Search results for: illegitimacy

Authors: Kyu-Jeoung Lee, Jae-Uk Choo

Abstract:

This paper focuses on investigating The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde from Utterson’s point of view, referring to: Gabriel John Utterson, a central character in the book. Utterson is no different from a forensic investigator, as he tries to collect evidence on the mysterious Mr. Hyde’s relationship to Dr. Jekyll. From Utterson's perspective, Jekyll is the 'victim' of a potential scandal and blackmail, and Hyde is the 'suspect' of a possible 'crime'. Utterson intends to figure out Hyde's identity, connect his motive with his actions, and gather witness accounts. During Utterson’s quest, the outside materials available to him along with the social backgrounds of Hyde and Jekyll will be analyzed. The archives left from Jekyll’s chamber will also play a part providing evidence. Utterson will investigate, based on what he already knows about Jekyll his whole life, and how Jekyll had acted in his eyes until he was gone, and finding out possible explanations for Jekyll's actions. The relationship between Jekyll and Hyde becomes the major question, as the social background offers clues pointing in the direction of illegitimacy and prostitution. There is still a possibility that Jekyll and Hyde were, in fact, completely different people. Utterson received a full statement and confession from Jekyll himself at the end of the story, which gives the reader the possible truth on what happened. Stevenson’s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde led readers, as it did Utterson, to find the connection between Hyde and Jekyll using methods of history, culture, and science. Utterson's quest to uncover Hyde shows an example of applying the various fields to in his act to see if Hyde's inheritance was legal. All of this taken together could technically be considered forensic investigation.

Keywords: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, forensic investigation, illegitimacy, prostitution, Robert Louis Stevenson.

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 1778

Authors: Isaias Teklia Berhe

Abstract:

A decision that deals with international disputes, be it arbitral or judicial, has to properly reflect objectivity and coherence with existing rules of international law. This paper shows the decision of the Ethio-Eritrea Claims Commission on the jus ad bellum case is bereft of objectivity and coherence, which contributed a disservice to international law on many aspects. The Commission’s decision that holds Eritrea in contravention to Art 2(4) of the UN Charter based on Ethiopia’s contention is flawed. It fails to consider: the illegitimacy of an actual authority established over contested territory through hostile acts, the proper determination of effectivites under international law, the sanctity of colonially determined boundaries, Ethiopia’s prior firm political recognition and undergirds to respect colonial boundary, and Ethio-Eritrea Border Commission’s decision. The paper will also argue that the Commission confused Eritrea’s right of self-defense with the rule against the non-use of force to settle territorial disputes; wherefore its decision sanitizes or sterilizes unlawful change of territory resulted through unlawful use of force to the effect of advantaging aggressions. The paper likewise argues that the decision is so sacrilegious that it disregards the ossified legal finality of colonial boundaries. Moreover, its approach toward armed attack does not reflect the peculiarity of the jus ad bellum case rather it brings about definitional uncertainties and sustains the perception that the law on self-defense is unsettled.

Keywords: Armed attack, self-defense, territorial integrity, use of force.

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 1699