Chimpanzees In The Wild essays

Chimpanzees In The Wild essays Ever since she was a little girl in England, animals in Africa fascinated Jane Goodall. When she was eight years old, Jane read Tarzan and Doctor Doolittle. This furthered her love of animals even more and brought on the dream of one day studying in Africa. When her dream finally came true, Jane expected the expedition to last only three years thirty years later she is still in Gambi, Africa with no intention of leaving. July 14th, 1960 marks the first day Jane Goodall embarked on her journey. It had been a long, hard process to just get permission to go, as local authorities shunned upon the idea that a white woman would be living amongst wild animals all alone. Jane began the first day she got there; this was going to be her life, her passion. Once everything was set up in camp, Jane went into the jungle for the first time. Over the next couple of weeks she tried to gain the chimpanzees trust, but they fled at the mere sight of her. This made Jane impatient, but she knew from the start that it would be a long, hard process; this set back just made her determination even stronger; she never considered quitting an option. To gain their trust, Jane sat atop a peak and watched the chimpanzees everyday where they could see her. This allowed for Jane to view the chimpanzees in their natural environment and also allowed for the chimpanzees to become comfortable with Janes presence. Jane observed that chimpanzees resembled humans in ways never seen before. Chimpanzees talk to each other, create and use tools, and also eat meat they have a savage side to them, just like us. They are romantic with one another and walk in groups while in search of food. Chimpanzees are noisy and excitable, but become calm and gentle within minutes. They eat fruit, flowers, blossoms, and seeds for approximately seven hours a day. The mother is the primary caretaker of the baby the fa ...

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND WORLD POLITICS essays

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND WORLD POLITICS essays In order to fully understand the outcome of these three scenarios in relation to the international law and the use of force, we must first discuss the law as defined by the UN Charter. The UN Charter governs the international law and the use of force and has outlined very clear criteria for "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state" (article 2 4). The Charter strives to provide a state the ability to maintain its sovereignty and individual state integrity while outlining two instances that the use of force may be used. The first is individual or self defense' (art. 51), when a member state is the victim of aggression. As Guicherd points out, there are limitations to this justification. For example, Resolution 2625 states that assistance to either party engaged in a civil war is prohibited (20). The second justification for use of force is when the Security Council recognizes the "existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" (art. 39) and determines the use of coercive action is appropriate. It is important to note that there are coercive measures that can be taken that do not include the use of force, such as imposing sanction on a state found in violation. The three uses of force discussed here all differ from each other in conflict origin and political circumstances. In order to compare the military actions in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq a discussion of the circumstances under which the use of force took place is appropriate. All situations are unique and produce a gray area when determining the legality of the actions imposed by the United States, NATO and its allies. The justification and legality of the use of force in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq have been hotly debated with opinions raging from in the case of Kosovo, "simple skepticism to vehement condemnat...

Analyse Anglo-American relations from 1917 to 1941 Essay

Analyse Anglo-American relations from 1917 to 1941 - Essay Example The United States originally held a neutral position when the Great War broke out. It wanted to continue its isolationist policy and was fearful of getting embroiled in European conflicts. Its industries were also heavily engaged with European markets. President Woodrow Wilson also pointed out that â€Å"The people of the United States are drawn from many nations, and chiefly from the nations now at war. It is natural and inevitable that there should be the utmost variety of sympathy and desire among them with regard to the issues and circumstances of the conflict†¦ Such divisions amongst us would be fatal to our peace of mind and might seriously stand in the way of the proper performance of our duty as the one great nation at peace, the one people holding itself ready to play a part of impartial mediation and speak the counsels of peace and accommodation, not as a partisan, but as a friend.†1 The British knew that American arms and support are vital to turn the tide in t he Allies’ favor. This neutral position was reversed with the occurrence of several events, including the sinking of the Lusitania and Germany’s declaration of unrestricted submarine warfare. American entry into the war on April 6, 1917 can be considered as the foundation and the beginning of a long and lasting friendship between the U.K. and U.S. The Allies now had relatively unlimited resources and men which tipped the balance against the Central Powers. The British and American forces cooperated under a unified command headed by Field Marshal Foch and the latter agreed to fight alongside their European comrades and partially relinquish command independence in its operations. The British prime minister, along with the prime ministers of France and Italy, also appealed for more troops in 1918. It was clear that the United States had the military and financial muscle needed by the Allies to gain