Legal Aspects of the Oil & Gas Industry Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3500 words

Legal Aspects of the Oil & Gas Industry - Essay Example The large multinational oil companies owing to their economies of scale as well as proper use of human capital have attained efficiency. But empirical evidence also reveals that nationalization of foreign assets hinders foreign investments and have resulted in the drop of output, national income for oil-dependent economies (Guriev, Kolotilin & Sonin, 2009, p.2). 2. Background Now with the nationalization of the international oil companies by the host countries many questions arise in the forefront. It can be questioned that whether the government of host countries achieves parity with the international oil companies while exercising their permanent sovereignty over the natural resources by nationalizing the operations of oil Companies who are exploring and exploiting oil and gas resources in their countries and thus bringing about socio-economic growth. The right of the host government for breaching terms of oil and gas transactions contracts between the countries and companies can b e done at will which also questions the sanctity of contract in such cases. Libya and Iran are two oil-rich countries where nationalization of international oil companies have taken place with various legal problems where the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have intervened and have declared various decisions. The paper will present a judicial precedent in accordance with the decisions taken in the Iranian case and then will discuss in what ways it has affected the Libyan case.

War on Drugs Essay Example for Free

War on Drugs Essay Not surprisingly, cases like the foregoing generated a public backlash-perhaps the only significant one since the War on Drugs was declared in 1982. It pressured Congress into creating what is known as the innocent owner defense to such in rem forfeitures, but even that gesture of reasonableness is largely illusory. First, the defense does not redress the gross imbalance between the value of property forfeited and the personal culpability of the owner. For example, a Vermont man was found guilty of growing six marijuana plants. He received a suspended sentence, but he and his family lost their 49-acre farm. Similarly, a New York man forfeited his $145,000 condominium because he sold cocaine to an informant for $250. The law provides no limit to the value of property subject to forfeiture, even for very minor drug offenses. Second, the innocent owner defense places the burden on the property claimant to demonstrate that he or she acted or failed to act without knowledge, consent or willful blindness of the drug activities of the offender. Thus, the Federal government instituted forfeiture proceedings in the Delray Beach, Fla. , area against numerous properties containing convenience stores or other businesses where drug transactions took place, claiming that the owners made insufficient efforts to prevent drug dealings. Placing the burden on the claimant imposes expense and inconvenience because the claimant must hire a lawyer to mount a challenge to the seizure. Moreover, many cases involve the family house or car, and it often is difficult to prove that one family member had no knowledge of or did not consent to the illegal activities of another. For instance, a Florida court held that a claimant did not use reasonable care to prevent her husband from using her automobile in criminal activity; thus, she was not entitled to the innocent owner defense. A particularly cruel application of this kind of vicarious responsibility for the wrongs of another is seen in the governments policy of evicting impoverished families from public housing because of the drug activities of one unruly child. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 specifically states that a tenants lease is a forfeitable property interest and that public housing agencies have the authority to hire investigators to determine whether drug laws are being broken. The act authorizes eviction if a tenant, member of his or her household, guest, or other person under his or her control is engaged in drug-related activity on or near public housing premises. To carry out these provisions, the act funded a pilot enforcement program. In 1990, the Departments of Justice and Housing and Urban Development announced a Public Housing Asset Forfeiture Demonstration Project in 23 states. The project pursued lease forfeitures and generated considerable publicity. In passing this law, it must have been obvious to Congress that many innocent family members would suffer along with the guilty. Perhaps it was thought vital, nonetheless, as a way of protecting other families from drugs in public housing projects. As experience proves, however, even evicted dealers continue to deal in and around the projects. It is hard to take public housing lease forfeitures very seriously, therefore, other than as a symbolic statement of the governments tough stand against illegal drugs. Destructive consequences A policy that destroys families, takes property from the innocent, and tramples the basic criminal law principles of personal responsibility, proportionality, and fairness has spillover effects into other public policy domains. One area in which the fanaticism of the drug warriors perhaps is most evident is public health. Drugs such as marijuana and heroin have well-known medical applications. Yet, so zealous are the anti-drug forces that even these therapeutic uses effectively have been banned. Marijuana, for instance, has many applications as a safe and effective therapeutic agent. Among them are relief of the intraocular pressure caused by glaucoma and alleviating the nausea caused by chemotherapy. Some AIDS patients also have obtained relief from using cannabis. Yet, marijuana is classified by the Attorney General of the U. S. , not the Surgeon General, as a Schedule I drug-one having a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medicinal use, and lack of accepted safety for utilization. It thereby is deemed beyond the scope of legitimate medical practice and thus is not generally available to medical practitioners. The only exception was an extremely limited program of compassionate treatment of the terminally or seriously ill, but even that has been eliminated for political reasons. Assistant Secretary James O. Mason of the Department of Health and Human Services announced in 1991 that the Public Health Services provision of marijuana to patients seriously ill with AIDS would be discontinued because it would create a public perception that this stuff cant be so bad. After a review caused by protests from AIDS activists, the Public Health Service decided in March, 1992, to stop supplying marijuana to any patients save the 13 then receiving it. There also are beneficial uses for heroin. Terminal cancer patients suffering from intractable pain generally obtain quicker analgesic relief from heroin than from morphine. Many doctors believe that heroin should be an option in the pharmacopeia. Accordingly, in 1981, the American Medical Association House of Delegates adopted a resolution stating that the management of pain relief in terminal cancer patients should be a medical decision and should take priority over concerns about drug dependence. Various bills to accomplish that goal were introduced in the 96th, 97th, and 98th Congresses. The Compassionate Pain Relief Act was brought to the House floor for a vote on Sept. 19, 1984, but was defeated by 355 to 55. Although there were some concerns voiced about thefts from hospital pharmacies, the overwhelming concern was political and symbolic a heroin legalization bill could not be passed in an election year and, in any event, would send the public the wrong message. The final and perhaps most outrageous example in this catalog of wrongs against public health care is the nearly universal American refusal to permit established addicts to exchange used needles for sterile ones in order to prevent AIDS transmission among intravenous drug users. In 1991, the National Commission on AIDS recommended the removal of legal barriers to the purchase and possession of intravenous drug injection equipment. It found that 32% of all adult and adolescent AIDS cases were related to intravenous drug use and that 70% of mother-to-child AIDS infections resulted from intravenous drug use by the mother or her sexual partner. Moreover the commission found no evidence that denial of access to sterile needles reduced drug abuse, but concluded that it did encourage the sharing of contaminated needles and the spread of the AIDS virus. Notwithstanding the commissions criticism of the governments myopic criminal justice approach to the drug situation, the prevailing view is that needle exchange programs encourage drug abuse by sending the wrong message. Public safety is sacrificed when, nationwide, more than 18,000 local, sheriffs, and state police officers, in addition to thousands of Federal agents, are devoted full time to special drug units. As a result, countless hours and dollars are diverted from detecting and preventing more serious violent crimes. Thirty percent of an estimated 1,100,000 drug-related arrests made during 1990 were marijuana offenses, nearly four out of five for mere possession. Tax dollars would be spent better if the resources it took to make approximately 264,000 arrests for possession of marijuana were dedicated to protecting the general public from violent crime. The intensive pursuit of drug offenders has generated an enormous population of convicts held in prison for very long periods of time as a result of excessive and/or mandatory jail terms. It is estimated that the operating cost of maintaining a prisoner ranges from $20,000 to $40,000 per year, depending upon the location and level of security at a particular prison. With more than 800,000 men and women in American correctional facilities today, the nationwide cost approaches $30,000,000,000 per year. This is a major diversion of scarce resources. These financial burdens are only part of the price incurred as a result of the relentless drive to achieve higher and higher arrest records. More frightening and damaging are the injuries and losses caused by the early release of violent criminals owing to prison overcrowding. Commonly, court orders impose population caps, so prison authorities accelerate release of violent felons serving non-mandatory sentences in order to free up beds for non-violent drug offenders serving mandatory, non-parolable terms. For example, to stay abreast of its rapidly growing inmate population, Florida launched one of the nations most ambitious early release programs. However, prisoners serving mandatory terms most of them drug offenders, who now comprise 36% of the total prison population are ineligible. As a result, the average length of sentence declined dramatically for violent criminals, while it rose for drug offenders. Murderers, robbers, and rapists often serve less time than a cocaine mule carrying a kilo on a bus, who gets a mandatory 15-year term. A Department of Justice survey showed that 43% of state felons on probation were rearrested for a crime within three years of sentencing. In short, violent criminals are released early to commit more crimes so that their beds can be occupied by nonviolent drug offenders. Civil libertarians are not heard often defending a societal right to be secure from violent criminals, much less a right of victims to see just punishment meted out to offenders. In this they are as shortsighted as their law-and-order counterparts. The War on Drugs is a public safety disaster, making victims of us all. However uncomfortable it may be to admit, the undeniable reality is that drugs always have been and always will be a presence in society. Americans have been paying too high a price for the governments War on Drugs. As Federal judge William Schwarzer has said, It behooves us to think that it may profit us very little to win the war on drugs if in the process we lose our soul. http://www. serendipity. li/wod. html

Martyrdom and September 11th :: Martyr Islam Muslim 9/11 9-11 Terrorism Terrorist

On September the 11th 2001, the international crisis of terrorism exploded in America. The dark cloud that loomed over lower Manhattan eventually cleared but the reality of the American entrance into the battlefield of terror didn’t dissipate. When President Bush addressed his stunned and grieving nation, he declared a crusade on terrorists and all who harbored them, and â€Å"when [his] remarks were translated into Arabic for broadcast throughout the Middle East, the word crusade was rendered as ‘war of the cross’† (Carrol 5). This religious reference rang true to those terrorists who had attacked the World Trade Center; all were members of Osama Bin Laden's terrorist network Al Qaeda. The group is a militant Islamist organization that believes those who commit acts like those of September 11th are martyrs, welcomed into eternal paradise. The phenomenon of martyrdom is not exclusive to Islam. By definition, a martyr is â€Å"one who voluntarily suffers death rather than deny his religion by words or deeds; such action is afforded special, institutionalized recognition in most major religions of the world†¦the term may also refer to anyone who sacrifices his life or something of great value for the sake of principle† (Britannica). The word is derived from the Greek word for witness. Throughout the ages, willingness to die for a noble cause has been a persistent idea. In three of the world’s major religions- Judaism, Christianity and Islam, martyrdom has played a significant role. In Judaism, the concept of martyrdom is referred to as Kiddush Hashem which means sanctification of God's name. This definition includes refusal to renounce the word of God for reasons of convenience or to save one’s life. According to Judaic beliefs, Abraham, the first Hebrew patriarch, was thrown into a furnace for denouncing idolatry. Though he was saved by God, his brush with death made him the first martyr of the Jewish faith. During medieval times, Jews were persecuted by Christians throughout Europe, and were frequently put to death for crimes such as blood libel and host desecration1. Many Jews were forced to flee Spain during the Inquisition to avoid being unjustly persecuted under the pretense of similar offenses. These martyrs were usually burned at the stake. In the 1940’s Hitler systematically slayed over six million Jews during the reign of the Third Reich. These are just a few examples of martyrs of Judaism. In early Christianity, all believers were considered martyrs. Later, this distinction was reserved for those who refused to renounce their faith and suffered as a result, whether they were injured or killed. Eventually, only those who were killed for their beliefs were considered martyrs.

Anna M. Kerttula’s “Antler on the Sea” Essay

In her book, Antler on the Sea, Kerttula discusses how Soviet government policies aimed to integrate the northern peoples of the USSR in reality helped the groups to maintain their identities as they defined themselves in opposition to one another. According to Kerttula, â€Å"in Sireniki, the very system that sought to control and homogenize difference reinforced it† (155). Kerttula illustrates the extent to which much of the native culture has survived the Soviet period. This trend is particularly prevalent as Kerttula progresses through her descriptions of Yup’ik, Chukchi, and ‘Newcomer’ lifestyle and practices. The development of collective group identity and cultural transformation among northern indigenous peoples in the Soviet Union was heavily influenced not only by the structure of the Soviet system but also by the provoking of oppositional relationships between the groups. Kerttula effortlessly explains the interrelationships of the many opposing ‘forces’: tundra and sea, Yup’ik and Chukchi, natives and newcomers, and old and new ways in the North. These relationships were based on prior cultural forms, symbols and meanings but as a result of Soviet influence, local cultural boundaries were transformed and the ensuing dialogue of difference was encouraged. As Kerttula asserts, it is the â€Å"we/they dichotomy that for many anthropologists defines an ethnic group† (152). The Soviet state, with its ideological, political and economic goals, changed the structure of the interactions between local and immigrant groups, but was unable to change the cultural content of their discourse. According to Kerttula, historically the Yup’ik, Chukchi and Russians had very limited contact with one another. Prior to forced relocations and settlements that occurred with collectivization, the Yup’ik lived at Sireniki and met with the Chukchi occasionally for the limited purpose of trade (123). After collectivization the three groups were forced to live in a single locality and thus new dynamics and an increased frequency of interaction changed the ways that the Yup’ik, Chukchi, and Russians (Newcomers) worked together. As Kerttula points out, the cultural definitions and descriptors of the three groups were not always in agreement; quite often they clashed. For example, Kerttula generalizes on the Newcomer’s feelings of superiority to the Yup’ik  and Chukchi. Accordingly, â€Å"this attitude of superiority was intensified by the physical separation of the three groups, both at their place of work and in their free time† (152). It was the Newcomer’s familiarity with the Russian social structure that in fact led to this so-called ‘superiority’ (152). Similarly, the Yup’ik and Chukchi view one another as, for instance, receiving favoritism in their language instructions at the local school. Parents are cited as believing the other group to be receiving better instruction: â€Å"The Chukchi complained that there were more Yup’ik lessons than Chukotkan, and Yup’ik parents complained that the quality of the Yup’ik lessons were substa ndard† (154). Unlike the Nivkhi described by Grant, the Yup’ik and Chukchi do not express a feeling of ‘culturelessness’. As both groups have been able to maintain dominant aspects of their traditional lifestyle, the sense of loss seemed to be felt to a lesser degree (although they did ‘lose’ language and the freedom to hunt whales). The Yup’ik could remain defined primarily by their affinity for and connections to the sea while the Chukchi could remain defined primarily by their affinity for and connections to the tundra. Modernity within the community of Sireniki was integrated in a way that was advantageous for the people. As Kerttula points out however, instead of questioning the government’s socialist tactics, most looked more locally to the ‘others’ in the community (151, 153). These collective identities enabled the Yup’ik, Chukchi, and Newcomers to accept Soviet designated social and economic conditions by infusing these conditions with their own cultural knowledge, making them meaningful and reproducible. Kerttula captures the disharmony tolerated by indigenous people in the Soviet period as they retained their own beliefs and customs while adapting to altered environments and economic change. As Kerttula reiterates many times, modernity has brought many unexpected and unwelcome changes. Most importantly, the state has used the discourse of modernity to once again portray indigenous peoples in a way that suits their needs as an administrative body. Instead of looking to the heavy restrictions enforced by the Soviet system, the people of Sireniki â€Å"focused their discourse on each other† and looked to each other as being a source of some of their problems (155). Toward the end of her book, Kerttula points out a fundamental problem in the collective group definitions: if the groups defined their identities in opposition to one another, what happens to those who married cross-culturally? In her discussion of possible division within the community into different associations, this problem came to the forefront. As one of Kerttula’s informants asks, to which association would the child of both Yup’ik and Chukchi parents belong? (152). Theoretically the three groups existed separate from the other two. In reality though, intermarriage and the creation of friendships were relatively common inter-ethnically. The individual cultures were not only subjective, but also laden with political and social questions of identity and personhood (151). What makes the case at Sireniki unique is that three distinct cultural groups were essentially forced to live together in relative peace while each simultaneously sought to prolong and promote their own traditional practices and beliefs. Kerttula’s investigation and analysis is of how collective identities were facilitated among the two indigenous groups and one immigrant group in order to maintain their cultures in the face of rapidly changing social and material circumstances (153).

The Humane Conditions of the United States’ Japanese Internment Camps

In response to the attack on Pearl Harbor, Canadian and American governments took extreme actions to prevent possible Japanese attacks, first and foremost are the internment camps. Japanese internment camps housed Japanese US and non-US citizens from 1942-1945. The economic and social factors surrounding the camps were unprecedented. The United States managed the affair with somewhat of a dignified perspective while Canada on the other hand fully implemented dispossession, discrimination, but ignored a redress of any sort. In contrast to the United States, Canada completely exploited the Japaneses’ economic resources. Shortly before their evacuation to the camps the â€Å"to-be-interned† Japanese would quickly sell some or all of their personal possessions whether to the government or other white civilian buyers. Under the War Measures Act of 1943, the Japanese were required to pay taxes for every sold item which would later be auctioned; their land and other properties, if not sold, were immediately confiscated. Later, the property was resold to white Canadians and never returned. â€Å"Dispossession of Canadian citizens, was contrary to British principles of justice and to the Atlantic Charter,† announced Dr. Henry F. Angus, in opposition to Japanese internment. He demonstrates that even then were there individuals that recognized the unjustness of the camps. The taxes aforementioned were used for the payment of government employees and also to fund the internment camps and pay businessmen who took over maritime industries normally monopolized by Japanese. The United States was responsible for confiscating some private properties, but not nearly the amount of which Canada was responsible. The Canadians took economic advantage of the camps to their fullest extent. In Canada the social conditions of the Japanese internment camps were different from the Unites States camps which had the necessities such as food, shelter, and water. The ten Japanese internment camps in the United States were incomparable to the intolerable conditions in which Japanese Canadians were forced to live. Japanese Americans had facilities such as mess halls, bath houses, laundry buildings and recreational areas on the primacies. The detainees could specialize and join the work force to support themselves and spend their wages in the camp store. Children attended school and most families attended church on Sundays. Restrictions to which they had to abide included leaving the premises, criminal activities, worship of the state Shinto, food and water rations, and others. Canadian camps provided extremely limited resources to the interned, sometimes providing only 10 toilets for 1,500 women, while shortages of food were common. As sickness spread so did a hatred of both American and Canadian Caucasian citizens whether they were responsible or not for the Japanese’s incarceration. Approximately 60 years later, the US felt a moral obligation to redress about 550 Japanese citizens that were associated with internment camps. About 12 million US dollars were distributed to the few remaining victimized families. This is embarrassing and tragic at the very least, admitting our injustice publically. However they took responsibility for their actions which explains how Japanese immersion and social acceptance in America’s society developed Americans’ humility and honor. Through such compensation of moneys and in some cases property Americans regained the faith of the Japanese to some degree. Canada on the other hand showed very little mercy to the delicate minority and interned every Japanese immigrant. Families were torn apart without hesitation, separating husbands from wives and children from mothers, leaving families with absolutely nothing but bitterness and sour remorse after being subjects to the government’s lethal power. Prior to installing the Japanese internment camps Canada and America were immersed in a state of fear after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The two regions had agreed to inform the other of changes in policies within the internment camps when they were built. One country fed off the other, trying to find some justification for their dreadful treatment of the interned Japanese. As the United States confiscated land Canada dispossessed boats for economic profit; while the standard of living in American internment camps was low, the Canadians took it one step further, providing them with little supplies and a socially cold shoulder. The United States maintained the Japanese internment camps better than the Canadians, providing them with scarce necessities but humane conditions. Works Cited Challenge to Democracy, A (1944). U. S. War Relocation Authority. March 3rd, 2010 http://www. archive. org/details/Challeng1944 The Politics of Racism . Ann Sunahara. March 3rd, 2010 http://www. japanesecanadianhistory. ca/