Discuss and evaluate the doctrines of direct effect, indirect effect and state liability developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

/in /by

Demonstrate knowledge and critical understanding of the constitutional and
administrative law of the European Union (EU), including the principles of
supremacy, indirect effect, direct effect and state liability
• Analyse and critically discuss key elements of the EU’s constitutional and
administrative law
• Identify, analyse and critically explain the key elements of the EU Law principles of
supremacy, indirect effect, direct effect and state liability
• Communicate written legal arguments in a structured, clear and concise manner

DISCUSS: Was MMRTC within its rights to refuse the accommodation and thus not hire Adele?

/in /by

Adele, a fully qualified specialized registered nurse, is deaf. She relies upon an American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter to communicate with hearing individuals in the workplace. Adele applied for a job with Marigold Mercy Receiving and Trauma Center (“MMRTC”), a large medical center that, with all its hubs and subsidiaries, grossed $1.3 billion annually. Adele received a job offer, conditioned upon a health screening and clearance by MMRTC’s occupational health department. She is in fact cleared, but she notified MMRTC that she needed an ASL interpreter as an accommodation for her hearing impairment. The annual salary, including benefits, for her position was approximately $75,000. Upon investigation, MMRTC calculated that the annual cost to MMRTC for the ASL interpreter accommodation would be $120,000; there was the need for a full time interpreter for Adele, plus several situations where two ASL interpreters would be required. In considering Adele’s request for accommodation, the department’s hiring supervisor wrote in an email that the department’s annual HR budget allocation of $3 million could not absorb the “excessive cost of the additional personnel” of ASL qualified interpreters “for this one nurse.” MMRTC determined the additional salary and personnel would be an “undue hardship,” making the accommodation unreasonable. Therefore, MMRTC did not hire Adele. Did MMRTC violate ADA?

DISCUSS: Was MMRTC within its rights to refuse the accommodation and thus not hire Adele? In considering this case, you should review: 1) what is considered a “reasonable” accommodation under ADA; (2) sample accommodations listed by ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12111(9) (2018)) and the EEOC (); and (3) the definition and standard for “undue hardship” (42 U.S.C. § 12111(10)(a) (2018)). Please support your thoughts and conclusion with reasoned analysis.

Find sources from the following databases: Academic Search Premier, Alexander Street Press, Business Market Research, Business Source Complete. EBSCO, Google Scholar, HeinOnline Academic, JSTOR, Proquest, and Taylor & Francis.

Assess and evaluate the pros and cons of Article V barriers to enforcement under The United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (New York Convention)

/in /by

Assess and evaluate the pros and cons of Article V barriers to enforcement under The United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (New York Convention)

To what degree should an individual be held accountable for war crimes committed under his or her command?

/in /by

Research the given case study for more information and answer the two questions in detail. also in each question include the cases like (Prosecutor v Djordjevic)
(Prosecutor v Blaskic) (Prosecutor v Delalic) these cases are available on www.icty.org. do include them in each question. you can use all three for each question or 1-2 for each question. But do include them. rest of the instructions are in the file.

Survey the healthcare system and present a current and creative legal challenge.

/in /by

Each student will survey the healthcare system and present a current and creative legal challenge. Think of this as an in-service or continuing education presentation. The selected topic must be of relevance/pertinence to the health professional. Issues that are familiar and challenging in your current position are good choices. For instance, Issues regarding DNA ownership; Status of Right to Die legislation; Facility liability for the acts of independent physicians. It must be specific (e.g., “an overview of the Affordable Care Act” is too general; “a review of current ACA eligibility issues” is not), and must include analysis on this topic from a Legal perspective. This should be three to five pages, double-spaced, and include at least three peer-reviewed legal sources.

Determine the data collection methods that will be used to determine the success of your program.

/in /by

Proposal focusing on program implementation that includes the following:

Identify sources of funding for your program.
Determine the criteria that will be used to evaluate the success of your program.
Determine the data collection methods that will be used to determine the success of your program.
Describe the way to collect and respond to feedback and implementation concerns.

Critically discuss three of the following four Sections of the Human Rights Act 1998 and their effect on the United Kingdom’s constitution

/in /by

Question 1 – Essay Question
Critically discuss three of the following four Sections of the Human Rights Act 1998 and their effect on the United Kingdom’s constitution:
1. S3 of the Human Rights Act 1998
2. S4 of the Human Rights Act 1998
3. S6 of the Human Rights Act 1998
4. S7 of the Human Rights Act 1998
(50 marks)
(LO 1-4)
(2000 words)
Question 2 – Problem Question
You have recently been hired as a researcher by the newly formed Moral Majority
lobby. This is a cross community political organisation that lobbies Members of
Parliament to support traditional family values. The Moral Majority would like to see
many modern progressive policies reversed, including the removal of United Kingdom
from the European Convention on Human Rights. The Moral Majority would like to
formulate a position on the following issues and would like your opinion on how the
European Court of Human Rights might interpret the legality of the following policies:
1. Marriage in the United Kingdom shall be between a man and woman only.
2. The return of the (fictional) common law view that the contract of marriage includes
the husband’s “right to sex”, meaning at the time of marriage a wife consents to sex for
all time by entering the contract.
3. All abortions are to be made illegal. To perform or receive an abortion will be a
criminal offence.
4. The return of the death penalty.
5. All forms of pornography will be banned.
(50 marks)
(LO 2, 3 & 4)
(2000 words)
Page 4 of 7
Formative Feedback
You have the opportunity to submit a draft assessment

The type of reference is OSCOLA style please, I study law in the United Kingdom and it has to be with the laws of this country and not the United States, on page 4 is the Guidelines for students studying the LLB (Hons) Qualifying Law Degree and this is what interests me

Discuss these themes, drawing on an appropriate range of relevant social science academic, research, and policy material to enable you to develop your analysis.

/in /by

Type of Paper – Research Report
Qualitative Research Methods for Social Scientists
Research Report
Your assessment should be titled:
Research Report: Thematic analysis of qualitative data

For the purposes of the assessment, you should assume that this research project has been agreed by the University’s Ethics Committee

You are expected to:
• Discuss epistemological and methodological issues in relation to this research.
• Discuss relevant ethical issues.
• Identify a selection of relevant themes emerging from the participants’ responses in the transcript.
• Discuss these themes, drawing on an appropriate range of relevant social science academic, research, and policy material to enable you to develop your analysis.
• Interpret the respondents’ answers using the above
• Include quotations from the transcripts where appropriate.
• Draw conclusions based on the data analysis.

Your research report should follow this structure –

Title
Introduction
Epistemology, methodology and ethics
Findings
Discussion
Conclusion
References (the reference list is not included in the 2500 word count)

This assignment has been designed to provide you with an opportunity to demonstrate your achievement of the following module learning outcomes:
Demonstrate understanding and knowledge of qualitative social research.
Critically evaluate and assess epistemological positions, research design and ethical issues in relation to social scientific research.
Analyse qualitative data and link the results to wider social scientific literature.

Discuss whether punishment as a deterrent is even possible if people act without considering the consequences of their actions and/or without the ability to reasonably choose alternate paths.

/in /by

Here are the background materials recommended for this Db:

Read Chapter 2, especially pp. 18-20 on “Deterrence.”
Download and read Crump, D. (2018). Deterrence. St. Mary’s Law Journal, 49(2), 317–361.
Any relevant material you may find from other classes and/or reliable sources.
Post your comments (100-250 words by 11:59pm ET on Thursday) on one of the three/four key requirements of an effective deterrence system (both specific and general): certainty, severity, and swiftness. Some would add publicity as a fourth requirement. Assume that humans mostly have free will and behave in a rational manner after calculating the consequences of their action. With support from the background materials, comment on how the key requirement you have selected can reasonably be achieved in contemporary society and what problems might arise when implementing that requirement as society tries to make punishment an effective deterrent. As space allows, in your own post or in your reply to another post, comment on the possibility that humans aren’t rationally calculating and/or have only bounded rationality or restricted free will? Discuss whether punishment as a deterrent is even possible if people act without considering the consequences of their actions and/or without the ability to reasonably choose alternate paths.