Posted: April 27th, 2023

International Human Rights Law LAW2142 Assignment

This is an assignment instruction for the International Human Rights Law course at the School of Law, University of Leeds. The assignment is due on 12 May 2023, and it has a word limit of 2,500 words. The submission must be done through Turnitin via the Minerva VLE, and the Assessed Coursework Cover Sheet must be completed and inserted at the beginning of the document. The penalty for late submissions is 5 marks for every 24 hours or part thereof up to 14 days. Extensions can only be granted in exceptional circumstances and should be obtained from the Student Support Officers. The work must be original and properly cited, and plagiarism or cheating will not be tolerated. The assessment criteria for the assignment are also provided, which includes five main criteria: Content, Understanding, Analysis, Research, and Presentation, each with a list of key aspects. ________________________________ International Human Rights Law LAW2142 Assignment – Semester 2 – 2022/2023 Submission Date: 12 May 2023 Word Limit: 2,500 INSTRUCTIONS 1. The assessment will count for 100% of your total marks for this module. 2. Your completed assessment must be submitted electronically to Turnitin through Minerva VLE by 12 noon on 12 May 2023. To do this, you must log into Minerva Portal & VLE and click on the ‘Modules’ tab. Select the appropriate module title (named at the top of this template), then click on ‘Submit My Work’ in the module menu. Select the link to the relevant assessment then upload your work. By submitting your assessed work through the VLE you are accepting the Declaration of Academic Integrity, extending to a declaration that the work is not plagiarised and that the word count is accurately stated. 3. You should complete an Assessed Coursework Cover Sheet with details of your Student ID number, Module Code & Title and Declared Word Count and insert this at the beginning of your assessment before uploading to Turnitin. 4. Work which is submitted after the deadline will be penalised in accordance with University rules as follows: you will be deducted 5 marks for every 24 hour period or part thereof that your assessment is overdue, up to 14 days. If your work is more than 14 days late, or if the deduction is larger than the mark you receive, you will receive a mark of 0. 5. Extensions of the deadline for submission can only be granted in exceptional circumstances and can only be obtained from Student Support Officers (StudentSupportLaw@leeds.ac.uk). 6. It is your responsibility to ensure that you have submitted the correct version of your work. If, after making a submission, you claim that you mistakenly submitted a draft, the wrong version or a different assessment, the original version, which was submitted by the deadline, will still be treated as your submission. 7. You should obtain your digital receipt of submission. You are also required to keep an additional copy of your work for your own reference. In addition you must keep your notes and draft copies of the work. 8. You should ensure that you do not include your name anywhere on your assessment in order that it remains anonymous for marking – however, you should include your Student ID number, module code, module title and state the word count on the header of each page and as the file name of your document. 9. The length of your work should not exceed 2,500 words (excluding footnotes, endnotes, bibliography, and restatement of the assessment question). If you exceed the maximum by less than 10% no penalty will be applied. However, if the total is 10% above the maximum or more then you will be penalised in accordance with following School rules: 10% and over – 5 mark penalty 2 20% and over – 10 marks 30% and over – 15 marks 40% and over – 20 marks 50% and over – a maximum of 0 marks would be awarded. 10.Plagiarism and Cheating It is essential that your assessed work represents your own work and that it has not been produced in collusion with any other party. Text and ideas derived from written sources (including electronic sources) must be acknowledged by way of appropriate citation. If you are not aware of the University’s rules on plagiarism and academic malpractice, please familiarise yourself with the relevant regulations as set out on the secretariat website. You should also refer to the Academic Integrity Handbook on Minerva VLE under Organisation/Law/Undergraduate/Academic Integrity. 3 School of Law Undergraduate Assessment Criteria These assessment criteria are intended to be used by staff and students. Staff should use them when marking essays to (a) assess the level of the essay across the five main criteria (taking into account whether it is a Level One, Two or Three module) and (b) when preparing feedback. For students their purpose is two fold. First, they should be used when preparing the essay, in particular when assessing an early draft. Second, they provide some indication of why an essay has been placed in a particular category for each of the five main criteria by the marker. Key aspects for each of the five criteria are listed in italics. Content Coverage Relevance Understanding Analysis Extent Level Evidence Structure Introduction Conclusion Argument Research Range of sources Type of sources Use of sources Presentation Writing style Proof reading Referencing Excellent Essays should demonstrate some of the following as well as those specified under Very Good Exceptional understanding of complex material Identification of less obvious issues not widely discussed in the literature Exceptional level of analysis Demonstrates excellent evaluative skills when using sources Imaginative and innovative argument Almost faultless structure Considerable evidence of independent scholarship High level of synthesis Close to reaching the expectation for an academic publication Exceptional attention to detail Very Good Complete answer which displays an in depth understanding of the key issues; discussion always related to the question Highly analytic answer which draws upon – and evaluates a range of sources – to reach own conclusions Engaging introduction which lays out a structure for the answer and demonstrates a full understanding of the issues raised by the questions; robust conclusion which consolidates the argument advanced in the main body of the essay; discussion flows effectively as argument is developed throughout. Draws upon a wide range of both primary and secondary sources (including those not listed in module materials) and uses them effectively to support points made; very good synthesis of sources to convey understanding of relevant literature. Fluent and precise writing style with only minimal errors; academically appropriate language; full, consistent and accurate referencing. Good Full answer (only minor omissions) which displays a good understanding of the key issues; discussion predominantly related to the question. Analytic approach adopted throughout the answer making appropriate use of evidence to support the analytic points made. Introduction lays out a structure for the answer and identifies key issues; conclusion consolidates the argument built up in the main body of the essay but both may benefit from further development; answer is generally well organised with clear progression. Draws upon a range of both primary and secondary sources (relying predominantly on those listed in module materials) and uses them to support points made; good synthesis of sources to convey understanding of relevant literature. Fluent academic writing style with only minor errors; occasional minor referencing errors. Satisfactory Solid answer but some omissions and may be lacking in detail; understanding of the key issues is variable and may be shallow at times; discussion typically related to the question but may be some digressions Some level of analysis but answer is likely to be overly descriptive at times; analysis may be confined to the final section of the essay and points made may not be explored in-depth or substantiated Introduction may be pedestrian, simply outlining what will be discussed; brief conclusion which does not consolidate the argument presented in the body of the essays; evidence of planning but answer would benefit from some reorganisation of material to improve the flow of the argument. Draws upon primary and secondary sources (relying predominantly on the latter) and uses them to support points made; discussion tends to focus on individual sources. Clear writing style on the whole but some errors and areas of confusion; no serious referencing errors. 4 Limited Partial answer with a number of omissions; displays a reasonable understanding of the material but may be superficial at times; discussion frequently strays away from the focus of the question. Primarily descriptive with only limited analysis, which is likely to be superficial and without reference to any sources. Introduction may be pedestrian, simply outlining what will be discussed; conclusion may be asserted rather than following on logically from the argument advance in the essay; answer would benefit from reorganisation of material. Draws on a limited range of sources, predominantly secondary sources; not all points made are supported by reference to the sources used; discussion focuses on individual sources. Writing style sometimes lacks clarity and precision and may not be academically appropriate; referencing may also be problematic (e.g. inconsistent approach) but not indicative of plagiarism. Below pass standard Answers in this category may be considerably under length. Unsatisfactory answer due to failure to identify and/or understand the key issues, and/or limited relevance to the question Overly descriptive answer with little, if any, analysis Introduction, if present, offers little more than a list of issues to discuss; conclusion, if present, does not answer the question; disorganised answer. Minimal use of sources; points made are generally not accompanied by reference to sources. Difficult to read due to frequent errors and/or problematic (possibly non academic) writing style; problematic referencing which may raise concerns about academic integrity. 5 Deadline: 12 May 2023 Word Count: 2,500 Answer ONE question ONLY: 1. ‘Socio-economic rights are not enforceable under International Human Rights Law’. Critically discuss with reference to one socio-economic right of your choice. OR 2. When does an act of ill-treatment fall within the scope of the prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment under International Human Rights Law? Critically answer with reference to case-law from the European Court of Human Rights.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: write pages, write a word essay, professional assignment writers USA, in page paper write an essay