Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Reparations are broadly understood as compensation given for an abuse or injury. [1] The colloquial meaning of reparations has changed substantively over the last century. In the early 1900s, reparations were interstate exchanges (see war reparations) that were punitive mechanisms determined by treaty and paid by the surrendering side of a conflict, such as the World War I reparations paid by ...
The principle of reparation dates back to the lex talionis of Hebrew Scripture. Anglo-Saxon courts in England before the Norman conquest also contained this principle. Under the English legal system judges must consider making a compensation order as part of the sentence for a crime.
The guarantees of non-repetition is a component of reparations as stipulated in the United Nations Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights resolution proclaiming the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law.
"The Case for Reparations" was a journalistic breakthrough for the author; it gained a large audience after first published as the cover story of the June 2014 issue of The Atlantic. Coates' article has been a part of a greater dialogue on reparations and the United States' response to the legacy of slavery.
Disease Australia [1] Hong Kong [2] India [3] Malaysia [4] United Kingdom [5] United States [6] Amoebic dysentery: Yes Yes Babesiosis: Yes Cancer: Yes Coccidioidomycosis: Yes Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease (CJD) Yes Yes variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease (vCJD) Yes Cryptosporidiosis: Yes Yes Cyclosporiasis: Yes Dysentery: Yes Yes Fever syndromes ...
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Pages for logged out editors learn more
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
In 1975, the Canadian National Institutes of Health held a conference that discussed the naming of diseases and conditions. The conclusion, as summarized in The Lancet, was this: "The possessive use of an eponym should be discontinued, since the author neither had nor owned the disorder." [1]