Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In arguments, compromise means finding agreement through communication, through a mutual acceptance of terms, often involving variations from an original goal or desires. Defining and finding the best possible compromise is an important problem in fields like game theory and the voting system.
Emergency law/right (nødret, nødrett) is the equivalent of necessity in Denmark and Norway.[1] [2] It is considered related to but separate from self-defence.Common legal examples of necessity includes: breaking windows and other objects in order to escape a fire, commandeering a vehicle to serve as an emergency ambulance, ignoring traffic rules while rushing a dying patient to a hospital ...
In English law, the defence of necessity recognises that there may be situations of such overwhelming urgency that a person must be allowed to respond by breaking the law. There have been very few cases in which the defence of necessity has succeeded, and in general terms there are very few situations where such a defence could even be applicable.
The cost of war is so great that compromise should not be a dirty word. If there is to be another ceasefire, this time in Ukraine, it is vitally important that Mr Zelensky should negotiate from a ...
Competing harms, also known as necessity defense or lesser harm, is a legal doctrine in certain U.S. states, particularly in New England.For example, the Maine Criminal Code holds that "Conduct that the person believes to be necessary to avoid imminent physical harm to that person or another is justifiable if the desirability and urgency of avoiding such harm outweigh, according to ordinary ...
Three events in American political history have been called [citation needed] a corrupt bargain: the 1824 United States presidential election, the Compromise of 1877, and Gerald Ford's 1974 pardon of Richard Nixon. In all cases, Congress or the President acted against the most clearly defined legal course of action at the time, although in no ...
An example of a modern compromis is the 1996 Special Agreement between Botswana and Namibia, which referred the two countries' dispute over Sedudu (Kasikili) island to the ICJ for resolution. The ICJ decided the Case concerning Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia) in 1999, ruling for Botswana. [1] [4]
The Madisonian model is a structure of government in which the powers of the government are separated into three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial. This came about because the delegates saw the need to structure the government in such a way to prevent the imposition of tyranny by either majority or minority.