Is Catholicism taking a step towards modern times?

So finally, the pope has indeed endorsed the use of condoms, not as contraceptive measures but as a means to prevent the spread of HIV. Although many have welcomed his comment on this controversial matter as reasonable in the fight for HIV, others are concerned it could, "open" pandora's box" as it could see the rise in the number of youngsters having "protected" sex given that fornication is a sin. In my opinion, it does not make any difference as it is very hard to find youths of these days not committing fornication anyway when sex appeal has  become the order of the day. Better safe than sorry I say and it is surpirising that decision was not made earlier. Anyway, as the leader of millions of catholics worldwide has spoken, it is certain that at the very least, everyone can do away with the hypocrisy now.

For more info, see http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101120/ap_on_re_eu/eu_pope_condoms

Is the harmonization of International Commercial Law working?

I was studying for the module International Trade Law yesterday, when a thought struck me; there appears to be a pattern forming in the international commercial arena. This is evidenced by the unification and harmonization of the law through mechanisms like the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, the International Chamber of Commerce Model International Sale Contract, various European Union Directives, etc.

But the question remains, is this so called unification and harmonization working? Theoretically, it should achieve its purpose without little or no hitch. However, in reality, the reverse is the case. If anything, it has succeeded in creating more diversity than intended and it is not difficult to see why. The most important reason for this is down to the fact that globally, nation states do not have a single unified jurisdiction when it comes to law. Some have common law jurisdictions whilst others have civil law jurisdictions. Therefore, even if there is a single convention that lays down the law, it is guaranteed that the method of interpretation will be different, thereby leading to different outcomes. Would it would help for clarity purposes if there was a different means for the harmonisation of International Commercial Law? This is something I look forward to exploring during the duration of my course.

Tired of looking over your shoulder?

In view of yesterday's blog, I would like to ask a question on something I have been mulling over for a little while now. The trigger point was in today's news, airport officials found a detonator and timer in a suitcase in a flight bound for Germany. It is still unclear if this was a live explosive as only ongoing forensics will declare that. However, what caught my attention was the fact that it was reported that the German interior minister said there are, "concrete indications of a series of attack planned for the end of November". Now this is not the first time I have come across such a statement. Infact, some of the bomb plots were only discovered by so called "tip offs". For instance, the plot discovered last month in Dubai was indeed possible because of a tip off from Saudi Arabia. It has led me to question what is indeed going on behind the scenes. Is this another means to scare into the masses? Or is this truly a war going on? Im not saying that I would actually like to see these so called bombs go off but all these speculations are actually worse than the bombs themselves. Everyone is paranoid and constantly looking over their shoulder. Is this really how we are all going to live for the next coming years? What are your opinions?

For more information see links below:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/GERMANY-A-Suspected-Bomb-Bound-For-Munich-Has-Been-Found-In-A-Suitcase-At-An-Airport-In-Namibia/Article/201011315817270?lpos=World_News_News_Your_Way_Region_7&lid=NewsYourWay_ARTICLE_15817270_GERMANY%3A_A_Suspected_Bomb_Bound_For_Munich_Has_Been_Found_In_A_Suitcase_At_An_Airport_In_Namibia_

http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Ally39s-tipoff-led-to-plane.6607064.jp

Privacy vs Security?

With all the bomb threats going around, it is  of little wonder most people feel threatened. Recently, at an american airport, a traveller kicked up a fuss when he was asked to submit to "patting down" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/airport_security). According to him, the security checks carried out at airports are superficial and just another means to invade personal privacy. So far he has attracted so many supporters on the internet with some people even going as far as printing tshirts, hats, etc with the words of his refusal stamped on them. But the irony is, are these not the same people that protested/complained to the government for tightening of security checks? It seems people want good security but everything comes at a price or expense of something. So what is it ging to be? Do we all cherish our privacy much more than a life and death situation? I agree the current checks in place are  very rigorous to the point of insulting but is that not what we all need? To feel safe? Another controversy that people argue about is the fact that even as the security belts have been tightened, it does not make any difference as the terrorists still manage to slip through "unapparent cracks". This is definitely not reassuring and in my opinion calls for an even tighter security than as it is at present. If one has not got anything to hide, then it should not be a problem.

Political correctness, where are we headed?

Right, I think the British society has lost the plot when it comes to what is acceptable and what is not. Infact, I dare say it is teetering on extremism! Just today, it was reported in the news that a toy shop removed a pig from its toy farm set for fear it might upset muslim and jewish parents. It has indeed led me to ponder why Britain as a nation has to bend over backwards just to accomodate everyone. Let me clarify, I am not against the idea of treating everyone equally. Equal opportunity is probably one of the best things ever invented and Britain is definitely the poster child for that. But I am afraid there has to be a line drawn somewhere and especially when it comes to sensitive issues like religion. The story above is not the first of its kind. As the years have gone by, it has definitely seen more politically correct warnings about how the society should be mindful of doing anything just incase it comes accross as "offensive" to people, especially muslims. While I am a strong advocate for diplomacy and respectfulness towards other humans, there is a fine line between "freedom of speech" and outright disrespectfulness. The trend these days is getting sacked or sued just because there is a risk that one's statement can be viewed as insensitive. I mean, what is going on? Surely when one migrates to a different country, there's the contemplation that you have to adapt to certain things like language, weather, food, etc. There is no requirement that you get rid of your culture entirely but you can not go about expecting things to be exactly as they were in your home country. For example, you cannot go on holiday to Saudi Arabia wearing a bikini by the beach or start kissing in public because their laws forbid it. Come to think of it, how many churches are there in Saudi Arabia and how many mosques are in Britain? I am sure the difference is clear because the focus is indeed on only one part of the society. What about the christians, sikhs, buddhists etc? Does any one really care if anything offends them or not? It is good that Britons have opened their arms and pockets to many but it is definitely not being appreciated especially with the whole attitude of taking offence even when none was meant. It has got to stop as I for one, cannot continue biting my tongue and not having an opinion or expressing myself the way I want to, just because there is a possibility that some one out there might be offended. This is not intended as a jibe towards any race or religion, I am simply fed up of all the political correctness going on and would like to see a society where everyone's concerns are met equally, no preferential treatment, just pure regard for one another. Conclusively, my advice for anyone who thinks the toy farm set with a pig might be an insult to their belief or faith, do not buy it as other people who want it should not be deprived of the chance simply because of that.

For more on the news, see http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Pig-Early-Learning-Centre-Shop-Criticised-After-Removing-Toy-From-Farm-Set-To-Avoid-Offence/Article/201011315810300?lpos=UK_News_First_UK_News_Article_Teaser_Region_3&lid=ARTICLE_15810300_Pig%2C_Early_Learning_Centre%3A_Shop_Criticised_After_Removing_Toy_From_Farm_Set_To_Avoid_Offence

Did Britain really negotiate with kidnappers?

As we are all aware, a British couple that had been kidnapped and held hostage by pirates in Somalia were being flown to safety today. However, there has been debate as to whether the British government paid part of their £625,000 ransom. This was due to the report which claimed that a Somali official told of how part of the £5.8 million donated as aid by the UK to Somalia, was used to secure their release. Although, claims were that it was done secretly.

Now, I am not quite sure how accurate this story is but if there is truth in it, then it makes me wonder what happened to the policy of "not negotiating with kidnappers" and what will happen to subsequent people held hostage? Surely, this would be sending out the wrong message to everyone out there as very soon, others may reckon that they can try their hands out in this lucky jackpot system. I hope in actuality, this did not happen but needless to say that it is a very pleasant turn of events given that not every hostage lives to tell tales. On a finishing note, the Foreign Secretary has denied the allegations above and in the absence of any contradicting evidence, I will take his word for it.

For more information see link http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1329868/Paul-Rachel-Chandler-Was-Britains-5-8m-aid-grant-Somalia-ransom.html

The Controversy surrounding the United Nations Convention on Contract for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) 1980

The CISG is not to be confused with the English Act of the Sales of Goods 1979.  One of its milestone objective is the doctrine of fundamental breach found under article 25 . Most articles in the Convention tend to set out guidelines as to what a remedy for a fundamental breach of contract would be. For example, articles 49 and 61 state that avoidance of the contract is a necessary precondition for breach, whilst article 46 deals with the buyer being entitled to delivery of substitute goods if contract is breached by the seller. Nevertheless, the evident flaw is to be found in these two articles; articles 74 and 25. Article 74 provides that in the event of a mere non-fundamental breach, the wronged party will be entitled to claim damages. Now, it would of course, be expected that a definition of what constitutes a fundamental breach and non-fundamental, be given in the Convention for differentiation purposes but this is not the case. In fact, all it as much as does in article 25 is give the definition for fundamental breach. The question is, what then is a non-fundamental breach? It is undeniable that this is an inherent problem which hampers the uniformity of interpretation urged by article 7 as  logically, domestic interpretations have become the next port of call. Legal scholars have repeatedly urged avoidance of domestic elucidations of the law given the fact that there are civil and common law jurisdictions all over the globe. However, as one may rightly guess, there is undoubtedly still the risk of conflicting decisions amongst various international courts like European Court of Justice and the International Court of Justice.

 For more information, see link http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/text/peclcomp25.html