Topic Review
Unlawful Combatant
An unlawful combatant, illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is, according to United States law, a person who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war and therefore is claimed to not be protected by the Geneva Conventions. The International Committee of the Red Cross points out that the terms "unlawful combatant", "illegal combatant" or "unprivileged combatant/belligerent" are not defined in any international agreements. The Geneva Conventions apply in wars between two or more sovereign states. Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention states that the status of detainees whose combatant status is in doubt should be determined by a "competent tribunal". Until such time, they must be treated as prisoners of war. After a "competent tribunal" has determined that an individual is not a lawful combatant, the "detaining power" may choose to accord the individual the rights and privileges of a prisoner of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An individual who is not a lawful combatant, who is not a national of a neutral state, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent state, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial". While the concept of an unlawful combatant is included in the Third Geneva Convention, the phrase itself does not appear in the document. Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention does describe categories under which a person may be entitled to POW status. There are other international treaties that deny lawful combatant status for mercenaries and children. In the United States, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 codified the legal definition of this term and invested the U.S. President with broad discretion to determine whether a person may be designated an unlawful enemy combatant under United States law. The assumption that unlawful combatant status exists as a separate category to lawful combatant and civilian is contradicted by the findings of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgment quoted the 1958 International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: "Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law". Thus, anyone not entitled to prisoner of war status maintains the same rights as a civilian, and must be prosecuted under domestic law. Neither status exists in non-international conflict, with all parties equally protected under International Humanitarian Law. The Geneva Conventions do not recognize any status of lawfulness for combatants in conflicts not involving two or more nation states, such as during civil wars between government's forces, and insurgents. A state in such a conflict is legally bound only to observe Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and may ignore all of the other Articles. But each one of them is completely free to apply all or part of the remaining Articles of the Convention.
  • 2.7K
  • 02 Dec 2022
Topic Review
Union of Councils for Soviet Jews
Union of Councils for Jews in the Former Soviet Union (UCSJ) is a non-governmental organization that reports on the human rights conditions in countries throughout Eastern Europe and Central Asia, exposing hate crimes and assisting communities in need. UCSJ uses grassroots-based monitoring and advocacy, as well as humanitarian aid, to protect the political and physical safety of Jewish people and other minorities in the region. UCSJ is based in Washington, D.C., and is linked to other organizations such as the Moscow Helsinki Group. It has offices in Russia and Ukraine and has a collegial relationship with human rights groups that were founded by the UCSJ in the countries of the former Soviet Union. The UCSJ was formed in 1970 as part of the Movement to Free Soviet Jewry, a response to the oppression of Jews in the Soviet Union and other countries of the Soviet bloc.
  • 335
  • 24 Nov 2022
Topic Review
Union of Bulgaria and Romania
The union of Bulgaria and Romania (Bulgarian: Съюз на България и Румъния, romanized: Sǎjúz na Bŭlgariya i Rumŭniya; Romanian: Unirea Bulgariei cu România) was a project for the unification of Bulgaria and Romania into a common state. This would be accomplished under a federation, a personal union or a confederation. The idea had great support, especially in Bulgaria, and there were several opportunities to realize it. Usually, proposals came from Bulgarians and it was the Romanians, who would have composed the ethnic majority, the ones that were supposed to govern. Nevertheless, it ultimately failed to appear mainly due to the differences between Bulgarians and Romanians and the opposition from external powers like Austria-Hungary and especially Russia. This idea had its precedents. Bulgarians and Romanians first lived together under the rule of the First Bulgarian Empire, which extended its power north of the Danube. After the fall of this state would come the Second Bulgarian Empire, established through the cooperation of Bulgarians and Vlachs (Romanians). The empire would also be defeated, this time by the Ottoman Empire, which ruled territories populated by Bulgarians and Romanians for centuries. Later, a popular concept emerged in the Balkans: the federalization of the region, aimed at fighting nearby empires and solving conflicts between its peoples. The idea eventually spread in Bulgaria and Romania, gaining certain support. Several proposals were made; that of Georgi Sava Rakovski stands out. After the establishment of an autonomous Bulgarian principality in 1878, projects with Romania were enhanced. In fact, during the search for the first modern Bulgarian prince, several Romanian nominations came out. These were Carol I, monarch of Romania, and Gheorghe G. Bibescu, son of a Wallachian prince. However, the one who ended up being elected was Alexander of Battenberg, of German origins. Alexander had good relations with Romania, but he was forced to abdicate in 1886 after a period of political turmoil in Bulgaria. This was caused by Russia, which intended to extend its influence over the country. However, Stefan Stambolov, a Russophobe (name of those Bulgarians who opposed Russian policies), ended up taking power. The regent Stambolov tried again to establish a personal union with Romania, and negotiations were conducted. Carol I would be the head of such state, which would have either two separate governments or a single united one. Carol I had interest in becoming ruler of Bulgaria as well, but Russia strongly opposed this. At the end, it threatened Romania with the breakdown of diplomatic relations and even with a military invasion, forcing Carol I to reject the offer. Again, a German prince, Ferdinand I, was elected prince of Bulgaria in June 1887. New approaches were attempted decades later, in the communist era, especially by Georgi Dimitrov, but they all met strong rejection from the Soviet Union. Joseph Stalin , its leader, deemed the proposal as impossible. A Bulgarian-Romanian union was thus never established. The reasons for this were the disapproval of several great powers, the differences in the national goals of the Bulgarians and Romanians and the lack of actual interest or even opposition between each other. In addition, the idea of federalization of the Balkans, which had great support in its time, lost strength all over the region after the conflicts of the beginning of the 20th century and the violent breakup of Yugoslavia. However, the emergence of the European Union, of which Bulgaria and Romania have been members since 2007, has revived such an idea, which could once again be considered in the future.
  • 1.6K
  • 21 Nov 2022
Topic Review
Uncontrolled Outdoor Access for Cats
Outdoor access for companion cats is a controversial topic. Some have suggested that outdoor access can negatively impact the welfare of companion cats through increased risks of disease and parasites, injury or death due to traffic, predation or ingestion of toxins, and becoming lost. In addition, cats can negatively influence their environments due to the predation of small birds and mammals, and they are sometimes a nuisance to human neighbors. Despite these concerns, recent estimates suggest that many owners still allow their cats outside, likely because it also provides cats with exercise, and allows them to perform natural behaviors, such as hunting, exploring, and climbing. While some suggest that cats need outdoor access, others recommend ways for cats to meet these needs indoors by providing enrichment and properly supervising cats during outdoor access. 
  • 438
  • 09 Dec 2021
Topic Review
Umtsimba
A traditional Swazi wedding ceremony is called umtsimba (Template:IPA-ss), where the bride commits herself to her new family for the rest of her life. The ceremony is a celebration that includes members of both the bride's - and the groom's - natal village. There are stages to the wedding that stretch over a few days. Each stage is significant, comprising symbolic gestures that have been passed on from generation to generation. The first stage is the preparation of the bridal party before leaving their village. The second stage is the actual journey of the bridal party from their village to the groom's village. The third stage is the first day of the wedding ceremony that spans three days, and starts on the day the bridal party arrives at the grooms’ village. Thereafter the actual wedding ceremony takes place which is the fourth stage of the umtsimba. The fifth stage takes place the day after the wedding ceremony and is known as kuteka, which is the actual wedding. The final stage may take place the day after the wedding day, and is when the bride gives the groom's family gifts and is the first evening the bride spends with the groom. Although the traditional wedding ceremony has evolved in modern times, the details below are based on historic accounts of anthropologist Hilda Kuper and sociological research describing the tradition
  • 436
  • 19 Oct 2022
Topic Review
Ultimate Issue (Law)
An ultimate issue in criminal law is a legal issue at stake in the prosecution of a crime for which an expert witness is providing testimony.
  • 787
  • 11 Oct 2022
Topic Review
Ukrainian Center for EU Civil Service Standards
The Center for Adaptation of the Civil Service to the Standards of the European Union (since its foundation in April, 2004 till June, 2008 – Center for Support of Civil Service Institutional Development) was established under the National Agency of Ukraine on Civil Service (hereinafter – NAUCS) in order to provide informational and analytical, expert and organizational support to public administration development, strengthening of institutional capacity of the civil service of Ukraine and its adaptation to the standards of the European Union. Professional activity of the Center for Adaptation of the Civil Service to the Standards of the European Union (hereinafter – the Center) is carried out in accordance with the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine as of 4 June 2008 No 528 “Some Issues of the Center for Support of Civil Service Institutional Development”.
  • 181
  • 17 Oct 2022
Topic Review
Udall Family
The Udall family is a U.S. political family rooted in the American West. Its role in politics spans over 100 years and four generations. Udall politicians have been elected from four different states: Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Oregon. If viewed as a combined entity, the Udall-Hunt-Lee family has been elected from six states: Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Oregon, and Utah. Three Udall family cousins were nominated by the two major American political parties for the United States Senate elections of 2008, of which the two Democrats were elected and seated in 2009.
  • 405
  • 25 Nov 2022
Topic Review
Truth and Reconciliation Commission
A truth commission or truth and reconciliation commission is a commission tasked with discovering and revealing past wrongdoing by a government (or, depending on the circumstances, non-state actors also), in the hope of resolving conflict left over from the past. Truth commissions are, under various names, occasionally set up by states emerging from periods of internal unrest, civil war, or dictatorship. In both their truth-seeking and reconciling functions, truth commissions have political implications: they "constantly make choices when they define such basic objectives as truth, reconciliation, justice, memory, reparation, and recognition, and decide how these objectives should be met and whose needs should be served". According to one widely cited definition: "A truth commission (1) is focused on the past, rather than in ongoing events; (2) investigates a pattern of events that took place over a period of time; (3) engages directly and broadly with the affected population, gathering information on their experiences; (4) is a temporary body, with the aim of concluding with a final report; and (5) is officially authorized or empowered by the state under review". The term used in the Australian context of reconciliation with its Indigenous peoples is truth telling.
  • 487
  • 28 Nov 2022
Topic Review
Trier Social Stress Test
The Trier social stress test (TSST) is a laboratory procedure used to reliably induce stress in human research participants. It is a combination of procedures that were previously known to induce stress, but previous procedures did not do so reliably. It was created in 1993 at the University of Trier by Clemens Kirschbaum and colleagues.
  • 431
  • 07 Nov 2022
  • Page
  • of
  • 58