careful (and this links to above), that you don't just use the media article to do the work for you. You need to give your own examination and analysis as well, for example:

State sovereignty makes this ‘system’ impossible to achieve, and any regulation causes disputes, as seen in ‘Downed US Drone: How Iran Caught The Beast’ (CS Monitor 2011), which depicts America’s encroachment into Iran’s jurisdiction to monitor their nuclear facilities through the use of a drone, which was hijacked by Iran.

Here, I'd like to see you examine WHY state sovereignty has caused an issue, be explicit with your examinations. As a side note, you also don't need to go into great detail with your media inclusions/case studies, a single phrase description is more than enough, the marker wants to see YOUR examination of the situation, not the general details.

You have an excellent structure, a few little qualms I had but nothing that urgent, mostly just little ways to add some cut and polish to the response.

On the whole, bloody brilliant, I don't have any "basic pointers" for you because you are spot on the right track! Scratch that, you are pretty much there already!

In addition, I would explore some other arguments that you can make in the essay; you focus quite heavily on nuclear weapons. That is cool, you have done it REALLY well, but there is a lot to discuss here (inter-state conflicts, international civil disputes and the International Court of Justice, extradition treaties (if you frame it correctly)). This may let you bring in new types of evidence and discuss state sovereignty in new ways. Totally not required, just an idea 

Great work Jimmy, this is a fantastic essay 

[Jimmy Barnes]

Thanks for the detailed response, I really appreciate it and have made a fair few changes for the better. I was wondering if you would be able to critique another essay of mine as I am having extreme difficulty in structuring a cohesive response to the question.

Any help would be appreciated whatsoever

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[jamonwindeyer]

Thanks for the detailed response, I really appreciate it and have made a fair few changes for the better. I was wondering if you would be able to critique another essay of mine as I am having extreme difficulty in structuring a cohesive response to the question.

Any help would be appreciated whatsoever

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Welcome back, great to hear!! Yep absolutely, it's attached below with some comments throughout!

Spoiler

Using at least 1 contemporary issue to demonstrate, evaluate the impact of changing values and ethical standards on world order, integrating the following quote:
“The United Nations has committed itself to moving from a culture of "reaction" to "prevention", to work Member States as well as civil society to pursue comprehensive strategies that address more immediate as well as deep-rooted structural causes of conflict.”

Changing values and ethical standards in regard to world order have had a prodigious impact on the success of global cooperation in achieving world order. Cool start! I'd like to see you elaborate on this a little more, likely integrating the above quote. This prodigious impact due to these changing values and standards however, has been both useful and detrimental, as seen in the UN’s involvement in East Timor, which has had variegated outcomes for the people of East Timor. Slightly messy wording at the start of this sentence. This intro definitely needs more 'meat' to it; list your arguments, elaborate on your points, and importantly, make your evaluation clear from the start.

The success of global cooperation in achieving world order has been increased due to changing values and ethical standards, as there is now a more contemporary focus on nearby countries addressing ‘immediate causes of conflict’. Great! This has been a new standard set by The World Summit in 2005 with the acceptance of R2P, however the East Timor conflict occurred half a decade previously, exemplifying that these changing values and ethical standards had been emerging before they were legislated. A slightly convoluted argument here, and remember to define the R2P abbreviation before you use it. This is exemplified through the UNSC’s issuing of S/RES/1264 which dictated that a force was to be sent into East Timor during the 1999 to deal with the conflict arising from pro-Indonesian militias. This resolution engendered the group known as INTERFET (International Force for East Timor), which won world wide appraise for its quelling of the violence, addressing ‘immediate causes of conflict’. This was reified by the ABC night transcript, ‘INTERFET Mission Draws To a Close’ (ABC 2000) which was released only months after the initial use of peacekeeping, exemplifying the success of global cooperation in achieving world order in East Timor through the UN, Australia and New Zealand, thus displaying the prodigious impact of addressing ‘immediate causes of conflict’. Nice inclusion of evidence and evaluation. After stopping the initial violence in East Timor, other issues were targeted, as explicitly stated in ‘East Timor Hailed a UN Success’ (The Australian 2012). These initial peacekeeping operations paved the path for East Timor’s reconstruction and recovery through global cooperation based around changing values and ethical standards regarding R2P. I think your evidence here is great, but the argument doesn't quite sit right with me. It seems you want to construct this argument around R2P, be sure to properly define the argument in that way, explain the principle, go that extra mile to really lay it out nicely.

Global cooperation has had great success through the immense impact elicited from the integration of changing values and ethical standards, such as addressing the fundamental issues affecting world order in East Timor. This can be seen through the cooperation of various countries in establishing East-Timor as an independent state after years of Indonesian occupation. I like that you are evaluating in your topic sentences, but I think what is throwing me about these arguments is, what ARE the changing values and standards you are referencing. That's what is missing for me. This was originally addressed by the UNSC who created S/RES/1246 which allowed for a ‘Ballot to Decide On Special Autonomy for East Timor’ which aimed to fix the ‘deep-rooted structural causes of conflict’ as it would allow the people to vote for an independent country, with over 78% voting for independence, creating pro-Indonesian violence. The initial violence was dealt with as stated in the previous paragraph, but afterwards various resolutions such as S/RES/1704 and S/RES/1867 were used to rebuild the country through extending UN operations based on reparations. This targeting of ‘deep-rooted structural causes of conflict’ was done through global cooperation, with Australia providing aid through police officers, millions of dollars, creating over 32000 jobs and supply aid and water to places of issue, as seen in “New Aid Strategy to Help East Timor” (The Age 2010). It is through this successful global cooperation that world order is achieved, as it has a monumental impact by integrating changing values and ethical standards by addressing the fundamental issues impeding world order.

Despite both these seemingly sanguine results from changing values and ethical standards revolving around a form of R2P and addressing fundamental issues, the global cooperation in East-Timor wasn’t an all-round success by any means. The formation of an International War Crimes Tribunal was used to prosecute the pro-Indonesian fuelled violence in East-Timor, however this was hailed as a failure despite convicting 84 mid-level Timorese leaders as the senior militia commanders fled to Indonesia, as stated to in ‘Evaluating the Timor-Leste Peace Operation” (Journal of International Peacekeeping 2010). Nice evidence linked to media, you never fail here. This failure to convict the senior leaders stemmed from a lack of global cooperation as Indonesia provided impunity and sanctuary for them, therefore the main instigators of the conflict were not convicted and due to a lack of global cooperation stemming from the changing values, they still remain unconvicted. Try to up the sophistication a tad where you can, be succinct, "Indonesia's provision of sanctuary for Timorese leaders is evidence of a lack of a global cooperation, thus demonstrating..." etc. The global cooperation in East-Timor has also come under scrutiny due to its ephemerality as outlined in the ICGs report, “No Time For Complacency” (ICG 2009), which states that there are still current problems and security threats within East-Timor despite UN and global cooperation attempting to ‘address deep-rooted structural causes of conflict’ as international security forces and Timorese police are at odds as the Timorese are beginning to condemn UN surveillance. Slightly too long on this sentence, again, keep working to improve your word choice to make your sentences more succinct. While global cooperation has attempted to aid East-Timor through its changing values and ethical standards, these effects are short lived and merely provide a temporary solution to current world order issues, being the violence and unrest in East-Timor. This paragraph doesn't quite have a well formed argument, try adding a conclusion to tie it together.

Despite the superficial success that occurred in East-Timor by addressing immediate and fundamental issues affecting world order, it was not entirely successful, as the global cooperation has caused further issues regarding world order due to various changing values and ethical standards. What changing standards? By ending the Indonesian occupation in East Timor, the Timor Gap Treaty 1989 was no longer in action, causing Australia to withdraw its recognition of maritime boundary jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, as seen in ‘Australia Holding Back East Timor’ (The Australian 2013). By withdrawing their recognition, Australia effectively doesn’t recognise that East Timor has the ability to draw an equidistant border between the nations, allowing Australia to profit from exploiting international law through the amassing of oil between East Timor and Australia. This indirect impact of changing values and ethical standards has created issues between Australia and East Timor which has disturbed world order, as seen in ‘East Timor-Australia Maritime Border To Be Negotiated Before United Nations After Protests’ (ABC 2016). The current unrest between nations is creating various political rivalries and is causing problems for world order as violence and protests are breaking out in East-Timor. I really like the more contemporary approach here, like a "This is happening now" style, really really awesome!! However, I'm not getting a direct evaluation here, be careful not to let an extensive amount of evidence justify recounts of legal facts and scenarios, you MUST be analysing and evaluating.

Global cooperation has both helped and hindered East-Timor in various aspects of their lives, ranging from political to economic. Try to make your conclusion more focused on the abstract issue, rather than the issue you have chosen. While the response to violence from various nations addressed both ‘immediate and deep-rooted structural causes of conflict’, this tranquillity is short-lived due to a violations in these changing values and ethical standards as countries such as Indonesia harbour criminals and Australia continues to exploit East-Timor for oil, leading to potential world order issues. Taking these facets of East-Timor’s history into consideration, changing values have had a prolific impact on world order, however not necessarily for the better. Try to finish with a definite judgement, YES EFFECTIVE, or NO NOT EFFECTIVE, or somewhere in between. This is the key to the response.

I had a bit of trouble "accessing" this essay as a reader, primarily because the argument didn't quite have all the dots connected. Try to extend your introduction and properly define the argument; define the "changing values" you frequently refer to, develop a strong foundation. Then, you might want to take two sentences instead of one to set up the argument in each paragraph, since you have so much to cover. I know you understand the argument, I can see it in the essay, it's purely extending your explanations to make everything a little clearer, right now its a tad vague.

Besides that, your evidence is excellent, but be careful to always analyse each piece of evidence you present. Give your evaluation, explain significance, etc, which you do quite well most of the time. You can be a little more succinct in areas, but on the whole your expression is quite effective. Well integrated evaluation, and the stimulus is frequently re-affirmed, which is fantastic! 

Let me know if you need a little help clearing up the argument. I'd wager you'll end up defining the changing values in terms of "Responsibility to Protect" as the emerging doctrine, which you would set up in the introduction. Or feel free to take it in another direction if you choose  great work!! 

[lb1493]

Hey I was wondering if you could please have a look at my essay and see if it is logical, also could you give it a mark out of 25? Be as harsh as you want, the more critique the better!! Also if you could let me know if my thesis is evident throughout because I never really know how to balance an argument or make it strong!! I know that none of the markers probably have done Indigenous but just from a general point of view please.

I haven't written an intro or conclusion yet just a thesis.
Thank you in advance

Compare the effectiveness of legal and non-legal measures in recognising the rights if indigenous peoples.

INTRO:

Thesis: In a holistic examination of the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples that legal and non-legal serve to promote it is irrefutably clear the legal measures have been of increasing effectiveness. Although, the non-legal measures, such as media and NGOS, that pulse beneath the surface of these legal measures, have been of great effectiveness.

1. SELF-DETERMINATION -> nature of colonisation prevents such a right being accessed /ACCESSIBILITY
In order for justice to be achieved for Indigenous peoples, it is pivotal that their right to self determination is recognised. Significantly, however, the primary document in which such a right is outlined, the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), fails to adequately cater to Indigenous people and the unique nature of their (land possession.) While Article 1 of the ICCPR states that the principle of ‘self-determination’ applies to all ‘peoples’, the exercise of such a right is undermined, as Indigenous people often do not fit the convention’s definition of ‘people’. Specifically, the ICCPR requires Indigenous groups to demonstrate distinct territorial boundaries. Due to the nature of colonisation, in which Indigenous land was ‘stolen’, proving such territory proves particularly challenging. ***QUOTE*** Thus, although international law makes tangible attempts in order ensure individuals’ rights to self-determination are recognised, Indigenous peoples’ efforts to access their legal rights to self-determination often prove futile; thereby highlighting the minimal effectiveness of legal measures in recognising the rights of Indigenous peoples. —> NOT RATIFIED IN ALL COUNTRIES - ineffectiveness as not legally binding - sami people, finland

2. Gender discrimination/cultural rights -> positive steps towards recognition of rights
Despite the exclusive nature of some international conventions, international legal measures have been of increasing effectiveness in responding to contemporary issues, such as gender discrimination and a loss of cultural rights; with consequently positive repercussions for Indigenous peoples’ rights. Specifically, the Human Rights Committee in the case of Sandra Lovelace v Canada, responded to a woman whose natural right to Indian status was stripped after marrying a non-Indian man of which was guided by the then Canadian Indian Act.The Human Rights Committee found such case was a violation of Articles 2(1), 3, 23(1) and (4), 26 and 27 of the ICCPR and additionally found it was gender discriminatory. Such a case represented an important step forward in eliminating gender discrimination in Canadian law for indigenous peoples and thus demonstrates the increasing effectiveness of international legal measures in recognising the rights of Indigenous peoples.

3. Australian NGOs/Media role in affecting parliamentary/constitutional change

In response to Indigenous peoples’ significant lack of rights, non-legal groups have been active in taking up the baton and rallying for reform; exemplified by Australian NGOs and the media, whose unyielding promotion of Indigenous land rights has seen the Federal Government take steps to respond appropriately. Specifically, Amnesty International Australia’s ‘Submission on Constitutional Recognition of ATSI Peoples’, recommending changes to the constitution, resulted in the Federal Government announcing a referendum to be held in 2017; a significant step towards a holistic recognition of Indigenous land rights, and justice for Indigenous Australians as a whole. Moreover, the media, (‘What Indigenous constitutional recognition means’, Explainer, 2014), has played a considerable role in ensuring the community is cognisant of the gravity of what Indigenous constitutional recognition means, both for Indigenous Australians, but also for society at large. Thus…

4. African NGOs/media achieving change in regards to biopiracy.
The effectiveness of non-legal groups in rallying for, and achieving, change is exemplified by the bio-piracy case of the African Hoodia Cactus, containing an appetite suppressant drug that was sold without consultation with the San Indigenous peoples, by the CSIR to Pfizer, an American pharmaceutical company. Specifically, the Western drug industry, attracted to the commercial possibilities of the Hoodia Cactus, patented the African drug; with significant repercussions for the Sans people, whose ’ancient knowledge (was) stolen’ (‘In Africa the Hoodia cactus keeps men alive. Now its secret is ‘stolen’ to make us thin’, 2001). Fortunately, recognising the denial of rights that occurred in this biopiracy case, the African media (example) exposed the exploitation of intellectual property. Moreover, the Working Group of Indigenous Minorities in Southern Africa (WIMSA) and Council for Scientific and Industrial Research in South Africa (CSIR) recognised the Sans’ Indigenous peoples’ cultural knowledge, mandating that the Sans people receive profits from CSIR for the sale of the Hoodia Cactus. Therefore, the critical role played by the African media and NGOs in protecting the rights of the Sans people underlines the effectiveness of non-legal groups in recognising the rights of Indigenous peoples.

5. Maori - parliamentary seats
Legal measures have been of increasing effectiveness in recognising cultural rights of Indigenous peoples, specifically of their native languages. Recognition of language for Indigenous people described by Roy Ah-See Chairman of Indigenous Land council is “who we are. It’s our identity, it’s country, it’s culture” thus evidently the recognition of language somewhat determines the holistic effectiveness of legal measures in recognising the rights of Indigenous peoples. The protection of culture, thus cultural rights, for Maori people is facilitated somewhat effectively by the Maori Language Act, which serves to recognise Maori as an official language of New Zealand. However, such pivotal political recognition has been fundamentally flawed as at a Waitangi Tribunal it was found the Crown had failed to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi obligations to protect language which “denied and suppressed the right of Maori to use their own language” (Maori Language Bill Amendment to acknowledge Crown “suppression” of “ter reo Maori”. Such denial of cultural rights highlights the limited effectiveness of some legal measures in recognising the rights of Indigenous peoples.