Do you think Emily should enroll in a different middle school?
Yes
No
Why? Give reasons for why you chose the way you did. Consider the following factors in your reasons:
Characteristics of children victimized by bullies
Relationship between bullying victimization and academic performance
Relationship between bullying victimization and mental health
Firstly, research has shown that children who are typically bullied tend to have certain characteristics such as low self-esteem and difficulty making friends (Rigby, 2003). Therefore by changing schools Emily may find it easier to form new friendships which can help give her more confidence since she will feel supported by others around her. Additionally, if there is an anti-bullying policy in place at her new school then this could provide additional protection from any potential bullies (Holt & Espelage, 2015).
Secondly, attending a different institution may also offer more academic opportunities for Emily as well. This is important because studies have found that those who experience frequent victimization often suffer academically due to lack of concentration or motivation (Mishna et al., 2013). By switching schools she may be able to take part in programs or extracurricular activities which appeal to her interests thus allowing her make up for lost time while simultaneously improving her overall educational experience.
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 is a lot more moral than Vittola’s view but implies the same agendas: ‘can’t be punished simply for fighting.’ This means one cannot simply punish another because they have been a combatant. They must be treated as humanely as possible. However, the situation is escalated if killing them can lead to peace and security, within the interests of all parties.
Overall, jus in bello suggests in wars, harm can only be used against combatants, never against the innocent. But in the end, the aim is to establish peace and security within the commonwealth. As Vittola’s conclusion: ‘the pursuit of justice for which he fights and the defence of his homeland’ is what nations should be fighting for in wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332). Thus, although today’s world has developed, we can see not much different from the modernist accounts on warfare and the traditionists, giving another section of the theory of the just war. Nevertheless, we can still conclude that there cannot be one definitive theory of the just war theory because of its normativity.
Finally, jus post bellum suggests that the actions we should take after a war (Frowe (2010), Page 208).
Firstly, Vittola argues after a war, it is the responsibility of the leader to judge what to do with the enemy (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332).. Again, proportionality is emphasised. For example, the Versailles treaty imposed after the First World War is questionably too harsh, as it was not all Germany’s fault for the war. This is supported by Frowe, who expresses two views in jus post bellum: Minimalism and Maximalism, which are very differing views. Minimalists suggest a more lenient approach while maximalist, supporting the above example, p