What we do know is that oil spill is affecting every habitat of the Gulf and that the future is uncertain. What can you learn from this disaster and what can we as a nation learn?

The catastrophe may have faded from the headlines, but the oil spill from the explosion of BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil in April 2010 probably is one of the worst environmental disasters in American history. During the spill, day after day, thousands of gallons of crude oil spewed into some of our most fragile ecosystems as we watched in despair and outrage. More than 200,000,000 gallons gushed out before the well was capped on July 15 and two months later finally considered “effectively dead” However, the ecological and economic consequences will be with us for decades or even life times.

The Gulf of Mexico is – or was – considered one of the ecologically and economically productive waters in the world: mangrove forests and coral reefs, immense oyster beds, shoreline forests…Here the intricate web of life consists of everything between plankton and sperm whales. Here five species of sea turtles come to nest, the Atlantic Blue Fin tuna spawns only here, the manatees and red snappers live here, brown pelicans and herons nest here…And thousands and thousands of humans depend on these waters for their livelihoods.

Yet it took three months for BP, the government, and all experts (and maybe no-to-so-much-experts) to figure out how to stop the gushing of oil, and two more months to “kill” it. Today scientists are trying to understand how much oil remains in the water as well as the effects of the chemical dispersants meant to break up the oil. We know that BP used at least 2 million gallons of the toxic dispersants Corexit to break down the oil to smaller particles even though many scientists warned that the dispersant would make the recovery effort even harder and the toxicity greater.

Do this experiment at home: Put some oil (any cooking oil is fine) in a glass of water. The oil will float on the water and there is very little mixing. Now add some dishwashing liquid and then shake it all around (like wind and waves would do). You will see the little of drops of oil interdisperse with the water. This is what we had in the Gulf of Mexico. The environmental impact of the combination of oil under high pressure, at great depth (5,000 ft.) and the dispersant is uncertain and many are worried how this will impact the layers of life in the Gulf… According to Center for Biological Diversity there is nothing to compare this oil spill to measure its ecological impact (Greenblatt, 2010).

What we do know is that oil spill is affecting every habitat of the Gulf and that the future is uncertain.

Questions to address:

What can you learn from this disaster and what can we as a nation learn? How are we going to move forward? How can we avoid another catastrophe like this?

What is the role of the gods in The Aeneid? Do humans have free will? Are they doomed to a certain course of action?

What is the role of the gods in The Aeneid? Do humans have free will? Are they doomed to a certain course of action? Are they able to change their fate? Are the gods capricious, or is there a principle that governs their actions, affections, and persecutions? How does this compare to other ancient epics’ portrayal of the gods?

How has Russia’s position on the legality of the use of force changed over the last 40 years?

How has Russia’s position on the legality of the use of force changed over the last 40 years? 2. What explains these changes? (50%) Allocate (50%) in discussing each of the above questions. (Don’t worry about legal language) Key readings for this case study Russia doesn’t just violate international law – it follows and shapes it too http://theconversation.com/russia-doesnt-just-violate-international-law-it-follows-and-shapes-it-too-92700 Crimea, Kosovo, Hobgoblins and Hypocrisy https://www.ejiltalk.org/crimea-kosovo-hobgoblins-and-hypocrisy/ Illegal but Legitimate? https://www.ejiltalk.org/illegal-but-legitimate/ And three PDF very short readings (Please read all four sources very carefully to be able to understand and therefore, be able to discuss the two above questions?) • This case study is not simply about writing a desсrіptive piece • Divide your answer into two parts, each answering one question. You don′t need to devote exactly 750 words to each answer, but your response shouldn′t be unbalanced in favour of one of the questions. Only focus on major changes that took place in relation to Russia’s position on the legality for the use of force. • Use the first paragraph to summarise the argument of the whole piece, or just the first section. Do not include a waffle intro with pointless context that everyone knows: e.g. ′Russia′s attitude towards international law is increasingly in the news, and is very important to understand because … etc, etc′. Get straight to the point. • Look for the changes. First look for the changes and then explain them in the second part of the question. How these changes have shifted. Remember this is not a case study for foreign intervention but rather a country case study. Use cold war and post-cold war as guide to answer the above questions. • Break them down and only focus on key changes that took place – Explain what these changes were and how it changed the state’s position on the legality of use of force • Identify the changes that took place and explain why they happened. Make an account of why they happened, don’t only tell what happened. Take consideration on the legality of it. • What do you think these changes were and how do you define their legality • Keep focused on the question which is about the “change” within the last 40 years. Do not focus on individuals, Foreign Policy but rather the changes that occurred and why their position shifted? What are the key turning points? What happened before and after the key turning points? • Think about why states take certain positions, and why these positions change. Possible things to consider include: New kinds of arguments becoming accepted as international law, • Discuss the changing state attitudes towards international law, changing domestic politics, broader ideological shifts, ′self-entrapment′ because of previous positions taken on other issues, changing state interests, changes to the global economy and this state′s position in it, new geo-political alliances, activism around particular issues etc. • You should be precise with language without worrying about legal technicalities. Use the distinction between legal and legitimate • By ′position on legality′ we mean general statements such as: ′intervention is legal without Security Council resolution in case of mass atrocities′, ′international law has become a tool of the Third World ′tyranny of the majority′ at the UN and can legitimately be ignored′, ′intervention without Security Council is legitimate if not legal only in case of mass atrocities′, ′intervention in socialist states is legal since the boundaries between socialist states are artificial′, and ′intervention is legal if the Security Council veto has been used irrationally′. • Any words that are not your own must be in quote marks with a reference. All ideas that are not your own must be referenced. All references to specific quotes or pieces of information must have reference so that it can be found in the bibliography.

Many people believe that the media industry is becoming more democratic. This is due in part because a greater diversity of individuals and groups have access to public communication channels. Discuss one positive and one negative aspect of this historic change.

Many people believe that the media industry is becoming more democratic. This is due in part because a greater diversity of individuals and groups have access to public communication channels.

Discuss one positive and one negative aspect of this historic change.