Should the Developed world be responsible for human rights protection in the developing world?
Purpose of the Essay
The aim of an essay is:
the theoretical arguments that are at odds with each other, or that
agree with each other
context of the debate. What contribution to the debate do these
positions make? What is left out? What can these two positions tell
Structure of the Essay
Analyse rather than Describe
required readings or to summarise their arguments. You are beingasked to analyse the arguments (strengths/weaknesses) in relation
to the contribution they make to the debate and how these limits or
advances human rights protection.
aims are, how they have accomplished these aims, and what
contribution their approach makes to the debate. If you feel they
have hindered the debate then you can say that too; provide
reasons why you feel this way.
your analysis, rather than be the central foci of your essay. The
required readings are the central foci.
(debate) via a focused analysis of the required readings and
Organisation of Lit review, options:
|Outstanding (85+)||Excellent (70-84)||Very Good (60-69)||Good (50-59)||Bare Pass (40-49)||Bare Fail (30-39)||Absolute Fail (<30).|
|Complex understanding and knowledge||Demonstrates complex, independent and insightful understanding of a range of key concepts theoretical approaches and debates that could not be improved upon at this level, recognizing and evaluating their contested nature examining||Demonstrates complex understanding of key concepts, theoretical approaches and debates, recognizing and evaluating their contested nature although with a few improvements possible||Demonstrates complex understanding of key concepts, theoretical approaches and debates, recognizing and evaluating their contested nature, although with some omissions and inconsistencies and a number of areas of improvement possible||Demonstrates good understanding of key concepts, theoretical approaches and debates recognizing and evaluating their contested nature however with a number of omission and inconsistencies that require significant improvement||Demonstrates an adequate indepth understanding of key concepts, theoretical approaches and debates however key elements are missed or omitted with little recognition or evaluation of their contested nature||Does not demonstrate sufficient understanding of key concepts, theoretical approaches and debates nor recognizing and evaluating their contested nature||Does not show any understanding of key concepts, theoretical approaches and debates|
|Critical thinking and application of concepts and theory||Demonstrates insightful , indepth and sophisticated critical thinking and application of key concepts and theoretical approaches to current debates , developing or applying new knowledge or applying knowledge in a new way||Demonstrates indepth critical thinking and application of key concepts and theoretical approaches to current debates which are applied in an insightful way developing or applying new knowledge or applying knowledge in a new way||Demonstrates very good critical thinking and application of key concepts and theoretical approaches to current debates with only minor omissions||Demonstrates good critical thinking and application of key concepts and theoretical approaches although with some omissions, errors and lack of clarity.||Demonstrates adequate critical thinking and understanding of key concepts and theoretical approaches which required more clear and consistent application||Fails to demonstrate critical thinking and clear understanding of key concepts and theoretical approaches nor ability to apply them in a consistent manner||No critical thinking nor engagement with key concepts and theoretical approaches.|
|Clarity of communication and expression||Excellent communication with engaging and appropriate academic expression that could not be improved upon at this level. . All terms are fully and clearly explained. Demonstrates very successful and full editing and redrafting prior to submission||Excellent communication with engaging and appropriate academic expression with only minor areas of improvement needed. All terms are fully and clearly explained. Demonstrates successful and full editing and redrafting prior to submission||Very good communication with appropriate academic expression, however lacks clarity in some areas. Evidence of editing and redrafting prior to submission||Good communication although academic expression and clarity both could be improved upon. Editing and redrafting could be improved prior to submission||Adequate communication although has some consistent issues in relation to the lack of clarity and/ or academic f expression. The work required more comprehensive editing and redrafting prior to submission||Communication is confused, with a lack of clarity and academic expression. Little evidence of editing or redrafting prior to submission||No coherence or clarity and failure to meet academic level of expression.
No evidence of editing or redrafting prior to submission
|Research||Demonstrates information literacy, synthesis of an independent and extensive range of research and use of scholarly sources, which are relevant, accurate, and fully support the analysis.||Demonstrates information literacy, synthesis and use of an extensive range of research and scholarly sources which are relevant, accurate, and fully supports the analysis||Demonstrates a very good level of information literacy, ,synthesis and use of a significant amount of research and scholarly sources which are relevant, accurate, and fully supports the analysis although could be more comprehensive||Demonstrates a good level of information literacy and uses a satisfactory amount of research which is mostly relevant, accurate, and fully supports the analysis although with reliance on core texts||Demonstrates adequate but limited information literacy and uses an adequate amount of research although not entirely relevant, accurate, or does not supports the analysis. There is an over-reliance on core texts||Does not demonstrate information literacy and does not use an adequate amount of research with little use of academic sources, or research is not relevant, adequate, nor supports the analysis.||No evidence of information literacy , uses little or no research or use of sources and research that lack any relevance nor support the analysis|
|Structure and focus||An excellent structure that could not be improved at this level. It is logical and balanced, fully focused on the question and develops a comprehensive and insightful argument.||A very strong structure that is logical and balanced, fully focused on the question that is posed that allows a comprehensive argument.||A very good structure, although there could be minor improvements to ensure a logical and balanced development of argument fully focused on the question.||A good structure although it could be strengthened to ensure a more logical and balanced analysis. The structure of the paragraphs and overall structure could be improved to ensure focus on the question.||An adequate structure although requires substantial improvement to provide a more logical and balanced argument, and to ensure the focus is fully on the question.||A poor structure that is not logical or balanced, and fails to fully focus on the question.||The work is not structured in any meaningful way and fails to focus on the question.|
|Group Work||Complete synthesis of arguments with all team members working in full coordination to the extent that the work could not be improved at this level.||Evidence of very good coordination and team work between all team members to produce a coherent and unified piece of work||Good coordination between team members although there could be improvement in the synthesis of individual work for a more unified collective output||Some evidence of coordination of individual effort although this needed substantial improvement to produce a more unified collective output||Little evidence of collective work, with either a disproportionate amount of work done by a single person or little coordination of individual outputs resulting in a weak collective effort||Fails to evidence collective work with extremely limited evidence of coordination or input by all team members||No evidence of collective work nor coordination of individual inputs|
|Substantiveness|| Meets expectations within 10% – no penalty applied
Does not meet expectations:
+/- 10-19% 5 mark penalty
+/- 20-29% 10 mark penalty
+/- 30-39% 15 mark penalty
+/- 40-49% 25mark penalty
+/- 50-59% 30 mark penalty
> 60% 0 marks awarded
|Timeliness|| Meets deadline – no penalty applied
Does not meet deadline and no mitigation in place
+ 1 day 5 mark penalty
+ 2 days 10 mark penalty
+ 3 days 15 mark penalty
+ 4 days20mark penalty
+ 5 days 25 mark penalty
+ 6 day 30 mark penalty
+ 7 days 35 mark penalty
+ 8 days 40 mark penalty
+ 9 days 45 mark penalty
10 + days 0 marks awarded
Try it now!
How it works?
Follow these simple steps to get your paper done
Place your order
Fill in the order form and provide all details of your assignment.
Proceed with the payment
Choose the payment system that suits you most.
Receive the final file
Once your paper is ready, we will email it to you.