www.remzihoca.

com

YDS Okuma &
Kelime Blteni 9
www.remzihoca.com





WATER RESOURCES: A COMMODITY?

With increasing population and growing water usage, water shortages have become a source of
potential and ongoing conflicts. One of the main issues is the competing claims of upstream and
downstream nations. As downstream nations attempt to win more water rights, upstream nations try to
keep control of the water resources in their territories. While current resources are insufficient in many
regions, water will become even scarcer in the future, producing tension among nations sharing rivers.

PROS CONS

Water occurs randomly, just like oil and gas,
which are treated as commodities that can be
bought and sold. If countries can take advantage
of their geographic location to sell oil and gas,
they are justified in using water resources to
support their economies. Failure to view water as
a precious, marketable commodity makes it far
less valued and leads to unrestricted water use
by environmentally unconscious societies.


Water is the most vital of Earths randomly
occurring resources; it is essential for survival.
Consequently, water-rich countries have no moral
right to profit from this resource. Every inhabitant
of the planet has an equal right to water, and
flowing water has no political boundaries.



Control and management of waterthe
maintenance of dams, reservoirs, and irrigation
systemscosts millions of dollars and is a
burden on upstream states budgets. All of these
expenses, including the opportunity cost of fertile
lands allocated for reservoirs and dams, should
be covered by downstream states, which are the
primary consumers of water. For example, that
an upstream state cannot use the water flowing
through it to produce electricity to offset the costs
of water management is unfair.


It is immoral to charge for water beyond the cost
of water systems maintenance. Water is a
commodity only up to a certain point. Once water
exceeds a reservoirs capacity, it is not a
commodity because it will flow free over the dam.
Dams may also create dangerous conditions
because downstream states may be flooded if a
dam breaks.




Water resources are distributed unequally.
Uneven distribution and wasteful consumption
warrant the introduction of the pay-for-water
approach. Is it fair to prefer to use water to
irrigate infertile semi-deserts downstream rather
than using water more efficiently upstream?
















Faced with scarcity and drought, states may
resort to force to gain control of water resources.
Therefore, making water a commodity is a
potential cause of many conflicts and should be
avoided.

















www.remzihoca.com

WAR CRIMES TRIBUNALS

Always controversial and shrouded in the solemn aftermath of terrible crimes, war crimes tribunals
are the international communitys response to national wrongdoings. They raise serious questions
about sovereignty and international law. Whether held after World War II, Rwanda, Bosnia, or
Kosovo, they never fail to provoke outrage from one corner and vindictiveness from the other. Would
such matters better be left alone? The trial of Slobodan Milosevic in The Hague in the opening years
of this century is an example of how complicated issues of international justice and power come to
the fore in such tribunals.

PROS CONS

Wrongdoing and wrongdoers must be punished.
When a crime has consumed an entire nation,
only a foreign trial can supply disinterested due
process.


Of course wrongdoing should be punished. But
the trial should be held in the country where the
crime was committed. Any outside intervention in
matters of sovereign states is high-handed and
imperialistic.


Countries can explicitly cede jurisdiction for such
crimes to international tribunals. These bodies
are trying to achieve justice and closure that will
benefit the entire nation.


Closure is the last thing tribunals bring. These
trials alienate large portions of the nation and
turn people against the new government, which
is seen as collaborating with foreign imperialists.
Such trials increase tension.


The world community must send a clear
message that it will act against appalling war
crimes. This must be done on an international
stage through international courts.

No one can dispute the enormity of such crimes.
But these trials damage a nation by reopening
old wounds. Spain, for example, did not embark
on witch-hunts following the bloody and
repressive regime of Francisco Franco. Instead,
it turned the page on those years and moved on
collectively with no recrimination. Between
justice and security there is always a trade-off.
Where possible, peace should be secured by
reconciliation rather than recrimination.


The issue of sovereignty is increasingly less
important in a globalizing world. The pooling of
sovereignty occurs with increasing frequency,
and any step toward an internationalization of
legal systems, such as the use of international
tribunals, is welcome.


Whatever the truth about globalization and
sovereignty, war crimes tribunals do not
standardize justice. They are nothing more than
victors arbitrary justice. This type of justice
undermines international law.

We have to uphold the principle that if you
commit serious crimes, you will be punished. If
we do not take action against war criminals, we
will encourage future crimes.

The threat of possible legal action has not
stopped countless heinous crimes in the past, so
why should it now? These people are not rational
and have no respect for international law.



www.remzihoca.com

VOTING, COMPULSORY

Voter turnout in US elections has decreased dramatically in recent decades. In the 2000 presidential
election, only 55% of adult American citizens voted, one of the lowest percentages in a national
election of any developed country. There are many reasons for the decline, including complicated
registration procedures and voter apathy. To reinvigorate the electorate some have suggested
making voting compulsory as it is in Australia, Switzerland, and Singapore. Some nations with
compulsory voting levy fines against those who do not participate. To accommodate those voters who
do not wish to vote for any of the candidates, they make available a no-vote option on the ballot. For
many Americans the issue of compulsory voting is intertwined with the issue of individual rights vs.
civic duties.

PROS CONS

In all democracies voter apathy is highest among
the poorest and most excluded sectors of
society. Because poor and marginalized people
do not vote, governments do not create policies
addressing their needs. This leads to a vicious
cycle of increasing isolation. When the most
disenfranchised are required to vote, then local,
state, and national governments will take notice
of them.


This idea is nonsense. Political parties do try to
capture the votes of the poor. Low turnout is best
cured by more education. In addition, the forced
inclusion of these less-interested voters will
increase the influence of political spin because
presentation will become more important than
clear argument. This will further trivialize
politics and bury the issues under a pile of hype.

A high turnout is important for a proper
democratic mandate and the functioning of
democracy. In this sense voting is a civic duty
comparable to jury duty. Weve made jury duty
compulsory to ensure that the courts function
properly. This is a strong precedent for making
voting compulsory.

In a democracy, the right not to vote is as
fundamental as the right to vote. Individuals
should be able to choose whether they want to
vote. Some people are just not interested in
politics, and they should have the right to
abstain from the political process. We could also
argue that those who care enough about key
issues to vote deserve to be heard above those
who do not. Any given election will function
without a 100% turnout; a much smaller turnout
will suffice. The same is not true of juries, which
do require a 100% turnout all of the time. Even in
healthy democracies people dont want to
perform jury duty; therefore it has been made
compulsory. However, in a healthy democracy
people should want to vote. If they are not voting,
it indicates there is a fundamental problem with
that democracy. Forcing people to vote cannot
solve such a problem; it merely causes
resentment.


Soldiers in numerous wars and the suffragettes
of many countries fought and died for the right to
vote. We should respect their sacrifice by voting.

Those who fought for democracy fought for the
right to vote, not the compulsion to vote. The
failure to vote is a powerful statement because it
decreases turnout, which decreases a
governments mandate. By forcing unwilling
voters to the ballot box, a government can
make its mandate much larger than the people
actually wish it to be.


People who know they will have to vote will take
politics more seriously and start to take a more
active role.


People who are forced to vote will not make a
properly considered decision. At best they will
vote randomly, at worst they will vote for extreme
parties as happened in Australia recently.


www.remzihoca.com

1
shortage ktlk
29
controversial tartmal
2
ongoing devam eden,sren
30
aftermath sonraki dnem
3
territory blge
31
wrongdoing su,kabahat
4
insufficient yetersiz
32
sovereignty hkmdarlk,egemenlik
5
scarce nadir,az
33
provoke kkrtmak,neden olmak
6
randomly rastgele
34
complicated karmak
7
commodity ticari mal
35
punish cezalandrmak
8
take advantage of faydalanmak,kullanmak
36
disinterested tarafsz,ilgisiz
9
justify hakl gstermek,aklamak
37
intervention mdahale
10
precious deerli
38
explicitly aka
11
marketable pazarlanabilir
39
cede devretmek, brakmak
12
environmentally evresel olarak
40
closure kapanma
13
unconscious bilinsiz,baygn
41
alienate yabanclatrmak
14
profit from kar salamak
42
collaborate i birlii yapmak
15
inhabitant oturan kii,sakin
43
appalling berbat,ok kt
16
maintenance bakm,koruma
44
dispute tartmak
17
irrigation sulama
45
embark on ie balamak,girimek
18
expense masraf
46
repressive bask uygulayan
19
primary ana,asl
47
collectively ortaklaa,birlikte olarak
20
offset dengelemek
48
secure korumak,elde etmek
21
immoral ahlaksz
49
increasingly artarak,artan bir ekilde
22
exceed amak, gemek
50
frequency sklk
23
flood sel basmak,tamak
51
arbitrary keyfi, rastgele
24
unequally eit olmayan biimde
52
undermine zayflatmak, baltalamak
25
consumption tketim
53
uphold desteklemek
26
infertile ksr, verimsiz
54
take action harekete gemek
27
efficiently verimli bir ekilde
55
encourage tevik etmek
28
potential muhtemel,olas
56
countless hesapsz,ok
www.remzihoca.com

57
election seim
69
precedent rnek,emsal
58
dramatically nemli derecede
70
fundamental temel, asl
59
vote oy vermek
71
abstain saknmak (kanmak)
60
registration kayt,tescil
72
indicate gstermek,iaret etmek
61
apathy ilgisizlik,duyarszlk
73
merely sadece
62
compulsory zorunlu
74
resentment ierleme, kzma
63
accommodate barndrmak
75
soldier asker
64
policy plan,politika
76
sacrifice fedakarlk, kurban olma
65
vicious kt amal,tehlikeli
77
unwilling gnlsz
66
nonsense samalk,anlamsz sz
78
seriously ciddi derecede
67
bury gmmek,gizlemek
79
properly doru drst,gzelce
68
mandate hak,yetki
80
recently son zamanlarda

www.remzihoca.com

57
election seim
69
precedent rnek,emsal
58
dramatically nemli derecede
70
fundamental temel, asl
59
vote oy vermek
71
abstain saknmak (kanmak)
60
registration kayt,tescil
72
indicate gstermek,iaret etmek
61
apathy ilgisizlik,duyarszlk
73
merely sadece
62
compulsory zorunlu
74
resentment ierleme, kzma
63
accommodate barndrmak
75
soldier asker
64
policy plan,politika
76
sacrifice fedakarlk, kurban olma
65
vicious kt amal,tehlikeli
77
unwilling gnlsz
66
nonsense samalk,anlamsz sz
78
seriously ciddi derecede
67
bury gmmek,gizlemek
79
properly doru drst,gzelce
68
mandate hak,yetki
80
recently son zamanlarda

www.remzihoca.com