Review the Book by MALCOLM N. SHAW About The Concept of Territory in International Law

The Concept of Territory in International Law
From subjective approach, the concept of territory in International Law has remained a dubious aspect to be regulated due to several unsteady circumstances. Based on the book, International law is based on the concept of the state. The state in its turn lies upon the foundation of sovereignty, which expresses internally the supremacy of the governmental institutions and externally the supremacy of the state as a legal person. But sovereignty itself, with its retinue of legal rights and duties, is founded upon the fact of territory. From this point of view, the legal theory should be emerged as following illustration:

Sovereignty + Territory = State --> International Law

In the simplest way and the most convenient definition from the previous statement, it can be assumed that the concept of territory shared similar significance role with its sovereignty. I concluded that the concept indicated two different aspects which constitute each other and it is Territorial Sovereignty. Territorial Sovereignty is a collective principal in foundation of the concept in territory within International Law. Without subjecting to any particular sovereignty, any territory would be considered invalid to be an object in International Law. Similarly, any sovereignty without recognition of territory from other states would be considered invalid as well to be argued in International Law.

Is there any possibility to alter a fundamental concept in the conception of territory in International Law? Should the concept of territory persevered as its already prevailed territory in the past, despite the fact that world era is constantly changing? Well, these questions regarding about the possibility of changing the concept in International Law might be considered possible based on my perspective because International Law is not a constant and rigid concept.

It is already a fact that technological and particularly socioeconomic changes have had an impact as interdependence becomes more evident and the rise of such transnational concerns as human rights and self-determination have tended to impinge upon the exclusivity of an authority. On the other hand, since the law reflects political conditions and evolves, in most cases, in harmony with reality, international law has had to develop a series of rules governing the transfer and control of territory.


The very nature of human emerged the contingency to alter the basis concept of territory in International Law. If the concept of international law reflected its value towards evolvement of politics and reality, it is more likely to witness legitimatized exercises of power such as Occupation, Annexation, Cession, and Prescription come into reality. These are only a few recognized exercise of power to have legal aspect to acquire another territory. However, in political term, it is not encouraged to legitimate these actions because they are either part of military enforcement or act of aggression. However, some of the exercises of power above have been considered illegal in International Law since UN Charter was declared.

In conclusion, I keep consider the concept of territory in International Law has a vagueness in its principle because people who actually have high authorities are the capable ones on determining the concept of territory in international law. In one reality case, International Law is ratified and preserved by United Nations. However, if there is a violation by a country towards another country, it is United Nations role as the decisions maker to determine whether the country had violated International Law.

Accordingly international law must deal also with all the various effects of a change in territorial sovereignty and not confine its attentions to the mere mechanism of acquisition or loss of territory.

Territorial sovereignty


The international rules regarding territorial sovereignty are rooted in the Roman law provisions governing ownership and possession, and the classification of the different methods of acquiring territory is a direct descendant of the Roman rules dealing with property. In other words, the regulation of determining territory in International Law first issued by Roman method of categorizing the different methods of acquiring territory. Despite of that, International Law still faces difficulties in the implementation of its value. Law, being so attached to contemporary life, cannot be easily transposed into a different cultural milieu.

This contradiction resulted to the sum up in confusion to the concept of International Law. Therefore, suppose there is a dispute over a land, Judiciary will only consider all the relevant arguments and will award the land to the state which relatively speaking puts forward the better legal case.

Nonetheless, there is still an affirmation on the term of Territorial Sovereignty relates to both the factual and legal conditions under which territory is deemed to belong to one particular authority or another. In other words, it refers to the existence of those facts required under international law to entail the legal consequences of a change in the juridical status of a particular territory.

The disagreement on territory in international law resulted in different classification on defining its legality. The contention may be occur to a certain area or over the status of the country itself particularly all the territory comprised in a particular state, as for example Israel under Zionist movement claimed that the land of Jerusalem which were under Palestine authority was their rightly preserved land.

In some cases, International law also recognizes territory over which there is no sovereign. The term is widely known as Terra Nullius which means ‘Nobody’s Land’ and derived from Roman law. To be considered as Terra Nullius is when the territory has never been a subject to any sovereignty or any prior sovereign relinquished the sovereignty. Terra Nullius is mostly recognized as a grand opportunity for other country to occupy this territory, for one famous example is when British occupied the land of Indigenous people of Australia because British consider the natives were not subject to British Law. In addition, there is a category of territory called Res Communis which also derived from Roman law and generally means not capable of being reduced to sovereign control.

New states and title to territory

Under classical international law, until a new state is created, there is no legal person in existence competent to hold title. Moreover, a new state can only be a state as long as it is recognized. This conventional way has been focused on how recognition from other states should be the foundation to a sovereign territory rather than the legally obtained land.

Furthermore, even until now, the international community has traditionally approached the problem of new states in terms of recognition, rather than in terms of acquisition of title to territory. This was evolved naturally because of human nature. This means that states have examined the relevant situation and upon ascertainment of the factual conditions have accorded recognition to the new entity as a subject of international law.

There has been relatively little discussion of the method by which the new entity itself acquires the legal rights to its lands. While the conformist does not seem interest on solving this dilemma, this lack of discussion resulted in the dubious approach on the urge to comprehend of a new state under International Law. One famous example from contemporary era is the eternal conflict between Israel and Palestine. This is the most undetermined problem to solve.

If the recognition approach in International Law is implemented, it still would not end the conflict because of the dubious basis principle. Israel is recognized as a state despite of acquiring the land from Palestine, whereas Palestine whose land has been acquired was not recognized until it establish a sovereign government. This point of view indicated that the territory of a state does not fully matter anymore as long as it is recognized from other states.

One approach to this problem has been to note that it is recognition that constitutes the state, and that the territory of the state is, upon recognition, accepted as the territory of a valid subject of international law irrespective of how it may have been acquired. This theory also emphasizes upon recognition of a situation and not upon the method of obtaining the rights in law to the particular territory.

Although several efforts have been made, the barrier lies on the main point which is domestic judiciary, a legal prohibition on interference within the internal mechanisms of an entity and emphasizes the supremacy of a state within its own frontiers. Because of this, many of the factual and legal processes leading up to the emergence of a new state are therefore barred from international legal scrutiny. Furthermore, this has proved a deterrent to the search for the precise method by which a new entity obtains title to the territory in question.

There are basically two methods by which a new entity may gain its independence as a new state: by constitutional means, that is by agreement with the former controlling administration in an orderly devolution of power, or by non-constitutional means, usually by force, against the will of the previous sovereign. The granting of independence according to the constitutional provisions of the former power may be achieved either by agreement between the former power and the accepted authorities of the emerging state, or by a purely internal piece of legislation by the previous sovereign. In many cases a combination of both procedures is adopted. However, a different situation arises where the new entity gains its independence contrary to the wishes of the previous authority, whether by secession or revolution.


The principle of self-determination is also very relevant here. Where a state gains its sovereignty in opposition to the former power, new facts are created and the entity may well comply with the international requirements as to statehood, such as population, government, and a definable area of land and the capacity to enter into legal relations.

So to discover the process of acquisition of title to territory, one has first to point to an established state. One theory is to concentrate upon the factual emergence of the new state and to accept that since a new state is in existence upon a certain parcel of land, international law should look no further but accept the reality of possession at the moment of independence as denoting ownership, that is, legal title. Another approach is to turn to the constitutive theory of recognition, and declare that by recognition not only is a new state in the international community created, but its title to the territory upon which it is based is conclusively determined. Another approach is the substitution of a provision permitting a people to acquire sovereignty over the territory pending the establishment of the particular state. By this method the complicated theoretical issues related to recognition are avoided.

The acquisition of additional territory

·        Boundary Treaties and Boundary Awards
Boundary treaties, whereby either additional territory is acquired or lost or uncertain boundaries are clarified by agreement between the states concerned, constitute a root of title in themselves. The reason for this approach is to the stability of boundaries. A treaty should be interpreted in the light of Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969. Essentially the aim is to find the ‘common will’ of the parties, a concept which includes consideration of the subsequent conduct of the parties.

-Accordingly, many boundary disputes in fact revolve around the question of treaty interpretation. More generally, the difficulty in seeking to interpret both general concepts and geographical locations used in early treaties in the light of modern scientific knowledge has posed difficulties. The Boundary Commission referred to the principle of contemporaneity, by which it meant that a treaty should be interpreted by reference to the circumstances prevailing when the treaty was concluded. If the boundary line as specified in the pertinent instrument is clear, it cannot be changed by a court in the process of interpreting delimitation provisions.

Boundary awards are decisions by the International Court or arbitral tribunal allocating title to a particular territory or determining the boundary line constitute establishment or confirmation of title that will be binding upon the parties themselves and for all practical purposes upon all states in the absence of maintained protest.

·        Accretion
A new territory is added mainly through natural causes to territory already under the sovereignty of a state, acquisition by accretion takes place. Accretion refers to the physical expansion of an existing territory through geographical process.

·        Cession
This involves the peaceful transfer of territory from one sovereign to another (with the intention that sovereignty should pass) and has often taken place within the framework of a peace treaty following a war.

·        Conquest and the use of force
Conquest, the act of defeating an opponent and occupying all or part of its territory, does not constitute a basis of title to the land. It does give the victor certain rights under international law as regards the territory, the rights of belligerent occupation, but the territory remains subject to the legal title of the ousted sovereign. It is, however, clear today that the acquisition of territory by force alone is illegal under international law. This may be stated in view of article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Acquisition of territory following an armed conflict would require further action of an international nature in addition to domestic legislation to annex.

Security Council resolution 242, for example, emphasized the ‘inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war’, while the 1970 Declaration of Principles of International Law adopted by the UN General Assembly provides that: “The territory of a state shall not be the object of acquisition by another state resulting from the threat or use of force. No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.”

Whatever the circumstances, it is not the successful use of violence that in international law constituted the valid method of acquiring territory. Under the classical rules, formal annexation of territory following upon an act of conquest would operate to pass title. It was a legal fiction employed to mask the conquest and transform it into a valid method of obtaining land under international law.
·        The exercise of effective control
The acquisition of territory by modes of occupation and prescription are upon the exercise of effective control. Both concepts are similar in that they may require evidence of sovereign acts by a state over a period of time. In practice these concepts are often indistinct since sovereignty over an area may lapse and give rise to doubts whether abandonment has taken place, rendering the territory terra nullius.
Occupation is a method of acquiring territory which belongs to no one (terra nullius) and which may be acquired by a state in certain situations. The occupation must be by a state and not by private individuals, it must be effective and it must be intended as a claim of sovereignty over the area.
Prescription is a mode of establishing title to territory which is not terra nullius and which has been obtained either unlawfully or in circumstances wherein the legality of the acquisition cannot be demonstrated. It is the legitimization of a fact.
The vital point in prescription rests upon the implied consent of the former sovereign to the new state of affairs. Thus acquiescence in the case of prescription, whether express or implied from all the relevant circumstances, is essential, whereas in the case of occupation it is merely an evidential point reinforcing the existence of an effective occupation, but not constituting the essence of the legal claim.
·        Intertemporal law
The general rule in such circumstances is that in a dispute the claim or situation in question (or relevant treaty, for example) has to be examined according to the conditions and rules in existence at the time it was made and not at a later date.
·        Critical date
The concept of a critical date is of especial relevance with regard to the doctrine of uti possidetis, which posits that a new state has the boundaries of the predecessor entity, so that the moment of independence is invariably the critical date. The importance of the critical date concept, thus, is relative and depends entirely upon the circumstances of the case.
·        Sovereign activities (effectivit´es)
Acts of sovereignty are necessary to found title will depend in each instance upon all the relevant circumstances of the case, including the nature of the territory involved, the amount of opposition (if any) that such acts on the part of the claimant state have aroused, and international reaction. In international law many titles will be deemed to exist not as absolute but as relative concepts.

·        The role of subsequent conduct: recognition, acquiescence and estoppels
1.     Recognition is a positive act by a state accepting a particular situation and, it is nevertheless an affirmation of the existence of a specific factual state of affairs.
2.     Acquiescence occurs in circumstances where a protest is called for and does not happen in time in the circumstances.
3.     Estoppel is a legal technique whereby states deemed to have consented to a state of affairs cannot afterwards alter their position.
The various manifestations of the subsequent conduct of relevant parties have a common foundation in that they all rest to a stronger or weaker extent upon the notion of consent. Subsequent conduct may be relevant in a number of ways:
·        First, as a method of determining the true interpretation of the relevant boundary instrument in the sense of the intention of the parties.
·        Second, as a method of resolving an uncertain disposition or situation, for example, whether a particular area did or did not fall within the colonial territory in question for purposes of determining the uti possidetis line.
·        Third, as a method of modifying such an instrument or pre-existing arrangement.

Territorial integrity, self-determination and sundry claims

The principle of the territorial integrity of states is well established and is protected by a series of consequential rules prohibiting interference within the domestic jurisdiction of states as article 2(7) of the UN Charter, and forbidding the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of states, particularly article 2(4) of the UN Charter. However, it does not apply where the territorial dispute centre upon uncertain frontier demarcations. The principle appears to conflict with the self-determination of peoples.

-Practice has not supported its application as a principle conferring the right to secede upon identifiable groups within already independent states. The only arguable exception to this rule that the right to external self-determination applies only to either colonial or occupation situation might be where the group in question is subject to ‘extreme and unremitting persecution’ coupled with the ‘lack of any reasonable prospect for reasonable challenge’. Self-determination cannot be used to further larger territorial claims in defiance of internationally accepted boundaries of sovereign states, but it may be of some use in resolving cases of disputed frontier lines on the basis of the wishes of the inhabitants.
The doctrine of uti possidetis lies in its primary aim of securing respect for the territorial boundaries at the moment when independence is achieved. In that case, the application of the principle of uti possidetis resulted in administrative boundaries being transformed into international frontiers in the full sense of the term. Once defined in a treaty, an international frontier achieves permanence so that even if the treaty itself were to cease to be in force, the continuance of the boundary would be unaffected and may only be changed with the consent of the states directly concerned. Thus, uti possidetis must allow for the application of other principles and rules.

‘The common heritage of mankind’

Kemal Baslar has stated that the Common Heritage of Mankind principle "is a philosophical idea that questions the regimes of globally important resources regardless of their situation, and requires major changes in the world to apply its provisions. There are certain common characteristics relating to the concept. Like res communis, the areas in question are incapable of national appropriation. Sovereignty is not an applicable principle and the areas in question would not be ‘owned’, nor would any jurisdictional rights exist outside the framework of the appropriate common heritage regime institutional arrangements.
However, while a res communis regime permits freedom of access, exploration and exploitation, a common heritage regime would establish management mechanisms and would employ the criterion of equity in distributing the benefits of such activity. As a legal concept within the framework of the specific treaties concerned, it provides an interesting contrast to traditional jus communis rules, although the extent of the management structures required to operate the regime may pose considerable problems.

The polar region

The Arctic is a region that ties together three continents: Asia, Europe and North America. Claims have been made by seven nations (Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom) to the Antarctic region, which is an ice-covered landmass in the form of an island. Such claims have been based on a variety of grounds, ranging from mere discovery to the sector principle employed by the South American states, and most of these are of rather dubious quality.

However, in 1959 the Antarctic Treaty was signed by all states concerned with territorial claims or scientific exploration in the region. Its major effect, apart from the demilitarization of Antarctica, is to suspend, although not to eliminate, territorial claims during the life of the treaty. Since the treaty does not provide for termination, an ongoing regime has been created which, because of its inclusion of all interested parties, appears to have established an international regime binding on all. The obvious problem posed to international law remains to be its uniform implementation among sovereign entities. States only abide by rules of law, which they have consented to. Not all states at all the time give their consent to all the international agreements or treaties. A common legal approach is not always there to mitigate a number of identical challenges facing nation states.

Leases and servitudes

Leases of land rose into prominence in the nineteenth century as a way of obtaining control of usually strategic points without the necessity of actually annexing the territory. Sovereignty was regarded as having passed to the lessee for the duration of the lease, upon which event it would revert to the original sovereign who made the grant.
Servitude exists where the territory of one state is under a particular restriction in the interests of the territory of another state. Such limitations are bound to the land as rights in rem and thus restrict the sovereignty of the state concerned, even if there is a change in control of the relevant territory, for instance upon merger with another state or upon decolonization. Examples of servitudes would include the right to use ports or rivers in the territory so bound, or alternatively an obligation not to fortify particular towns or areas in the territory.

The law of outer space

The five treaties and agreements of international space law cover "non-appropriation of outer space by any one country, arms control, the freedom of exploration, liability for damage caused by space objects, the safety and rescue of spacecraft and astronauts, the prevention of harmful interference with space activities and the environment, the notification and registration of space activities, scientific investigation and the exploitation of natural resources in outer space and the settlement of disputes."

The United Nations General Assembly adopted five declarations and legal principles which encourage exercising the international laws, as well as unified communication between countries. The five declarations and principles are;
1.     The Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Uses of Outer Space (1963)
2.     The Principles Governing the Use by States of Artificial Earth Satellites for International Direct Television Broadcasting (1982)
3.     The Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Outer Space (1986)
4.     The Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in Outer Space (1992)
5.     The Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit and in the Interest of All States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing Countries (1996)

1919 Paris Convention for the Regulation of Aerial Navigation recognized the full sovereignty of state over the airspace above their land and territorial sea. Accordingly, the international law rules protecting sovereignty of states apply to the airspace as they do to the land below. Furthermore, reaffirming the legal status of aerial in International Law, the Court noted that ‘a boundary represents the line of separation between areas of state sovereignty, not only on the earth’s surface but also in the subsoil and in the superjacent column of air’. Aircraft may only traverse the airspace of states with the agreement of those states, and where that has not been obtained an illegal intrusion will be involved which will justify interception, though not actual attack.

The definition and delimitation of outer space

Usque ad coelum rule, providing for state sovereignty over territorial airspace to an unrestricted extent, was not viable where space exploration was concerned. This means that the sovereignty of states over their airspace is limited in height at most to the point where the airspace meets space itself. Precisely where this boundary lays is difficult to say and will depend upon technological and other factors.




The regime of outer space

International Community has agreed to apply the international law principles of res communis, so that no portion of outer space may be appropriated to the sovereignty of individual states.

UN General Assembly resolution 1962 (XVII), adopted in 1963 and entitled the Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, lays down a series of applicable legal principles which include the provisions that outer space and celestial bodies were free for exploration and use by all states on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law, and that outer space and celestial bodies were not subject to national appropriation by any means.

Moreover, the treaty emphasizes the outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by any means and emphasizes that the exploration and use of outer space must be carried out for the benefit of all countries.

Telecommunications

The legal framework for the use of space in the field of telecommunications is provided by the various INTELSAT (international telecommunications satellites) agreements which enable the member states of the International Telecommunications Union to help develop and establish the system, although much of the work is in fact carried out by American corporations, particularly COMSAT. One key issue relates to control over the dissemination of information gathered by satellite. Some have called for the creation of an equitable regime for the sharing of information and there is concern over the question of access to data about states by those, and other, states.

Questions about the control of material broadcast by such satellites and the protection of minority cultures from ‘swamping’ have yet to be answered, but are being discussed in various UN organs, for instance UNESCO and the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. Two principles are relevant in this context: freedom of information, which is a right enshrined in many international instruments, and state sovereignty.

Posted by
Unknown

More

Paper of Introduction to Sociology about Aung San Suu Kyi

A.    Description
            Aung San Suu Kyi was born in Yangon, Myanmar, in 1945. After years of living and studying abroad, she returned home only to find widespread slaughter of protesters rallying against the brutal rule of dictator U Ne Win. She spoke out against him and initiated a nonviolent movement toward achieving democracy and human rights. However, in 1989, the government placed Suu Kyi under house arrest, and she spent 15 of the next 21 years in custody. In 1991, her ongoing efforts won her the Nobel Prize for Peace, and she was finally released from house arrest in November 2010.[1]
No
ASPECT
EXPLANATION
1
Socio-political contexts
In 1988 she returned to Burma and led the National League for Democracy (NLD) in opposition to the ruling military regime. She was placed under house arrest in 1989, but the NLD still convincingly won popular elections in 1990. The military junta refused to give up power and held Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest until 1995. While detained she was given the 1991 Nobel Prize for peace. In 1999, Aung San Suu Kyi’s husband, Michael Aris, died of cancer in London.She was held again from September 2000 until May 2002, during which time the NLD was having secret negotiations with the junta in an effort to break the political deadlock. She was again detained in May of 2003 and taken into "protective custody" as confrontations between the NLD and government supporters increased. Despite diplomatic pressure and international pleas for her release, the ruling military junta announced an extension of her house arrest for an indefinite period in 2006, and again in 2009. She was finally released 13 November 2010. Currently, she is now running for a seat in the parliament of Burma and is still working toward restoring democracy and improving human rights in Myanmar. She also plans to re-establish ties with the rest of the world. In 2015, she plans to run for presidential.[2]
2
Leadership
·         In 1988: Back to Myanmar
·         In 1989: House Arrest
·         In 1990: General Election
·         In 1991: The Sakharov human rights prize and the Nobel Peace Prize
·         In 1995: Released from House Arrest
·         In 1999: Her husband, Michael Aris, died of cancer in London
·         In 2000: House Arrest again
·         In 2002: Released from House Arrest
·         In 2003: Attacked by a pro-government and­ House Arrest again
·         In 2010: Released from House Arrest
·         In 2015: Want to be President
·         In 2016: Become State Counselor[3]
Aung San Suu Kyi, also called Daw Aung San Suu Kyi (born June 19, 1945, Rangoon, Burma [now Yangon, Myanmar]) politician and opposition leader of Myanmar. She returned to Burma to nurse her dying mother, leaving her husband and sons behind. There the mass slaughter of protesters against the brutal and unresponsive rule of military strongman U Ne Win led her to speak out against him and to begin a nonviolent struggle for democracy and human rights in that country.
In 1988, won more than 80 percent of the parliamentary seats that were contested in 1990, but the results of that election were ignored by the military government (in 2010 the military government formally annulled the results of the 1990 election).
Suu Kyi was freed from house arrest in July 1995, although restrictions were placed on her ability to travel outside Yangon. The following year she attended the NLD party congress, but the military government continued to harass both her and her party. In 1998 she announced the formation of a representative committee that she declared was the country’s legitimate ruling parliament. Michael Aris died in London in early 1999. Prior to his death, the military junta denied him a visa to visit Suu Kyi in Myanmar, and Suu Kyi, anticipating that she would not be allowed to reenter the country if she left, remained in Myanmar.
The junta once again placed Suu Kyi under house arrest from September 2000 to May 2002, ostensibly for having violated restrictions by attempting to travel outside Yangon. Following clashes between the NLD and pro-government demonstrators in 2003, the government returned her to house arrest. Calls for her release continued throughout the international community in the face of her sentence’s annual renewal, and in 2009 a United Nations body declared her detention illegal under Myanmar’s own law. In 2008 the conditions of her house arrest were somewhat loosened, allowing her to receive some magazines as well as letters from her children, who were both living abroad.
In May 2009, shortly before her most recent sentence was to be completed, Suu Kyi was arrested and charged with having breached the terms of her house arrest after an intruder (a U.S. citizen) entered her house compound and spent two nights there. In August she was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison, though the sentence immediately was reduced to 18 months, and she was allowed to serve it while remaining under house arrest. At the time of her conviction, the belief was widespread both within and outside Myanmar that this latest ruling was designed to prevent Suu Kyi from participating in multiparty parliamentary elections (the first since 1990) scheduled for 2010.
Currently, she is now running for a seat in the parliament of Burma and is still working toward restoring democracy and improving human rights in Myanmar. She also plans to re-establish ties with the rest of the world. In 2015, she plans to run for presidential.[4]  

B.     Leadership of Aung San Suu Kyi
In 1991, Suu Kyi was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace. She has also received the Rafto prize (1990), the International Simón Bolívar Prize (1992) and the Jawaharlal Nehru Award (1993), among other accolades.
In December 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 400–0 to award Suu Kyi the Congressional Gold Medal, and in May 2008, U.S. President George W. Bush signed the vote into law, making Suu Kyi the first person in American history to receive the prize while imprisoned.[5]


C.     Type of Leadership Aung San Suu Kyi
Inspirational Message: She has won numerous international awards, including the Nobel Peace Prize, the Sakharov Prize from the European Parliament and the United States Presidential Medal of Freedom. She has called on people around the world to join the struggle for freedom in Burma, saying “Please use your liberty to promote ours.”[6]
            She is charismatic because, people of Burma choose Aung San Suu Kyi as their leader. People worldwide also truly admire her strength and determination to stand up for what is right, to unite the difference and inspire the courage. 


D.    Values System of Aung San Suu Kyi
I think she teach and influence her followers by attitude, her speech, and her struggle. She is a Helpless, Humble, and I she is good women I see by her struggle which she always tries to attack the brutal rule of dictator U Ne Win with initiated a nonviolent movement toward achieving democracy and human rights.


E.     Regular Activities of Aung San Suu Kyi
In my opinion, she always struggle to created democracy and freedom Non-Violent in Burma. The ways make the freedom Non-Violent come true she always give speech for society in Burma with the nice word and motivation to freedom. And with her influence society become believe with their self to make freedom Non-Violent come true. And the result she luck to make freedom Non-Violent in Burma. Finally, society proud with her. 

 
F.      True Believers of Aung San Suu Kyi

The true believers of Aung San Suu Kyi is have a role as supporters, followers, and fans of Aung San Suu Kyi. In every program and activities that held by Aung San Suu Kyi will supported and follow by fans.

In every activities her fans always take a part as a object that will always do anything that she said or her decision.


G.    The Meaning of Symbol National League for Democracy
The party flag has a peacock in it which is a prominent symbol of Burma; the Dancing Peacock was numerously featured in Burmese monarchic flags as well as other nationalist symbols in the country. The Fighting Peacock is associated with decades-long democratic struggle against military dictatorship in the country. The latter closely resembles a Green Peafowl, as it has a tufted crest. The NLD party symbol is adopted from the Myanmar (Burmese) Student Union flag.[7]


H.    Opinion About Aung San Suu Kyi
I think she is a great woman in the world and have important rules especially to Burma. After I read some articles about her, I really proud with her struggle and I motivate by her. And now I know if we must attack Violent without freedom. Her struggle really motivate for me to make some people become freedom, because I know we must make a freedom and attack the Violent.
In the future if the role which said that a widow can’t be a president is deleted and she was elected be a president, I believe if Myanmar will be great by her. And Myanmar will have real freedom.






References

-       Aung San Suu Kyi. (2017). The Five Most Influential Political Leaders. Retrieved 5 November 2016, from https://hmd307group2.wordpress.com/aung-san-suu-kyi/

-       Biography.com. (2016). Cite a Website - Cite This For Me. [online] Available at: http://www.biography.com/people/aung-san-suu-kyi-9192617#awards-and-recognition [Accessed 5 Nov. 2016].

-       Encyclopedia Britannica. (2016). Aung San Suu Kyi | Myanmar politician and opposition leader. [online] Available at: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Aung-San-Suu-Kyi [Accessed 5 Nov. 2016].

-       Futureofcio.blogspot.co.id. (2016). Three Leadership Lessons from Aung San Suu Kyi. [online] Available at: http://futureofcio.blogspot.co.id/2012/04/three-leadership-lessons-from-aung-san.html [Accessed 5 Nov. 2016].

-       National League for Democracy : CALD | Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats. (2017). Cald.org. Retrieved 3 January 2017, from http://cald.org/members/observer-parties/national-league-for-democracy/

-       Operationworld.org. (2016). Cite a Website - Cite This For Me. [online] Available at: http://www.operationworld.org/files/ow/maps/lgmap/myan-MMAP-md.png [Accessed 5 Nov. 2016].



Posted by
Unknown

More

Copyright © / B S W

Template by : Urang-kurai / powered by :blogger