To what extent do you think violations of human rights are excusable in a time of war? at such times, how might our perception of the balance between rights and security alter what we think of as universal?

Human rights are considered the absolute basic rights that all people should possess simply because of the fact that they are humans. Despite this, human rights are not always protected or respected. For example, the right to security or the right to life are violated in a situation of war.

These violations can sometimes be excused due to the fact that war, by its very nature, necessarily violates these rights. It is impossible to engage in a war and assume no people will suffer or die. However, at this point in time, it is also unrealistic to assume no wars will happen again. Therefore, we need to think of the connection between these subjects.

Our perception of the balance between rights and security need to be different when we think about war. Under these circumstances, humans rights can no longer be universal. Instead, we should concentrate on reducing the number and severity of violations that take place in such an environment. This is related to the concept of "just war."

the conditions that made the byzantine empire vulnerable to attacks by the muslin turks were the sack of constantinople by western crusaders, the conquests of the sultanate of rum, presence of rival kingdoms and finally the set up of fiefdoms at the empire which were owned by the ghazis (turkish warriors).

increases in demand are shown by a shift to the right in the demand curve. this could be caused by a number of factors, including a rise in income, a rise in the price of a substitute or a fall in the price of a complement.

which the answer is:

b