Solar Energy

Post has two assignments

1:Solar panels could be used to power our device without the user having to expend any
energy but their viability must first be determined in terms of both cost and power output.
What must be first determined is whether a solar panel could deliver enough energy to
directly power the device or if it would only be powerful enough to trickle charge a
battery that would then power the device. If battery is required, it would have to be
determined how long the panel must remain in the sun to fully charge the battery and then
the number of uses that battery could deliver. This data would be then compiled into a
time in sun to use ratio. Solar panels are also inherently expensive so a cost analysis
would have to be done to determine whether the cost to reliability/life span ratio was
Acceptable.

2:International Dispute Court

Mock Trials of the International Court for Dispute Settlements
Introduction Narrative
In an international court, much emphasis is placed on the law, treaties, and legal precedents when and if
they exist. Although these are very important aspects of any international court, it is not our prime focus
since this is not a course in Law. Rather, you should focus on logic, economic analysis, common sense,
historical perspectives, and moral and ethical considerations when considering a particular case. The
following narrative serves as the constitution of our international court for dispute settlement.
In the international justice system, economically-based offenses are considered
especially heinous due to the pernicious effects on the welfare of the citizens of
the offended nation (or group).
In this justice system, nations (or groups) are represented by two opposing
teams: the Complainant, who brings a legal action against a nation (or a group),
and Respondent, who protects and defends against the complainant’s action. All
Respondents are innocent until proven guilty, either by confession, plea bargain,
or trial by a panel of judges appointed by the International Court for Dispute
Settlements, commonly referred to as the ICDS-ApEc.
The guiding principle that governs the ruling of the ICDS-ApEc is that as long as a
nation’s (or group’s) policies to promote the long-term welfare of its citizens do
not constitute an undue burden to members of the international community, it
can pursue such policies. Therefore, in this court, beyond the law, logic,
economic analysis, common sense, historical perspectives, moral and ethical
considerations play significant roles in the decisions!
The Basic Setup
There will be two court sessions, March 3 and April 14. The grades from the two mock trial projects will
account for 8% of the semester grade.
In each court session, an international economic issue will be deliberated. Students in a discussion
session will be randomly divided into three groups: the Judge Panel, the Complainant, and the
Respondent. Attempts will be made to ensure that each student will be assigned to different roles in the
two mock trial projects and will partner with different students.
Each Judge Panel has a number of members equals to 1/5 of the student number in the discussion
session in question. One judge will serve as the “Chief Judge” who has additional administrative
responsibilities.
Each Respondent/Complainant team is divided into two groups: the Research Group and the Lawyer
Group. Each Research Group has a number of members equals to 1/5 of the student number in the
discussion session in question. One researcher will serve as the “Chief Researcher” who has additional
administrative responsibilities. Each Lawyer Group has a number of members equals to 1/5 of the
2
student number in the discussion session in question. The lawyers are to play five roles: the opener, the
primary oral argument presenter, the secondary oral argument presenter, the rebuttal presenter and
the closer. One of the lawyers will serve as the “Chief Counsel” who has additional administrative
responsibilities.
The time in a court session will be allocated in the following manner:
1 minute: Opening Statement by the Instructor
4 minutes: Opening Statement – the Complainant (no question)
4 minutes: Opening Statement – the Respondent (no question)
4 minutes: Primary Oral Arguments – the Complainant (with questions from Judges)
4 minutes: Secondary Oral Arguments – the Complainant (with questions from Judges)
4 minutes: Primary Oral Argument – the Respondent (with questions from Judges)
4 minutes: Secondary Oral Argument – the Respondent (with questions from Judges)
2 minutes: Court Recess: Preparation for Rebuttals
4 minutes: Rebuttal – the Complainant (with questions from Judges)
4 minutes: Rebuttal – the Respondent (with questions from Judges)
6 minutes: additional questions from the judges
4 minutes: Closing Statement – the Complainant (no question)
4 minutes: Closing Statement – the Respondent (no question)
1 minute: Closing Statement by the Instructor
Responsibilities of the Research Group
Week 1 of the Project:
Identify as a group several articles (two per researcher) relevant to the court case at hand. Divide
the articles among researchers to take charge in figuring out the economic issues and arguments
therein.
Each researcher is to write a two-page synopsis (typed, 1.5 line-spacing, 12 point font, and 1?
margins) of the articles he/she is in charge of. At the beginning of the synopsis, you should provide
appropriate citations for the original articles to which the synopsis pertains. Each synopsis should
contain at least three statistics and three economic arguments relevant to the case. (Underline the
statistics and economic arguments.)
The Chief Researcher will collect the synopses and email them by the specified dateline to (i) the
discussion session TA, (ii) members of his/her Research Group, and (iii) member of his/her Lawyer
Group. Each research synopsis will be assigned an individual score. See Rubric 1A for the criteria.
The synopses will be made available (by the TA) to the panel judges by the specified date.
Week 2 of the Project:
Each Research Group member is to gain further insight into the issue at hand by reading the
synopses of other researchers. The researcher is to conduct additional reading as necessary.
The Chief Researcher is to coordinate with the Chief Counsel of the Lawyer Group to schedule a
meeting at the early part of the week, with all the team members attending. At this meeting, the
3
researchers will (i) inform the Lawyer Group of the underlying economic issues and arguments in
the articles and (ii) work with the Lawyer Group to develop a list of talking points for oral
arguments and potential rebuttals in the court. There are participation points for researchers for
this event, assigned by the Chief Counsel of your team (Rubric 1B).
During the Court Session:
The Research Group will serve as the supporting staff for the Lawyer Group. There are participation
points for researchers for this event, assigned by your TA (Rubric 1B). Your score will depends on
how active you are in supporting the Lawyer Group during the court session.
Responsibilities of the Lawyer Group
Week 2 of the Project:
Each Lawyer Group member is to learn about the issue at hand by reading the synopses of the
Research Group of his/her team. Meanwhile, the individual is to prepare a set of questions that
he/she still has about the court case and conduct research as necessary.
The Chief Counsel is to coordinate with the Chief Researcher of the Research Group to schedule a
meeting at the early part of the week with all the team members attending. At this meeting, the
Lawyer Group members will learn more about the underlying court case issues by asking questions to
the Research Group members (using their question lists). Working with the Research Group, the
Lawyer Group will develop a list of talking points for oral arguments and rebuttals in the court.
Based on the talking points, the Lawyer Group is to write a two-page court brief (typed, 1.5 linespacing,
12 point font, and 1? margins), serving as a written summary of the team’s arguments. This
court brief should contain at least three statistics and three economic arguments relevant to the
case. (Underline the statistics and economic arguments.) The Chief Counsel will submit the court
brief to the discussion session TA by the specified deadline. A team score will be assigned to the
court brief. See Rubric 2A for the criteria. The court brief will be made available (by the TA) to the
panel judges prior to the court date.
Week 3 of the Project:
The Chief Counsel will schedule several meetings with his/her Lawyer Group members to (i) expand
its court brief to develop elaborate and well-articulated arguments for presentations during the
court session and, (ii) practice for the court session. (Note: During the court session, a member of
the Lawyer Group will be responsible for delivering the opening statement, two members will take
turns to deliver the primary and secondary oral arguments, one member will offer rebuttals and
one member will offer the closing statement. (While notes are allowed in the presentation, you
are advised not to simply read from your notes.)
During the Court Session:
The Lawyer Group is to deliver oral arguments and rebuttals, and respond to inquiries from the
bench. Individual scores will be assigned for the oral production in the court. See Rubric 2B.
4
Responsibilities of the Judge Panel
Week 2 and Week 3 of the Project:
Each judge will learn about the issue by reading the synopses and briefs of both sides. The Chief
Judge will then call a meeting in which the judge panel is to prepare two sets of questions that it
wants to explore with the Complainant and the Respondent. To even out the load, the Chief Judge
will assign different questions to individual judges to explore with the Complainant/Respondent
during the court session. Individual judges are to conduct, as necessary, additional reading relevant
to the assigned questions. The Chief Judge will submit the questions to be explored to the
discussion session TA one day by the specified deadline.
During the Court Session:
The judges are to listen to the oral arguments of the Complainant and the Respondent. The judges
can ask questions during oral arguments, such as pointing out the inadequacy and problem areas in
the argument and raise contentious points. The judges are to be inquisitive and critical. A team
score will be assigned to the panel, based on the quality and quantity of the questions asked. All
judges need to ask questions to avoid a team penalty of 10% of the available points. See Rubric
3A for the criteria.
Week 4 of the Project:
Within three days after the court is adjourned, the Chief Judge is to call a meeting with all judges in
the panel attending. Before the meeting, each judge is to reflect on his or her initial opinion on the
court case and the underlying rationale. At the meeting, each judge will discuss his or her opinion
on the court case and the underlying reasons, followed by a vote. A majority of the judges must
agree on a decision. Before adjourning, the Chief Judge is to orally state the majority opinion of the
court as well as the underlying reason(s).
The Chief Judge will then write the majority opinion and the rationale. Other judges will write
“concurring opinions” or “dissenting opinions.” (A concurring opinion agrees with the majority
decision but expresses similar or different reasoning, and a dissenting opinion disagrees with the
decision. A judge can write an opinion that concurs with one part of the majority opinion but
disagrees with another part.)
Each judge’s opinion is to be two pages in length (typed, 1.5 line-spacing, 12 point font, and 1?
margins). Each opinion should contain at least three statistics and three economic arguments
relevant to the case. (Underline the statistics and economic arguments.) The court opinions
should also contain critiques of the briefs and oral arguments of the two sides. See Rubric 3B for
criteria. The Chief Judge will collect the opinions and submit them to the discussion session TA no
later than 7 days after the court date. Each court opinion will be assigned an individual score.
5
Important Dates for Mock Trial #1
R = Researchers L = Lawyers J = Judges
Jan 27: TA TA completes assigning students to teams and roles for Mock Trial #1,
by 3:00 pm, January 27 (Friday).
Jan 27 ~ Feb 2: R Researchers identify articles and each produces a synopsis.
Chief Researcher emails the synopses to the TA and teammates (lawyers
and researchers). Synopses are due at 11:00 pm, February 2 (Thursday).
Feb 3: TA TA emails the synopses of the Respondent and Complainant to the
judges by 10:00 am, February 3 (Friday).
Feb 3 ~ Feb 9: L & R Lawyers and researchers read the synopses and meet to develop the
team’s talking points.
J Judges read the synopses.
Feb 10 ~ Feb 16: L & R Lawyers develop team’s court brief. Chief Counsel emails the court brief
to the TA and teammates (lawyers and researchers). Court briefs are
due at 11:00 pm, February 16 (Thursday).
J Judges read the synopses.
Feb 17: TA TA emails the court briefs of the Respondent and Complainant to the
judges by 10:00, February 17 (Friday).
Feb 17 ~ Feb 23 All Get ready for Midterm 1
Feb 23 ~ Mar 2 L Lawyers practice for the court session.
J Judges read the court briefs and review the synopses, and meet to
produce two lists of questions; one for the Respondent and one for the
Complainant. Chief Judge emails the Question lists to the TA. Question
lists are due at 11:00 pm, March 2 (Thursday).
March 3: All Court Session for Mock Trial #1 (Friday)
Mar 3 ~ Mar 9 J Judges meet to deliberate & produce court opinions.
Chief Judge emails court opinions to the TA. Court opinions are due at
11:00 pm, March 9 (Thursday).
Mar 10 ~ Mar 24: TA TA posts scores and verdict of Mock Trial #1 by noon, March 24
(Friday)
6
Important Dates for Mock Trial #2
R = Researchers L = Lawyers J = Judges
Mar 3: TA TA completes assigning students to teams and roles for Mock Trial #2,
by 3:00 pm, March 3 (Friday).
Mar 3 ~ Mar 9: R Researchers identify articles and each produces a synopsis.
Chief Researcher emails the synopses to the TA and teammates (lawyers
and researchers). Synopses are due at 11:00 pm, March 9 (Thursday).
March 10: TA TA emails the synopses of the Respondent and Complainant to the
judges by 10:00 am, March 10 (Friday).
Mar 10 ~ Mar 23: L & R Lawyers and researchers read the synopses and meet to develop the
team’s talking points.
J Judges read the synopses.
Mar 24 ~ Mar 30: L & R Lawyers develop team’s court brief. Chief Counsel emails the court brief
to the TA and teammates (lawyers and researchers). Court briefs are
due at 11:00 pm, March 30 (Thursday).
J Judges read the synopses.
Mar 31: TA TA emails the court briefs of the Respondent and Complainant to the
judges by 10:00 am, March 31 (Friday).
Mar 31 ~ Apr 6 All Get ready for Midterm 2
Apr 6 ~ Apr 13 L Lawyers practice for the court session.
J Judges read the court briefs and review the synopses, and meet to
produce two lists of questions; one for the Respondent and one for the
Complainant. Chief Judge emails the Question lists to the TA. Question
lists are due at 11:00 pm, April 13 (Thursday).
April 14: All Court Session for Mock Trial #2 (Friday)
Apr 14 ~ Apr 20 J Judges meet to deliberate & produce court opinions.
Chief Judge emails court opinions to the TA. Court opinions are due at
11:00 pm, April 20 (Thursday).
Apr 21 ~ Apr 28: TA TA posts scores and verdict of Mock Trial #2 by noon, April 28
(Friday)
7
International Court for Dispute Settlements (ICDS-ApEc)
Case #1: The TPP
TPP Supporters v. TPP Detractors
Trade negotiators from 12 Pacific Rim nations reached an agreement on October 5, 2015, putting
forward a set of common rules that would govern trans-Pacific trade and business investment among
the eventual signatory nations. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement is monumental, the
largest regional trade accord in history, including nations ranging from Canada and Chile to Japan and
Australia that account for two-fifths of global GDP and one-third of world trade. The TPP seeks to
address urgent trade issues ranging from tariffs and quotas, environmental and labor standards,
intellectual property rights, financial services, e-commerce, and cross-border Internet communications.
Given its far-reaching implications and given that a congressional approval is required for its enactment,
the TPP trade accord has quickly emerged as a point of tension in the current U.S. election debates,
drawing both intense opposition and earning enthusiastic praise at the same time.
The TPP proponents in the U.S. maintain that the trade accord seeks to level the playing field by
imposing rigorous labor, environmental and intellectual property standards on U.S. trading partners. The
advocates also maintain that, by removing restrictions on the service sector in developing nations, the
TPP accord would be beneficial to U.S. service industries, which are responsible for a vast majority of
private sector jobs. Finally, the TPP supporters argue that the accord would lower thousands of tariffs in
a number of nations around the Pacific Rim, leveling the playing field and benefiting U.S. exporters.
On the other hand, the TPP critics in the U.S. argue that the accord is mainly a giveaway to business,
encouraging further export of manufacturing jobs to low-wage nations. They are particularly adamant
about the accord’s provisions that allow multinational corporations to challenge individual nations’
environmental and labor regulations and court rulings before special tribunals. Some critics are also
concerned about TPP’s excessive copyright protection, which can restrict fair use, stifle innovation and
delay the availability of generic products, especially in the pharmaceutical area.
The Tasks
The ICDS-ApEc is charged with the task of recommending whether the U.S. Congress should approve or
reject the TPP trade agreement as proposed.
The TPP detractors (the Complainants) are to advocate for rejecting the trade agreement (from the
perspective of the United States), with the goal of having the Judge Panel rule in their favor. The TPP
supporters (the Respondents) are to advocate for approving the trade agreement (from the perspective
of the United States), with the goal of having the Judge Panel rule in their favor. The Judge Panel is to
weigh the evidence and arguments of both sides, with the goal of rendering a decision on whether the
United States Congress should approve or reject the TPP trade agreement.
All the arguments should be done from the perspective of the Constitution of ICDS-ApEc.
8
International Court for Dispute Settlements (ICDS-ApEc)
Case #2: Brexit
“Leave” Supporters v. “Remain” Supporters
A combination of the words “Britain” and “exit,” Brexit has been used to describe the exit of Britain from
the 28-nation European Union (EU). A referendum was held on June 23, 2016, asking British voters:
“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?”
Before the referendum, the “Leave” supporters maintained that leaving the EU is necessary for Britain
to control its immigration policies, restore its independence from Brussels’ control, and to protect its
interests on issues such as trade, financial and labor regulations, and social spending. On the other hand,
the “Remain” supporters argued that staying in the EU is paramount to the safeguard of the nation’s
export markets in Europe, the upholding of London’s position as the leading global financial center in
Europe, and the growth of Britain’s national economy which is the fifth largest in the world.
More than 17 million Britons voted to leave the EU on June 23, 2016, compared with 16 million who
voted to remain. While the referendum is not legally binding, it is difficult to envision that the
government would ignore the will of the voters. The process of leaving begins only after the British
government invokes a provision of the EU treaty known as Article 50. Once the formal withdrawal
process is invoked, Britain would need to negotiate the terms of its extraction from the EU within two
years, and could not change its mind and stay in the Union (save a unanimous vote of the other 27
member nations in the EU).
Mrs. Theresa May, the new British Prime Minister, is to manage the exit, negotiating with her EU
counterparts. While she has vowed to respect the will of the voters, she seems to be in no hurry to
invoke Article 50 of the treaty. After all, sentiments on Brexit may yet change in Britain. Even if they
don’t, avoiding a deadline will give Mrs. May time to work out the least damaging deal with her EU
counterparts.
The Tasks
You are to re-enact the Brexit debate, but this time the decision will be made in the court of ICDS-ApE,
rather than through a referendum.
The “Leave” campaign (the Complainant) is to advocate for leaving the EU (from the perspective of
Britons), with the goal of having the Judge Panel rule in its favor. The “Remain” campaign (the
Respondent) is to advocate for remaining in the European Union (from the perspective of Britons), with
the goal of having the Judge Panel rule in its favor. The Judge Panel is to weigh the evidence and
arguments of both sides, with the goal of rendering a decision on whether the United Kingdom should
remain a member of the EU or leave the EU.
All the arguments should be done from the perspective of the Constitution of ICDS-ApEc.
9
Rubric 1A: Synopsis of Individual Researcher

dispute court