<span>it is not put in the constitution and it is not a law.</span>
The most common form of punishment in the Great Yassa was addressed and reflected Mongol cultural and lifestyle norms through death via decapitation. It was the most common form of punishment especially when the offender was of noble blood, the offender would be killed without shedding blood. Furthermore, minor offenses were punished by death, for example, If a soldier did not pick something that fell from the person in front of him would be put to death. Individuals favored by the Khan were often given preferential treatment within the system of law and were allowed several chances before being punished.
It can be concluded that the Mongol culture aimed at the merciless punishment for wrongdoers which was strict, obedience to Genghis Khan, and binding together of the nomad clans.
Will Wilkinson has a new Cato Policy Analysis on the subject of economic inequality, and what it does and does not represent. The piece is largely targeted at those who target inequality as bad by its very nature and without understand the underlying mechanisms. Here's a bit of the executive summary:
There is little evidence that high levels of income inequality lead down a slippery slope to the destruction of democracy and rule by the rich. The unequal political voice of the poor can be addressed only through policies that actually work to fight poverty and improve education. Income inequality is a dangerous distraction from the real problems: poverty, lack of economic opportunity, and systemic injustice.
Mr Wilkinson makes some good points. He's right, for instance, in noting that inequality of human welfare in America is not at all like it was decades ago; for all their additional wealth, the rich live much the same existence as the poor—replete with refrigerated food, moving picture entertainment, and mobile phone communications. He's correct that excessive concern with inequality-as-measured-by-national statistics leads to poor judgments on matters like immigration, which is one of the great mechanisms for reducing inequality available.
But there are shortcomings in the piece. A number of the measures Mr Wilkinson uses to show that recent growth in inequality has not been particularly bad reveal less than that. He cites statistics on equality of happiness from Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers and acknowledges that happiness inequality has grown since the 1990s but doesn't seem to reflect on whether that might be a looming issue. He cites recent work from Christian Broda and John Romalis on diverging inflation rates across income levels, which suggests that recent Chinese economic growth, which resulted in heavy imports of cheap goods, was very good for low-income consumers. But as I argued last spring, China's role in the economy is likely shifting from deflationary to inflationary, which may begin to undo these gains; rising prices for energy and food, among other things, will disproportionately affect lower income households.
Answer:
the Allied forces divided the Middle East, the Kurds were granted a homeland, but soon lost it
Explanation:
The Kurdish people are one of the largest ethnic groups in the world that doesn't have its own country. This group of people lives in the Middle East, and the majority of its population is located in four countries, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. When the countries in the Middle East were getting their independence after the World War II, the Kurdish people and their interest were neglected, and instead of having their own country, they were separated into several others. After this, the Kurdish people were promised to get a homeland, but that never happened. The idea of having their own country still exist, and the nationalism is on a high level, resulting in numerous conflicts between the Kurdish people and the military forces of the countries in which they live, as well as with some terrorist organizations.