Arquivo de janeiro 18, 2009

Addendum

Publicado: janeiro 18, 2009 por Yogi em Capital, History, International, Politics, Tudo

Vídeos do VodPod não estão mais disponíveis.

Milton & Elis em grande estilo – 1977

Publicado: janeiro 18, 2009 por E=m.c² em Culture, Music, Tudo

 

 

Werner Karl Heisenberg

Werner Karl Heisenberg (Würzburg5 de Dezembro de 1901 — Munique1 de Fevereiro de 1976), foi um físico alemão.

Foi laureado com o Prêmio Nobel de Física e um dos fundadores da Mecânica Quântica.

Doutorou-se pela Universidade de Munique, em 1923, e foi o chefe do programa de energia nuclear da Alemanha Nazi, apesar da natureza do seu trabalho nesta função ter vindo a ser fortemente debatida.

Índice

 [esconder]

[editar]Carreira científica

  • Em 1924 Heisenberg tornou-se assistente de Max Born no centro universitário de Göttingen, transferiu-se para Copenhague, onde trabalhou com Niels Bohr.
  • Em 1925 desenvolveu a Mecânica Matricial, o que constituiu o primeiro desenvolvimento da Mecânica Quântica.
  • Em 1927 passou a ensinar física na Universidade de Leipzig, onde enunciou o Princípio da Incerteza ou Princípio de Heisenberg, segundo o qual é impossível medir simultaneamente e com precisão absoluta a posição e a velocidade de uma partícula, isto é, a determinação conjunta do momento e posição de uma partícula, necessariamente, contém erros não menores que aconstante de Planck. Esses erros são desprezíveis em âmbito macroscópico, porém se tornam importantes para o estudo de partículas atômicas; as duas grandezas podem ser determinadas exatamente de forma separada, quanto mais exata for uma delas, mais incerta se torna a outra.

Heisenberg organizou e dirigiu o Instituto de Física e Astrofísica de Göttingen.

  • Em 1958, o Instituto de Física e Astrofísica foi mudado para Munique, onde o cientista se concentrou na pesquisa sobre a teoria das partículas elementares, fez descobertas sobre a estrutura do núcleo atômico, da hidrodinâmica das turbulências, dos raios cósmicos e do ferromagnetismo.

[editar]A polêmica

Albert Einstein e outros cientistas rejeitaram as idéias do físico, pois estas romperam em grande parte os princípios imóveis da física newtoniana. O “princípio de Heisenberg”, utilizando fartamente o cálculo estatístico, além de mecanismos desenvolvidos para a comprovação de suas teorias, abriu um novo campo não só para a Física, mas para a teoria do conhecimento.

 

Então, vamos para tudo?

Publicado: janeiro 18, 2009 por E=m.c² em Tudo

Our 10 years reunion – busting down the double doors…

By pbala

Aqui estamos novamente, unidos por essa força invisível.

Ainda se faz novo em meus pensamentos os sábados de sol, regados a escritório modelo, reuniões, almoços no Pirex, churrascos ocasionais, festas usuais, entrevistas, projetos, viagens, lutas…

Uma busca jovial e coletiva queríamos tudo e fizemos por onde, nossa casa- academia-empresa, de codinome CAEL agregou a mais densa quantidade de ego por metro quadrado.

O ano de 1999 foi bastante simbólico, nosso editor do Pilotis Jurídico em um trabalho jurássico, produziu e distribuiu mão á mão o periódico por toda PUC – Rio, então a Charles Alexandre as primeiras considerações.

Depois tudo passou muito rápido, hoje depois de 10 anos de tal iniciativa nos reunimos novamente, em outro espaço democrático, mais amplo, menos humano, mas nem por isso menos influente.

Welcome to the first millenium de uma nova era, façamos da informação nossa maior arma, dividir conhecimento é multiplicar conquistas, estaremos em contato virtual com o mundo e porque não com os universos?

A arte e a intelectualidade hoje se fundem, não precisamos mais de papéis, distribuição e presença física. Façamos dessa ferramenta nosso veículo propulsor de idéias e ideais, deixemos o medo de lado, enterremos a vergonha, vamos publicar o que pensamos: palavras, sons e imagens, infelizmente ainda não poderemos transportar cheiros, mas isso deixemos a cargo da próxima geração.

Importante falarmos de renovação, adicionar pessoas que contribuam, jovens e velhos com a única prerrogativa de isenção de preconceitos, una-se a nós.

O espaço não tem limite, quiçá os de nossa imaginação – que sendo infinita nos remete ao fato de termos mais a falar do que a web sustenta.

Então, vamos explodir esses frágeis megabytes com nosso conteúdo, mostrando aos que nos cercam como enxergamos a realidade, desnudemos os conceitos estáticos envelhecidos, removamos tudo que tenha seu prazo de validade vencido, enfim, recomecemos.

Feliz estou de hoje postar no blog do MULTIUNIVERSUS, iniciativa de nosso carismático amigo Caio Abreu, que recebe a homenagem final de meu primeiro E humilde post para o que virá a ser o maior portal de comunicação de todos os tempos.
2032 chegará…

Beijo na boca, bala halls e saliências para todas.

P.Bala.
19 de janeiro de 2009.


 

Since the late 1990s there have been many calls for reform of the United Nations (UN). However, there is little clarity or consensus about what reform might mean in practice. Both those who want the UN to play a greater role in world affairs and those who want its role confined to humanitarian work or otherwise reduced use the term “UN reform” to refer to their ideas. The range of opinion extends from those who want to eliminate the UN entirely, to those who want to make it into a full-fledged world government.

Contents

[edit]History

An official reform program was initiated by United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan shortly after starting his first term on 1 January 1997. On 21 March 2005, Annan presented a major report on UN reform entitled In Larger Freedom.[1]

Security Council reform

A very frequently discussed change to the UN structure is to change the permanent membership of the UN Security Council, which reflects the power structure of the world as it was in 1945. There are several proposed plans, notably by the G4 nations, by the Uniting for Consensus group, and by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

[edit]UN Secretariat

At another level, calls for reforming the UN demand to make the UN administration (usually called the UN Secretariat or “the bureaucracy”) more transparent, more accountable, and more efficient, including direct election of the Secretary-General by the people (see presidentialism).

UN Secretariat/administration reforms seldom gets much attention in the media, though within the Organization they are seen as widely contentious issues. The UN Secretariat has about 30000 staff around the globe, of which 35% work at the headquarters in New York, Geneva, Vienna and Nairobi. They run the bureaucracy of the UN, responding to the decisions by the Member States in the Security Council and the General Assembly.

Among the notable efforts of Secretariat reform since 2005 is the Secretary-General’s report Investing in the United Nations from March 2006 and the Comprehensive review of governance and oversight within the UN, June the same year. From the Member States side there is the Four Nations Initiative, a cooperation project by Chile, South Africa, Sweden and Thailand to promote governance and management reforms, aiming at increased accountability and transparency.

During 2005 and 2006 there was little progress within the area of Secretariat reform, not least due to a wide confidence gap between groups of Member States as well as an enforced “spending cap” which soured relations between the North and the South. During late 2006 and 2007 the discussion atmosphere has greatly improved in the UN and successful resolutions have been taken such as resolution 61/261 on Administration of Justice and 61/244 on Human Resources Management.

Enhancing its democratic nature

Another frequent demand is that the UN become “more democratic”, and a key institution of a world democracy. This raises fundamental questions about the nature and role of the UN. The UN is not a world government, rather a forum for the world’s sovereign states to debate issues and determine collective courses of action. Adirect democracy would request the presidential election of the UN Secretary-General by direct vote of the citizens of the democratic countries (world presidentialism) as well as the General Assembly (just as cities, states and nations have their own representatives in many systems, who attend specifically to issues relevant to the given level of authority) and the International Court of Justice. Others have proposed a combination of direct and indirect democracy, whereby national governments might ratify the expressed will of the people for such important posts as an empowered World Court.

For the UN to become more democratic in a direct sense, several issues would have to be addressed, including:

  1. Representation would need to be based more on population vote and UN democratic and free elections to the Secretary and Assembly, rather than the present strict one state, one vote principle. Another proposal is to establish a consultative United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) as an intermediary step towards a world parliament within the UN structure. An assembly where Liechtenstein has the same voting power as India is far from equally representational (generally considered a key aspect of democracy).
  2. The United Nations Security Council veto power needs to be either reformed or removed. Again, this could remove a form of counter-representationalism, where the permanent Security Council members have their opinions weighted above others. However, it is not clear, given the very extensive powers of the General Assembly under the UN Charter—as clarified by the Assembly’s own ‘Uniting for Peace’ resolution of 3 November 1950—that an effective Security Council is a necessary precondition to an effective United Nations Organization.
  3. The UN would have to be given some power of governance over its members, just as a national government has power of governance over its citizens. This would imply having the power to impose sanctions on members who would not follow the UN’s determined courses of action and resolutions (including the human rights’ resolutions).
  4. As implied in the previous item, the UN might also exclude from its membership those nations which it determined to be grossly violating the human rights of its people, including the right to periodic democratic, universal, secret-ballot elections (upheld in Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).

It is likely that the small countries, which make up the majority of the current members of the General Assembly, would oppose the first of these changes (some of these might oppose the fourth), while the current permanent members of the Security Council would oppose the second, and probably the third as well. However, reformers have proposed that with incremental and simultaneous attention to these points, it is possible that the interests of the large and small nations might be reconciled through compromise in order to avert the anarchy and relative powerlessness of the present system which hamper the interests of both large and small nations. For example, if the veto power were progressively limited while also basing the weighting of the General Assembly more on population, large and small nations might be more trusting of the system to assign more supranational authority to the votes of the General Assembly and judgments of an empowered World Court.

Diversity and democracy

Implementation of population-based UN voting also raises the problems of diversity of interests and governments of the various nations. The nations in the UN contain representative democracies as well as absolute dictatorships and many other types of government. Allowing large powers to vote their population’s interests en blocraises the question of whether they would really represent the interests and desires of their individual citizens and the world community. Anything like direct election would be impossible as well in the many nations where an accurate direct vote would be impossible or where the local government has power to influence the local voters as well as security of the ballot box. Giving the UN any kind of actual governance power raises the question of how these powers could be carried out. What would happen when a vote of the UN General Assembly demands changes in the borders or political status of a nation, or requires citizens in some nations to tax themselves in favour of other nations, or demands the arrest of the leader of a nation, and is met by refusal?

The subsidiarity principle resolves some of these issues. The term originates from social thought within the Roman Catholic church and states that no larger organ shall resolve an issue that can be resolved at a more local level. It can be compared to federalist principles where entities of the union retain some aspects of sovereignty. Only when two or more members of the federation are affected by any given act does the federal government have the authority to intervene. Giving a reformed UN more powers but enshrining the subsidiarity principle in its Charter would guarantee that the UN does not evolve into a world autocracy that can arbitrarily dictate policy. For example, the fate of Kashmir would have to be decided through a referendum held by the Kashmiris and not by a vote in the General Assembly.

United Nations Parliamentary Assembly

United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, or United Nations People’s Assembly (UNPA), is a proposed addition to the United Nations System that eventually would allow for direct election of UN Parliament members by citizens of all over the world.

Proposals for a UNPA date back to the UN’s formation in 1945, but largely stagnated until the 1990s. They have recently gained traction amidst increasing globalization, as national parliamentarians and citizens groups seek to counter the growing influence of unelected international bureaucracies.

Financing reform

On the subject of financing, an interesting proposal has been made:

“A tax on missiles, planes, tanks, and guns would provide the UN with its entire budget, as well as pay for all peacekeeping efforts around the world, including the resettlement of refugees and reparations to the victims of war.”[citation needed]

The main problem with implementing such a radical tax would be finding acceptance. Although such a system might find acceptance within some nations, particularly those (1) with a history of neutrality, (2) without an active military (such as Costa Rica), or (3) with lower levels of military spending (such as Japan, which currently spends 1% of its GDP on Defence), it would be unpopular among many consumers of arms. Nations such as these range from the United States, which spends 4% of its GDP on defense, to dictatorships who depend on arms to keep themselves in power. Other likely opponents would be nations engaged in ongoing military conflicts, or others in a state of heightened military alert, such as Israel and Taiwan. Arms producers would also oppose it, because it would increase their costs and possibly reduce their consumer base.[citation needed]

Another problem with the United Nations is that finances are not controlled by the overwhelming monetary contributors. In theory, democratizing the budget by allowing all members to vote on it would be the ideal. However, as in voting matters concerning non-fiscal issues, blocs are formed that effectively quell reform. In general, First World nations (which tend to have strong democratic systems within their governments) contribute the vast majority of finances for the UN. However, Third World nations (which more often than other nations tend to have dictatorships for governments) have more control over where those funds go. This is because the number of Third World nations is larger than the number of First World nations. It is arguable that the high rates of economic growth in many Third World states, as well as a growing degree of liberalisation, such as is occurring in Indonesia and Brazil, both of which are moving away from previous eras of authoritarian rule, could reduce this problem in the future.[citation needed]

Human rights reform

The United Nations Commission on Human Rights came under fire during its existence for the high-profile positions it gave to member states that did not guarantee the human rights of their own citizens. Several nations known to have been guilty of gross violations of human rights became members of the organization, such as Libya,CubaSudanAlgeria, and Vietnam. Meanwhile, the United States was also angry when it was ejected from the Commission in 2002. While it was re-elected, the election of human rights-abusing nations also caused frictions. It was partly because of these problems that Kofi Annan in the In Larger Freedom report suggested setting up a new Human Rights Council as a subsidiary UN body.

On Wednesday, 15 March 2006, the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favour of establishing a new United Nations Human Rights Council, the successor to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, with the resolution receiving approval from 170 members of the 191-nation Assembly. Only the United States, the Marshall IslandsPalau, and Israel voted against the Council’s creation, claiming that it would have too little power and that there were insufficient safeguards to prevent human rights-abusing nations from taking control.

Removal of spent provisions

Several provisions of the United Nations Charter are no longer relevant. In Larger Freedom proposed the removal of these provisions:

  • Since there are no longer any trust territories, the Trusteeship Council no longer serves any purpose, and has not met since 1994. Thus, Chapter XIII of the Charter is no longer relevant, and can be deleted.
  • Due to Cold War disagreements, the Military Staff Committee never succeeded in its intended purpose. Although it formally still meets fortnightly, it has been effectively inactive since 1948. Thus, article 47, and the references to it in articles 26, 45 and 46 can be deleted.
  • The “enemy clauses” in articles 53 and 107 contain special provisions relating to the members of the Axis in World War II (Germany, Japan, etc.) These are no longer relevant; Japan in particular would like to see them removed.

There are also other provisions of the UN Charter that deal with transitional arrangements, and thus are now spent. For example, article 61(3) and article 109(3). However, In Larger Freedom does not contain any proposals with respect to these provisions.

Due to the difficulty in amending the Charter, it is unlikely that any of these spent provisions will be amended except as part of a package making substantive amendments, such as Security Council reform. Further, while In Larger Freedom proposes that certain provisions be removed there is not universal agreement. One school of thought in particular suggests that the Military Staff Committee could be revitalized by member states finally meeting their Article 45 commitments to provide a force able to perform peacemaking and peace enforcement under the legitimacy of the United Nations flag.

Environment

Following the publication of Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in February 2007, a “Paris Call for Action” read out by French President Chirac and supported by 46 countries, called for the United Nations Environment Programme to be replaced by a new and more powerful United Nations Environment Organization (UNEO), to be modelled on the World Health Organization. The 46 countries included the European Union nations, but notably did not include the United StatesChinaRussia, and India, the top four emitters of greenhouse gases.[2]

See also


G4 nations

Publicado: janeiro 18, 2009 por Yogi em Culture, International, Politics, Tudo
Tags:, , ,

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The G4 member states were:

Brazil
Germany
India
Japan

G4 countries.
The G4 (Group of Four) is an alliance among Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan for the purpose of supporting each other’s bid for permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council. Unlike the G8 (formerly known as G7), where the common denominator is the economy and long term political motives, the G4’s primary aim is the permanent member seats on the UN Security Council.

The UN currently has five permanent members with veto powers in the Security Council: The People’s Republic of China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The G4 nations are regularly elected to two-year terms on the Security Council by their respective groups: in the 24-year period from 1987 to 2010, and India was elected for six terms, Japan for five terms, Brazil for four terms and Germany for three terms.

While almost all nations have agreed in principle that the UN needs a revamping which includes expansion, few countries are willing to talk about the exact time frame for such a reorganization. Also there has been discontent among the present permanent members regarding the inclusion of controversial nations or countries not supported by them. For instance, Japan’s bid is heavily opposed by the People’s Republic of China. At the same time Japan finds strong support from the USA [1] and the UK. [2]

Countries that strongly oppose the G4 countries’ bids have formed the Uniting for Consensus movement, or the Coffee Club, now compromising over 40 nations. The leaders of this group are Italy, South Korea, Mexico, Argentina and Pakistan.[3] In East Asia, both China and South Korea heavily oppose Japan’s bid. In Europe, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands all oppose a seat for Germany. In Latin America, Argentina and Mexico are opposing a seat for Brazil. In South Asia, Pakistan is opposing India’s bid. Also important are historical political animosities toward certain G4 nations (see Japanese war crimes, Comfort women for Japan, and The Holocaust for Germany).

The G4 suggested that two African nations be included in the enlarged UNSC. In several conferences during the summer of 2005, the African Union was unable to agree on two nominees: Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa all lay claim to a permanent African UNSC seat. [4][5]

A UN General Assembly in September 2005 marked the 60th anniversary of the UN and the members were to decide on a number of necessary reforms—including the enlarged SC. However the unwillingness to find a negotiable position stopped even the most urgent reforms; the September 2005 General Assembly was a setback for the UN.

The G4 retain their goal of permanent UNSC membership for all four nations (plus two African nations). However, Japan announced in January 2006 that it would not support putting the G4 resolution back on the table and was working on a resolution of its own.[6]

Origem: Wikipédia, a enciclopédia livre.
Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas
United Nations Security Council
مجلس الأمن الأمم المتحدة
联合国安全理事会
Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies
Совет Безопасности Организации Объединённых Наций
Consejo de Seguridad de Naciones Unidas

Tipo Órgão principal
Acrônimo UNSC
Comando Presidência do Conselho de Segurança (rotativo)
Status ativo
Fundação 1946
Website http://www.un.org/Docs/sc
Commons United Nations Security Council
Organização das Nações Unidas
O Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas é um órgão das Nações Unidas com responsabilidades sobre a segurança mundial. O órgão tem o poder de autorizar uma intervenção militar em algum país. Todos os conflitos e crises políticas do mundo são tratados pelo conselho, para que haja intervenções militares ou missões de paz.

O Conselho de Segurança é composto por 15 membros, sendo 5 membros permanentes: os Estados Unidos, a França, o Reino Unido, a Rússia e a República Popular da China, sendo que cada um destes membros tem direito de veto. Os outros 10 membros são rotativos e têm mandatos de 2 anos.

Uma resolução do Conselho de Segurança é aprovada se tiver maioria de 9 dos quinze membros, inclusive os cinco membros permanentes. Um voto negativo de um membro permanente configura um veto à resolução. A abstenção de um membro permanente não configura veto.

Índice

1 Membros
1.1 Membros permanentes
1.2 Atuais Membros eleitos
2 Uso do Veto
3 Reforma
4 O Conselho de Segurança e a Indústria Bélica
5 Ver também

Membros

Membros permanentes (azul) e temporários (verde) do atual Conselho de Segurança (2008).

Membros permanentes

O Conselho tem cinco membros permanentes:

República Popular da China
República Francesa
Federação Russa
Reino Unido da Grã-Bretanha e Irlanda do Norte
Estados Unidos da América

Atuais Membros eleitos

Dez outros elementos são eleitos pela Assembleia Geral das Nações Unidas por mandatos de 2 anos que começam a 1 de Janeiro, em que cinco são substituídos a cada ano. Os membros são escolhidos por grupos regionais e são confirmados pela Assembleia Geral das Nações Unidas. Os grupos da África, das Américas, da Ásia e da Europa Ocidental escolhem dois membros cada; o grupo do Leste Europeu escolhe um membro. A última posição é alternadamente, cada dois anos, da Ásia ou da África. Atualmente é da Ásia.

Presentemente (2008) os membros eleitos são:

(2007–2008) – África do Sul (África)
(2007–2008) – Bélgica (Europa Ocidental)
(2008–2009) – Croácia (Leste Europeu)
(2008–2009) – Burkina Faso (África)
(2007–2008) – Indonésia (Ásia)
(2007–2008) – Itália (Europa Ocidental)
(2007–2008) – Panamá (América)
(2008–2009) – Costa Rica (América)
(2008–2009) – Líbia (África)
(2008–2009) – Vietnã (Ásia)

Uso do Veto

O artigo 27 da Carta das Nações Unidas permite que os membros permanentes possam usar o seu direito de veto podendo assim bloquear as decisões do Conselho de Segurança, mesmo que nas votações o número mínimo de 9 votos favoráveis em 15 possíveis seja atingido. Os casos de veto já aplicados foram distribuídos pela República Popular da China (5), França (18), URSS/Federação Russa (122), Reino Unido (32) e Estados Unidos da América (79). Desde 1984, a distribuição tem sido a seguinte: República Popular da China – 2; França – 3; URSS/Federação Russa – 4; Reino Unido – 10; e Estados Unidos da América – 42.

Reforma

Países que se apoiam mutuamente para entrar no Conselho como membros permanentes
Atualmente a ONU passa por um processo de Reforma, oficialmente iniciado pelo ex-secretário geral Kofi Annan (atualmente o secretário geral da ONU é o sul-coreano Ban Ki-Moon) com In Larger Freedom.

Existem discussões sobre a reformulação do Conselho de Segurança, que apresenta um desequilíbrio em seus membros na nova ordem mundial. O desequilíbrio de forças se deve, principalmente, à ausência do Japão e da Alemanha (respectivamente, segunda e terceira maiores economias do planeta), nações que, por terem sido derrotadas na Segunda Guerra Mundial, ficaram fora do núcleo do Conselho. Alemanha, Brasil, Japão e Índia formaram o G-4 e apresentaram uma proposta para expandir o Conselho para 25 membros, com mais cinco permanentes além dos atuais. Os novos membros permanentes seriam assim divididos:

Dois membros da Ásia.
Um membro da América Latina
Um membro da Europa de Leste
Um membro da África
O G-4 preencheria as quatro primeiras cadeiras, restando uma força africana como Nigéria ou África do Sul. A França apóia a entrada da Alemanha e do Brasil, e os países sul-americanos tendem a apoiar o Brasil, apesar de alguns fazerem oposição abertamente, como o México e a Argentina. Resistências regionais existem contra o G-4: Paquistão contra Índia, e, o mais importante, China contra Japão. Um veto da China ao projeto de expansão prolongaria o desequilíbrio das forças no Conselho de Segurança.

O Conselho de Segurança e a Indústria Bélica

É interessante notar que os seis países que mais exportaram armas entre 1993 e 1997 são os cinco membros permanentes do Conselho de Segurança, mais a Alemanha.

Ver também

Tratado de Não-Proliferação de Armas Nucleares
Lista de membros eleitos para o Conselho de Segurança da ONU
Obtido em “http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conselho_de_Seguran%C3%A7a_das_Na%C3%A7%C3%B5es_Unidas”
Categoria: Nações Unidas
Esta página foi modificada pela última vez às 17h35min de 14 de janeiro de 2009.
O texto desta página está sob a GNU Free Documentation License.
Os direitos autorais de todas as contribuições para a Wikipédia pertencem aos seus respectivos autores (mais informações em direitos autorais).