Using Microsoft Excel and my agility and problem solving skills I would be able to understand the level of risk involved in selecting the appropriate insurance to achieve my goals. First, I would research and compare various types of insurance policies available that best meet my needs. During this process, I will create a spreadsheet to track all information associated with the policy such as coverage amount, deductible, premium cost and any additional costs (Starkweather 2019). This allows me to quickly review different options side by side while taking into consideration factors like budget constraints or time limitations (Kjos 2020)
Once I have narrowed it down to a few options I can use Microsoft Excel’s data analysis features such as charts or pivot tables which allow me to visualize information like premiums versus coverage amounts or deductibles versus premiums in order gain a better understanding of the relative risks associated with each option (Gimenez 2018). After making an informed decision on the type of policy that fits my situation best, I can then use Excel’s financial functions – such as PMT(), which calculates loan payments based on interest rates – to estimate how much money will need be paid out over time for this policy (Microsoft 2017).
This way not only do I get a comprehensive view on all aspects related to acquiring an insurance policy but also gives me an opportunity think through various scenarios so that if anything unexpected comes up later on down the line; I am prepared and know how to handle it.
ittola 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 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.
Jus post bellum
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, provides a harsher approach, punishing the enemy both economically and politically (Frowe (2010), Page 208). At the last instance, however, the aim of war is to establish peace security, so whatever needs to be don
