Free Legal Essay Marking!

[anotherworld2b]

thank you for your feedback
I really appreciate it

Hey anotherworld,

For what it's worth, I know literally nothing about the way powers have shifted since federation, so I'm going to give this my best shot but I won't be able to comment on accuracy or suggest other points for you, I'm sorry! It's just not in the HSC syllabus. If LOVEPHYSICS knows any better you might get an extra hand I'll give it a go!

Spoiler

Discuss the following statement: ‘Since federation, the balance of power has slowly shifted from the states to a dominance of the federal government.’  Investigate this topic and prepare an in-class essay that reflects a CRITICAL understanding of the topic.


Essay: Argue for the statement.


The Founding Fathers intended Australia to be a coordinate or cooperative federal system.  Since Federation in 1901, Australia has become more coercive over time in the regards that power has slowly shifted from the states to federal government. Power comes with the ability to make law. The Constitution divides legislative powers between the Commonwealth and the States into exclusive, concurrent and residual powers. However,the balance of power has undeniably shifted numerous powers from the states to Commonwealth validating its dominance. There are three main reasons that have influenced Australian federation becoming more coercive. These reasons include evolving High Court interpretation, the referral of powers and Vertical Fiscal Imbalance. This sounds good to me!


One reason that influenced From a fluency point of view, I don't think this makes perfect sense. "One reason for the shift of power..." does make sense. the shift of power from the States to Federal government was evolving High Court interpretation. High Court decisions have been the most important mechanism for constitutional change in Australia and has a tremendous influence over the federal balance of power. These decisions are derived from the High Court's interpretation. It is assumed or "expected"? that the High Court’s interpretation should lack bias in their decisions.Australia’s Constitution divides the powers within the Australian federation by making all the powers exclusive, concurrent or residual. Concurrent powers means that the Commonwealth and the States may both pass laws. However, when these laws are conflict the dominance of the Commonwealth over the State is evidently supported by section 109 where state(s) laws are invalid if they conflict with Commonwealth law. The fact that the High Court favours the Commonwealth under section 109 shows a shift in power. This could be my ignorance, but did the High Court ever not favour the Commonwealth? In order to show a shift, we need to show a starting point and an ending point. Despite the fact, that the High Court’s major role is the hearing of challenges to the constitutionality of Federal and State laws. When the High Court interprets a case in which any of the exclusive or concurrent powers are in dispute the outcome can redefine the power(s) and so change the balance of powers between the levels of government. The shift of power from the States to the Federal government is evident in the Engineers Case in 1920 where Justices Higgins and Isaacs ruled that Commonwealth Government had the authority of the Commonwealth Arbitration Commission to determine conditions of workers in WA Government Railways (concurrent powers, s51). Overall, the judgements of the High Court have shifted the federal balance of favour of the Commonwealth.


The referral of power is another element of the Australian legal system that influencedreason that influenced the shift of power from the states to federal government. Referral of powers is when States may voluntarily hand over responsibilities to the Commonwealth Government. Section 51 of? makes it possible for States to pass powers to the Commonwealth if they choose to do so. This means that the Commonwealth has the power to make laws in regards to those referred matters. As a result of the referral of powers the Commonwealth Government has been strengthened within the federation. Good argument! The referral of powers to the Commonwealth is an irreversible process. New laws only to the State concerned the State(s) cannot have the power returned.A referral of power affects only the referring state- all the other states retain their power.The referral of power by a State to the Commonwealth changes the balance of Powers within the federation. 2003 - The commonwealth Government enacted the Criminal Code Amendment (Terrorism) Act after all States referred powers relating to this act to the Commonwealth Government. Another example is 2001 - states referred powers regarding incorporation processes to the Commonwealth. The resulting Corporations Act (2001) is a result of a combination of referral of corporation's powers by the States to the Commonwealth. As a result of the referral of powers the Commonwealth government has been strengthened within federation. I suggest adjusting the wording a bit here, when I read it I assumed you had written the same sentence twice and it jars instead of proving your point. Perhaps this kind of thing doesn't matter much in WACE, but I'll suggest it anyway!


Other reasons that influenced the shift of power from States to Federal government was Vertical Fiscal Imbalance. The revenue/expenditure imbalance is approximately 30% in favour of the Commonwealth. This situation is referred to as the vertical fiscal imbalance or VFI. The Founding Fathers were aware that the Commonwealth would end up collecting surplus revenues. Section 87 and Section 96 were written into the Constitution to deal with the imbalance of revenue in favour of the Commonwealth. Section 94 required the Commonwealth to distribute its surplus revenues to the States in any manner that the Parliament ‘deemed fair’. However, after 1901 the Commonwealth Parliament taking into the consideration Section 94 deemed it fair to pay all its surplus revenue into trust funds to cover future spending. This eliminated the surplus and left no money to distribute to the States.  The States challenged this in the Surplus Revenue case but the High Court found the Commonwealth’s action was constitutional. Over time from 1901 sections 90, 96 and 87 of what document? have developed over time to favour the Commonwealth over the States. Uniform Tax Case 1 (1942) - decrease in state power as they lost an important revenue stream of income tax to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth now has much greater share of revenue collecting than the states. Changes relating to revenue collection in 1901 and the early years after Federation, the Commonwealth Government did not have responsibility for collection of income taxation as this was a state responsibility. After the High Court decisions in the 1st and 2nd Uniform Tax Cases (1942 and 1957) the responsibility for collection of income taxation became a Commonwealth responsibility which increased their revenue at the cost of the states. The federal government's dominance is evident by the fact that Sections designed to protect State revenues by the Founding fathers are now considered redundant and have developed to favour the Commonwealth. Great examples and a solid argument!


The balance of power has slowly shifted from the states to a dominance of the federal government since federation. Three main reasons for this include evolving High court interpretation, referral of powers and Vertical Fiscal Imbalance.

Looks like a neat and tidy little response to me! Everything you've suggested is supported well, I think you should be pleased with this! You'll have to excuse my ignorance with some parts of this, but hopefully it gives a few small pointers and overall affirms your work

[elysepopplewell]

Hello everyone!
I was wondering if you could please mark this essay of mine. i couldnt find that many cases however and im not sure if i have talked enough about its effectiveness.
thanks heaps guys! 

Hey Kiiaaa! We can mark this for you

Spoiler

EVALUATE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SENTENCING AND PUNISHMENT AS A MEANS OF ACHIEVING JUSTICE

Judges must balance the rights of victims, society and the offender when sentencing in court to ensure an adequate punishment is imposed, that isn’t too severe for the offender, retributed for the victim odd phrasing, I suggest adjusting this so we don't lose meaning. and acts as a general deterrence to society. Victims play a pivotal role in sentencing primarily through victim impact statements which are considered by the judge when determining a punishment. In addition, the judge must consider alternatives methods to sentencing including circle sentencing and restorative justice. The judge must also consider post sentencing considerations during the sentencing process. Thus, justice for the stakeholders are achieved to a certain level having the judge consider various aspects before and after determining a sentence. I think I want to reverse this intro a little. Your judgement finally comes at the end, but I'd love to see it first up so we can view your entire essay through the lens of your argument! So, in the first sentence you identified who the people are that you will be marking the effectiveness against, but didn't actually make comment on the effectiveness, nor did "means of achieving justice" get a mention in the intro! Legal intros aren't the thing that will necessarily drop you a band if done poorly, it's just a matter of setting the right tone for your essay from the very start. If this were my essay, the first sentence would be outright making the judgement on how it is a means for achieving justice, and perhaps I'd identify the three groups I want to consider the justice for. Then the rest of the introduction can flow on from there, but I think that judgement is important because it was only delivered in your last sentence of the intro.
The victims can have a significant role within the criminal justice system, from reporting the crime, testifying at trial and submitting a victim Impact statement. The victim impact statement is a voluntary statement written by either the victim or the family about the impact of the crime upon them, providing them an opportunity to let the court know the effect of the crime either physically or psychologically. It falls under the NSW Charter of Victim’s Rights and was introduced as a result of the “disturbing lack of confidence in the justice system’s ability to effectively bring people to justice and meet the need of victims of crime” (Victims must be heard in sentencing” NSW Attorney General John Hatzistergos 2010). Wonderful quote!!! Further rights such as respect of the victim’s dignity and protection of identity and from the accused are ensured under the Victim’s Right Act 1996 (NSW). However, the drawbacks of the Victim Impact Statement lie in it being unsworn thus allows room for the victim to fabricate as well as acting as an aggravating factor for the offender which can impact their notion of justice being achieved With the argument about it being an aggravating factor - I think you need to flesh this out more. This isn't necessarily a drawback, in fact, the VIS is delivered in an emotive way quite often to fully provide scope of the impact of the crime on the victim, hoping that the judge will make the right sentencing decision based on how the crime affected the victim, THUS achieving justice for the victim. So you can say that perhaps a dramatised VIS will sway a judge into a harsher sentence than what would be suitable to be just, as it is so emotive rather than going by the facts of legislation, but I think you'd need to prove both sides of the coin here. . Hence victim impact statement only provide justice to a certain degree as it can impact the offender Similar to the introduction, the delivery of the argument comes at the end of the paragraph. I'd love to see it at the beginning as well, and linked to throughout. That way there is no question in a marker's mind about which argument you are trying to nail home. I'll suggest some other points for you to discuss when it comes to victims as well, because you've touched on a few points without really engaging with them (as I've suggested how to when talking about VIS). So hopefully this gives you an idea on how to go about this. So, still on the topic of VIS - consider the way they can be delivered by CCTV now after amendments to the act, consider the fact that families can deliver the VIS for deceased victims (also consider how this could be seen as unfair if a victim has no family, therefore they miss the opportunity to have a VIS presented), consider the R V Bilal Skaf case and how that was called to retrial, and how the victim's evidence was handled in that (another case for you!). In the R V Osland case,link to media interview here, Osland claimed she was too traumatised to present her evidence in a court, thus she never got to provide the full scope of the events... "I got so traumatised (in court) that no matter what questions they put to me I just couldn’t remember. I know that at one stage the prosecutor was firing all these questions at me and I was just agreeing with him. Whatever he said, I just said yes, when I should have said no. I was saying no when I should have been saying yes. The more they pressured me the more I started to close down." In saying this, the Osland case is unique because Osland was a victim of domestic violence, but she killed her husband. So she was on trial for the murder, but a victim of the DV crime. Still usable for your argument!
It is imperative for courts to consider alternatives to sentencing being circle sentencing Not sure what this means? Do you mean, "such as circle sentencing...?and restorative justice as means of achieving justice especially for the offender and society. Circle sentencing is a more traditional method of dispute resolution forming part of Aboriginal customary law made up of a magistrate and aboriginal elders aimed at improving the community’s confidence in the justice system as well as reducing recidivism. However, whilst it may be extremely effective for Aboriginal people having strong ties to their culture, BOSCAR evaluated that circle sentencing has failed to reduce the risk of re-offending by indigenous offenders thus displaying the further review is required in the operations of circle sentencing. Do you have the exact stats? Restorative justice is a voluntary conference allowing both the victim and offender to interact. While it allows the victims to find a sense of closure having talked to the offender it also proves to be confronting to the offender having seen the impact of their actions thus ask for an apology awkward wording, show remorse and be responsible for their actions. While it combats the issue of the victim feeling they weren’t playing an active part in the sentencing process,comma the Australian Bureau of Crime statistics and Research showed that youth conferencing on a large scale proved effective having reduced re-offending by 15-20% regardless of factors such as gender, criminal history and Aboriginality of the offender. However, for those over 18 it can be less effective as a criminal pattern may have been established thus difficult to break. Thus, while post sentencing consideration have been effective in achieving justice this it isn’t in majority of the cases as usually recidivism does occur thus not effectively balancing society’s rights hence suggesting further development required.  This paragraph raises some good points, but it is written in a way that detracts from the arguments a bit. It's just a bit convoluted. I'll suggest a basic structure that you can slide your argument into, and then adjust everything within it as you please in order to suit your writing style!

Sentence one: Identify argument and effectiveness
-Provide background (what legislation is it in? What is it? When did it come into play? Whatever is necessary
-Give fact/argument/statistic
-Is this effective for the victim/suspect/offender? To what degree? Who benefits most or least?
-Any last stat/fact to back that up?
-Next argument.

It seems too simple, but I know when you're writing a legal essay you're trying to engage with so many different points at the one time and you're trying to draw on quotes and reports and legislation and all the rest. So if you kind of pull all the evidence back, and then slot it into a neat little structure, you'll find yourself really making a far more convincing argument

It is the court’s role to consider post sentencing considerations in order to help protect the rights of victims and society. Parole being the conditional release of a prisoner from custody after the completion of the minimum sentence encapsulates the ideology of it being an incentive for the offender to rehabilitate as well as make their integration into the community much easier. Preventive detention under the Terrorism (police Powers) Act 2002 (NSW) does protect society from being a potential victim as it removes the person’s right to freedom despite having not committed the offence hence not achieving justice for the offender that has their rights stripped from them despite there being no actus reus. Continued detention is another preventative method involving the ongoing detention of the offender once their sentence is complete if the court is satisfied there is a high degree of probability that the offender will reoffend under the Crimes (Serious sex offenders) Act 2006 (NSW). The court aims to ensure the protection of the community at the expense of the offender having to further rehabilitate and compromising their freedom. Although these methods are highly controversial they are effective in their prime aim being to protect the rights of victims and society and thus achieve justice in those terms but does it at the expense of the offender’s rights.
Hence while the criminal justice system is effective in its sentencing and punishment it is only to a certain degree as it does involve the compromise of one stakeholder’s rights in order to balance the other’s.

I've put the vast majority of my comments within the spoiler, so just look for the bold font What I do like about what you're doing is trying to engage with the different perspectives at once, and by engaging with the victim, society, and the offender with each point you make. Unfortunately, the clarity of the argument does get lost a little as you do this. The clearest paragraph is the one that focuses on the VIS, and I think it's no coincidence that it has happened because you are focusing on the group of victims, with mention of the society and offender too. It's ok to privilege one group over the others in a paragraph if it means you're achieving clarity. I don't so much think that the content of your work is a problem, but rather just the way you're expressing it means your argument gets lost. In saying this, when you organise your paragraphs you'll likely see places for improvement in relation to evidence and what not, as you clear the way to slide more of that in. Where I've seen places for improving the argument, I've suggested cases and links.

Ultimately, this is not at all a bad essay. I can really see that you understand a lot of what is being asked of you, we just need to work on a way of expressing that in a way that reveals what you really know! Let me know if you have more questions - I know this is a lot to take in!

thank you for your feedback
I really appreciate it

No worries anotherworld

[kiiaaa]

Hey Kiiaaa! We can mark this for you

Spoiler

EVALUATE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SENTENCING AND PUNISHMENT AS A MEANS OF ACHIEVING JUSTICE

Judges must balance the rights of victims, society and the offender when sentencing in court to ensure an adequate punishment is imposed, that isn’t too severe for the offender, retributed for the victim odd phrasing, I suggest adjusting this so we don't lose meaning. and acts as a general deterrence to society. Victims play a pivotal role in sentencing primarily through victim impact statements which are considered by the judge when determining a punishment. In addition, the judge must consider alternatives methods to sentencing including circle sentencing and restorative justice. The judge must also consider post sentencing considerations during the sentencing process. Thus, justice for the stakeholders are achieved to a certain level having the judge consider various aspects before and after determining a sentence. I think I want to reverse this intro a little. Your judgement finally comes at the end, but I'd love to see it first up so we can view your entire essay through the lens of your argument! So, in the first sentence you identified who the people are that you will be marking the effectiveness against, but didn't actually make comment on the effectiveness, nor did "means of achieving justice" get a mention in the intro! Legal intros aren't the thing that will necessarily drop you a band if done poorly, it's just a matter of setting the right tone for your essay from the very start. If this were my essay, the first sentence would be outright making the judgement on how it is a means for achieving justice, and perhaps I'd identify the three groups I want to consider the justice for. Then the rest of the introduction can flow on from there, but I think that judgement is important because it was only delivered in your last sentence of the intro.
The victims can have a significant role within the criminal justice system, from reporting the crime, testifying at trial and submitting a victim Impact statement. The victim impact statement is a voluntary statement written by either the victim or the family about the impact of the crime upon them, providing them an opportunity to let the court know the effect of the crime either physically or psychologically. It falls under the NSW Charter of Victim’s Rights and was introduced as a result of the “disturbing lack of confidence in the justice system’s ability to effectively bring people to justice and meet the need of victims of crime” (Victims must be heard in sentencing” NSW Attorney General John Hatzistergos 2010). Wonderful quote!!! Further rights such as respect of the victim’s dignity and protection of identity and from the accused are ensured under the Victim’s Right Act 1996 (NSW). However, the drawbacks of the Victim Impact Statement lie in it being unsworn thus allows room for the victim to fabricate as well as acting as an aggravating factor for the offender which can impact their notion of justice being achieved With the argument about it being an aggravating factor - I think you need to flesh this out more. This isn't necessarily a drawback, in fact, the VIS is delivered in an emotive way quite often to fully provide scope of the impact of the crime on the victim, hoping that the judge will make the right sentencing decision based on how the crime affected the victim, THUS achieving justice for the victim. So you can say that perhaps a dramatised VIS will sway a judge into a harsher sentence than what would be suitable to be just, as it is so emotive rather than going by the facts of legislation, but I think you'd need to prove both sides of the coin here. . Hence victim impact statement only provide justice to a certain degree as it can impact the offender Similar to the introduction, the delivery of the argument comes at the end of the paragraph. I'd love to see it at the beginning as well, and linked to throughout. That way there is no question in a marker's mind about which argument you are trying to nail home. I'll suggest some other points for you to discuss when it comes to victims as well, because you've touched on a few points without really engaging with them (as I've suggested how to when talking about VIS). So hopefully this gives you an idea on how to go about this. So, still on the topic of VIS - consider the way they can be delivered by CCTV now after amendments to the act, consider the fact that families can deliver the VIS for deceased victims (also consider how this could be seen as unfair if a victim has no family, therefore they miss the opportunity to have a VIS presented), consider the R V Bilal Skaf case and how that was called to retrial, and how the victim's evidence was handled in that (another case for you!). In the R V Osland case,link to media interview here, Osland claimed she was too traumatised to present her evidence in a court, thus she never got to provide the full scope of the events... "I got so traumatised (in court) that no matter what questions they put to me I just couldn’t remember. I know that at one stage the prosecutor was firing all these questions at me and I was just agreeing with him. Whatever he said, I just said yes, when I should have said no. I was saying no when I should have been saying yes. The more they pressured me the more I started to close down." In saying this, the Osland case is unique because Osland was a victim of domestic violence, but she killed her husband. So she was on trial for the murder, but a victim of the DV crime. Still usable for your argument!
It is imperative for courts to consider alternatives to sentencing being circle sentencing Not sure what this means? Do you mean, "such as circle sentencing...?and restorative justice as means of achieving justice especially for the offender and society. Circle sentencing is a more traditional method of dispute resolution forming part of Aboriginal customary law made up of a magistrate and aboriginal elders aimed at improving the community’s confidence in the justice system as well as reducing recidivism. However, whilst it may be extremely effective for Aboriginal people having strong ties to their culture, BOSCAR evaluated that circle sentencing has failed to reduce the risk of re-offending by indigenous offenders thus displaying the further review is required in the operations of circle sentencing. Do you have the exact stats? Restorative justice is a voluntary conference allowing both the victim and offender to interact. While it allows the victims to find a sense of closure having talked to the offender it also proves to be confronting to the offender having seen the impact of their actions thus ask for an apology awkward wording, show remorse and be responsible for their actions. While it combats the issue of the victim feeling they weren’t playing an active part in the sentencing process,comma the Australian Bureau of Crime statistics and Research showed that youth conferencing on a large scale proved effective having reduced re-offending by 15-20% regardless of factors such as gender, criminal history and Aboriginality of the offender. However, for those over 18 it can be less effective as a criminal pattern may have been established thus difficult to break. Thus, while post sentencing consideration have been effective in achieving justice this it isn’t in majority of the cases as usually recidivism does occur thus not effectively balancing society’s rights hence suggesting further development required.  This paragraph raises some good points, but it is written in a way that detracts from the arguments a bit. It's just a bit convoluted. I'll suggest a basic structure that you can slide your argument into, and then adjust everything within it as you please in order to suit your writing style!

Sentence one: Identify argument and effectiveness
-Provide background (what legislation is it in? What is it? When did it come into play? Whatever is necessary
-Give fact/argument/statistic
-Is this effective for the victim/suspect/offender? To what degree? Who benefits most or least?
-Any last stat/fact to back that up?
-Next argument.

It seems too simple, but I know when you're writing a legal essay you're trying to engage with so many different points at the one time and you're trying to draw on quotes and reports and legislation and all the rest. So if you kind of pull all the evidence back, and then slot it into a neat little structure, you'll find yourself really making a far more convincing argument

It is the court’s role to consider post sentencing considerations in order to help protect the rights of victims and society. Parole being the conditional release of a prisoner from custody after the completion of the minimum sentence encapsulates the ideology of it being an incentive for the offender to rehabilitate as well as make their integration into the community much easier. Preventive detention under the Terrorism (police Powers) Act 2002 (NSW) does protect society from being a potential victim as it removes the person’s right to freedom despite having not committed the offence hence not achieving justice for the offender that has their rights stripped from them despite there being no actus reus. Continued detention is another preventative method involving the ongoing detention of the offender once their sentence is complete if the court is satisfied there is a high degree of probability that the offender will reoffend under the Crimes (Serious sex offenders) Act 2006 (NSW). The court aims to ensure the protection of the community at the expense of the offender having to further rehabilitate and compromising their freedom. Although these methods are highly controversial they are effective in their prime aim being to protect the rights of victims and society and thus achieve justice in those terms but does it at the expense of the offender’s rights.
Hence while the criminal justice system is effective in its sentencing and punishment it is only to a certain degree as it does involve the compromise of one stakeholder’s rights in order to balance the other’s.

I've put the vast majority of my comments within the spoiler, so just look for the bold font What I do like about what you're doing is trying to engage with the different perspectives at once, and by engaging with the victim, society, and the offender with each point you make. Unfortunately, the clarity of the argument does get lost a little as you do this. The clearest paragraph is the one that focuses on the VIS, and I think it's no coincidence that it has happened because you are focusing on the group of victims, with mention of the society and offender too. It's ok to privilege one group over the others in a paragraph if it means you're achieving clarity. I don't so much think that the content of your work is a problem, but rather just the way you're expressing it means your argument gets lost. In saying this, when you organise your paragraphs you'll likely see places for improvement in relation to evidence and what not, as you clear the way to slide more of that in. Where I've seen places for improving the argument, I've suggested cases and links.

Ultimately, this is not at all a bad essay. I can really see that you understand a lot of what is being asked of you, we just need to work on a way of expressing that in a way that reveals what you really know! Let me know if you have more questions - I know this is a lot to take in!

No worries anotherworld

Thank you very much elyse!. i really appricate you taking the time for me essay. I'll definatly work on it to re-send.

[LOVEPHYSICS]

Hi, I have only gotten through the intro and the first body para. I am a little unsure of some of the points you made in the subsequent paragraphs so I will have to do some checking with the books before getting back to you. Also, please note that I do not know what the expectations are for HSC legal so I can only give you general guidance and point out some legal issues I see.

I attempted to respond to this question but I'm not how to critically reflect my understanding of it

Spoiler

Discuss the following statement: ‘Since federation, the balance of power has slowly shifted from the states to a dominance of the federal government.’  Investigate this topic and prepare an in-class essay that reflects a CRITICAL understanding of the topic.


Essay: Argue for the statement.


The Founding Fathers intended Australia to be a coordinate or cooperative federal system.  Since Federation in 1901, Australia has become more coercive over time in the regards that power has slowly shifted from the states to federal government. Power comes with the ability to make law. The Constitution divides legislative powers between the Commonwealth and the States into exclusive, concurrent and residual powers. However,the balance of power has undeniably shifted numerous powers from the states to Commonwealth validating its dominance. There are three main reasons that have influenced Australian federation becoming more coercive. These reasons include evolving High Court interpretation, the referral of powers and Vertical Fiscal Imbalance


One reason that influenced the shift of power from the States to Federal government was evolving High Court interpretation. High Court decisions have been the most important mechanism for constitutional change in Australia and has a tremendous influence over the federal balance of power. These decisions are derived from the High Court's interpretation.It is assumed that the High Court’s interpretation should lack bias in their decisions.Australia’s Constitution divides the powers within the Australian federation by making all the powers exclusive, concurrent or residual. Concurrent powers means that the Commonwealth and the States may both pass laws. However, when these laws are conflict the dominance of the Commonwealth over the State is evidently supported by section 109 where state(s) laws are invalid if they conflict with Commonwealth law. The fact that the High Court favours the Commonwealth under section 109 shows a shift in power. Despite the fact, that the High Court’s major role is the hearing of challenges to the constitutionality of Federal and State laws. When the High Court interprets a case in which any of the exclusive or concurrent powers are in dispute the outcome can redefine the power(s) and so change the balance of powers between the levels of government. The shift of power from the States to the Federal government is evident in the Engineers Case in 1920 where Justices Higgins and Isaacs ruled that Commonwealth Government had the authority of the Commonwealth Arbitration Commission to determine conditions of workers in WA Government Railways (concurrent powers, s51). Overall, the judgements of the High Court have shifted the federal balance of favour of the Commonwealth.


The referral of power is another reason that influenced the shift of power from the states to federal government. Referral of powers is when States may voluntarily hand over responsibilities to the Commonwealth Government. Section 51 makes it possible for States to pass powers to the Commonwealth if they choose to do so. This means that the Commonwealth has the power to make laws in regards to those referred matters. As a result of the referral of powers the Commonwealth Government has been strengthened within the federation.The referral of powers to the Commonwealth is an irreversible process. New laws only to the State concerned the State(s) cannot have the power returned.A referral of power affects only the referring state- all the other states retain their power.The referral of power by a State to the Commonwealth changes the balance of Powers within the federation. 2003 - The commonwealth Government enacted the Criminal Code Amendment (Terrorism) Act after all States referred powers relating to this act to the Commonwealth Government. Another example is 2001 - states referred powers regarding incorporation processes to the Commonwealth. The resulting Corporations Act (2001) is a result of a combination of referral of corporation's powers by the States to the Commonwealth. As a result of the referral of powers the Commonwealth government has been strengthened within federation.


Other reasons that influenced the shift of power from States to Federal government was Vertical Fiscal Imbalance. The revenue/expenditure imbalance is approximately 30% in favour of the Commonwealth. This situation is referred to as the vertical fiscal imbalance or VFI. The Founding Fathers were aware that the Commonwealth would end up collecting surplus revenues. Section 87 and Section 96 were written into the Constitution to deal with the imbalance of revenue in favour of the Commonwealth. Section 94 required the Commonwealth to distribute its surplus revenues to the States in any manner that the Parliament ‘deemed fair’. However, after 1901 the Commonwealth Parliament taking into the consideration Section 94 deemed it fair to pay all its surplus revenue into trust funds to cover future spending. This eliminated the surplus and left no money to distribute to the States.  The States challenged this in the Surplus Revenue case but the High Court found the Commonwealth’s action was constitutional. Over time from 1901 sections 90, 96 and 87 have developed over time to favour the Commonwealth over the States. Uniform Tax Case 1 (1942) - decrease in state power as they lost an important revenue stream of income tax to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth now has much greater share of revenue collecting than the states. Changes relating to revenue collection in 1901 and the early years after Federation, the Commonwealth Government did not have responsibility for collection of income taxation as this was a state responsibility. After the High Court decisions in the 1st and 2nd Uniform Tax Cases (1942 and 1957) the responsibility for collection of income taxation became a Commonwealth responsibility which increased their revenue at the cost of the states. The federal government's dominance is evident by the fact that Sections designed to protect State revenues by the Founding fathers are now considered redundant and have developed to favour the Commonwealth.


The balance of power has slowly shifted from the states to a dominance of the federal government since federation. Three main reasons for this include evolving High court interpretation, referral of powers and Vertical Fiscal Imbalance.

INTRODUCTION

The Founding Fathers intended Australia to be a coordinate or cooperative federal system.  Since Federation in 1901, Australia has become more coercive over time in the regards that power has slowly shifted from the states to federal government. Power comes with the ability to make law. The Constitution divides legislative powers between the Commonwealth and the States into exclusive, concurrent and residual powers. However,the balance of power has undeniably shifted numerous powers from the states to Commonwealth validating its dominance. There are three main reasons that have influenced Australian federation becoming more coercive. These reasons include evolving High Court interpretation, the referral of powers and Vertical Fiscal Imbalance.

•   ‘Australia’ has not become more coercive over time. However, you could say that the Commonwealth has become more assertive over time as it power increases, ushering in a period of ‘coercive federalism’.
•   Power did not immediately ‘shift since Federation in 1901’. It wasn’t until the decision in the Engineers case in 1920 that any real shifts can be said to have occurred.
•   ‘Power comes with the ability to make law’. Yes, but feels out of place and unnecessary.
•   The sentences ‘Since Federation in 1901 …’ and ‘However, the balance …’ are saying the exact same thing.
•   Overall, this introduction is a good attempt but it does evince some minor confusion over the topic. You should expand a little more on the causes of the shift rather than simply identifying them. Lastly, the introduction can benefit from some polishing – the whole thing could have been expressed much more succinctly. For example,

‘The Founding Fathers envisioned a united, but not uniform, Australia. Australia’s Constitution reflects this federal sentiment by distributing powers between national and local governments, thereby preserving the States and enabling them some freedom to decide on local policies. However in more recent decades, Australian federalism has undergone a centralising period whereby the federal balance of power has shifted towards the Commonwealth. There are several causes to this. First, there is …’

BODY

One reason that influenced the shift of power from the States to Federal government was evolving High Court interpretation [Sounds awkward – HCA’s decisions have pretty directly caused a shift in the federal balance. Also don’t use terms like ‘evolving HCA interpretation’ – it is one of those unfortunate academic jargon we can quite happily do away with]. High Court decisions have been the most important mechanism for constitutional change in Australia and has a tremendous influence over the federal balance of power [this is a large proposition – If anything, referendums under s 128 is at least as important; it is the most direct way to clearly alter the Constitution.]. These decisions are derived from the High Court's interpretation. It is assumed that the High Court’s interpretation should lack bias in their decisions [Unnecessary unless you are going to add to it later on] Australia’s Constitution divides the powers within the Australian federation by making all the powers exclusive, concurrent or residual. Concurrent powers means that the Commonwealth and the States may both pass laws. However, when these laws are conflict the dominance of the Commonwealth over the State is evidently supported by section 109 where state(s) laws are invalid if they conflict with Commonwealth law. The fact that the High Court favours the Commonwealth under section 109 shows a shift in power [No, that is incorrect – remember section 109 was inserted into the Constitution by the founding fathers, not the HCA per se. It has always been intended to provide for Commonwealth superiority in cases of conflicting laws. The fact that the HCA interpreted it as such is not a shift, but merely an indication that our judges can read.] Despite the fact, that the High Court’s major role is the hearing of challenges to the constitutionality of Federal and State laws [I don’t quite get the point you are making here – are you trying to suggest partiality on the part of the HCA?]  When the High Court interprets a case in which any of the exclusive or concurrent powers are in dispute the outcome can redefine the power(s) and so change the balance of powers between the levels of government. The shift of power from the States to the Federal government is evident in the Engineers Case in 1920 where Justices Higgins and Isaacs ruled that Commonwealth Government had the authority of the Commonwealth Arbitration Commission to determine conditions of workers in WA Government Railways (concurrent powers, s51)[ I would discuss or at least mention how it abolished the reserve State powers doctrine and implied immunities – those are really the main things that hurt federalism. The principles the decision established and how they curtail federalism are much more important that stating how the individual parties are affected]. Overall, the judgements of the High Court have shifted the federal balance of favour of the Commonwealth [I think you need at least two examples before you make such a conclusion].

•   Please take into attention the point on s 109. The section itself clearly favours the Commonwealth, and the HCA’s only real say in it is to give effect to that and apply it. One way you can work s 109 into your essay is to discuss how it operates to secure the effect of those HCA decisions which favoured the Cth.
•   Wider point to bear in mind is that judges do not, and should not, legislate. Judges may disagree with their predecessors over the meaning of constitutional text, but that is not necessarily because they are seeking to pursue individual agendas. Their job is to do justice according to law, which is to say they are dictated by the legal text and not the other way around. They are bound to give effect to the text, not manipulate the text in ways furthering personal agendas. Therefore, be careful with large propositions like judges going about redefining powers etc.
•   I am not sure what your position is on the HCA’s decisions but if I am to guess it is that you do not like it very much. That is fine so long as you have good reasons. For some others, to say that the HCA has expanded the Cth power at the expense of the States is not so much a critique, but a recognition of a practical reality resulting from reading the Constitution in a modern light. That's something you can think about.
•   Try to be more succinct.

[Mary_a]

Hi Guys, I would really, really appreciate if someone could mark this for me? I am in desperate need of something at full marks because right now I'm at about 81% and I really want to get this up to a 90. Thank you so much! The question is: Evaluate The Effectiveness of Legal and Non-Legal Responses To The Issue Of Human Trafficking and Slavery. Thank you so much!

Here it is:

The contemporary issue of human trafficking and slavery has been significantly reacted to by the use of legal and non-legal responses. Legal responses include international and domestic law, whilst non-legal responses incorporate the use of NGOs, and the media.

International law has attempted to address the issue of human trafficking and slavery by the incorporation of treaties, documents and declarations such as the United Nations Convention on Transnational Organised Crime (2000) and the Trafficking Protocol (2003). These responses are monitored by relevant UN Treaty Bodies, such as the Human Rights Council. These can put pressure on countries which violate international law, by putting in place sanctions and moral pressure, which is relatively effective in influencing countries to properly address the issue. However, whilst international law is effective in theory, the use of compliance is highlighted by the country’s state sovereignty. Hence, complying with international law is only voluntary and the enforcement of international law is ineffective because country’s are not legally bound to international law. Another example of international law’s ineffectiveness is attested by the fact that despite the existence of these international laws, millions of people remain enslaved around the world, with the issue only growing. Hence, international law is rather ineffective because of its lack of enforceability, as a result of state severity and compliance.

Domestic law attempts to address the contemporary nature of human trafficking and slavery. In 2012, the Trafficking in Persons Reported listed Australia as a Tier 1 country in successfully addressing the contemporary issue, and is effective in its enforceability and achievement of justice for victims. Regular police checks and human trafficking teams attempt to ensure that human trafficking and slavery is not perpetuated or tolerated in Australia. In 2008, after the enactment of the Criminal Code Act (Cth) (1999) Wei Tang (The Queen v. Tang 2008) was found guilty of five counts of intentionally possessing a slave, and five counts of intentionally exercising ownership of a slave, and was sentenced to a minimum of ten years imprisonment. However, whilst domestic law can be very effective it is also ineffective for victims and in the court system. Victims are usually trafficked form non-English speaking backgrounds, which creates a barrier for accessing the courts and reporting the crime. In court proceedings it can be difficult for victims to give evidence in court, especially when cross-examined by the opposing side. Juries can also be a factor limiting the effectiveness of domestic law as it can be difficult to convince some juries that a person was a slave because of the stereotypical beliefs and attitudes relating to the definition of a slave. Overall, domestic law is effective in its enforceability and ability to achieve justice, however is limited in the nature of victims, and access to the court system and justice for victims.

There are various NGOs which attempt to address human trafficking and slavery, NGOs which work internationally and across borders, and domestically. There are two prominent international and domestic NGOS, the international A21 Campaign and the Melbourne based NGO Project Respect. The A21 Campaign work at local, national and international levels to eliminate all forms of slavery around the world, with shelters for victims in Greece and Ukraine,  the campaign standing for “abolishing injustice in the 21st century.” Project Respect, an NGO located in Melbourne chalkiness exploitation of, and violence against women in the sex industry, offering social support, counselling, education and legal advice. NGOs are effective because of its independence from the government and are not pressured by governmental perspectives. NGOs can notify other countries and individuals about human rights abuses in particular countries, which can pressure a system to reform and address its human rights issues. However, whilst it can influence governmental and systematic decisions, NGOs have no force or enforceability to pressure for change as a result of state sovereignty and the issues of compliance. NGOs are effective in their support for victims and education about human rights issues, with services and counselling. Whilst these are effective attributes, NGOs suffer from a lack of funding and cannot always put in place mechanisms that require certain resources. Overall, NGOs are relatively effective but are inhibited by a lack of resources and their inability to force changes or make enforceable decisions.

The media is an influential force within society, and is a relatively effective non-legal response to the issue of human trafficking and slavery. the media raises awareness about certain issues within human trafficking and slavery, shining a light upon areas that need law reform, and illuminating the issue within Australia. As a result of renowned Tang, Dobie and Kovacs cases, Four Corners and The Age combined forced to investigate sex slavery in Australia. Their investigation pressures authorities to address the prolific sex slavery and trafficking within Australia to enforce the law and ensure justice for victims. These media reports are effective in their ability to improve awareness of the issue, which increases the societal discussion, resulting in law reform, tighter vigilance and scrutiny about human trafficking and slavery. The media is also effective as it can promote NGOs, ideas and policies that address the contemporary nature of human trafficking and slavery, such as the 2008 Sydney Morning Herald Article All Out Bid To Emancipate Nation’s Sex Slaves which details the granting of 16.3 million dollars to the AFP, which was a response to the harrowing Tang case and pressure from NGOS and the media. However, whilst the media is a very effective non-legal response, it is inhibited in that the media is restricted and controlled by the government in some countries which may limit its ability to report openly and address the issue correctly. Hence, the media is a relatively effective non-legal response which can promotes issues, raise awareness and place pressure upon the government.

Overall, the legal and non-legal responses to human trafficking and slavery are relatively effective and continue to address the every growing issue, with a clear objective of reducing and eliminating all forms of human trafficking and slavery.

Thanks again!

[jamonwindeyer]

Hi Guys, I would really, really appreciate if someone could mark this for me? I am in desperate need of something at full marks because right now I'm at about 81% and I really want to get this up to a 90. Thank you so much!

Hey! I definitely can, sorry it took a little bit, but good on you for wanting to get your marks into that elusive B6 range essay is attached with feedback in bold!

Spoiler

Evaluate The Effectiveness of Legal and Non-Legal Responses To The Issue Of Human Trafficking and Slavery.

The contemporary issue of human trafficking and slavery has been significantly reacted to by the use of legal and non-legal responses. Legal responses include international and domestic law, whilst non-legal responses incorporate the use of NGOs, and the media. Your introduction will need a little more beef than this to set up a proper judgement, this is an 'evaluate' question!.

International law has attempted to address the issue of human trafficking and slavery by the incorporation of treaties, documents and declarations such as the United Nations Convention on Transnational Organised Crime (2000) and the Trafficking Protocol (2003). Were these succesful? Try and make your judgement REALLY OBVIOUS right from the start! These responses are monitored by relevant UN Treaty Bodies, such as the Human Rights Council. These can put pressure on countries which violate international law, by putting in place sanctions and moral pressure, which is relatively effective in influencing countries to properly address the issue. Good! I'd like you to go further though - Why are they effective? This is where those criteria from Year 11 can help - Enforceable? Accessible? However, whilst international law is effective in theory, the use of compliance is highlighted by the country’s state sovereignty. Little unclear what you are saying here? Hence, complying with international law is only voluntary and the enforcement of international law is ineffective because country’s are not legally bound to international law. Good. Another example of international law’s ineffectiveness is attested by the fact that despite the existence of these international laws, millions of people remain enslaved around the world, with the issue only growing. You could (I bet) provide an actual statistic from the ILO here to give your argument more merit. Hence, international law is rather ineffective because of its lack of enforceability, as a result of state severity and compliance. Nice paragraph on the whole! Excellent arguments, I'd like to see you provide a higher calibre of evidence to back yourself up. Delve into some of those treaties a bit more. Provide a case study, media article, some statistics! The arguments are sound but not quite backed up as well as they could be.

Domestic law attempts to address the contemporary nature of human trafficking and slavery. Again, make an obvious judgement, even if that judgement is in the middle. In 2012, the Trafficking in Persons Reported listed Australia as a Tier 1 country in successfully addressing the contemporary issue, and is effective in its enforceability and achievement of justice for victims. This piece of evidence is a little out of place, because you are sort of saying, "Effective because these guys say so," rather than going into the reasons yourself. Regular police checks and human trafficking teams attempt to ensure that human trafficking and slavery is not perpetuated or tolerated in Australia. In 2008, after the enactment of the Criminal Code Act (Cth) (1999) Wei Tang (The Queen v. Tang 2008) was found guilty of five counts of intentionally possessing a slave, and five counts of intentionally exercising ownership of a slave, and was sentenced to a minimum of ten years imprisonment. How does this show effectiveness? Be sure to link every piece of evidence to your judgement specifically. However, whilst domestic law can be very effective it is also ineffective for victims and in the court system. Victims are usually trafficked form non-English speaking backgrounds, which creates a barrier for accessing the courts and reporting the crime. Good! Anything you can do to support this with evidence? Report/statistic/media article? In court proceedings it can be difficult for victims to give evidence in court, especially when cross-examined by the opposing side. Juries can also be a factor limiting the effectiveness of domestic law as it can be difficult to convince some juries that a person was a slave because of the stereotypical beliefs and attitudes relating to the definition of a slave. Overall, domestic law is effective in its enforceability and ability to achieve justice, however is limited in the nature of victims, and access to the court system and justice for victims. Some really interesting arguments here, especially towards the end - But again looking for more/stronger evidence to support it.

There are various NGOs which attempt to address human trafficking and slavery, NGOs which work internationally and across borders, and domestically. There are two prominent international and domestic NGOS, the international A21 Campaign and the Melbourne based NGO Project Respect. Watch your wording - There are more, but these are the two you've chosen to focus on. Just say, "Two prominent international... The A21 Campaign work at local, national and international levels to eliminate all forms of slavery around the world, with shelters for victims in Greece and Ukraine,  the campaign standing for “abolishing injustice in the 21st century.” Project Respect, an NGO located in Melbourne chalkiness exploitation of, and violence against women in the sex industry, offering social support, counselling, education and legal advice. NGOs are effective because of its independence from the government and are not pressured by governmental perspectives. NGOs can notify other countries and individuals about human rights abuses in particular countries, which can pressure a system to reform and address its human rights issues. However, whilst it can influence governmental and systematic decisions, NGOs have no force or enforceability to pressure for change as a result of state sovereignty and the issues of compliance. NGOs are effective in their support for victims and education about human rights issues, with services and counselling. Whilst these are effective attributes, NGOs suffer from a lack of funding and cannot always put in place mechanisms that require certain resources. Overall, NGOs are relatively effective but are inhibited by a lack of resources and their inability to force changes or make enforceable decisions. As a wholistic comment for this paragraph - Again, great arguments. But the examples you provided don't really do much to support them. You introduce them and explain what they do, and they are then ignored why you discuss goods and bads of NGO's, instead of being used to back yourself up!

The media is an influential force within society, and is a relatively effective non-legal response to the issue of human trafficking and slavery. THIS is a great first sentence - Judgement is made clear immediately. The media raises awareness about certain issues within human trafficking and slavery, shining a light upon areas that need law reform, and illuminating the issue within Australia. As a result of renowned Tang, Dobie and Kovacs cases, Four Corners and The Age combined forced to investigate sex slavery in Australia. Keep things academic - "combined forces" is quite colloquial. Their investigation pressures authorities to address the prolific sex slavery and trafficking within Australia to enforce the law and ensure justice for victims. These media reports are effective in their ability to improve awareness of the issue, which increases the societal discussion, resulting in law reform, tighter vigilance and scrutiny about human trafficking and slavery. Good! The media is also effective as it can promote NGOs, ideas and policies that address the contemporary nature of human trafficking and slavery, such as the 2008 Sydney Morning Herald Article All Out Bid To Emancipate Nation’s Sex Slaves which details the granting of 16.3 million dollars to the AFP, which was a response to the harrowing Tang case and pressure from NGOS and the media. However, whilst the media is a very effective non-legal response, it is inhibited in that the media is restricted and controlled by the government in some countries which may limit its ability to report openly and address the issue correctly. Any examples of this? Hence, the media is a relatively effective non-legal response which can promotes issues, raise awareness and place pressure upon the government. This paragraph is quite strong! The arguments are supported reasonably well - However, I do think media would work more effectively integrated throughout the response!! You could even do both - But only using media as evidence at the end here is definitely not the best way to go

Overall, the legal and non-legal responses to human trafficking and slavery are relatively effective and continue to address the every growing issue, with a clear objective of reducing and eliminating all forms of human trafficking and slavery. As with your introduction, you ideally want a little more beef here.

So this is a really easy essay for me to provide feedback on, because there is (essentially) only one thing you need to fix - Evidence. Your arguments are fantastic, very sophisticated and well considered, but they aren't backed up effectively. You give these great statements of effectiveness/ineffectiveness, but you sort of just rely on your own word to convince the marker. That isn't enough. You need more evidence:

- Laws
- Cases
- Media Articles
- Reports
- Statistics
- Quotes
- Treaties

And all manner of similar things  more of these would give your arguments more credibility. Adding a report on media restriction (for example), or a statistic on rates of slavery/people trafficking, or a specific case where laws were applied succesfully - These are the things you want lots of

Now there are of course other things - Expression could be a little more succinct to give yourself room for more evidence. You also definitely want to develop a stronger introduction, there is a guide you can read here on precisely that!

But the core of an essay is its arguments - And yours are absolutely spot on I don't think you are quite at the Band 6 level yet, but you are definitely close! Keep working, you will absolutely get there - Well done Mary

[Mary_a]

Hey Jamon, thank you so much! I will print this out and have a read, look over and perfect over the next day or so! Would I be allowed to resubmit once I have re-edited it? Thanks again! Mary

[jamonwindeyer]

Hey Jamon, thank you so much! I will print this out and have a read, look over and perfect over the next day or so! Would I be allowed to resubmit once I have re-edited it? Thanks again! Mary

Definitely! You are way above the post requirement for the number of essays you've posted so no worries there

[rodero]

 Hey guys 

This is probably something that's never been asked, but I really need some help right now.

Basically my issue is that I am very unprepared for my exam coming up (tomorrow). I have a given question and all but i've been so caught up with other subjects that legal has been thrown aside. I completely understand if you won't allow it, but would it be possible to send in half of my essay now, and the other half tonight? If you won't allow it, that's completely fine and i'm happy to pay up 15 posts for each post.

In regards to the essay itself, what i'm most concerned about is:
1. My stance that the UN is ineffective - I've only ever responded as moderately effective in past exams, is it really okay to leave out the good parts of the UN?
2. Probably an add-on to 1, but should I mention the success of R2P in Libya, where forces prevented the capture of major Libyan cities

Without further ado:

Assess the effectiveness of the United Nations in promoting and maintaining world order


You must mention the contemporary issues in this response

Although the United Nations (UN) is perceived as the main body for promoting and maintaining international peace and security, its effectiveness in achieving this is manifestly limited. By definition, world order describes the mechanisms set by the international community, for the preservation of global political stability (Oxford Dictionary). However, in light of recent events, the success of the UN in achieving world order has been highly ineffective. These incompetencies have been attributed to the UN’s response to contemporary issues, such as the principle of ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P) and more recently, situations that threaten peace and security. Despite the permanent member’s (P5) indecent exploitation of their veto powers, the UN has experienced slight levels of global cooperation to achieve world order. Overall, with an increasingly contentious global climate, the effectiveness of the UN in promoting and maintaining world order has been questioned. With this, it is clear that the mechanisms placed by the UN to achieve global peace and security are largely ineffective.

The inability for the UN to achieve world order is most prevalently found within the flawed principle of R2P. Such a principle was established due to the heinously delayed response to mass atrocity crimes within Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo. In order to prevent further instances of inaction in the midst of crimes against humanity, the UN implemented amendments to the UN Charter; Article 24 enshrines the principle of R2P, placing the members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) in “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security”. While the theory of R2P suggests prospects for an effective maintenance of world order, when put into practice, the principle proves to be highly unrewarding. The failure of R2P stems largely from the issue of non-compliance and Russia’s gross exploitation of their veto powers for self-interest. Through the eight failed resolutions to conduct operations in Syria, it is clear that Russia is abusing its position as a P5 member to continue its trade of weaponry. Due to their use of veto powers in the 2012 resolution, the death toll in Syria rose to an estimated 5,000, highlighting the inability for the UN to respond effectively to disruptions to world order. In The Guardian’s article ‘Vetoed!, the question regarding the fairness and relevance of veto powers has been raised. Considering the constantly changing nature of morals and ethical standards, is it possible that the UNSC “has become obsolete?”. According to Brazil’s representative for the UN, Antonio Patriota,  the international community must “shape a security council that is truly in tune with the 21st century”. With this, it is clear that amendments must be made to current legal mechanisms for the UN to truly be effective in achieving world order.

[jamonwindeyer]

Hey guys 

This is probably something that's never been asked, but I really need some help right now.

Basically my issue is that I am very unprepared for my exam coming up (tomorrow). I have a given question and all but i've been so caught up with other subjects that legal has been thrown aside. I completely understand if you won't allow it, but would it be possible to send in half of my essay now, and the other half tonight? If you won't allow it, that's completely fine and i'm happy to pay up 15 posts for each post.

Hey rodero! Definitely not necessary, I'll mark the first half now and hopefully the second half tonight, count it as one. I am out of action tonight until fairly late so apologies in advance if no one gets to the second half!

Essay is attached with comments in bold:

Spoiler

Assess the effectiveness of the United Nations in promoting and maintaining world order


Although the United Nations (UN) is perceived as the main body for promoting and maintaining international peace and security, its effectiveness in achieving this is manifestly limited. Nice start - Judgement is immediately clear. By definition, world order describes the mechanisms set by the international community, for the preservation of global political stability (Oxford Dictionary). I reckon this definition would actually work better FIRST, then you flow naturally into the UN argument. However, in light of recent events, the success of the UN in achieving world order has been highly ineffective. Slightly repetitive, another reason to restructure. These incompetencies have been attributed to the UN’s response to contemporary issues, such as the principle of ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P) and more recently, situations that threaten peace and security. I'd rephrase the R2P thing, it isn't an 'issue' so much (I dislike the way the syllabus handles it), it's a contentious principle of how the UN operates. I'm nitpicking here - I would like to see specific examples of 'situations that threaten peace and security.' Despite the permanent member’s (P5) indecent exploitation of their veto powers, the UN has experienced slight levels of global cooperation to achieve world order. Overall, with an increasingly contentious global climate, the effectiveness of the UN in promoting and maintaining world order has been questioned. With this, it is clear that the mechanisms placed by the UN to achieve global peace and security are largely ineffective. Good intro - I feel it could be shorter/more succinct if you want it to be, but your argument is clear.

The inability for the UN to achieve world order is most prevalently found within the flawed principle of R2P. Such a principle was established due to the heinously delayed response to mass atrocity crimes within Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo. Nice historical context. In order to prevent further instances of inaction in the midst of crimes against humanity, the UN implemented amendments to the UN Charter; Article 24 enshrines the principle of R2P, placing the members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) in “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security”. While the theory of R2P suggests prospects for an effective maintenance of world order, when put into practice, the principle proves to be highly unrewarding. Perhaps slightly too long spent on explaining before getting into your judgements - Remember your teachers know what R2P is! I do like the Article inclusion though. The failure of R2P stems largely from the issue of non-compliance and Russia’s gross exploitation of their veto powers for self-interest. Watch for expression - Keep it academic. I know 'gross' means like, 'large and immense' in this case, but a little borderline. Through the eight failed resolutions to conduct operations in Syria, it is clear that Russia is abusing its position as a P5 member to continue its trade of weaponry. Due to their use of veto powers in the 2012 resolution, the death toll in Syria rose to an estimated 5,000, highlighting the inability for the UN to respond effectively to disruptions to world order. Nice use of statistics. In The Guardian’s article ‘Vetoed!, the question regarding the fairness and relevance of veto powers has been raised. Considering the constantly changing nature of morals and ethical standards, is it possible that the UNSC “has become obsolete?”. According to Brazil’s representative for the UN, Antonio Patriota,  the international community must “shape a security council that is truly in tune with the 21st century”. With this, it is clear that amendments must be made to current legal mechanisms for the UN to truly be effective in achieving world order. Like the judgements being presented in this paragraph. However, the evidence is basically constrained to Russia. Has there been examples of the other Nation States using their veto powers in an ineffective way? Right now the paragraph is bordering on a political tirade against Russia. It is 'borderline,' and definitely works, but broadening the evidence would make it more effective if you can.

In regards to the essay itself, what i'm most concerned about is:
1. My stance that the UN is ineffective - I've only ever responded as moderately effective in past exams, is it really okay to leave out the good parts of the UN?
Yes, that is definitely okay! There's a lot of ineffective aspects of the way the UN operates

2. Probably an add-on to 1, but should I mention the success of R2P in Libya, where forces prevented the capture of major Libyan cities
Definitely - As I mentioned above, right now the R2P paragraph seems a bit just like Russia bashing. Which is fine, but showing both sides in this case I think is a little more sophisticated. You could adjust to "R2P, while having been effective in certain circumstances, is currently failing to address a serious World Order issue."

[rodero]

Hey Jamon!

Thanks for the feedback, it's helped out a lot
I was planning to have the rest of my essay done by now but I don't really think that's happening any time soon... Anyway, I have a paragraph which I really am not proud of so if you guys could take a look and give some pointers that would be great! Particularly for this one, i'm really not sure if I should have the US invasion of Iraq in there. I more so feel forced by my teacher to have some mention of the ICJ, and so I've thrown it in where I can. In the end, if you guys don't think it fits that's good enough for me to take it out, but he's marking the exam so I really want to be able to mention it somewhere in my response.

Also, i completely understand if this doesn't end up being marked. I've left the task to the last minute and i'm posting at the worst time so I guess it's my burden to handle. Anyway, whatever help I can get would be great. Thanks

P.S I've edited my intro and first paragraph. In a nutshell, I've changed my argument from highly ineffective to moderately effective. I might post it for a double-check if I have the time

Although the UN has effectively responded to the threat of a nuclear war, a lack of prosecution has hindered the ability for world order to be maintained. Following the events of the cold war, the UN has actively supported denuclearisation as a means of achieving global peace and stability. These are demonstrated through bilateral treaties such as START 1, where the US and Russia agreed to reduce their nuclear arsenals by 58,000.  Likewise, multilateral treaties including the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) promote the peaceful use of energy resources and a complete nuclear disarmament. Despite these measures, state sovereignty remains a potent barrier for the UN to achieve world order; Although North Korea was initially a signatory to the the NPT, its withdrawal in 2003 has been followed with the detonation of nuclear devices. In the current global climate, the use of nuclear weapons has been deemed the “biggest threat to humanity” (Lawrence Krauss on BBC’s Q&A), largely due to NK’s unwillingness to comply with international law. The continued conduction of nuclear tests by the ‘rogue state’ (Anthony Lake) has pressured the UN to impose sanctions as a means of political persuasion. However, the use of international negotiation continues to have little effect on the behaviour of NK, leaving the global community with a high chance of a “major conflict with North Korea” (Donald Trump). With regards to a more regional conflict, the UN remains unresponsive to the US’ illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. Although the US claimed to have acted in ‘self-defence’, members of the International Commission of Jurists highlight that the invasion was a clear breach of the UN Charter and was not authorised by the UNSC. Despite this, the ICJ has failed to punish the US for clear acts of aggression, thus turning a “blind eye to one of the most blatant human rights abuses” (Jean Shaoul). With respect, it clear that the UN has achieved success in past success in the disarmament of nuclear weapons, but is restricted by state sovereignty to enforce its policies for peace in North Korea and the US. As a result, UN responses to regional and global conflict has been effective only to a moderate extent.


EDIT My last body paragraph is focusing on the success of global cooperation. Considering my word count is already sitting at 800, would it be fine to only mention the effectiveness of the UN in East Timor? Then again, if I cull the US invasion in the second paragraph I could easily have room for a counter-argument.

[jamonwindeyer]

Hey Jamon!

Thanks for the feedback, it's helped out a lot
I was planning to have the rest of my essay done by now but I don't really think that's happening any time soon... Anyway, I have a paragraph which I really am not proud of so if you guys could take a look and give some pointers that would be great! Particularly for this one, i'm really not sure if I should have the US invasion of Iraq in there. I more so feel forced by my teacher to have some mention of the ICJ, and so I've thrown it in where I can. In the end, if you guys don't think it fits that's good enough for me to take it out, but he's marking the exam so I really want to be able to mention it somewhere in my response.

Also, i completely understand if this doesn't end up being marked. I've left the task to the last minute and i'm posting at the worst time so I guess it's my burden to handle. Anyway, whatever help I can get would be great. Thanks

You are welcome! happy to give this a quick skim too, comments in bold!

Spoiler

Although the UN has effectively responded to the threat of a nuclear war, a lack of prosecution has hindered the ability for world order to be maintained. Nice start, clear judgement with reasoning. Following the events of the cold war, the UN has actively supported denuclearisation as a means of achieving global peace and stability. These are demonstrated through bilateral treaties such as START 1, where the US and Russia agreed to reduce their nuclear arsenals by 58,000.  Likewise, multilateral treaties including the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) promote the peaceful use of energy resources and a complete nuclear disarmament. Fantastic examples here, make sure you reference them correctly with their full name and the year in the first instance - I'd also like a more obvious judgement in reference to these measures. Are they effective? Enforceable? Despite these measures, state sovereignty remains a potent barrier for the UN to achieve world order; Although North Korea was initially a signatory to the the NPT, its withdrawal in 2003 has been followed with the detonation of nuclear devices. In the current global climate, the use of nuclear weapons has been deemed the “biggest threat to humanity” (Lawrence Krauss on BBC’s Q&A), largely due to NK’s unwillingness to comply with international law. Nice analysis and use of a quote there. The continued conduction of nuclear tests by the ‘rogue state’ (Anthony Lake) has pressured the UN to impose sanctions as a means of political persuasion. However, the use of international negotiation continues to have little effect on the behaviour of NK, leaving the global community with a high chance of a “major conflict with North Korea” (Donald Trump). These little quotes throughout aren't adding much, I'd just stick to doing it in your own words, if you would find it easier. Also be careful you aren't slipping into a recount, like "They signed, they withdrew, they blew shit up, they got sanctioned." Really, they key bit of this is the withdrawal (shows ineffectiveness/non enforceable) and the sanctions (did they work?). With regards to a more regional conflict, the UN remains unresponsive to the US’ illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. Although the US claimed to have acted in ‘self-defence’, members of the International Commission of Jurists highlight that the invasion was a clear breach of the UN Charter and was not authorised by the UNSC. Thus demonstrating ineffectiveness... Be sure your judgement is made obvious at every step! Despite this, the ICJ has failed to punish the US for clear acts of aggression, thus turning a “blind eye to one of the most blatant human rights abuses” (Jean Shaoul). I think the ICJ reference works - I'd leave it! With respect, it clear that the UN has achieved success in past success in the disarmament of nuclear weapons, but is restricted by state sovereignty to enforce its policies for peace in North Korea and the US. Take out 'with respect,' - This is not an opinion piece persay, you are presenting facts and using them to form an argument. It's an academic piece, you'd say "with respect" in a letter to the editor or a speech or something non academic. As a result, UN responses to regional and global conflict has been effective only to a moderate extent.

Works well I think rodero! Make sure judgements are clear at every stage would be my primary piece of feedback

[rodero]

You are welcome! happy to give this a quick skim too, comments in bold!

Spoiler

Although the UN has effectively responded to the threat of a nuclear war, a lack of prosecution has hindered the ability for world order to be maintained. Nice start, clear judgement with reasoning. Following the events of the cold war, the UN has actively supported denuclearisation as a means of achieving global peace and stability. These are demonstrated through bilateral treaties such as START 1, where the US and Russia agreed to reduce their nuclear arsenals by 58,000.  Likewise, multilateral treaties including the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) promote the peaceful use of energy resources and a complete nuclear disarmament. Fantastic examples here, make sure you reference them correctly with their full name and the year in the first instance - I'd also like a more obvious judgement in reference to these measures. Are they effective? Enforceable? Despite these measures, state sovereignty remains a potent barrier for the UN to achieve world order; Although North Korea was initially a signatory to the the NPT, its withdrawal in 2003 has been followed with the detonation of nuclear devices. In the current global climate, the use of nuclear weapons has been deemed the “biggest threat to humanity” (Lawrence Krauss on BBC’s Q&A), largely due to NK’s unwillingness to comply with international law. Nice analysis and use of a quote there. The continued conduction of nuclear tests by the ‘rogue state’ (Anthony Lake) has pressured the UN to impose sanctions as a means of political persuasion. However, the use of international negotiation continues to have little effect on the behaviour of NK, leaving the global community with a high chance of a “major conflict with North Korea” (Donald Trump). These little quotes throughout aren't adding much, I'd just stick to doing it in your own words, if you would find it easier. Also be careful you aren't slipping into a recount, like "They signed, they withdrew, they blew shit up, they got sanctioned." Really, they key bit of this is the withdrawal (shows ineffectiveness/non enforceable) and the sanctions (did they work?). With regards to a more regional conflict, the UN remains unresponsive to the US’ illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. Although the US claimed to have acted in ‘self-defence’, members of the International Commission of Jurists highlight that the invasion was a clear breach of the UN Charter and was not authorised by the UNSC. Thus demonstrating ineffectiveness... Be sure your judgement is made obvious at every step! Despite this, the ICJ has failed to punish the US for clear acts of aggression, thus turning a “blind eye to one of the most blatant human rights abuses” (Jean Shaoul). I think the ICJ reference works - I'd leave it! With respect, it clear that the UN has achieved success in past success in the disarmament of nuclear weapons, but is restricted by state sovereignty to enforce its policies for peace in North Korea and the US. Take out 'with respect,' - This is not an opinion piece persay, you are presenting facts and using them to form an argument. It's an academic piece, you'd say "with respect" in a letter to the editor or a speech or something non academic. As a result, UN responses to regional and global conflict has been effective only to a moderate extent.

Works well I think rodero! Make sure judgements are clear at every stage would be my primary piece of feedback

Geeez that was one fast response. Thank you so much! I'm currently fueled with caffeine and anxiety and it might be reflected in the paragraphs i'm posting, but I'm so thankful that you're able to point out my mistakes. Thanks

[jamonwindeyer]

Geeez that was one fast response. Thank you so much! I'm currently fueled with caffeine and anxiety and it might be reflected in the paragraphs i'm posting, but I'm so thankful that you're able to point out my mistakes. Thanks

Mate, you've done a heap to help people on these forums - You deserve it reciprocated!

Best of luck with it all (don't worry, I've spent many a coffee fuelled night up until 1am) - Bet you'll smash it!

[jamonwindeyer]

Hi guys, would greatly appreciate it if you could mark my essay
Haven't gotten around to do an intro or conclusion yet though

Hey Luke! Thanks for posting your essay - Our essay marking rules require you to have 15 posts on the forums for each piece you'd like feedback on. This is just to make sure the markers can keep up and give quality feedback

On a quick read though, I think writing about two issues serves you well! You've got a great level of detail - I don't think it would be efficient to take some of that away to try and squeeze a third one in