Appendicocecal Fistula – A Rare Complication of Appendicitis

Fistulisation of appendix to other organs or to the exterior through abdominal wall is a rare complication of appendicitis. We present one such rare case of appendicocecal fistula due to appendicitis in a patient initially managed conservatively for appendicular lum

Indeterminacy in the Law of Armed Conflict

Controversy and confusion pervade the law of armed conflict. Its most basic rules may seem ambiguous, vague, incomplete, or inconsistent. The prevailing view of customary international law confronts serious problems, in principle and in practice, when applied to the customary law of armed conflict. Legal indeterminacy, in its different forms, might be reduced or resolved in light of the object and purpose of the law of armed conflict, or by taking into account other relevant rules of international law. Unfortunately, the purpose of the law of armed conflict is itself the subject of deep disagreement. So is the relationship between the law of armed conflict and other branches of international law, most notably the law of inter-State force and human rights law. This article examines different forms of legal indeterminacy and different legal techniques available to address them, using concrete controversies to illustrate abstract ideas. It defends one view of the purpose of the law of armed conflict and its relationship with other rules of international law. The purpose of the law is not to balance a constraining principle of humanity against an authorizing principle of military necessity. Instead, the purpose of the law is simply to protect persons and objects to the greatest extent practically possible, that is, without depriving other rules of international law, which authorize certain uses of armed force, of practical effect. Finally, it shows that the law of armed conflict contains a number of clues for its own interpretation, some of them hidden in plain sight, including a recurring pattern of general protections with limited exceptions

Off Target: Selection, Precaution, and Proportionality in the DoD Manual

The United States Department of Defense Law of War Manual misrepresents customary international law governing target selection, precautions in attack and proportionality. Contrary to the Manual’s assertions, attackers with a choice of targets for obtaining a similar military advantage must select the target that endangers the fewest civilians; often must avoid harming civilians even at some additional risk to themselves or to their mission; and must refrain from attack if the expected harm to civilians—including to civilians forced to serve as human shields—would be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage

Transformasi Somba Opu dari Bandar Niaga ke Objek Wisata Sejarah

Artikel ini mengkaji tentang transformasi Somba Opu melalui kisahnya di masa lalu dan masa kini dengan menggunakan metode penelitian sejarah. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa kisah Somba Opu di masa lalu terbagi dalam tiga babak besar: pembangunan Benteng Somba Opu, penciptaan Somba Opu sebagai bandar niaga, dan pembentukan jaringan perdagangan internasional melalui kebijakan mare liberum dan pelabuhan bebas. Semua ini menjadikan Somba Opu tumbuh sebagai kota pelabuhan kosmopolitan dunia. Di masa kini, kisah Somba Opu terbagi dalam dua babak: usaha penemuan kembali Somba Opu melalui eskavasi arkeologis, serta transformasinya menjadi objek wisata sejarah yang penting bagi pelajar dan publik untuk memahami sejarah Sulawesi Selatan pada abad XVI hingga XVII

A Forensic Analysis of Video Streaming Activities on Android Applications

Mobile applications of video streaming platforms store a lot of information on mobile devices which can have both positive and negative impacts. Positive, in the sense that it could assist law enforcement agencies in solving crime, and the negative impact is that it could be accessed by malicious actors. In this study, we forensically investigate the Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and iFlix android applications. The major focus is on identifying stored artifacts on the mobile devices left behind by the android video streaming applications. It will give law enforcement agencies and forensic investigators a clear direction when it comes to extracting evidence to solve a crime. On the other hand, it will notify the mobile application developers on how to further improve the security of their mobile applications.

Automation of DevOps processes with RPA qualitative research

As DevOps emerged to address the bottleneck between development and operations teams, and Robot Process Automation (RPA) is a technology designed to automated repetitive tasks. There is a gap in research concerning the integration of RPA with DevOps processes. The primary goal of this study is to explore the potential of RPA in automating DevOps processes. To achieve this, a qualitative research approach was adopted, utilizing individual semi-structured interviews. Through this interviews, insights from various roles can be gathered, to identify which DevOps processes can be automated using RPA and the associated benefits.DevOps surgiu com o objetivo de resolver a divisão entre as equipas de desenvolvimento e operações, o Robot Process Automation (RPA) é uma tecnologia designada para automatizar tarefas repetitivas. Existe uma lacuna na investigação sobre a integração do RPA nos processos DevOps. O principal objetivo deste estudo é explorar o potencial do RPA na automatização dos processos DevOps. Para tal, foi adotada uma metodologia de investigação qualitativa, realizando entrevistas semiestruturadas. Através destas entrevistas, podem ser recolhidas pontos de vista de diferentes funções para identificar quais os processos de DevOps que podem ser automatizados usando RPA e os respetivos benefícios

Advantaging Aggressors: Justice & Deterrence in International Law

Current international law imposes limitations on the use of force to defend against unlawful aggression that improperly advantage unlawful aggressors and disadvantage their victims. The Article gives examples of such rules, governing a variety of situations, showing how clearly unjust they can be. No domestic criminal law system would tolerate their use. There are good practical reasons why international law should care that its rules are perceived as unjust. Given the lack of an effective international law enforcement mechanism, compliance depends to a large degree upon the moral authority with which international law speaks. Compliance is less likely when its rules are perceived as obviously unjust. This common sense perspective is supported by social science research showing the importance of law\u27s moral credibility in gaining assistance and compliance, in reducing resistance and subversion, and in helping to shape shared norms. The current practice of victim states ignoring legal limitations, with studied indifference to such violations by the international community, only legitimizes and habituates law-breaking, further undermining international law\u27s moral credibility. Interpretations of international law can be constructed that would narrow the gap between the legal rules and moral intuitions regarding the use of defensive force. Such revisionist interpretations may be a useful temporary measure, but are not a solution, because the gap between law and justice can be narrowed but not closed by reinterpretation alone. Ultimately, reform is required of international law\u27s foundational texts. International law limitations on responses to aggression are also improper for reasons beyond their conflict with principles of justice instantiated in domestic criminal law. International law and domestic criminal law are importantly different. Most fundamentally, international law lacks an effective law enforcement system. In order to effectively control unlawful aggression, international law needs to have fewer limitations on responses to aggression than criminal law, not more limitations. A series of examples of such improper limitations are discussed. Each has the unfortunate effect of promoting aggression and instability by undermining effective deterrence. Again, there exist possible reinterpretations of international law that could avoid some of the improper limitations but, ultimately, a reform of international law\u27s foundational texts is required. One important opportunity for reforming international law is currently being squandered. The Assembly of State Parties to the International Criminal Court has recently approved a resolution defining the international crime of aggression. However, rather than confront international law\u27s existing problems, the drafters compounded them by imposing individual criminal liability on leaders of victim states who authorize defensive force in violation of flawed current law. Fortunately, the resolution will not go into effect until 2017 at the earliest. There is still time to change course

Advantaging Aggressors: Justice & Deterrence in International Law

Current international law imposes limitations on the use of force to defend against unlawful aggression that improperly advantage unlawful aggressors and disadvantage their victims. The Article gives examples of such rules, governing a variety of situations, showing how clearly unjust they can be. No domestic criminal law system would tolerate their use. There are good practical reasons why international law should care that its rules are perceived as unjust. Given the lack of an effective international law enforcement mechanism, compliance depends to a large degree upon the moral authority with which international law speaks. Compliance is less likely when its rules are perceived as obviously unjust. This common sense perspective is supported by social science research showing the importance of law\u27s moral credibility in gaining assistance and compliance, in reducing resistance and subversion, and in helping to shape shared norms. The current practice of victim states ignoring legal limitations, with studied indifference to such violations by the international community, only legitimizes and habituates law-breaking, further undermining international law\u27s moral credibility. Interpretations of international law can be constructed that would narrow the gap between the legal rules and moral intuitions regarding the use of defensive force. Such revisionist interpretations may be a useful temporary measure, but are not a solution, because the gap between law and justice can be narrowed but not closed by reinterpretation alone. Ultimately, reform is required of international law\u27s foundational texts. International law limitations on responses to aggression are also improper for reasons beyond their conflict with principles of justice instantiated in domestic criminal law. International law and domestic criminal law are importantly different. Most fundamentally, international law lacks an effective law enforcement system. In order to effectively control unlawful aggression, international law needs to have fewer limitations on responses to aggression than criminal law, not more limitations. A series of examples of such improper limitations are discussed. Each has the unfortunate effect of promoting aggression and instability by undermining effective deterrence. Again, there exist possible reinterpretations of international law that could avoid some of the improper limitations but, ultimately, a reform of international law\u27s foundational texts is required. One important opportunity for reforming international law is currently being squandered. The Assembly of State Parties to the International Criminal Court has recently approved a resolution defining the international crime of aggression. However, rather than confront international law\u27s existing problems, the drafters compounded them by imposing individual criminal liability on leaders of victim states who authorize defensive force in violation of flawed current law. Fortunately, the resolution will not go into effect until 2017 at the earliest. There is still time to change course