Free Legal Essay Marking!

[jamonwindeyer]

can someone help me with the protection of victims in the criminal justice system ??

Hey Tahmina! I have some notes available here which could help, any particular way I can be of help? 

[tahmina]

yes yes i really need help, in protecting the rights of victims in the criminal justice system - what would i include within a paragraph ??

[jamonwindeyer]

yes yes i really need help, in protecting the rights of victims in the criminal justice system - what would i include within a paragraph ??

There is heaps you could include, those notes have a few!

- Victim Impact Statements (considered during sentencing)
- Remand, which protects victims from recidivism
- Victim Rights Act 1996 (NSW)
- The Appeals Process, which increases the likelihood of rights being balanced correctly
- Post Sentencing Consideration: Victim Compensation
- Retributive sentencing rationale (that is, sentences designed to get "revenge" for the victim)

There are plenty of cases where the victim's rights have arguably not been protected to the fullest extent. There has been an increasing tendency in recent years for the offenders rights to be considered above the victims, R v Singh (2012) and R v Loveridge (2012) are the two I discussed in my HSC

[anotherworld2b]

Hello
I really need help with my report 
I don't have any idea on how to structure it or what I am supposed to write about

[jamonwindeyer]

Hello
I really need help with my report 
I don't have any idea on how to structure it or what I am supposed to write about

On the list another world! You've caught me on a busy half of the week, so it could be slower than normal, apologies in advance!

[anotherworld2b]

Thats okay
I appreciate you letting me now and your willingness to give me feedback for my report 

On the list another world! You've caught me on a busy half of the week, so it could be slower than normal, apologies in advance!

[elysepopplewell]

Thats okay
I appreciate you letting me now and your willingness to give me feedback for my report 

The electoral system isn't in our syllabus over here so I have to give a disclaimer that I'm not totally all over it! So I can't fact check all of your response for you. But, I can go through and comment on the analysis. I'll be giving you the same kind of perspective I'd give to a HSC work, except we don't usually do reports, so you'll have to take this with a grain of salt

In the spoiler:

Spoiler

Introduction
The purpose of this investigation is to compare and contrast the features of the electoral system used in the United States of America with the electoral system used in Australia. ‘Electoral systems are the mechanisms through which votes are counted and election results determined. They are the means of translating votes cast into seats in parliament (and thus of choosing the government).’ If this is a quote - be sure to use quotation marks and not apostrophes, and also footnote or cite in text where the quote has come from. At the moment, it's a cool quote because it explains what electoral systems are, but it doesn't have the weight it would if it were referenced. However, the electoral procedure of different electoral systems can vary between different countries such as between Australia and the United States of America. There are three types of electoral systems:

•   Majoritarian (plurality or majority) systems
•   Proportional (consensus) systems
•   Compromise models (eg. mixed member systems)

America USA uses first past the vote electoral system which is ‘A voting system in which the candidate with the largest number of votes is declared elected even if they receive less than half the votes cast.’ I'd identify which type of system this is according to the three you listed above. Right now it isn't completely clear. In contrast, Australia has a compromise electoral system that uses both the preferential and proportional electoral system for the House of representatives and the Senate respectively. Awesome!‘In a preferential system, the winner must gain an absolute majority (50% plus one vote) of the votes in an electorate.’ Australia also uses the proportional voting system is ‘A voting system based on multi-member electorates in which each successful candidate must achieve a quote- a fraction of the vote that reflects the number of positions to be filled from the electorate.’ This report will outline the features of the two systems, the differences, and similarities and will also explain some of the different views and opinions of each system. This report will also draw a conclusion to the effectiveness of each electoral system.

Role and place of political parties
One feature that is prevalent in both electoral systems is the role and place of political parties. ‘Political parties exist to represent the interests of different groups and individuals in society; their ultimate goal is to have members elected to represent these interests. Although the political systems in Australia and America are dominated by two major parties, Australia's Parliament contains a greater representation of minor parties and Independents.’ ‘Political parties aim to achieve representation in parliament’ by fulfilling several important functions: These quotes need to be referenced. Although, I tend to think think paraphrasing rather than using a direct quote could be useful here, because you've got two large quotes.

•   Parties allow for the peaceful expression of social conflict and political division.
•   Parties allow for political participation.
•   Parties control government in two senses.
•   Parties express alternate sets of values and translate these into the policies that are presented to the people in elections.

The fact that Australia and the America both have a two party system "The two party system in Australia and the USA allows..."allows the various similarities in regards to the role and place of political parties; major parties to be investigated in regards to the fulfillment of these functions.

Australia has two major parties which are the ‘Liberal Party of Australia and the Australian Labor Party.’ While in America the two major parties are the ‘Republican Party and the Democratic Party.’ No need to cup these in apostrophes.In both countries these ‘’two major parties dominate the legislature while independents constitute the minor membership of the legislature’.  Again with the quoting and sourcing.Independents have occasionally been elected; however, they often become associated with one of the two major parties in America verifying the disadvantage that the ‘two-party system could lead to partisanship.’

In a two-party system, ‘parties spend most of their time undermining the other group’ with ‘the possibility that it could result in unnecessary legislations being passed while the government works with less efficiency.’ This evidently questions ‘Fair’ representation of political parties and independents.
‘Whereas in countries where there are multiple parties, the winning candidates have to form a coalition with those who lost to effectively run the country.’ Some different views on this system include commentators seeing ‘the system as an instrument for maintaining the dominance of the two major parties’ by ‘restricting the role of minor parties in the lower house’. Along with the disadvantage that ‘the two-party system makes the people feel like they have no other choice’. In particular ‘In the United States, it is common to consider voting for a third-party a waste of vote, a disengagement from the normal political process and voting for people who don’t deserve to win.’ Hence, it is evident that from the similarities of a two-party system in the American and Australian electoral system the disadvantages and advantages can be investigated. This is a really good paragraph, it's filled with analysis. But, it seriously lacks in your own voice. Because it is so full of quotes, I can't be sure what is your analysis and what is your skill at gathering information. By all means, use a quote here and there to give weight to your argument. But right here, it appears to cover your own voice.

Funding of elections
In both electoral systems in Australia and America a successful campaign is necessary to gather votes to be elected. There are distinct difference between Australia and America in terms of where funds come from, how much is generally spent as well what the funds are actually used for. In Australia a way to gather electoral funding is through donations. ‘In Australia, parties and donors only need to declare donations above $12,800. That means any money below this amount is private.’ However this can evoke questions of where these donations go and the uneven distribution of donations between rival parties. This can ultimately influence the quality, impact and effect of a campaign to gather enough votes to be elected. An advantage of donations is that citizens can support their desired party however there are a few repercussions such as Donors exploiting differences in the system by using ‘associated entities’, there is no oversight for how the money is spent and the controversial topic of the privacy of donations. ‘During the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) investigation, which heard the majority of NSW donations to the Free Enterprise Foundation were from property developers, of which $700,000 was donated to the NSW campaign.’ ‘Australian elections are fought using a combination of private and public funds, according to Clem Macintyre’ view on the subject ’The bulk of the money comes in from donations," he said. These funds are considerably costly for both countries. In Australia the 2015 By-election – Canning cost an estimated $1 997 293 while the by-election – North Sydney cost an estimated $1 675 904.
‘They can be very large donations from corporations and unions. They can be small donations, they can be [from] fundraising quiz nights and the like. All political parties spend a lot of money on campaigning." In contrast, in America the cost of the congressional races were an estimated cost of $3,845,393 in 2014. I don't think this argument balances the comparison of Australia to USA well. It currently looks at Australia, and then one sentence for America. Considering weaving the two together for a more balanced report.

Voter eligibility
For an electoral system to be effective the eligibility and requirements of a voter is necessary in both countries. ‘Voter registration requirements are influenced by the design of the electoral system.’ In Australia ‘a  system which uses single-member districts usually requires that each voter be registered within the boundaries of a specified district.’ In Australia, voting is compulsory whereas in America voting is compulsory. This difference produces distinct differences in regards to how many people actually voted and the consequences of not voting. In Australia if you do not vote you will be fined. Be more specific here - it is compulsory over the age of 18 in Australia. It isn't compulsory for minors. If you can, why not link in to the Constitutional right to vote and also the right to vote as set out in International Human Rights documents? That way you're extending yourself in the report by taking it to the next level, rather than focusing domestically

Conclusion
The first past the vote and the compromise electoral systems are two different systems used in America and Australia respectively that display different advantages and disadvantages over similar aspects. Taking into the consideration the different views on the two electoral systems there are overall merits of each system. I'm not sure because I haven't had to write a report, but it's my assumption that this conclusion is too short. Two sentences doesn't really summarise the above. But, I could be wrong, and in fact the conclusion could be for the purpose of literally concluding rather than summarising. I'm not sure about this sorry!

You've done a lot of really good research here! Your arguments are well structured. In the HSC, I recommend bringing in International documents or Human Rights as much as possible because it extends your analysis from a legislation, domestic based approach. I'm not sure if this is something suggested in WA! Also, you've used a lot of quotes. So much so that often it is one after the other. Don't get me wrong, there's no doubt you've done your research! But, it clouds your own analysis. Using a correctly sourced quote here or there can work in your favour, but this appears to be deducting from your individual voice (particularly because the source of the quotes isn't referenced). I'd go back through the sections that are heavily quoted and consider paraphrasing a lot more, just to get your own voice out there, and you get to twist the words to link into one another better. I hope this has been helpful! Like I said, I don't know much about electoral systems or reports, but hopefully this has given you an idea of the next direction to go in

[anotherworld2b]

Hi I'm back I was wondering if could get feedback on what I have done so far.
I am a bit confused on how to fulfil these aspects that we get marks on and how well I've done it so far. I'm struggling with analysis in particular 
I have only been listing advantages and disadvantages at this point

- Presents a logical well-structured report that compares and contrasts the two electoral systems
- Analyses relevant features of the two systems
- Analyses the strengths and weaknesses of the two systems
- Makes a sound judgement about the merits of the two systems (taking differing views into account)
- Uses relevant examples relating to both systems
- Uses relevant political and legal terminology and concepts.

Could I please get a reply as soon as possible? My report is due friday and i'll need to print it out on Thursday

[elysepopplewell]

Hi I'm back I was wondering if could get feedback on what I have done so far.
I am a bit confused on how to fulfil these aspects that we get marks on and how well I've done it so far. I'm struggling with analysis in particular 
I have only been listing advantages and disadvantages at this point

- Presents a logical well-structured report that compares and contrasts the two electoral systems
- Analyses relevant features of the two systems
- Analyses the strengths and weaknesses of the two systems
- Makes a sound judgement about the merits of the two systems (taking differing views into account)
- Uses relevant examples relating to both systems
- Uses relevant political and legal terminology and concepts.

Could I please get a reply as soon as possible? My report is due friday and i'll need to print it out on Thursday

This looks great! If you're struggling with analysis, consider it like this.
You have to identify the subjects you're talking about, provide some details about them. Then go in and fill it out by providing pros and cons like you have, and then discuss the relationship between them. So go back through and connect the votes to the human right, the voters to the polls, the results to democracy, etc. So you're doing the right thing, it's just about making the relationships between everything really clear.

You're also still using a lot of quotes. Typically in academic work, it is best to put it into your own words and recognise the ideas through footnoting (as you have done). But right now, quotes are carrying your argument and its hard to make connections to your understand as opposed to someone else's.

[aoife98]

Hi I was hoping someone could read my world order essay. My marks haven't exceeded 23/25 even though I incorporated all my teachers feedback. What would improve it and make it flexible for the hsc?

Thanks!

Spoiler

World leaders converging in the United Nations building in New York City, pass a replica of Picasso’s Guernica painting, a poignant depiction of the horrors of war. The tapestries significance lies in the UN’s origins and their endeavour to ensure world order through peaceful means (UN Charter, 1945). International law has become a prominent force in achieving peace, relying on international cooperation and respect to maintain healthy relationships between nation states and significant bodies. This reveals the inherently contradictory structure of international law, relying on political will to achieve order.

The 2005 UN recognition of the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) was hailed as “the most significant adjustment to sovereignty” (Gilbert). A decade prior, a vicious civil war left 800,000 Rwandans dead in 3 months, with little international acknowledgement. The UN's attempted ceasefires were undermined by the Security Council (UNSC) lack of political will , preventing the peacekeeping mission from using force to protect civilians, rendering them ineffective (Swedish MP Carlsson). The mastermind behind the genocide had relied on a lack of international response, allowing them to escape justice until 2008 when the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda set a landmark in sentencing officer Bagosora to life imprisonment for crimes of war. Still, the impossibility of bringing each individual to justice emphasised the need to prevent this happening again. Addressing this failure, R2P attempted to reconcile the need to protect world order and state sovereignty.

R2P has since been criticised as a “rhetorical presence” lacking substance due to the UN's failure to apply it to Syria (Washington Post, 2015). Conflict in Syria developed in 2012 from hostilities between the dictatorial government of Assad and its opponents. International interventions failures has seen increasing involvement from neighbouring countries and violent militia groups, threatening the peace of the Middle East and further. Masses of evidence have been widely reported, alleging Assad’s violations of the conduct of hostilities including using chemical weapons, indicating non compliance with the Hague Convention, 1899 and Geneva Convention, 1949.

Despite international condemnation, prosecution is obstructed by the nations not being signatories to the Rome Statute. Thus they’re beyond the International Criminal Court's (ICC) jurisdiction, an intergovernmental body prosecuting individuals for international crimes. This reveals R2P flaws; its success relies on the motivations of those charged with its implementation. The ICC may only review cases referred from the UNSC and has limited ability to enforce rulings, revealing a need for reform. This manifested in the ICC failed attempt to meet R2P by prosecuting Sudanese President Hassan for genocide. The court's failure undermined its authority, as have political divisions within the UNSC. Russia and China have vetoed Syrian referral to the ICC, highlighting UNSC inequality and the need for cooperation in achieving world order (SMH, 2011).

The most significant other attempt was the Syrian Peace Process backed by the Arab League. Coordinated by a UN envoy, the Annan Plan 2012 initiated political negotiations. However it failed due to a lack of resources and “passive rules of engagement” authorised for the Monitoring Mission, paralleling Rwanda. Bilateral sanctions and political isolation of the state have also proved largely ineffective.

Meanwhile, extremist militant group ISIS began establishing a caliphate in Syria, threatening regional security. In 2015, a coalition of nations including Australia launched a Syrian airstrike targeting these terrorist groups, employing force to deter and protect. Whilst uniting to protect world order shows a degree of successful cooperation, the airstrikes disregard the conduct of hostilities allowed by the UN Charter only when sanctioned by the UNSC or for self defence. Similarly, conversation at 2015 G20 summit surrounded the deployment of peacekeepers in a buffer zone, revealing increasing cooperation to resolve conflict (ABC News, 2015).

Alternatively, Amnesty International has strived to restore peace through negotiations and campaigns, releasing media statements on human rights abuses. The NGO aims to persuade the international community to take more definitive action, calling specifically for an embargo against arm transfers to Syria. The Red Cross have also issued calls for the “immediate and simultaneous” (Gasser) lifting of sieges to allow humanitarian aid to over 400,000 people. The complex nature of this conflict has revealed systemic flaws which may only be overcome by reform or political will. While current measures have produced little success, the commitment of nations to cooperating suggests hope for conflict resolution.

Since the 1945 detonation of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima, the greatest threat to global security is posed by weapons of mass destruction, with over 16,000 nuclear weapons distributed amongst just 9 nations. While the UN condemned the use of nuclear weapons in war, it wasn’t realised until NATO persuaded nations to sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) 1968. In 2003 Britain, USA and Australia, fearing the UN were ineffective, undermined calls for peace by invading Iraq on the basis of WMD. The 2016 Chilcot Report since revealed military action was unnecessary, revealing a lack of compliance and lack of commitment to world order. (SMH 2016)

In 1991, the UNSC persuaded Iraq to dismantle all nuclear weapons but was not effective until 2002, when Iraq submitted to weapons inspections. This was similarly demonstrated by US President Obama’s successful negotiation with Iran, exchanging weapons inspections for the lifting of sanctions (BBC, 2015). These demonstrate the continued international commitment to peace. As negotiations continue, including the 1983 bilateral SORT treaty between USA and USSR, nuclear stockpiles have been greatly reduced, although many are not disabled. A single weapon can cause significant damage, demanding further reform, such as the Australian International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). ICAN is likely to achieve their goal of a UN treaty which abolishes the possession of nuclear weapons, with reports of a conference in 2017. Thus, the success of global cooperation is evident as having lessened the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction.

North Korean violations of the conduct of hostilities through the detonation of nuclear weapons over recent years has earned it significant global condemnation for the threat it poses to global security (SMH, 2016). After withdrawing from the NPT in 2003, the General Assembly and UNSC isolated the state, placing trade sanctions to coerce cooperation. These were largely ineffective against the state which continues to violate UN resolutions and Geneva Conventions, using state sovereignty to refuse international intervention. In order to protect regional security, South Korea and America have discussed deploying a deterrent mission, ignoring UN rulings and ironically threatening peace. Whilst non legal measures have been more effective, the problem will remain ongoing until all weapons are dismantled.

The commitment of the broader international community to maintaining world peace is evident as a significant success of the system. A variety of mechanisms exist through various organs with the sole intention of protecting humanity. However the complex nature of modern conflict requires mass cooperation to resolve. Thus the effectiveness of mechanisms varies, affected by the political motivations of states, and the nature of state sovereignty. Despite some failures, the proven willingness of nations to cooperate and the recognition of the global responsibility to protect reveals an unprecedented potential for world order. 

Moderator Edit: Added a spoiler

[melprocrastinator]

Hey, this is a Family Law essay i wrote quite a while back on Surrogacy and birth technologies. I would really appreciate the feedback. I know i sometimes write more simply than others, but hopefully my work still shows sophistication. Also the idea of posting my essay for eveyone to see terrifies me, since the essays ive skim read so far, sound so good.
But dont let that stop you from being harsh... i promise not to cry too much 

[jamonwindeyer]

Hi I was hoping someone could read my world order essay. My marks haven't exceeded 23/25 even though I incorporated all my teachers feedback. What would improve it and make it flexible for the hsc?

Thanks!

Hey there! Definitely can give your essay a read, I'll do my best to help you get you that 25/25 your essay is attached with feedback throughout in bold!!

Spoiler

World leaders converging in the United Nations building in New York City, pass a replica of Picasso’s Guernica painting, a poignant depiction of the horrors of war. Very interesting first sentence. The tapestries significance lies in the UN’s origins and their endeavour to ensure world order through peaceful means (UN Charter, 1945). International law has become a prominent force in achieving peace, relying on international cooperation and respect to maintain healthy relationships between nation states and significant bodies. This reveals the inherently contradictory structure of international law, relying on political will to achieve order. Overall, this is a solid (and definitely engaging) introduction. Be careful your less than typical approach doesn't detract from the purpose of the introduction: To set out your argument. I'm not getting much of an OPINION here, ensure you develop one when responding to a question. Further, try setting out what your paragraphs will cover in your intro to orient the reader.

The 2005 UN recognition of the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) was hailed as “the most significant adjustment to sovereignty” (Gilbert). A decade prior, a vicious civil war left 800,000 Rwandans dead in 3 months, with little international acknowledgement. Again, this introductory sentence(s) isn't really developing an opinion, or an analytical position. I'm looking for you to make it clear where you stand on the UN R2P; how effective is it? The UN's attempted ceasefires were undermined by the Security Council (UNSC) lack of political will , preventing the peacekeeping mission from using force to protect civilians, rendering them ineffective (Swedish MP Carlsson). The mastermind behind the genocide had relied on a lack of international response, allowing them to escape justice until 2008 when the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda set a landmark in sentencing officer Bagosora to life imprisonment for crimes of war. Try to approach this information a little more analytically; right now you are siting on a more retell-driven style of delivery. Still, the impossibility of bringing each individual to justice emphasised the need to prevent this happening again. Addressing this failure, R2P attempted to reconcile the need to protect world order and state sovereignty. So reading this whole paragraph, it reads like a historical context paragraph. Not much analysis, just facts and a bit of recount. It works, but there are better ways to use your words to actually analyse situations and draw your own conclusions about the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of legal mechanisms.

R2P has since been criticised as a “rhetorical presence” lacking substance due to the UN's failure to apply it to Syria (Washington Post, 2015). Like your inclusion of quotes/media references, very effective way to present popular opinion. Conflict in Syria developed in 2012 from hostilities between the dictatorial government of Assad and its opponents. Still recounting here. International interventions failures has seen increasing involvement from neighbouring countries and violent militia groups, threatening the peace of the Middle East and further. Masses of evidence have been widely reported, alleging Assad’s violations of the conduct of hostilities including using chemical weapons, indicating non compliance with the Hague Convention, 1899 and Geneva Convention, 1949. Good laws to mention, but what does this demonstrate to you about the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of R2P? I'm looking for more conventional: This evidence shows that R2P is ineffective, this evidence shows it actually is somewhat effective, etc etc. You aren't evaluating/analysing, you are recounting, with little bits of analysis sneaking in.

Despite international condemnation, prosecution is obstructed by the nations not being signatories to the Rome Statute. Thus they’re beyond the International Criminal Court's (ICC) jurisdiction, an intergovernmental body prosecuting individuals for international crimes. This reveals R2P flaws; its success relies on the motivations of those charged with its implementation. Good. The ICC may only review cases referred from the UNSC and has limited ability to enforce rulings, revealing a need for reform. This manifested in the ICC failed attempt to meet R2P by prosecuting Sudanese President Hassan for genocide. This is better; I'd love to see this sort of analysis developed further with a more typical paragraph structure. The court's failure undermined its authority, as have political divisions within the UNSC. Russia and China have vetoed Syrian referral to the ICC, highlighting UNSC inequality and the need for cooperation in achieving world order (SMH, 2011).

The most significant other attempt was the Syrian Peace Process backed by the Arab League. Coordinated by a UN envoy, the Annan Plan 2012 initiated political negotiations. Recount. However it failed due to a lack of resources and “passive rules of engagement” authorised for the Monitoring Mission, paralleling Rwanda. Bilateral sanctions and political isolation of the state have also proved largely ineffective. This paragraph adds nothing to your argument; you have already proved this point. Move on to new things!

Meanwhile, extremist militant group ISIS began establishing a caliphate in Syria, threatening regional security. In 2015, a coalition of nations including Australia launched a Syrian airstrike targeting these terrorist groups, employing force to deter and protect. Recounting. Whilst uniting to protect world order shows a degree of successful cooperation, the airstrikes disregard the conduct of hostilities allowed by the UN Charter only when sanctioned by the UNSC or for self defence. Tell me more? Similarly, conversation at 2015 G20 summit surrounded the deployment of peacekeepers in a buffer zone, revealing increasing cooperation to resolve conflict (ABC News, 2015).

Alternatively, Amnesty International has strived to restore peace through negotiations and campaigns, releasing media statements on human rights abuses. The NGO aims to persuade the international community to take more definitive action, calling specifically for an embargo against arm transfers to Syria. The Red Cross have also issued calls for the “immediate and simultaneous” (Gasser) lifting of sieges to allow humanitarian aid to over 400,000 people. The complex nature of this conflict has revealed systemic flaws which may only be overcome by reform or political will. While current measures have produced little success, the commitment of nations to cooperating suggests hope for conflict resolution. I like that you are mentioning NGO's, it adds depth to the typical UN dominated World Order essay, but you still need to be evaluating! Don't just tell me WHAT they do, tell me HOW WELL it addresses world order issues!

Since the 1945 detonation of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima, the greatest threat to global security is posed by weapons of mass destruction, with over 16,000 nuclear weapons distributed amongst just 9 nations. While the UN condemned the use of nuclear weapons in war, it wasn’t realised until NATO persuaded nations to sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) 1968. In 2003 Britain, USA and Australia, fearing the UN were ineffective, undermined calls for peace by invading Iraq on the basis of WMD. The 2016 Chilcot Report since revealed military action was unnecessary, revealing a lack of compliance and lack of commitment to world order. (SMH 2016) My fear with this short paragraph structure is that you aren't committing to a viewpoint or analysis; these feel like extracts from multiple essays (see below).

In 1991, the UNSC persuaded Iraq to dismantle all nuclear weapons but was not effective until 2002, when Iraq submitted to weapons inspections. This was similarly demonstrated by US President Obama’s successful negotiation with Iran, exchanging weapons inspections for the lifting of sanctions (BBC, 2015). Recount. These demonstrate the continued international commitment to peace. As negotiations continue, including the 1983 bilateral SORT treaty between USA and USSR, nuclear stockpiles have been greatly reduced, although many are not disabled. A single weapon can cause significant damage, demanding further reform, such as the Australian International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). ICAN is likely to achieve their goal of a UN treaty which abolishes the possession of nuclear weapons, with reports of a conference in 2017. Thus, the success of global cooperation is evident as having lessened the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction. This is a better conclusive sentence.

North Korean violations of the conduct of hostilities through the detonation of nuclear weapons over recent years has earned it significant global condemnation for the threat it poses to global security (SMH, 2016). After withdrawing from the NPT in 2003, the General Assembly and UNSC isolated the state, placing trade sanctions to coerce cooperation. These were largely ineffective against the state which continues to violate UN resolutions and Geneva Conventions, using state sovereignty to refuse international intervention. In order to protect regional security, South Korea and America have discussed deploying a deterrent mission, ignoring UN rulings and ironically threatening peace. Whilst non legal measures have been more effective, the problem will remain ongoing until all weapons are dismantled.

The commitment of the broader international community to maintaining world peace is evident as a significant success of the system. A variety of mechanisms exist through various organs with the sole intention of protecting humanity. However the complex nature of modern conflict requires mass cooperation to resolve. Thus the effectiveness of mechanisms varies, affected by the political motivations of states, and the nature of state sovereignty. Despite some failures, the proven willingness of nations to cooperate and the recognition of the global responsibility to protect reveals an unprecedented potential for world order. 

Not too many comments throughout actually, because most of my comments are over-arching and apply to your essay as a whole rather than individual sections!

First of all, your writing style is fabulous. You've got a lot of flair here; you are clear and sophisticated, and demand attention where attention is due. That's fantastic. You also clearly have excellent content knowledge, you have a lot of case studies and examples, and I love your inclusion of media references. Excellent on all those fronts

My concerns with this essay are two fold. First, your structure. You have a very atypical structure, characterised by very short paragraphs covering a broad range of world order issues and ideas. My concern with this is that none of your ideas are fully developed. Your essay is, for lack of a better way to express it, a bit all over the place. I don't have a logical train of thought because you are jumping between your ideas so quickly, without proper introduction and conclusion, and without linking what you discuss to a greater idea.

Because you have so many ideas, and because few of them are linked to any kind of central idea: This essay reads more like a set of excerpts from different world order essays than a single, cohesive, body of writing.

I would recommend you try to use fewer, but longer, paragraphs that fully flesh out your ideas! Something like: Responsibility to Protect, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and NGO's, could work well (but it would be difficult for you to link them under a central idea). You also need to work on properly introducing your concept by linking it to the grander concept, and then concluding appropriately.

EG: The UN General Assembly, as an international forum for the discussion of contemporary issues that threaten world order, acts as an effective mechanism for the promotion of international cooperation. Thus, though not directly an enforceable mechanism, it arguably protects world order more effectively than the UNSC.

See how that sentence (setting up a paragraph on the UN General Assembly) links to a broader picture (international cooperation), and sets up a perspective. THEN, I prove that perspective with evidence. Then, I conclude:

Thus, it is clear how the promotion of discussion in the General Assembly effectively fosters international cooperation and protects world order.

There would be a solid paragraph between that intro and conclusion: And it would be analytical. Which leads me to my next concern; you are recounting more than analysing. Yes, analysis comes into it, and it's effective, but the focus of your response is more on what has happened in these situations, rather than how they demonstrate effectiveness/ineffectiveness in the area of world order. At least, that's how it reads, that is partially because your topic sentences don't set up an analytical viewpoint. They just state what happened, not set up a perspective.

Take out the details of your contemporary situations/issues, they aren't important. More important is things about laws/treaties, and an analysis of their effectiveness. Good or bad? Why is it good/bad? What is your evidence?

Don't get me wrong, you know your shit. I know you know your shit, that is obvious. But you just aren't quite approaching this in the most effective way. Now I'm not saying you need to write the same essay that everyone else is writing; I like that you add some flair. However, these more typical 3-paragraph structures and typical Thesis statements exist because they are effective. Try doing some longer paragraphs and exploring your ideas in more depth; less recounting of historical details, more of your evaluation of effectiveness.

I hope this helps!! Definitely let me know if you need anything clarified

[jamonwindeyer]

Hey, this is a Family Law essay i wrote quite a while back on Surrogacy and birth technologies. I would really appreciate the feedback. I know i sometimes write more simply than others, but hopefully my work still shows sophistication. Also the idea of posting my essay for eveyone to see terrifies me, since the essays ive skim read so far, sound so good.
But dont let that stop you from being harsh... i promise not to cry too much 

Your essay should be marked tonight Mel! Or if not, tomorrow morning!

[aoife98]

Hey there! Definitely can give your essay a read, I'll do my best to help you get you that 25/25 your essay is attached with feedback throughout in bold!!

Spoiler

World leaders converging in the United Nations building in New York City, pass a replica of Picasso’s Guernica painting, a poignant depiction of the horrors of war. Very interesting first sentence. The tapestries significance lies in the UN’s origins and their endeavour to ensure world order through peaceful means (UN Charter, 1945). International law has become a prominent force in achieving peace, relying on international cooperation and respect to maintain healthy relationships between nation states and significant bodies. This reveals the inherently contradictory structure of international law, relying on political will to achieve order. Overall, this is a solid (and definitely engaging) introduction. Be careful your less than typical approach doesn't detract from the purpose of the introduction: To set out your argument. I'm not getting much of an OPINION here, ensure you develop one when responding to a question. Further, try setting out what your paragraphs will cover in your intro to orient the reader.

The 2005 UN recognition of the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) was hailed as “the most significant adjustment to sovereignty” (Gilbert). A decade prior, a vicious civil war left 800,000 Rwandans dead in 3 months, with little international acknowledgement. Again, this introductory sentence(s) isn't really developing an opinion, or an analytical position. I'm looking for you to make it clear where you stand on the UN R2P; how effective is it? The UN's attempted ceasefires were undermined by the Security Council (UNSC) lack of political will , preventing the peacekeeping mission from using force to protect civilians, rendering them ineffective (Swedish MP Carlsson). The mastermind behind the genocide had relied on a lack of international response, allowing them to escape justice until 2008 when the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda set a landmark in sentencing officer Bagosora to life imprisonment for crimes of war. Try to approach this information a little more analytically; right now you are siting on a more retell-driven style of delivery. Still, the impossibility of bringing each individual to justice emphasised the need to prevent this happening again. Addressing this failure, R2P attempted to reconcile the need to protect world order and state sovereignty. So reading this whole paragraph, it reads like a historical context paragraph. Not much analysis, just facts and a bit of recount. It works, but there are better ways to use your words to actually analyse situations and draw your own conclusions about the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of legal mechanisms.

R2P has since been criticised as a “rhetorical presence” lacking substance due to the UN's failure to apply it to Syria (Washington Post, 2015). Like your inclusion of quotes/media references, very effective way to present popular opinion. Conflict in Syria developed in 2012 from hostilities between the dictatorial government of Assad and its opponents. Still recounting here. International interventions failures has seen increasing involvement from neighbouring countries and violent militia groups, threatening the peace of the Middle East and further. Masses of evidence have been widely reported, alleging Assad’s violations of the conduct of hostilities including using chemical weapons, indicating non compliance with the Hague Convention, 1899 and Geneva Convention, 1949. Good laws to mention, but what does this demonstrate to you about the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of R2P? I'm looking for more conventional: This evidence shows that R2P is ineffective, this evidence shows it actually is somewhat effective, etc etc. You aren't evaluating/analysing, you are recounting, with little bits of analysis sneaking in.

Despite international condemnation, prosecution is obstructed by the nations not being signatories to the Rome Statute. Thus they’re beyond the International Criminal Court's (ICC) jurisdiction, an intergovernmental body prosecuting individuals for international crimes. This reveals R2P flaws; its success relies on the motivations of those charged with its implementation. Good. The ICC may only review cases referred from the UNSC and has limited ability to enforce rulings, revealing a need for reform. This manifested in the ICC failed attempt to meet R2P by prosecuting Sudanese President Hassan for genocide. This is better; I'd love to see this sort of analysis developed further with a more typical paragraph structure. The court's failure undermined its authority, as have political divisions within the UNSC. Russia and China have vetoed Syrian referral to the ICC, highlighting UNSC inequality and the need for cooperation in achieving world order (SMH, 2011).

The most significant other attempt was the Syrian Peace Process backed by the Arab League. Coordinated by a UN envoy, the Annan Plan 2012 initiated political negotiations. Recount. However it failed due to a lack of resources and “passive rules of engagement” authorised for the Monitoring Mission, paralleling Rwanda. Bilateral sanctions and political isolation of the state have also proved largely ineffective. This paragraph adds nothing to your argument; you have already proved this point. Move on to new things!

Meanwhile, extremist militant group ISIS began establishing a caliphate in Syria, threatening regional security. In 2015, a coalition of nations including Australia launched a Syrian airstrike targeting these terrorist groups, employing force to deter and protect. Recounting. Whilst uniting to protect world order shows a degree of successful cooperation, the airstrikes disregard the conduct of hostilities allowed by the UN Charter only when sanctioned by the UNSC or for self defence. Tell me more? Similarly, conversation at 2015 G20 summit surrounded the deployment of peacekeepers in a buffer zone, revealing increasing cooperation to resolve conflict (ABC News, 2015).

Alternatively, Amnesty International has strived to restore peace through negotiations and campaigns, releasing media statements on human rights abuses. The NGO aims to persuade the international community to take more definitive action, calling specifically for an embargo against arm transfers to Syria. The Red Cross have also issued calls for the “immediate and simultaneous” (Gasser) lifting of sieges to allow humanitarian aid to over 400,000 people. The complex nature of this conflict has revealed systemic flaws which may only be overcome by reform or political will. While current measures have produced little success, the commitment of nations to cooperating suggests hope for conflict resolution. I like that you are mentioning NGO's, it adds depth to the typical UN dominated World Order essay, but you still need to be evaluating! Don't just tell me WHAT they do, tell me HOW WELL it addresses world order issues!

Since the 1945 detonation of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima, the greatest threat to global security is posed by weapons of mass destruction, with over 16,000 nuclear weapons distributed amongst just 9 nations. While the UN condemned the use of nuclear weapons in war, it wasn’t realised until NATO persuaded nations to sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) 1968. In 2003 Britain, USA and Australia, fearing the UN were ineffective, undermined calls for peace by invading Iraq on the basis of WMD. The 2016 Chilcot Report since revealed military action was unnecessary, revealing a lack of compliance and lack of commitment to world order. (SMH 2016) My fear with this short paragraph structure is that you aren't committing to a viewpoint or analysis; these feel like extracts from multiple essays (see below).

In 1991, the UNSC persuaded Iraq to dismantle all nuclear weapons but was not effective until 2002, when Iraq submitted to weapons inspections. This was similarly demonstrated by US President Obama’s successful negotiation with Iran, exchanging weapons inspections for the lifting of sanctions (BBC, 2015). Recount. These demonstrate the continued international commitment to peace. As negotiations continue, including the 1983 bilateral SORT treaty between USA and USSR, nuclear stockpiles have been greatly reduced, although many are not disabled. A single weapon can cause significant damage, demanding further reform, such as the Australian International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). ICAN is likely to achieve their goal of a UN treaty which abolishes the possession of nuclear weapons, with reports of a conference in 2017. Thus, the success of global cooperation is evident as having lessened the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction. This is a better conclusive sentence.

North Korean violations of the conduct of hostilities through the detonation of nuclear weapons over recent years has earned it significant global condemnation for the threat it poses to global security (SMH, 2016). After withdrawing from the NPT in 2003, the General Assembly and UNSC isolated the state, placing trade sanctions to coerce cooperation. These were largely ineffective against the state which continues to violate UN resolutions and Geneva Conventions, using state sovereignty to refuse international intervention. In order to protect regional security, South Korea and America have discussed deploying a deterrent mission, ignoring UN rulings and ironically threatening peace. Whilst non legal measures have been more effective, the problem will remain ongoing until all weapons are dismantled.

The commitment of the broader international community to maintaining world peace is evident as a significant success of the system. A variety of mechanisms exist through various organs with the sole intention of protecting humanity. However the complex nature of modern conflict requires mass cooperation to resolve. Thus the effectiveness of mechanisms varies, affected by the political motivations of states, and the nature of state sovereignty. Despite some failures, the proven willingness of nations to cooperate and the recognition of the global responsibility to protect reveals an unprecedented potential for world order. 

Not too many comments throughout actually, because most of my comments are over-arching and apply to your essay as a whole rather than individual sections!

First of all, your writing style is fabulous. You've got a lot of flair here; you are clear and sophisticated, and demand attention where attention is due. That's fantastic. You also clearly have excellent content knowledge, you have a lot of case studies and examples, and I love your inclusion of media references. Excellent on all those fronts

My concerns with this essay are two fold. First, your structure. You have a very atypical structure, characterised by very short paragraphs covering a broad range of world order issues and ideas. My concern with this is that none of your ideas are fully developed. Your essay is, for lack of a better way to express it, a bit all over the place. I don't have a logical train of thought because you are jumping between your ideas so quickly, without proper introduction and conclusion, and without linking what you discuss to a greater idea.

Because you have so many ideas, and because few of them are linked to any kind of central idea: This essay reads more like a set of excerpts from different world order essays than a single, cohesive, body of writing.

I would recommend you try to use fewer, but longer, paragraphs that fully flesh out your ideas! Something like: Responsibility to Protect, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and NGO's, could work well (but it would be difficult for you to link them under a central idea). You also need to work on properly introducing your concept by linking it to the grander concept, and then concluding appropriately.

EG: The UN General Assembly, as an international forum for the discussion of contemporary issues that threaten world order, acts as an effective mechanism for the promotion of international cooperation. Thus, though not directly an enforceable mechanism, it arguably protects world order more effectively than the UNSC.

See how that sentence (setting up a paragraph on the UN General Assembly) links to a broader picture (international cooperation), and sets up a perspective. THEN, I prove that perspective with evidence. Then, I conclude:

Thus, it is clear how the promotion of discussion in the General Assembly effectively fosters international cooperation and protects world order.

There would be a solid paragraph between that intro and conclusion: And it would be analytical. Which leads me to my next concern; you are recounting more than analysing. Yes, analysis comes into it, and it's effective, but the focus of your response is more on what has happened in these situations, rather than how they demonstrate effectiveness/ineffectiveness in the area of world order. At least, that's how it reads, that is partially because your topic sentences don't set up an analytical viewpoint. They just state what happened, not set up a perspective.

Take out the details of your contemporary situations/issues, they aren't important. More important is things about laws/treaties, and an analysis of their effectiveness. Good or bad? Why is it good/bad? What is your evidence?

Don't get me wrong, you know your shit. I know you know your shit, that is obvious. But you just aren't quite approaching this in the most effective way. Now I'm not saying you need to write the same essay that everyone else is writing; I like that you add some flair. However, these more typical 3-paragraph structures and typical Thesis statements exist because they are effective. Try doing some longer paragraphs and exploring your ideas in more depth; less recounting of historical details, more of your evaluation of effectiveness.

I hope this helps!! Definitely let me know if you need anything clarified

Thank you so much! I definitely tend to infer my judgements so I'll go back and make it more explicit. The shorter paragraphs are something my teacher promoted to show a range of information but I can see where the links are missing. If I were to include topic sentences with a stronger perspective of my analysis and integrate some smaller paragraphs, could I maintain my approach of issue by issue rather than turning to the typical UN structure?

[jamonwindeyer]

Thank you so much! I definitely tend to infer my judgements so I'll go back and make it more explicit. The shorter paragraphs are something my teacher promoted to show a range of information but I can see where the links are missing. If I were to include topic sentences with a stronger perspective of my analysis and integrate some smaller paragraphs, could I maintain my approach of issue by issue rather than turning to the typical UN structure?

Absolutely you can keep the issue by issue, definitely didn't mean to defer that approach, but I'll disagree with your teacher on this one. Obviously you are more than free to ignore my opinion, but the shorter paragraphs don't really flesh out your ideas properly. I suppose you could do several paragraphs with a flowing idea throughout, but by that point, you might be better off just doing a bigger paragraph anyway?

I'd personally be looking at doing longer paragraphs while maintaining the issues approach. For example, blending all your Nuclear-Weapon paragraphs into one big one I could be wrong, so I'd be happy to see a revised draft in a little while once you've worked on it (and met post count requirements) with what you've improved, and I'll let you know what I think of the new version