Sample Solution
Communication is essential to effective communication and collaboration in any field. When we communicate, we share knowledge and ideas with each other, building relationships that can lead to successful outcomes. Two components of the communication process I think are important are message clarity and feedback.
Message clarity is vital for effective communication because it ensures that all parties involved understand the same information (Liu 2019). If a message is clear, there will be less confusion as people can easily comprehend what was said or written and respond accordingly. Without sufficient clarity in a message, misunderstandings or assumptions may occur which could lead to incorrect decisions being made or tasks not being completed properly (Kandula et al., 2020). Therefore it is important for communicators to ensure their messages are concise and use language appropriate for their intended audience so they get their point across accurately.
The second component of the communication process I find important is providing feedback. This helps build trust between parties by allowing them to become more aware of how others perceive their actions and advice (Hull & Elliott-Smith 2018). Furthermore, feedback encourages continuous improvement which helps maintain high standards in any job role while also increasing our understanding of one another’s strengths, weaknesses and skill sets (Bauer et al., 2020). Finally, when given constructive criticism through feedback it provides us with an opportunity to reflect on our own performance which can then improve engagement with colleagues as well as self-confidence over time (Trautman et al., 2017).
In conclusion, both message clarity and providing feedback play an integral role in the success of a communication effort . Messages must be clear , understandable ,and appropriate for intended audiences whereas receiving timely meaningful dialogue allows individuals increase awareness contextual understanding becoming self reflective . Utilizing these two aspects within conversation significantly enhance chances of achieving positive results .
is leads to question of what qualifies to be a combatant, and whether it is lawful to kill each other as combatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill ‘to shelter the innocent from harm…punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’
In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether it’s lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after a war. For example, one cannot simply nuke the terrorist groups throughout the middle-east, because it is not only proportional, it will damage the whole population, an unintended consequence. More importantly, the soldiers must have the right intention in what they are going to achieve, sacrificing the costs to their actions. For example: if soldiers want to execute all prisoners of war, they must do it for the right intention and for a just cause, proportional to the harm done to them. This is supported by Vittola: ‘not always lawful to execute all combatants…we must take account… scale of the injury inflicted by the enemy.’ This is further supported by Frowe approach, which
