Lancastrian Exceptionalism In Shakespeare's Second Neutralogy

Many Elizabethan bedsides were haunted from “the terrors of the night”. Back then their ghosts were nothing like the pasty blobs we call ghosts now. Theirs were quite gruesome. Ghostly visitations were claimed to have been very unpleasant. Not only this, but they claimed it cast them into a state of spiritual confusion.

Nevertheless, the government is the sole authority that can guarantee the protection of human rights and freedoms. It is responsible for putting in place the necessary laws and policies to protect and safeguard the rightful enjoyment of human rights among its citizens. In this case, the government, therefore, act as the custodians of human rights, and they are responsible for any acts that are committed against the enjoyment of a person’s freedom. Thus, the state is the guarantor and protector of human rights. However, at times the government itself may carry itself in an irresponsible manner by being the violators of human rights in occurrences such as genocides.

The source giving suggests that During times of crisis the government must make decisive action to protect its people. This is an imposition of liberalism that most minorities or sovereign nations can’t avoid. Decisive actions are ones that require offensive and defensive action, which are crucial yet they often happen with little to no research, or hesitation. The source also suggests that the people should be free from unnecessary government control during times of stability. Nevertheless, this might be the case in most sovereign states, many, even in times of peace, face constant government intervention in aspects of private life. The source gives an important insight into an issue that, throughout history, has been constant and will

“Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on

The issue that emerges here is, admittedly, one of prudence versus morality. In order to refine our existence, we must first secure it, the argument goes. In the case of a supreme emergency, arguably the only options that remain for a victim state are either annihilation or the destruction of an innocent other. Given this premise, the arguments made thus far contend that it is only natural, and

      Abstract:  The debate over the legitimacy of the authorship of Shakespearean works has been disputed for centuries. While many scholars have held beliefs that Shakespeare's works have been written by figures such as Christopher Marlowe, Francis Bacon, William Stanley, and others, the most heated debate today is between William Shakespeare and Edward DeVere, the Earl of Oxford. Each side of this debate has many followers, the Stratfordians, or those who claim Shakespeare to be the true author, and the Oxfordians who believe that true credit should go to DeVere. My paper, far from being a complete analysis of the possibilities of Shakespearean authorship, attempts to summarize and rationalize the

Charles Tilly’s article “War Making and State Making as Organized Crime” creates an analogy between the creation of European states and acting out an organized crime. Earlier in our course, we learned about Max Weber, who defined a state as “a human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Tilly argues that the word “protection” in relation to physical force has positive and negative connotations, leading to illegitimate use of power during the period time that Tilly is discussing. Tilly’s analysis eventually tells the reader that war is always a major part of state politics; specifically that war making and state making are interdependent.

Although Shakespeare is not a physical character in the novel, Brave New World, Shakespeare’s plays and novels shape the title, help to express Johns emotions, and contribute to mold the readers opinions about the new world. The title of the novel ‘Brave New World’, was a quote taken from Shakespeare's play the Tempest. Aldous Huxley chose this title because he could link an occurring theme in both novels, ‘civilization vs. savages’. The two novels, ‘The Tempest’ and ‘Brave New World’ plots are somewhat similar. Like Miranda, John was introduced to a new type of society, and at first glimpse was intrigued by it.

Shakespeare was a playwright from Stratford who had arguably the most influential affect on English literature and the English language. His works are still praised to this day for their divine superiority, however, controversy in exceeding amounts has risen over the dispute of his authorship. This controversy has been the topic of many arguments between differently opinionated scholars who support opposing theories and beliefs (Friedman XV). "A difficult dilemma confronts biographers who tell the story of the glove maker's son from Stratford-on-Avon who is supposed to have become the world's greatest poet and dramatist" (Whalen 3). It may seem odd that this confusion and doubt had come to light in the first place, as the origin of

In the international arena, there is no hierarchical rule to keep states in line or behaved; meaning that the international system is constantly in anarchy, aka the state of nature. This lack of rule enforcement puts states in a constant state of war, in a constant state where they need to stay on guard and in a tactical advantage otherwise the safety and well being of their state will be in jeopardy. In this scenario, the state’s number one priority is to protect itself and act in its self interest when need be, despite if it would typically be deemed immoral. (Donnelly 20)

In this paper, I will argue that Luban’s critique of Walzer conception of legitimacy is misguided. I will first present Walzer’s argument for interventions using the “legalist paradigm,” in particular his conception of self-determination and how the principle of non-intervention may be set aside in exceptional circumstances. I will then present Luban’s critique of Walzer and his argument for developing an account of Just War directly in terms of human rights, before concluding with my own critique of Luban’s argument.

The Tempest, often regarded as Shakespeare’s last play, displaces the theme of possession of control and command over other, commonly known as power. Ariel, Caliban and the courtiers from Milan, all demonstrate different levels of control. Prospero, the protagonist of the play, especially displays his ability to cast influence and affect others psychologically. The characters, their relationships and their use of power can be compared to the English government and society of the 17th Century.

The plays attributed to William Shakespeare literally have his name on them. There was a record of eighteen plays issued in quarto before the First Folio was published. The list of the plays includes the author’s name and the date in which each play was published. Some Anti-Stratfordians try to argue that some of the first quartos of William Shakespeare’s plays lacked the name of the author on them. Anti-Stratfordians suggest that the was an attempt to conceal the name of the author. However, during Shakespeare’s day people just did not observe their authors much. Only about one third of all the printed plays in the 1950s had the author’s name on the title page.

Few writers have managed to enter the world-wide public consciousness as well as Shakespeare; everyone knows his name and can terribly misquote his plays. Yet, for all his popularity, many of his critics have called him unlearned, saying his plays are entertaining but shallow. These same critics often point at the many inconsistencies of his writing, claiming that Shakespeare was not trying to convey anything but witticisms and beautiful sounds. Of course, even his harshest detractors acknowledge his plays and sonnets have influenced the world's literature on a scale that is intimidating; every writer of his era stood in his shadow, and modern literature stands on his

However, it can be argued that the motives behind intervention are not as important as the interventions themselves – the moral function of humanitarian intervention is to save lives and this can be achieved with or without altruistic motives. To this a possible reply is that seemingly unjust intervention may aggravate the receiving state, more so perhaps in military interventions than economic, political or social. A threatened state is arguably more likely to initiate a backlash. However, such an argument cannot be made against a UN-sanctioned intervention, where it can be agreed that the intervention is legitimate and in the interests of the global community. The issue of marginalising state sovereignty completely ignores the fact that sovereignty is granted by the international community , . The arguments that states such as China may put forward, that state sovereignty is absolute and deserving of unadulterated respect, rests on the idea that states grant themselves sovereignty, which upon reflection, one finds to be untrue. State sovereignty can only be realised if it is acknowledged by the global society of states. To this a realist might argue that theoretical sovereignty is separate from actual sovereignty, and that states will defend their sovereignty regardless of its