Before one considers what laws are and how they are introduced into a society or a circumstance, it is necessary to consider… WHY WE HAVE LAWPeople’s behaviour, sometimes, may lead to generally undesirable outcomes, injurious to one or more others physically or as repugnant. People have sought to establish some rules, to enable the smooth functioning of the societies in which they live, of a kind that themselves can sanction to avoid chaos.

WHAT ARE LAWS

The set of rules that regulate behaviour are laws; and those that regulate human behavior in ways that they can be legally sanctioned if breached are men’s Legal Laws.What the should be the basis of such rules, the extent of the limitations on man’s actions, who and how should decide and organize them, apply the sanctions -with what safeguards against injustice and as defined by whom and how, and the growth of society -necessitating variations of them, and other such considerations, are essentially, also part of Law. There has been the Authoritarian View -that law’s intention should be to prevent wickedness, and the moral welfare of the society; and there has been the Libertarian View -that private morality and immorality is one’s own business and not of law: e.g., the Misrepresentations Act 1967.

THE AIM OF LAW

The Libertarian view has been mostly preferred, aiming to ensure two things:-1. Primarily, with minimum conflict with natural law, rules for the survival of the society (e.g. regarding murder, theft -mostly criminal in nature), against human greed and aggression.2. Secondarily, to make allowance for growth, and complex situations by way of…a. A system of adjudication for the settling of e.g. mercantile disputesb. A system of who and how to change the rules as and when necessaryc. A system of recognition of the primary rules themselves as legal rules.In a non-complex society an elected body should make, and publicize, and sanction, above all, Criminal Law (rules intended primarily for a simple society with a unity of purpose which is, above all, survival -regarded as being best ensured by considering it most important that the norm should not bedeviated from, to enable cohesion and solidarity). In a complex society there being no unity of purpose and the emphasis being on the interdependency of the members of the society, deviance would not be the most important consideration, and the purpose and the function of any law would be, chiefly, between conflicting individual interests, to maintain a reasonable balance, mostly by Civil Law -for which reason in e.g. European Law the interests of the individual are paramount to those of the state.ENGLISH LAW Classification of English Law is as being, both, affected by, and incorporating in part -and increasingly, international law; it comprises of…INTERNATIONAL LAW and NATIONAL LAW INTERNATIONAL LAWBritain must respect and meet the expectations of various international agreements in the application of its laws -whether binding on it or not, to maintain its political standing among other countries; and, often, such expectations are met by its own, voluntary, incorporating of such laws into English law. This is done, mostly, as a condition of its membership of the European Union, as and when it is directed by Europe -as in the case of the level of its water-purity and the European directive regarding a standard common to all member states of it, and as in the case of the requirement to treat as binding on itself e.g. the Single European Act 1986.NATIONAL LAWNational Law, on the other hand, is that which is made by the state, for the state, and in Britain by its Parliament, intended, within the state, in this case within Britain alone -with variations for Scotland and Northern Ireland, to ensure the non-anarchic organizing and running of the society, in respects from less of consequence to those fundamental, increasingly as written-law, as:-PRIVATE LAW and PUBLIC LAWPRIVATE LAWPrivate Law regulates the dealings of the individuals with each other within the state, under such headings as:-Family Law, Tort, Property Law, Commercial LawFamily Law is a good example of the laws in this category; it deals with matters between individuals such as marriage, divorce, and matters arising as related rights -such as the custody of children, e.g. the Family Law Reform Act 1969.Tort or Torts -as some prefer to call it (from the French word meaning wrong, or wrongs), is the private individual’s right -if without financial assistance from the state s/he can, not to be civilly wronged by another, sometimes by an organization, in respects not contractual, sometimes including such as, with a very fine distinguishing line, may fall short of being criminal ~e.g. negligence, or the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.Property Law, also called Land Law, deals with matters of property, such as land that in practice is regarded as personal -although ‘all land belongs to the Crown’, and including matters of dispute over minerals under it and treasure trove, as well as dwellings on it and fittings, often dealt with by the Courts of Chancery -e.g., the Law of Property Act 1925. Commercial Law comprises of laws of major importance in the dealings of individuals with others, such as:-Mercantile Law, Consumer Law, and the Law of Contracts Mercantile Law is the original body of laws that governed commercial dealings ~it was so called because it involved dealings of merchants with each other. As it developed, it concerned itself also with dealings between merchants and the consumer, and the occasional agreements between the individuals -which later grew into separate laws themselves. Almost exclusively, it deals with such matters as competition between traders, trademarks and patents, and e.g., bills of exchange under the Bills of Exchange Act 1982. Consumer Law is from laws-merchant; it regulates the dealings of the individuals with merchants as to, e.g., the quality, and return, of goods purchased, deeming existent a collective contract between the consumers and any trader, as in the Sale of Goods Act 1977(as amended).Contract Law is about the, not necessarily regular, agreements of individuals with others, on specific terms offered and accepted (unless under duress or by coercion), intending it to be legally binding, for consideration in return, e.g., under the Misrepresentations Act 1967.PUBLIC LAW This branch of the law governs the relationships between the state and other states, and between the individual and the state, under such major headings as:-Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Criminal LawConstitutional Law is about the system, the framework, of who and how, and how come to, govern, by which laws how made and applied, as the state; e.g., the Parliaments Acts 1911, 1914.Administrative Law defines and controls the limits of government, mostly protecting against absolute power, enabling complaints and appeals against the state -e.g., the Human Right Act 1998.Criminal Law regulates such conduct of the individuals as are regarded to be against the society, actionably, punishably, by the state; e.g. Offences Against the Person Act 1861.THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LAWThe differences are, mainly, these:-Public Law are those categories of law, such as Administrative, Constitutional, Criminal, which involve the conduct of the state in relation to itself, or in relation to society generally, through one or more individuals, or the conduct of the individual against the society -mostly through one or more other individuals, in representing the society.Private Law, i.e., Family, Tort, Property, Commercial -with its branches, chiefly, involves the state as only the arbitrator in personal or collective dealings between the individuals.THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CRIMINAL LAW AND CIVIL LAWIF IT IS CRIMINAL LAW…1. It is Public Law2. It is between the state and the individual or organization3. The state (Crown Prosecution Service) complains, prosecutes)4. It is registered as R –v- name of the accused (R = Rex/Regina –the monarch)5. Proof is the states, beyond reasonable doubt6. It is dealt with by Magis
trates, or by Crown Court7. It is Not Guilty or Guilty and a Sentence –imprisonment/community-service/fine and trial costs unless on legal assistanceIF IT IS CIVIL LAW…1. It is Private Law2. Its is between individual/s and/or organization/s3. The individual/s or the organization sues4. It is Complainant (plaintiff) –v- Defendant (their names)5. Proof is on a balance of probabilities6. It is dealt with by a County Court or the High Court7. It is a Judgment and the winner is awarded a remedy and, normally, costs THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS IN ENGLANDThe Sources of English Law Main sources of law in England are:-1. Legislation -including Delegated Legislation…2. Precedent (Judge-made law) -which mostly comprises of the Laws of England and Wales and as (differently) applied in Northern Ireland (the basis being same of the slightly differing Scottish Law -and of the laws of many countries of the British Commonwealth)…3. European Union Law -which is increasingly becoming the major source of English Law (expecting compliance with also the European Convention on Human Rights -the enhanced version of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) -e.g., the Human Rights Act 1998 (implemented in 2000) incorporated into English and all United Kingdom law.The Legislator, is the Parliament.The Parliament is the House of Commons, and, the House of Lords -with the Monarch.The House of Commons are the elected representatives ~mostly from political parties -with committees and ‘whips’ (who deal, mostly, with the discipline of their members). By “the supremacy of Parliament”, in fact, is meant the ‘supremacy’ of this House -since the Parliament Acts 1911 & 1949 it can bypass the House of Lords, and, since Queen Anne, in 1707, conventionally, to every Act of it the Monarch always assents.The House of Lords are the unelected representatives, so knighted by the Monarch, some as Hereditary Lords (the eldest son inherits the title) and many increasingly as Life Peers -almost always upon the recommendation of the political parties themselves; the numbers were limited of them with voting rights by the government at the beginning of the 21st century and its members have been considered that should be selected by a panel appointed by government. Its Right to Veto the Commons has been, since 1911, inconsequential, and since 1949 within a year invalid -it serves in effect as a chamber of second opinion and its decisions are not binding on the House of Commons and occasionally have not been followed.The Monarch, since 1707, may not veto Parliamentary Legislation; but, must formally assent to it -although she does not personally sign it, before it can become legislation.Legislation is a law, in the form of a Statute. It is formally enacted -or made, by or by the authority of the Parliament, effective when assented to, as an Act of Parliament.Acts of Parliament, ‘Statutes’ are laws, produced by the Parliament, and comprise also of less important law, with the authority of the Parliament, as Delegated Legislation.Delegated Legislation enables the management of major Legislation by the Legislator -Health & Safety Act 1974, the COSSH Regulations 1988.Statutory Instruments by the Executive’s ministers, through other bodies, make effective such Legislation as about health and safety, transport, and as about social-security and taxation.Orders in Council are by the Monarch with the Privy Council, in cases of emergency -also on appeal from some Commonwealth countries. By-Laws are made, mostly, by Local Councils (Town Halls as, or as part of, County Halls) -by locally and independently elected town or county mayors and councilors with knowledge of their individual districts.The advantages of delegating legislation is that it enables saving time, expertise, and flexibility; the disadvantages are that it gives wide powers to make laws without debate and which may not be as much publicized as the Acts of Parliament themselves and as much known to the public. LegislatingA Bill is a proposed legislation normally producing an Act of Parliament -it normally begins with one or another type of Bill being introduced.Types of BillsThe type of a Bill depends on who propose the legislation -as follows…Public Bills by government, proposing legislation affecting the nation as a whole -were so introduced the Criminal Disorder Act 1998, and, the Access to Justice Act 1999.Private Member’s Bills by members of Parliament, which may be of national effect -the Arbitration Act 1967, the Disability Discrimination Act 1996, both, began so.Private Bills by individuals, through a member of Parliament, affecting fewer -such a bill proposed the University College London Act 1996.A Bill, with slightly variations depending on its type, before becoming Law, goes through a number of stages.Stages of a BillThe Stages of a Bill are, sometimes strictly, with adherence to set procedures, Readings, at both the House of Commons and the House of Lords:-The First Reading involves formally, mostly, Naming the Bill, with its date, and making available printed copies of it, normally, with no, or very little, debate on it…The Second Reading involves Explaining the Bill -debating its general principles, and voting on it…The Committee Stage involves the political parties, which are represented proportionately, putting forward their views -or expert opinion being obtained on it; and at the Report Stage the House being informed of these and the Bill being voted on. ‘Division’ sometimes takes place on how to vote on the Bill among the Members of Parliament, and when so, an Eight-Minute Break is allowed them and their Party Whips to discuss it and to decide how to vote on it.The Third Reading, usually, is, with any verbal amendments to the Bill, the final vote.This procedure is followed by both of the Houses of Parliament, except that Bills may begin not at the House of Lords if they are to do with such matters as taxation.The Royal Assent involves the Signing of a Bill that has gone through all of its previous stages successfully, by the Monarch ~but the Monarch need not, and does not, personally sign it -conventionally, the Monarch does not refuse; and, unless stated that it will become so after a time interval, from then on a Bill becomes formally an Act of Parliament, Law which often authorizes delegated legislation too.It is considered essential to inform the public of the laws proposed and of the laws made, and this is done, at different stages, by way of publishing a White Paper, a Green Paper, and a Statute -delegated legislation also being made in printed form publicly available.These procedures may sometimes be confusing: e.g., section 6 of Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1985 was a Bill introduced as being intended to be of psychological effect only and not of any legal effect before passing all of its stages and becoming Law. JUDGE MADE LAWPrecedent, briefly. Britain, unlike the USA and the European Union countries, not having a Written Constitution, Codes of Law enacted by the representatives of the people, English Law is based on Common Law -judge-made law ~judges interpret and (also in those criminal cases where that it is increasingly considered by the government that should not sit juries) apply the law.Where ‘Written Law’ -an Act of Parliament, does exists, they do so under Rules formulated by the English Courts, such as:-The Literal Rule -where the Court does not consider the written law to require judicial interpretation, literally taking the words of the Statute…The Golden Rule -if they consider the literary meaning to be, e.g., absurd of any Written Law, interpreting it as they would consider not perverse.The Mischief Rule -if the Court considers it must interpret the purpose of the written law -the Intentions of Parliament, which they do under the Interpretations Act 1889 -barring reference to the Hansard (the official transcript of all words spoken in the Parliament -placed in its library).These Rules are sometimes confusingly stated, and in relation to appeals, e.g. from cases under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, its is stated that “no issue of law arises if the Tribunal simply
misunderstood or misapplied the facts” -following reference to precedent that an issue of law arises if a decision is “inconsistent with the evidence”. A Decision, in English Law, consists of two parts, the ‘Ratio Decidendi’, and the ‘Obiter Dicta’ -the former being Precedent, the binding part, which sets out what the Principle is ~the latter being things said by the way -which are not binding but may be persuasive.Until the late 1990′s English courts and tribunals did not have to give reasons for their decisions, including in civil cases in which juries do not normally sit in Britain -European Law now requires them to do so, often if within a specific period of time ask to do so.The Principle, unless ‘distinguished’ becomes ‘Precedent’ binding on all lower courts, and in the case of the Court of Appeal also on itself.Precedent are reported by the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting in the Weekly Law Reports (WLR) officially, and privately in e.g., the All England Law Reports (AELR).Precedent, to all intents and purposes, is Law until it is reversed by a higher national Court or by the European Court, or becomes obsolete by an Act of Parliament, or by European Union Law.Judge-made Law is regarded mainly to have the advantage of being not rigid and enabling for changes more quickly than it may take parliament to make them -its disadvantage is considered to be that unlike as in the case of Codes it is law which is not by elected representatives of people.PARLIAMENTARY SUPREMACY The Presumption of the Supremacy of the British Parliament in respect of English Law is, briefly, based on the Monarch no longer refusing to give assent to a Bill passed by the Parliament, coupled with that of Precedent being in line with the Intentions of Parliament.The Inconsistency of that presumption has been proposed on the fact of the European Law (including the decisions of the European Court and of its ‘national branches’ which are empowered to declare any law made by the British Parliament ‘not law’ and of no legal effect where it is the view of Europe that Britain ought not to have such a law -e.g., for the reason that it contravenes the Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights) being binding on the United Kingdom Government and on its Courts -as on all other member states of it.Laws in the European Union states continue increasingly and rapidly to change in the course of commonization of various laws, and in Britain, within a short time of a Department of Constitutional Affairs being created in addition to the Lord Chancellor’s Department, also a Ministry of Justice was added –it is wise when it may otherwise be of consequence to always ascertain what current laws are.

The best definition of Natural Law seems to be that, “it is the uniform and orderly method of the omnipotent God. Unlike any other form of animal life that has been created, we were given the power of choice or free will; along with this power came certain responsibilities. The capacity to choose does not involve freedom from the consequence of our choice. The laws or rules which govern every individual, and which we cover to some degree in this book, are as exact as the laws which govern the material universe. You can act in accordance with these laws or you can disregard them, but you cannot in any way alter them. The law forever operates and holds you to strict accountability, and there is not the slightest allowance made for ignorance. The law of attraction will deliver to you what you do not want as quickly and as certainly as it will deliver what you do want.

2. The Law of Relativity:

In the study of this law, we find that all things are relative. All laws are related to each other and correspond with each other. The laws of the little are the laws of the great. There is no big nor small, fast nor slow, except by comparison. Every law that is a law must be relative to all other laws. In other words, they must be in harmony, agreement and correspond with each other. An understanding of this law will give one the means of solving many of the secrets of nature that seem to be para- doxical. The much discussed fourth dimension is nothing more nor less than the dimension of vibration. Again, all rates of vibration are either high or low, only by comparison with those above or below them.

Whenever the law is properly used, you win. Let’s remember that everyone does something better than you and, likewise, you do something better than every person you meet. When you relate something you do that you are not proficient at, to something another person does that they have mastered, you will not look good. You are using the law against yourself. Begin using this law to heighten your self esteem. You will then become aware of how special you are in the light of truth.

3. The Law of Vibration and Attraction:

Everything in the universe vibrates…nothing rests. We really do live in an ocean of motion. This truly contains the great secret of life. You are always moving toward something and it is always moving toward you… it’s action and attraction. This is where your intuitive factor is used (or should be). You can use it to pick up other people’s vibrations. When you consciously become aware of vibrations, you call them feelings. When you feel bad, you can change your feelings by thinking good thoughts. When you pick up abad feeling from another person…you know they must be thinking disturbing thoughts. You must not let their negative vibrations affect your way of thinking.

Your thoughts are vibrations that you send off into the universe. When you concentrate, the vibrations are stronger. Your thoughts are cosmic waves of energy that penetrate all time and space (vibrations). Thought is the most potent vibration and remember that you can think…that makes you a very special creation (God’s greatest masterpiece). You should always be delighted with yourself. (All creation begins in thought.) Your thought controls the vibration your physical body is in. Disease is a body that is not at ease. Health is a body at ease.

4. The Law of Polarity:

Everything in the universe has its opposite. There would be no inside to a room without an outside. If you referred to this side of the sheet of paper that these words are writen on as the top, then the other side would be the bottom. You have a right and left side to your body, a front and back. Every up has a down and every down has an up. The law of polarity not only states that everything has an opposite…it is equal and opposite. If it was 3 feet from the floor up on to the table, it would be 3 feet from the table down to the floor. If it is 150 miles from Manchester to London, by law it must be 150 miles from London to Manchester; It could not be any other way.

If something you considered bad happens in your life, there has to be something good about it. If it was only a little bad, when you mentally work your way around to the other side, you will find it will only be a little good.

5. The Law of Rhythm:

The law of rhythm embodies the truth that everything is moving to and fro, flowing in and out, swinging backward and forward. There is a high and a low tide. Everything is flowing, both in and out, in accordance with the law. There is always a reaction to every action. Something must advance when anything retreats; Something must rise when anything sinks. This law governs the movement of the planets in their orbits and also manifests in the mineral and vegetable kingdoms. Men and women can observe this law in their mental, physical and emotional states. The law of rhythm is universal. This can be observed in the rising and setting of the sun and moon, ebb and flow of the tides, coming and going of the seasons, and in the rhythmic swing of consciousness and unconsciousness.

You are not going to feel good all the time; No one does. If you did, you wouldn’t even know it. The low feelings are what permit you to enjoy the high feelings.

There will always be highs and lows in life. Reason gives us the ability to choose our thoughts (that is free will). Even when you are on a natural down swing, you can choose good thoughts with your free will and continue to move up toward your goal.

6. The Law of Cause and Effect:

Every cause has its effect; every effect, its cause. There is no such thing as chance. Everything happens according to law. Nothing in the entire universe ever happens, unless it occurs according to law. Nothing ever escapes the law. It is impossible for the human mind to conceive of starting a new chain of causation, for the simple reason that every effect must have a cause; and in turn, that cause must have an effect. Thus, we have the perpetual, never-ending cycle of cause and effect.

Ralph Waldo emerson called the law of cause and effect, the law of laws. You are, of course, very interested in results. Your physical health, your relationships, the respect you earn, your material income. You must concentrate on the cause, and the effect will automatically take care of itself. That is how the law works.

7. The Law of Gender:

The law of gender manifests in all things as masculine and feminine. It is this law that governs what we know as creation. The word creation is often erroneously used, for, in reality, nothing is ever created. All new things merely result from the changing of something that was, into something else that now is. The law of gender manifests in the animal kingdom as sex. It also manifests in the mineral and vegetable kingdoms. Without the dual principle of male and female in all things, there could not be a difference of potential, perpetuation of motion, nor a regeneration. This law is the one which finally closes the cycle and completes the circle of the seven subsidiary laws under one great law.

This is in truth, the creative law. This law decrees everything in nature is both male and female. Both are required for life to exist.

This law also decrees that all seeds (ideas are spiritual seeds) have a gestation or incubation period before they manifest. In other words, when you choose a goal or build the image in your mind, a definate period of time must elapse before that image manifests in physical results.

The United Nations has done several peacekeeping operations and has set various organizations that intend to store the peace and spirit of coordination and cooperation in the world. The theories of the international laws that are found to be dealing with the origin and the gradual development of the international laws have been asked a lot of questions as the race for hegemony is on the peak. Growing problems of racism and international terrorism are the new challenges being faced by the international laws today. This article presents various such aspects and put the suggestions for their solutions under one umbrella. The first question before everyone is this that “what are the international laws and what purpose do they serve for humanity and international peace?” This is the most critical question that corresponds to the enforcement of international and the limits of the international courts of justice being determined.

We know that the function of the national laws is to regulate the behavior of the individuals but when we intend to talk of the international laws, the shoes of individuals are wore by the states. What if the international laws are the vanishing point of the world? It is well known to the students of the international laws that the primary function of the international law is to regulate the conduct of the states while on the other hand the national laws intend to regulate the conduct of the individuals. If we examine the contours on which the body of international law is explained we could easily derive the conclusion that most of the allegations that are imposed upon the rule of international laws are concerning their applicability or jurisdiction in one way or the other. Thus the international laws are to be made more binding and the forces that provide sanctioning power to such laws are to be extending to ensure the desired obedience. The identity of the international laws another such aspect that is necessary to limit the province of international laws. The state and non-sate actors are also the key aspects that correspond to the applicability of the international laws. We here mean the kinds of acts performed by the international superpowers and other small newly independent states. In various cases of hegemonic expansion and colonialism, it could be traced that the war-crimes and crimes against humanity are recorded.

02. TAKING THE STATE TO THE COURT

In the contemporary growth of the international law, the growing awareness among the people of the various countries has led to the introduction of the concept of public interest litigation which has increased and widened the opportunities that even the states could be brought under the jurisdiction of the courts. In a study by the German philosopher “Hans Dembowski”, it has been concluded that the growing political unfairness and other political reasoning have led to the introduction of Judicial Activism which has led to the growth of the power and abilities accompanied with the authoritativeness of the judiciary. International laws deal with the sociology of governance and in this respect connote to the division of power between the administrative and judicial branches of the government and their interaction with society as a whole in the particular cases that have been studied. The ongoing, excited media debate about the public interest litigation and judicial activism makes this evident. This function has typical stand point in certain countries of the world. The international arena on which various countries are brought on the same standard in the international court are is seemingly an attempt to ensure fairness and security in the international contour. Let us have a look over the two important aspects that have been the focus of study in the international society.

[A]. State Sovereignty

Sovereignty, for the past several centuries, has been the foundation of interstate relations and the world order. The concept- defined as the independent and unfettered power of a state in its jurisdiction-lies at the heart of the customary international law and the UN charter. It remains both an essential component of the maintenance of international peace and security and a defense for weak states against the strong. At the same time, the concept has never been as inviolable, either in law or in practice, as a formal legal definition might imply. In his 1992 An agenda for peace, UN secretary general Boutros Boutros-Ghali pronounced that the theory of sovereignty never matched the reality. In exploring why the westphalian sovereignty is continuously ignored or violated, Stephen Kraser has noted straightforwardly that “organized hypocrisy is the normal state of affairs. Sovereignty has routinely been violated by the powerful. In today’s globalizing world, it is generally recognized that cultural, economic influences neither respect borders nor require entry visas in both powerful and the powerless countries. The concept of state sovereignty is well envisaged in the legal and the political discourse, but territorial boundaries have come under the stress. Not only technology but also communications have made the boundaries permeable, but the political dimensions of the internal disorder and suffering often can result in wider international disorder. The initial purpose of this discussion is to set out the scope and significance of state sovereignty as a foundation on which to explore the contemporary debates about intervention. The literature on this subject is vast and contentious. As one legal analyst accurately summarizes:

Few subjects in the international law and international relations are as sensitive as the notion of sovereignty. Steinberger refers to it in the Encyclopedia of Public International Law as “the most glittering and controversial notion in the history, doctrine and the practice of the international law.” On the other hand, Henkin seeks to banish it from our vocabulary and others call it ” a word that has emotive quality lacking meaningful specific content”. There is little neutral ground when it comes to sovereignty.

Critical Issues

Instead of the heavy recommendations on the maintenance and enforcement of sovereignty among the states, this constitutional aspect of every nation is subject to limitation in the statements of the United Nations which have dealt heavily upon the matters concerning the world peace and a definite civil order in the international community. These limitations are as described under:-

Firstly, the charter of the United Nations contains collective international obligations for the maintenance of international peace and security. According to Chapter VII, sovereignty is not a barrier to Security Council action in response to ” a threat to peace, a breach of the peace or an act of aggression.”

Secondly, sovereignty may be limited by customary international law and treaties. States are responsible for their international obligations, and therefore sovereignty cannot be an excuse for not performing the duties to which they have agreed sovereignty thus carries with it responsi
bilities to protect the persons and property, as well as to regulate political and economic affairs. Sovereignty cannot shield internal violations of Human rights that contradict the international obligations. It has been evident in the pages of history that in a no of cases, the Security Council endorsed the use of military force for the protection of the populations in the states which were caught in the throes of war.

[B.] Changes And Continuity In The International System

Limits to the sovereignty are widely accepted-its erosion by economic, cultural and environmental factors, for example, or by customary law and voluntarily agreed treaty obligations. But Annan’s assertion of popular sovereignty was a far more radical challenge. It joined three other threats to traditional notions of state sovereignty that arose in the 1990s and are relevant for our consideration of humanitarian intervention: the right of self-determination, a broadband conception of international peace and security; and the collapse of state authority. In spite of significant change, the international system reflects substantial continuities: in centrality of state decision making and the lack of any changes overriding central authority. But situating the nature of changes and continuities is the task of political analysis and judgment. However, after the end of the cold war, these situations changed to a great extent. Firstly, the soviet union became a superpower in which Russia led the legal status of USSR, including a permanent seat on the Security Council, but 14 other states were created by the implosion of the former soviet union. Shortly, thereafter, Yugoslavia broke up into six independent states, with Serbia and Montenegro later forming the republic of Yugoslavia. Contemporary politics in developing countries is conditioned by the legacy of colonialism. The second challenge is that the broadening interpretation of threats to international peace and security, the charter’s only enshrined license to override the principle of noninterference. The third challenge was to the traditional interpretations of the sovereignty has arisen because of the incapacity of some states to exercise effective authority over their authorities and populations, a topic that is dealt extensively by the international community. For these states sovereignty is a legal fiction which never matches to reality. The political vacuum leads to the nonstate actors taking matters into their own hands and is usually accompanied by the forced displacement of the people. The United Nations confronts the same constraints today as the diplomats and politicians have since time immemorial, and certainly since the beginning of the modern efforts at the multilateral cooperation in the 19th century.

[C.] The International Court of Justice (ICJ):-

The international court of justice even though working for the enforcement of the principles behind the objective of maintenance of peace among the states of the world have been posed by various questions that are the critical areas of thought that concern the epistemology behind the working of the international courts. The states which are prosecuted in the court suffer from various discriminations and differentiations. The trials that are governed or were carried out at Nuremberg etc. follow the traditional principles i.e. TRC Act, 1995. This method has been given the name “Victor’s Justice”. The victor prosecuting the accused in his own sort of understanding and reasoning is clearly presenting the breaking of the basic norm of the law that “nobody could be a judge in his cause”. This method of trial was applied in the Saddam’s trial when USA attacked it after it had the security threats from Iraq that it possessed nuclear weapons of mass destruction. The differentiation and the discrimination which has been done against Saddam have been, clearly witnessed by the world that dreams of making a new world order that involves the concept of Justice. The influence of Gandhian thought is clearly visible in the TRC Act. The basic problem is that most of the overwhelming systems of justice of the contemporary world are penal, and having very less imports of the impressions of peace. There the troublesome atmosphere prevails in the international level. It imposes stress upon the mind that what does the phrase “Taking the state to court” means. The solution is thus provided:

01.

02.

03.

04.

05.

03. DEMOCRACY AND INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY

Democracy as a norm and the promotion of democracy as an activity has become far more deeply embedded within international society in various ways. In the first place, there has been an enormous expansion in the involvement of the UN and regional organization in elections. Electoral assistance has become an established part of UN activities and has also led to development of a broad transnational and trans-governmental network of electoral assistance, party support, and monitoring.second, external actors have routinely become involved in democracy promotion as a result of the expansion in the number and scope of peacekeeping operations, whose multi dimensional character came in many places to include human rights and democracy as well as demilitarization, refugee protection and state-building. In the cases of direct international administration of territory, the assumption of the sovereign power involved both transitional administration and also democratic regime-building. Third, democratic membership criteria have been established in two regions, and, in the case of Europe, democracy, human rights, and minority rights have all played a central part of the process of EU enlargement, the conditionality policies of the EU, and its extensive programme of member-state building. Finally, an increasing body of academic writing has opened up the idea of a legal right to democratic governance. The normative expansion of the international society to include democracy was also driven by political factors. Although there were references to ‘democratic’ rights in UN Declaration, the conditions of the cold war meant that formal incorporation of political democracy into the human rights system was politically impossible. This changed as a result of the wave of transitions from authoritarian rule in Southern Europe and the developing world in the late 1970s and 1980s; and the fall of communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union; by the liberal self-confidence that followed the ending of cold war and the belief that liberal democracy and free markets were sweeping the world; and the consolidation of the place of democracy in US foreign policy. Two broader shifts need to be highlighted, both of which link academic analysis and political perceptions. The first concerns the progress of democratic change and the possibilities of democratization. During the cold war, Western governments were suspicious that the political change would be destabilizing, bringing to power either those who would ally themselves with the Soviet Union or who would challenge western economic interests. Democratization then carried with it some counter-hegemonic potential. It is also widely held in Western capitals and amongst the private sector that authoritarian governments were most suited to promoting economic development. Many academicians argued that, in any case, democracy required a wide range of ‘prerequisites’ that were lacking in many postcolonial societies. The wave of transition that began in Southern Europe and Latin America in the late 1970s ushered in a striking reassessment: democratization becomes the norm rather than the exception; the exception is of generally forward movement; and the democratization appears to be easier and less problematic than had been previously believed. A post-cold war world meant that unstable and potentially oppositional regimes could no longer look to the Soviet Union. And a globalized world meant that economic nationalism was no longer and option. The trade-offs between uncertain democratization, security
interests, and economic preferences were apparently easing and a strong sense of difficulties of democracy gave way to an increased sense of ‘possiblism’. The conversion by the mid 1980s of US foreign policy was retold through a different lens that stressed the country’s historic mission to extend and promote democracy. The other important shift in thinking reflected the allegedly proven link between democracy and peace. Democratic peace theory builds on long tradition writing on international relations, often associated with Kant. However, it only formed one part of Kant’s political thought and had already become a liberal commonplace by the end of the 18th century. Other precursors of modern DPT include Karl Deutsch’s writing in the 1950s on security communities- groups of states in which there is real assurance that the members of that community will not fight each other physically but will settle their disputes in some other way. Overlooked or neglected by many studies of war causation, it became a major theme both of academic writing on international relations and of political and public debate on the nature of the post-cold war international order. Theorists argue that two sets of casual factors are important in explaining the democratic peace. In the first place, the structural constraints of democratic institutions and of democratic politics make it difficult or even impossible for war-prone leaders to drag their states into wars. They also stress the joint effect of these democratic constraints, together with the greater openness and transparency of liberal democracies. If both sides are governed by cautious, cost-sensitive politicians that only use force defensively, then conflict is far less likely to occur. Second, democratic peace theorists highlight the importance of normative mechanisms. Liberal and democratic norms include shared understandings of appropriate behavior, stabilize expectations of the future, and are embedded in both institutions and political culture. Rule-governed change is a basic principle; the use of coercive force outside the structure of rules is prescribed; and trust and reciprocity, rule of law are at the heart of democratic politics. From this view, then, the democratic peace is produced by the way in which democracies externalize their domestic political norms of tolerance and compromise into their foreign relations, thus making war with others like them unlikely. The democratic peace hypothesis rests on two claims: (a) that democracies almost never fight each other and very rarely consider the use of force in their mutual relations and (b) that other types of relations are much more conflictual including democracies’ interactions with non-democracies. The claim is almost always made in probabilistic terms. Few claim that it is a deterministic law. It is not a general theory since it is agnostic or at least much less certain about the relationship between democracies and non-democracies. But it provides some grounds for liberal optimism, even if only within the democratic zone. If true, it holds out the possibility that the homogenization of domestic political systems could transform global political order- in marked contrast both to traditional realist accounts of world politics and pluralistic accounts of international society. The main debates surrounding the democratic peace and the main issues raised by critics and skeptics include: (a) the reliability of the statistical evidence for the democratic peace, especially in the pre 1945 period; (b) the existence of alternative casual logics, especially in explaining regional clusters of peaceful states as in Europe or the Americas; (c) the difficulties of defining key terms in the theory, especially war and democracy; (d) and the problems raised by democratization processes and the evidence that, whilst fully consolidated democracies could be peaceful, democratizing states, specially in unstable areas, may be more conflict-prone than authoritarian regimes. Here are certain important issues noted from the speech (annual report) by the UN secretary general which was delivered in the General Assembly in 2007:–

[C.] THE RULE OF LAW:-

The rule of law is a fundamental principle on which the United Nations was established. The United Nations goal continues to be a community of nations operating according to rules that promote human rights, human dignity and the settlement of the international disputes through peaceful means. International criminal justice, a concept based on the premise that the achievement of justice provides a firmer foundation for lasting peace, has become a defining aspect of the work of the organization. The international tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda continued to conduct the trials of those accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity and other war crimes. The extraordinary courts charged the defendant for the crimes against humanity and placed him in detention. The courts for Sierra Leone commenced the trials of Charles Taylor and rendered two historic judgments that convicted five defendants for war crimes. In March, the Security Council requested UN to negotiate with the government of Lebanon an agreement aimed at establishing a tribunal to bring justice those accused of the attack that killed the former prime minister of Lebanon, Rafiq Hariri. The Security Council took resolution on 30 May, 2007 for establishment of special tribunal in Lebanon.in order to better the coordinate working of these institutions, at the end of 2006, the report entitled ‘Uniting our strengths: enhancing the United Nations support for the rule of law’ announced the establishment of a rule of law coordination and resource group. The group consists of major rule of law assistance providers in the UN system, who met to ensure that programmes are carried out in a coherent manner and are of high quality commensurate with the need of those requesting the support.

04. PURSUIT OF JUSTICE:-

One of the attractions of an old fashioned state-based pluralism and of a very thin view of international society was precisely that it appeared to offer a way of dealing with diversity and disagreement. If the diversity and the value are such important features of international life, then we should seek to organize global politics in such a way as to give groups scope of the for the collective self-government and cultural autonomy in their own affairs and to reduce the degree to which they will clash over how the world should be ordered. Equally, if the dangers of predation by the powerful are deep-rooted, even if not structurally determined, then we should continue to place a heavy emphasis on sovereignty and on the balance of power. In addition, the skeptical pluralist is attracted to the idea that it might also be possible to develop a cross-cultural consensus over the minimal rules around which a such a limited international society might be built. Hence the attraction to the international society writers of Hart’s notion of a minimum content of natural law built around Hobbesian assumptions. Hence, too null’s emphasis on the ‘elementary conditions of social life’, his attempt to isolate the elementary primary, and universal goals of the society of states; and his analytical effort to link these goals to the historical institutions of the international society. Negotiating the terms of cooperation is certainly a quintessentially political exercise. But it is also an inherently normative one both because acting in the world requires that we think about morally desirable change and because moral debate forms one part of how that political exercise will unfold. As noted in many places in this book, debates on global justice within the political theory and political philosophy have increased enormously in scope and sophistication. There is an increasingly rich array of potential answers to the problems of global political theory, including those related to just war, to humanitarian intervention, distributive justice, and to global democracy. The fragility of global political order makes it unconvincing to see this challenge as a second-order issue of moral methodology.

[I.] Institutional Authority:-

There are three major reasons why institutions are so important: as a means of helping to secure the framework for mutually intelligible moral debate; as a way of securing the stable implementation of shared rules; and in terms of the potential for the progressive development of a global moral community. In the first place, if we are looking for cross-cultural universals, a good case can be made for starting with process and with near-universality of ideas about fairness of process: hearing the other side, providing arguments for one’s actions, finding some mechanism for adjudicating between conflicting moral claims. All stable societies have to find some agreed process and procedure by which more moral conflicts can be adjudicated and managed, if not resolved. Within world politics the challenge is more daunting, given the diversity and divisiveness of sentiments, attachments, languages, cultures and ways of living, combined with massive inequalities of power, wealth, and capacity. Stuart Hampshire has suggested that there is an irreducible minimum to notions of just process. Second, institutions are also necessary because rules have to be applied. The cry of the liberal solidarist or the cosmopolitan moralist is that we need new rules to meet new circumstances. Terrorism requires that international society rethink rules relating to self-defence and the use of force. The degree to which international society is affected morally and practically by the humanitarian catastrophe means that we need new rules on humanitarian intervention. There are good arguments in favour of both these propositions. But it is a myth that, for example, a new rule on humanitarian intervention would obviate the need for the institutions and institutional debate. Even if the rule is agreed and even if the background criteria for evaluation are agreed, all rules have to be interpreted and applied. The new rule of humanitarian intervention will not avoid the need for that rule to be applied to the circumstances of a new case. On the one side, this inevitability raises the fundamental political issue: who is the body that has the authority to interpret and to apply the rule? There have been certain proximities that have been put-forth by Dallymayr. On the other side, we are faced by problems intrinsic to the idea of interpretation and application. Thus cultural and historical complexity makes it difficult to read off judgments in particular cases from general or universal moral laws and there is good reason for supposing that a great deal o the debate over values and ethics in the twenty-first century will necessarily have to be context-rich and interpretative. At one level, this might simply mean that universal principles need to show sensitivity to local context. But the challenge is deeper. Thus Tully follows criticizing in those who demonstrate a contemptuous attitude to the particular case. In terms of institutionalizing global order such a position lends support to a form of practical reasoning that is constantly navigating between the general rule, whether legal or moral, and it’s always contestable application to the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Third, institutions matter because of their potential for self-reinforcing dynamic. Once created, institutions act as platforms for the ongoing normative debates, or the mobilization of concern and for debating and revising ideas about how the international society should be organized. However much social scientists insist on analyzing international institutions solely in terms of the provision of international public goods, normative issues cannot be kept out of the picture. In addition
, there is an inherent tendency for all normative systems to expand and develop, and to enmesh actors within certain patterns of discourse, reasoning, and argumentation. Finally, as we have seen, there are good reasons for believing that international institutions have acted as powerful agents for the diffusion and socialization of norms. Assessing the very mixed empirical record of actually existing institutions can have important implications for our views of global justice. Thomas Nagel, for example, has developed a political conception of global justice. Drawing on Hobbesian traditions, he argues that justice arises amongst those jointly subject to coercive authority. His assessment of where international institutions and global governance are ‘for the moment’ is that they fail to meet a crucial test, namely, they are not collectively enacted and coercively imposed in the name of all the individuals whose lives they affect. Yet this view of justice places too much weight on the difference between coercive and non-coercive situations; and, more importantly, underplays the extent of the changes that have in fact taken place in the density of international institutions, in the extent to which they do in tact exercise power and can be said to be co-authored, and in the relationship of both states and individuals to those institutions.others who either deny the possibility of international distributive justice or see it only in highly constrained forms also place great emphasis on the absence or weakness of international institutions or other cooperative arrangements. Thus, society’s main political, social and economic institutions and how they fit into one unified system of social co-operation’ determine the basic structure and govern ‘the initial focus’ of how to think about the matters of justice. But the emphasis here should be on ‘initial’ since Rawls also recognizes the possibility of reinforcing change. When writing about the domestic society, there is a strong sense that the institutions play a central role in moving from self-interested cooperation towards full overlapping consensus. They have important socializing influences on the citizens and Rawls presents a psychological account of how people come to accept and internalize principles of justice. Equally- when looking at international life- change, evolution, and learning are self recognized. ‘The idea of a reasonably just society of well-ordered peoples will not have an important place in a theory of international politics until such peoples exist and have learned to coordinate their actions in wider forms of political, economic and social cooperation. A global moral community in which claims about justice can secure both authority and can be genuinely accessible to a broad swathe of humanity will be one that is built around some minimal notion of just process, that prioritizes institutions that embed procedural fairness, and that cultivates the shared political culture and the habits of argumentation and deliberation on which such institutions necessarily depend. As Judith Shklar puts it; ‘procedural justice is not merely a formal ritual, as is often charged. It is a system that in principle gives everyone some access to the agencies of rectification and, more significantly, the possibility of expressing a sense of injustice to some effect, at least occasionally. It is important here to avoid too sharp distinction between a consent-based view of international legal legitimacy and a justice based view. Procedural legitimacy is not simply about state consent. On the one hand, consent itself may be moderated and mediated by the complexities of legal process, even without disappearing entirely from the international legal order. On the other hand, there are other important values located within the processes of international law. This may be understood in terms of the old arguments about the ‘inner morality’ of law and the rule of law. Or it may involve principles of public law that can be employed to guide international and global law-making. Or, most generally, it may simply involve an insistence that the justification of a position or a case follows an articulated, discernible, and coherent pattern of legal argument that draws on analogies, precedents, and the principles that are compatible with already widely accepted values. Finally, law can be viewed as a sociologically embedded transnational cultural practice in which claims and counterclaims can be articulated and debated and from which norms can emerge that can have at least some determination and argumentative purchase. Law, then, can play a communicative and epistemic role, shaping the conditions within which claims, including justice claims can be made and debated. The modern day Grotian will be inclined to stress the ongoing, unstable and subtle interplay between the sources of law and legal process on the one hand and the content of the law and o legal rules on the other.

[II.] Political Agency:-

That we should on the institutions, on negotiation, and on dialogue and deliberation is hardly an original suggestion. Albeit with significant variation, many have been tempted to go down a broadly Habermasian road-stressing the extent to which the terms of a just global order cannot be based on coercion nor on whatever bargain states and societies happen to be able to strike with one another, but require instead critical reflexion, uncoerced agreement of rational agents via a shared process of deliberation and reasoned justification.there have also been important arguments in favour of creating global institutional frameworks which widen the boundaries of the dialogic community. Even after assuming the presence of the multiple voices, the location of a stable and shared moral vocabulary and some degree of institutional stability, one still needs to ask about the conditions of effective political agency. Within domestic society, Habermas is ambiguous as to how far the discourse principle requires changes merely in procedures of bargaining or changes to the underlying balance of bargaining power itself. But however, we might think about power within domestic society, the conditions of global society make it impossible to evade the issue of unequal bargaining power. The massive inequalities of power and condition; the continued occurrence of war and intervention and the continued willingness of major states to use military power as an instrument of state policy; the role of power in skewing the terms of the global capitalist economy and the close links that exist between globalization and inequality; and the deformity of many of the core institutions of international society-all these point towards the pressing need to consider the minimal political preconditions that might underpin a global moral community in which reasoned deliberation and uncoerced consensus could have begin to have been possible. Although political theorists are perhaps naturally tempted to argue from the ceiling down, the wholly different scale of inequalities that exist in the world politics should push us to think hard about the minimum preconditions for an acceptable international political process. At a minimum this might include: some acceptance of equality of status, respect, and consideration; some capacity for autonomous decision making on the basis of a reasonable information; a degree of uncoerced willingness to participate; a situation in which the most disadvantaged perceive themselves having some stake in the system; and some institutional processes by which the weak and disadvantaged are able to make their voice heard and to express claims about unjust treatment. Apart from concern with the suffering of the most disadvantaged, Rawls gives two very good reasons why we should be concerned with inequality: first, that a large gap between rich and poor ‘often leads to some citizens being stigmatized and treated as inferiors, and that is unjust’; and second, because of the ‘important role of fairness in the political processes of the basic structure of the society of peoples’. Yet, despite
ample evidence that some peoples stigmatized and treated the inferiors and still more evidence of the massive unfairness of international political processes, Rawls draws only the feeblest of conclusions as to what needs to be changed globally in the interests of justice. We need to give far greater attention to the links between the political and moral cosmopolitan and to the possible principles of global political justice that might inform those links. A revalidation of process legitimacy and procedural justice is crucial for the development of a stable, effective, and legitimate international society and for the nurturing of meaningfully shared foundations for the discussion of global justice. In a very important sense, the ethical claims of international society rest on the contention that such a society continues to be the most stable set of globally institutionalized political processes by which norms and rules can be negotiated on the basis of dialogue and consent, rather than simply being imposed by the most powerful. There is very little reason for supposing that progress in the direction of moral accessibility, institutional stability, or more balanced and equitable forms of political agency is likely to be easy. It may not be possible at all. There are nevertheless good reasons for believing that it is a direction which continues to be of crucial importance. Understanding how the rope bridge may be spun across the canyon is central both to the chances of world order in the 21st century and to the promotion of greater global justice.

05. PROSECUTING THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMES:-

The threat of terrorism to international peace, security and development remains a pressing issue for the international community. The expansion of UN efforts on counter-terrorism has produced a unique tool, the UN global counter terrorism strategy adopted by the general assembly. The unanimous endorsement of this document marks an historic step, bringing together 192 member states to demonstrate their resolve and ability to defeat the scourge of terrorism. The strategy outlines a coordinated and comprehensive response to terrorism at national, regional and global levels, while ensuring the respect for human rights and the rule of law. It put forward a concrete plan of action to prevent and combat terrorism and to address grievances and underlying social, economic and political conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism. The strategy will have the greatest success if it is fully achieved. This goal can be achieved by strengthening the capacity of the member states and the UN system, and by seeking the involvement of the civil society and the private sector. The main responsibility for implementing the strategy falls on member states. Nevertheless, various secretariat departments, specialized agencies, and UN programmes and funds contribute to this important endeavor by assisting member states with their implementation efforts.

Metaphysics is the term used to study that which is beyond the physical, beyond what we can touch, see, taste and feel. The Universal Laws are the non-physical principles that govern our Universe in an unfailing, impartial, consistent and dependable fashion.As we study the laws that govern our Universe, we see certain empirical Truths. It is through the study of these Universal Principles and Truths that we master our creative abilities.

With study, we begin to comprehend the profound implications of each law; we become more and more conscious of the power of our intentionality and of our minds; more and more conscious of the unwavering influence of our thoughts, emotions and beliefs on our experience.

As we begin to work with these Universal Truths (studying, applying, practicing, and redirecting), we learn how it is that we live either in harmony or disharmony with our dreams and goals.

By choosing to become acutely aware of our harmonious or disharmonious actions and thoughts, we experience and observe first hand the Universal Laws playing out in our lives. We experience both the ‘negative’ and the ‘positive’.
Ultimately, we want to use this awareness to intentionally guide and direct our experience, focusing on the ‘ascending’ or ‘positive’ thoughts to attract the highest and best that life has to offer.

Now, with the support of Emotional Freedom Technique we can quickly and systematically neutralize the thoughts that oppose our goals and cause the postponement of our life’s dreams.

This means that with EFT we can more easily and naturally apply the Laws of the Universe!
When we become aware of our limiting beliefs we can use this awareness to realign our energy; to align our thoughts and beliefs with the Universal Laws.
Many a metaphysical student can attest to their personal ‘vibrational thesis’ (their theory behind which ball of thoughts, feelings and beliefs actually created their experience.)
As we continue, we become more and more adept at specifically recalling and tracing back the thoughts, emotions, and beliefs that literally foretold our experience.
It’s very important to understand that when we review our past experience it is not to repudiate or cause anxiety about our creative abilities, failings, or ‘mistakes’ but to discern which habitual or “beliefs by rote” may be causing us to attract an experience less than Heaven on Earth.
By assessing how and where our beliefs are either supporting or repelling our dreams, we can then intentionally alter our beliefs and thought patterns (with tools such as meditation, silence, prayer and EFT) to navigate towards our optimal future with greater effortlessness, ease and speed.
The Universal Laws of Creation:
The Universal Laws cannot be segmented or independently applied, they work consistently and inter-dependently of one another at all times.
Therefore, to ‘apply the law of attraction’ intentionally, one must also learn to apply the ‘law of detachment’, for example.
To summarize, the laws:
The Law of Attraction (aka the Law of Creation) says that whatever you put your attention upon expands.
We draw into our lives whatever we focus upon and emotionalize – be it positive or negative. The more we focus, the more attractive and stronger our vibration becomes, and the more quickly it manifests. To practice the Law of Attraction, simply put your attention and your positive emotions upon the essence of your dreams fulfilled, as if you already have them now!
The Law of Detachment (aka the Law of Allowing) says that in order to intentionally attract something, we must relinquish our attachment to it.
If we are attached, then we project negative emotions of fear, doubt, or craving, for example, which actually repels our dreams. To practice the Law of Detachment, be willing to trust in the Divine Order and Divine Timing. Choose to elevate your consciousness to a place of peaceful expectancy, a place of allowing; where you feel absolutely certain that all is well, right now.
The Law of Unlimited Potential (aka the Law of Pure Potentiality) says that we are unlimited children of a very prosperous, powerful, omnipotent, impartial, all-providing, all-sufficient, all-loving Father/Mother/God. Our Divine Inheritance is all that we desire: wealth, joy, love, peace, abundance, health, beauty, wisdom, wholeness, and harmony.
Practicing the Law of Unlimited Potential requires that we accept our divinity and realize that the Presence of the Divine is within. We do not have to earn the right to our dreams; we were born deserving of all that we desire.
When we accept our unlimited nature, we know that the Source is internal, not external. By expanding our consciousness of this Truth, that the Presence of God is within, we exalt our positive vibrational offering in an organic, all- encompassing and symbiotic manner.
The Law of Reciprocity (aka the Law of Giving) says that as you give you shall receive.
There is a failsafe method of getting everything you want; simply begin giving more of what you want away. To practice the law of reciprocity, begin taking action daily (giving of yourself towards your dreams) and begin tithing of your time, talent, and treasure to wherever you feel spiritually fed. If you aren’t sure where you feel spiritual nourishment, just start giving ‘it’ away everywhere you go. If you aren’t sure where or how to take action, just start
taking action is some way (any way) and you will be led. Give freely and with an open and unattached heart. Think of the Law of Reciprocity as priming the pump, the pump of your never-ending, all-providing well of prosperity, love, and success. Taking inspired action is the act of priming the pump and to receive we must be willing to give, both through action and generosity.
The Law of Cause and Effect: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
There is nothing in our Universe that exists independently. In other words, everything was created by something else and every new creation causes a reaction to the existing reality.
Thus, we cannot intentionally attract a new job, without causing the old job to change or cease to exist. We cannot intentionally attract a better relationship, without causing the current relationship (or situation) to change or cease to exist.
In studying this law, we become truly aware that the Universe is not random. There is no such thing as mere coincidence and in order to grow, change, and intentionally attract what we really want, we must be willing to go through the effects of change. When we immerse ourselves in the study and application of the laws of the Universe, we will notice certain ‘thoughts’ and ‘feelings’ that prevent us from mastering them.
For example, let’s say we want to attract a mate using the law of attraction. If we practice the law of attraction, we will actually visualize ourselves fully embracing, loving, adoring and being loved and adored by our ideal life partner.
Then, we would practice detachment by sending forth love and gratitude for already having them in our lives. We would then maintain our vision and our faith for as long as possible. Here’s where most of us go astray!
At some point, we may find ourselves looking around, wondering where our perfect man/woman is; sighing at night when they aren’t laying down with us, or anxious at a dinner where everyone else is ‘coupled’, for example. We may find ourselves longing (not allowing but craving) a mate.
When we observe our attention going to ‘he/she isn’t here yet’; and this attention triggers negative emotions such as fear, sadness, worry, anxiety, or disappointment then we are attached and not practicing the law of detachment or the law of unlimited potential.
NOW, as conscious creation students, we have the opportunity to USE this awareness to pivot our attention and our vibration; we have the opportunity to eliminate the limiting beliefs that prevent us from practicing the Law of Pure Potentiality (that we are unlimited and therefore would of course have nothing to fear or worry about) and practice the Law of Detachment (that we trust in the Divine Order and know that all is well now).
With EFT (Emotional Freedom Technique) we can get in there, dig out those limiting beliefs of ‘he/she isn’t here yet’ and neutralize them. Negative thoughts and emotions are poisonous acid to our dreams, hopes, and ambitions. Think of EFT as the antidote to the poison. EFT pours an energetic alkaline solution on the acid that’s repelling our dreams. When we use EFT, we are alkalizing the poisonous thoughts and returning to a space of courage and neutrality.
When we obtain a consciousness of neutrality, we can then intentionally raise our positive emotions – our level of certainty and purely and intentionally attract outstanding success!
If you haven’t used EFT in a consistent manner to eliminate the doubts that hold you back, try it for 30 days. Just give it 3 minutes a day for 30 days. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain – health, wealth, success, love, beauty, joy, peace.and so much more!