Skip to main content

Paris Agreement

 Paris Agreement

The Paris Pact is the world's first climate change agreement, having been signed by 196 countries in December 2015 and entering into force on 4 November 2016. This agreement was made to safeguard the earth's temperature and climate from rising. The earth's average temperature climbed by two degrees Celsius, which is extremely detrimental to the globe and is resulting in the melting of glaciers, which is extremely perilous for all living species on the planet.


This agreement's long-term objective is to keep the global average temperature increase well below 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial and pre-industrial revolution levels. on the imperative for global discharges to peak quickly, recognising that this will require additional time for emerging nations to attempt rapid reductions from that point in accordance with the best available science, in order to achieve a balance between emanations and expulsions in the second half of the century. As part of their commitment to the understanding's objectives, governments have filed thorough public environment activity reports (not really settled commitments, NDCs). These are insufficient to achieve the agreed-upon temperature targets, but the understanding is driving activity.

Additionally, animals have a right to life. Animals are critical components of bio diversity, the food chain, evolution, migration, and the generation of new species, as well as maintaining the population balance of individual species and the earth's equilibrium. No one has the right to cause harm to animals. They can pet them, teach them, and feed them, but they cannot harm them because they are also living animals with the same right to life as humans do. We are unable to steal. kidnap or cage animals in this manner; otherwise, it will be considered a kidnapping or abduction under the Indian Penal Code, and the perpetrator will face prosecution.

We are not permitted to conduct experiments on animals. Only scientists and some government organisations have the authority to conduct animal experiments, but this does not mean they may do whatever they want with animals. They do so with sufficient care to prevent the animal from dying. They conduct research on genetic mutations. They use these experiments to examine evolution. Occasionally, they do these tests in order to treat that particular species, as many animals contain chemicals, enzymes, acids, juices, and antibodies that can be used to treat human problems medically. For instance, during the covid period, the WHO and numerous national health organisations conducted experiments on numerous animals such as pigs, bears, and tigers in order to strengthen the human immune system. They also conducted studies on bats, as it was said that the corona virus was developed from an infected and genetically modified bat, and scientists and doctors were attempting to determine how this was accomplished and how it could be cured.

Scientists and doctors also conducted experiments on sea animals, with sharks and whales as the primary water bodies, and discovered several important components for treating people and strengthening them against corona virus, but this idea was abandoned and was not supported by the UN because using those components to make medicine would result in a massive slaughter of sharks and whales. and that massive killing may also make them endangered species, which is extremely dangerous for sharks and whales, as well as disrupt the food chain of water bodies, causing species imbalance, and humans do not have the right to kill animals in such large numbers for their own benefit, putting other species in danger.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree