Answer:
Personal Opportunity Cost - Spare non drive time sacrifised
Social Opportunity Cost - Fuel efficiency (high pollution), Road Traffic (Congestion issues).
Explanation:
Opportunity Cost is the cost of next best alternative, foregone while choosing an alternative. Bill can commute either by bus, or by self drive.
If Bill drives his car, opportunity cost for him is - the spare time sacrifised, that he could have used while car drive in some other activity (eg reading, listening music).
Opportunity Cost for society is - the fuel utilisation & road traffic management efficiency sacrifised, by using private instead of public transport. This leads to more pollution, more congestion on roads.
Internationalists have been fighting for over 4 decades to protect children from becoming soldiers. There have been many court cases and laws enacted to prevent exploitation of children.
Laws have prohibits military recruitment for people under 15, and the International Criminal Court now recognizes breaking this law as a war crime.
OPAC (Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child) focuses on ending children soldiers. This treaty prohibits recruiting anyone under the age of 18, or even asking them to engage in any hostile activities.
Many states have signed OPAC, and other international laws are helping in this effort, such as the International Labour Organization and the African Union's Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child.
The principle of democracy does the government described in the passage is demanding freedom for individuals.
<u>Explanation:</u>
One principle holds that majority rule government requires three crucial standards: upward control (power dwelling at the most minimal degrees of power), political balance, and social standards by which people and organizations just consider satisfactory acts that mirror the initial two standards. The key components for majority rules system are human rights, division of forces, the right to speak freely of discourse, strict freedom, right to suffrage and great administration. These things are the essential necessities for a country to have genuine vote based system.
No.
As a charged isn't constrained to give prove in a criminal antagonistic continuing, they may not be addressed by a prosecutor or judge unless they do as such. Be that as it may, should they choose to affirm, they are liable to round of questioning and could be discovered liable of prevarication. As the race to keep up a charged individual's entitlement to quiet keeps any examination or round of questioning of that individual's position, it takes after that the choice of advice in the matter of what proof will be called is an essential strategy regardless in the ill-disposed framework and thus it may be said that it is a legal counselor's control of reality. Surely, it requires the aptitudes of insight on the two sides to be decently similarly hollowed and subjected to an unbiased judge.
By differentiate, while litigants in most affable law frameworks can be constrained to give an announcement, this announcement isn't liable to round of questioning by the prosecutor and not given under vow. This enables the litigant to clarify his side of the case without being liable to round of questioning by a talented resistance. Notwithstanding, this is predominantly on the grounds that it isn't the prosecutor yet the judges who question the respondent. The idea of "cross"- examination is altogether due to antagonistic structure of the customary law.
Judges in an antagonistic framework are unprejudiced in guaranteeing the reasonable play of due process, or basic equity. Such judges choose, regularly when called upon by advise as opposed to of their own movement, what confirm is to be conceded when there is a debate; however in some customary law wards judges assume to a greater extent a part in choosing what confirmation to concede into the record or reject. Best case scenario, mishandling legal carefulness would really make ready to a one-sided choice, rendering out of date the legal procedure being referred to—run of law being illegally subordinated by lead of man under such separating conditions.
The Vice President presided over the senate
