ၾကည္႕ပါအံုး - ၉ တန္းေက်ာင္းသားကိုေပးတဲ႕ စာစီစာကံုးေခါင္းစဥ္

 

              ဒီတစ္ပတ္ေတာ႕ စာေရးဆရာတစ္ေယာက္လဲျဖစ္တဲ႕ စြမ္းရဲ႕ အဂၤလိပ္ဆရာ ေပးတဲ႕ စာစီစာကံုးေခါင္းစဥ္ နဲ႕ ကိုးကားရန္စာရြက္ Nonfiction Worksheet ကို ေျပာျပသြားမလို႕ပါ ။

 *************************************************************************************************************    
                                                             Nonfiction Worksheet

1. Title:

 2. Author:

3. Topic:

4. Audience:

5. Author's purpose: ( Persuade , Inform , Entertain , Publicize , Inspire )

6. Evidence. Identify and explain at least two ( 2 ) examples from the text:

   A.
   B.

7.Strategies.  Identify and explain at least two ( 2 ) examples: ( Pathos , Logos , Ethos , Tone , Loaded Language , Connotation , Sentence Structure )
    A.
    B.

8. Analyze the use of text features:

9. What is the historical context of this text?

10. Evaluate the argument and claims ( if applicable ): 

*************************************************************************************************************

=========================================================================

Swan Ye Htut

Mr. Guarino

English, 3^rd Period

September 19, 2013
                                                 
                                               “Bomb Syria, Even If It Is Illegal”

                In Ian Hurd’s  “Bomb Syria, Even If It Is Illegal”, an article from the New York Times, his purpose is to persuade his audience that the United States should step in and intervene with the controversial use of Chemical Weapons in Syria. He achieves his purpose throughout the text along with the use of the logos strategy.

            Throughout his words in the text, Ian Hurd tries to persuade the audience to agree with his argument. For example, he states that this scenario has occurred previously when NATO bombed Yugoslavia and follows this statement by calling it an “illegal but legitimate” use of force. By doing this, he introduces the audience to a similar scenario where the decision was made on moral terms rather than legal terms. This helps the audience understand the situation better and more likely to agree with his argument. In addition, close to the end of the article, he restates his argument by saying “Mr. Obama and allied leaders should declare that international law has evolved...” This clarifies the possible confusion and questions the audience might have had while reading this article. If an author repeats his purpose at the end of his article, the readers are more like to relate to him and agree with him. Ian Hurd also uses writing strategies to achieve his purpose.
                 Ian Hurd uses logos strategies to achieve and express his purpose. For example, he cites the current Secretary of State, John Kerry who said that, “This international norm cannot be violated without consequences.” Citing an authority gives the audience an assurance since the Secretary of State is an example of authority. By doing this, he helps the audience understand how big of an issue this is that even the Secretary of State has to make a statement.
In addition, he lists some examples of previous tribunals in the International Criminal Court such as the Cambodia, Rwanda and former Yugoslavia cases. This gives the audience some background information on previous trials to convince them that the people behind all of these tragedies should be punished. By putting some serious international cases that brought up humanitarian principles, it makes the audience raise concerns about the subject and more willing to agree with the author. This is how Ian Hard uses Logos.
                            
                  Throughout his choice of words and logos, Ian Hard tries to persuade his audience that the United States should bomb Syria. His strategies are effective because I started to agree with his argument since he had strong evidence to support his claims.

=========================================================================

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Bomb Syria, Even if It Is Illegal

By IAN HURD

Published: August 27, 2013 345 Comments

EVANSTON, Ill. — THE latest atrocities in the Syrian civil war, which has killed more than 100,000 people, demand an urgent response to deter further massacres and to punish PresidentBashar al-Assad. But there is widespread confusion over the legal basis for the use of force in these terrible circumstances. As a legal matter, the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons does not automatically justify armed intervention by the United States.

There are moral reasons for disregarding the law, and I believe the Obama administration should intervene in Syria. But it should not pretend that there is a legal justification in existing law. Secretary of State John Kerry seemed to do just that on Monday, when he said of the use of chemical weapons, “This international norm cannot be violated without consequences.” His use of the word “norm,” instead of “law,” is telling.

Syria is a party to neither the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 nor theChemical Weapons Convention of 1993, and even if it were, the treaties rely on the United Nations Security Council to enforce them — a major flaw. Syria is a party to the Geneva Protocol, a 1925 treaty that bans the use of toxic gases in wars. But this treaty was designed after World War I with international war in mind, not internal conflicts.

What about the claim that, treaties aside, chemical weapons are inherently prohibited? While some acts —genocide, slavery and piracy — are considered unlawful regardless of treaties, chemical weapons are not yet in this category. As many as 10 countries have stocks of chemical weapons today, with the largest held by Russia and by the United States. Both countries are slowly destroying their stockpiles, but missed what was supposed to be a final deadline last year for doing so.

There is no doubt that Mr. Assad’s government has violated humanitarian principles throughout the two-year-old war, including the prohibition on the indiscriminate killing of civilians, even in non-international conflicts, set out in 1949 in the Geneva Conventions. But the conventions also don’t mean much unless the Security Council agrees to act. It is an indictment of the current state of international law that there is no universally recognized basis to intervene.

Arguably, the key legal obligation of nations in the post-1945 world is adherence to the United Nations Charter. It demands that statesrefrain “from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” The use of force is permitted when authorized by the Security Council or for self-defense (and countries like Jordan and Turkey are considering this route to justify joining an anti-Assad coalition) — but not purely on humanitarian grounds.

Of course ethics, not only laws, should guide policy decisions. Since the Rwandan genocide and the Balkan mass killings of the 1990s, a movement has emerged in support of adding humanitarian intervention as a third category of lawful war, under the concept of the “responsibility to protect.” It is widely accepted by the United Nations and most governments. It is not, however, in the charter, and it lacks the force of law.

This was evident in Kosovo in 1999, when NATO bombed Yugoslavia without United Nations authorization. Then, as now, Russia and China were unwilling to grant Security Council approval. America and its allies went ahead with what the Independent International Commission on Kosovo later called an “illegal but legitimate” use of force. In that case, NATO accepted implicitly that its act was illegal. It defended it in moral and political language rather than legal terms.

Norms and institutions of international criminal law, including 11 years of experience with the International Criminal Court, have strengthened since then. Special tribunals for Cambodia, Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia reflect a growing consensus that perpetrators of atrocities should be punished.

But if the White House takes international law seriously — as the State Department does — it cannot try to have it both ways. It must either argue that an “illegal but legitimate” intervention is better than doing nothing, or assert that international law has changed — strategies that I call “constructive noncompliance.” In the case of Syria, I vote for the latter.

Since Russia and China won’t help, Mr. Obama and allied leaders should declare that international law has evolved and that they don’t need Security Council approval to intervene in Syria.

This would be popular in many quarters, and I believe it’s the right thing to do. But if the American government accepts that the rule of law is the foundation of civilized society, it must be clear that this represents a new legal path.

Ian Hurd, an associate professor of political science at Northwestern, is the author of “After Anarchy: Legitimacy and Power in the United Nations Security Council.”

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Link :  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/opinion/bomb-syria-even-if-it-is-illegal.html?_r=0