This is an essay submission guide for a School of Law course in International Law. It provides instructions on how to submit the essay, the word limit, the penalties for late submission, and the criteria for marking the essay. The guide emphasizes the importance of academic integrity, including avoiding plagiarism, citing sources properly, and submitting original work. The assessment criteria include five main areas: content, analysis, evidence, structure, and presentation. The guide encourages students to aim for excellence by demonstrating exceptional understanding, identifying less obvious issues, providing innovative arguments, and showing attention to detail.
\n__________________
\nInternational Law LAW2146
\nEssay \u2013 Semester 2 \u2013 2022\/2023
\nSubmission Date: 11 May 2023 Word Limit: 3,500
\nINSTRUCTIONS
\n1. The assessment will count for 100% of your total marks for this module.
\n2. Your completed assessment must be submitted electronically to Turnitin through Minerva VLE
\nby 12 noon on 11 May 2023. To do this, you must log into Minerva Portal & VLE and click on the
\n\u2018Modules\u2019 tab. Select the appropriate module title (named at the top of this template), then click on
\n\u2018Submit My Work\u2019 in the module menu. Select the link to the relevant assessment then upload
\nyour work. – . submitting your assessed work through the VLE you are accepting the
\nDeclaration of Academic Integrity, extending to a declaration that the work is not plagiarised
\nand that the word count is accurately stated.
\n3. You should complete an Assessed Coursework Cover Sheet with details of your Student ID
\nnumber, Module Code & Title and Declared Word Count and insert this at the beginning of your
\nassessment before uploading to Turnitin.
\n4. Work which is submitted after the deadline will be penalised in accordance with University rules as
\nfollows: you will be deducted 5 marks for every 24 hour period or part thereof that your assessment
\nis overdue, up to 14 days. If your work is more than 14 days late, or if the deduction is larger than
\nthe mark you receive, you will receive a mark of 0.
\n5. Extensions of the deadline for submission can only be granted in exceptional circumstances and
\ncan only be obtained from Student Support Officers (StudentSupportLaw@leeds.ac.uk).
\n6. It is your responsibility to ensure that you have submitted the correct version of your work. If, after
\nmaking a submission, you claim that you mistakenly submitted a draft, the wrong version or a
\ndifferent assessment, the original version, which was submitted by the deadline, will still be treated
\nas your submission.
\n7. You should obtain your digital receipt of submission. You are also required to keep an additional
\ncopy of your work for your own reference. In addition you must keep your notes and draft copies of
\nthe work.
\n8. You should ensure that you do not include your name anywhere on your assessment in
\norder that it remains anonymous for marking \u2013 however, you should include your Student ID
\nnumber, module code, module title and state the word count on the header of each page and
\nas the file name of your document.
\n9. The length of your work should not exceed 3,500 words (excluding footnotes, endnotes,
\nbibliography, and restatement of the assessment question). If you exceed the maximum by
\nless than 10% no penalty will be applied. However, if the total is 10% above the maximum or more
\nthen you will be penalised in accordance with following School rules:
\n10% and over \u2013 5 mark penalty
\n20% and over \u2013 10 marks
\n2
\n30% and over \u2013 15 marks
\n40% and over \u2013 20 marks
\n50% and over \u2013 a maximum of 0 marks would be awarded.
\n10.Plagiarism and Cheating
\nIt is essential that your assessed work represents your own work and that it has not been
\nproduced in collusion with any other party. Text and ideas derived from written sources
\n(including electronic sources) must be acknowledged by way of appropriate citation. If you are
\nnot aware of the University\u2019s rules on plagiarism and academic malpractice, please familiarise
\nyourself with the relevant regulations as set out on the secretariat website. You should also refer
\nto the Academic Integrity Handbook on Minerva VLE under
\nOrganisation\/Law\/Undergraduate\/Academic Integrity.
\n3
\nSchool of Law Undergraduate Assessment Paper Writing
\nThese assessment criteria are intended to be used by staff and students. Staff should use them when
\nmarking essays to (a) assess the level of the essay across the five main criteria (taking into account whether
\nit is a Level – – One, Two or Order Term Paper Writing Service & Research Report Writing – Three module) and (b) when preparing feedback. For students their purpose is two\u0002fold. First, they should be used when preparing the essay, in particular when assessing an early draft.
\nSecond, they provide some indication of why an essay has been placed in a particular category for each of
\nthe five main criteria by the marker. Key aspects for each of the five criteria are listed in italics.
\nContent
\nCoverage
\nRelevance
\nUnderstanding
\nAnalysis
\nExtent
\nLevel
\nEvidence
\nStructure
\nIntroduction
\nConclusion
\nArgument
\nResearch
\nRange of sources
\nType of sources
\nUse of sources
\nPresentation
\nWriting style
\nProof reading
\nReferencing
\nExcellent
\nEssays
\nshould
\ndemonstrate
\nsome of the
\nfollowing as
\nwell as
\nthose
\nspecified
\nunder Very
\nGood
\nExceptional
\nunderstanding of
\ncomplex material
\nIdentification of less
\nobvious issues not
\nwidely discussed in the
\nliterature
\nExceptional level of
\nanalysis
\nDemonstrates
\nexcellent evaluative
\nskills when using
\nsources
\nImaginative and
\ninnovative argument
\nAlmost faultless
\nstructure
\nConsiderable
\nevidence of
\nindependent
\nscholarship
\nHigh level of
\nsynthesis
\nClose to
\nreaching the
\nexpectation for
\nan academic
\npublication
\nExceptional
\nattention to
\ndetail
\nVery Good Complete answer
\nwhich displays an in\u0002depth understanding of
\nthe key issues;
\ndiscussion always
\nrelated to the question
\nHighly analytic answer
\nwhich draws upon \u2013
\nand evaluates a range
\nof sources \u2013 to reach
\nown conclusions
\nEngaging introduction
\nwhich lays out a
\nstructure for the answer
\nand demonstrates a full
\nunderstanding of the
\nissues raised by the
\nquestions; robust
\nconclusion which
\nconsolidates the
\nargument advanced in
\nthe main body of the
\nessay; discussion flows
\neffectively as argument
\nis developed
\nthroughout.
\nDraws upon a wide
\nrange of both primary
\nand secondary
\nsources (including
\nthose not listed in
\nmodule materials)
\nand uses them
\neffectively to support
\npoints made; very
\ngood synthesis of
\nsources to convey
\nunderstanding of
\nrelevant literature.
\nFluent and
\nprecise writing
\nstyle with only
\nminimal errors;
\nacademically
\nappropriate
\nlanguage; full,
\nconsistent and
\naccurate
\nreferencing.
\nGood Full answer (only minor
\nomissions) which
\ndisplays a good
\nunderstanding of the
\nkey issues; discussion
\npredominantly related
\nto the question.
\nAnalytic approach
\nadopted throughout
\nthe answer making
\nappropriate use of
\nevidence to support
\nthe analytic points
\nmade.
\nIntroduction lays out a
\nstructure for the answer
\nand identifies key
\nissues; conclusion
\nconsolidates the
\nargument built up in the
\nmain body of the essay
\nbut both may benefit
\nfrom further
\ndevelopment; answer is
\ngenerally well\u0002organised with clear
\nprogression.
\nDraws upon a range
\nof both primary and
\nsecondary sources
\n(relying
\npredominantly on
\nthose listed in module
\nmaterials) and uses
\nthem to support
\npoints made; good
\nsynthesis of sources
\nto convey
\nunderstanding of
\nrelevant literature.
\nFluent academic
\nwriting style with
\nonly minor
\nerrors;
\noccasional
\nminor
\nreferencing
\nerrors.
\nSatisfactory Solid answer but some
\nomissions and may be
\nlacking in detail;
\nunderstanding of the
\nkey issues is variable
\nand may be shallow at
\ntimes; discussion
\ntypically related to the
\nquestion but may be
\nsome digressions
\nSome level of analysis
\nbut answer is likely to
\nbe overly descriptive
\nat times; analysis may
\nbe confined to the
\nfinal section of the
\nessay and points
\nmade may not be
\nexplored in-depth or
\nsubstantiated
\nIntroduction may be
\npedestrian, simply
\noutlining what will be
\ndiscussed; brief
\nconclusion which does
\nnot consolidate the
\nargument presented in
\nthe body of the essays;
\nevidence of planning
\nbut answer would
\nbenefit from some
\nreorganisation of
\nmaterial to improve the
\nflow of the argument.
\nDraws upon primary
\nand secondary
\nsources (relying
\npredominantly on the
\nlatter) and uses them
\nto support points
\nmade; discussion
\ntends to focus on
\nindividual sources.
\nClear writing
\nstyle on the
\nwhole but some
\nerrors and areas
\nof confusion; no
\nserious
\nreferencing
\nerrors.
\n4
\nLimited Partial answer with a
\nnumber of omissions;
\ndisplays a reasonable
\nunderstanding of the
\nmaterial but may be
\nsuperficial at times;
\ndiscussion frequently
\nstrays away from the
\nfocus of the question.
\nPrimarily descriptive
\nwith only limited
\nanalysis, which is
\nlikely to be superficial
\nand without reference
\nto any sources.
\nIntroduction may be
\npedestrian, simply
\noutlining what will be
\ndiscussed; conclusion
\nmay be asserted rather
\nthan following on
\nlogically from the
\nargument advance in
\nthe essay; answer
\nwould benefit from
\nreorganisation of
\nmaterial.
\nDraws on a limited
\nrange of sources,
\npredominantly
\nsecondary sources;
\nnot all points made
\nare supported by
\nreference to the
\nsources used;
\ndiscussion focuses on
\nindividual sources.
\nWriting style
\nsometimes lacks
\nclarity and
\nprecision and
\nmay not be
\nacademically
\nappropriate;
\nreferencing may
\nalso be
\nproblematic (e.g.
\ninconsistent
\napproach) but
\nnot indicative of
\nplagiarism.
\nBelow pass
\nstandard
\nAnswers in
\nthis category
\nmay be
\nconsiderably
\nunder\u0002length.
\nUnsatisfactory answer
\ndue to failure to identify
\nand\/or understand the
\nkey issues, and\/or
\nlimited relevance to the
\nquestion
\nOverly descriptive
\nanswer with little, if
\nany, analysis
\nIntroduction, if present,
\noffers little more than a
\nlist of issues to discuss;
\nconclusion, if present,
\ndoes not answer the
\nquestion; disorganised
\nanswer.
\nMinimal use of
\nsources; points made
\nare generally not
\naccompanied by
\nreference to sources.
\nDifficult to read
\ndue to frequent
\nerrors and\/or
\nproblematic
\n(possibly non\u0002academic)
\nwriting style;
\nproblematic
\nreferencing
\nwhich may raise
\nconcerns about
\nacademic
\nintegrity.
\n5
\nDeadline: 11 May 2023 Word Count: 3,500
\nAnswer ONE question ONLY:
\n1. Critically analyse the principle of self-determination of peoples in international law.
\nTo what extent does self-determination provide the legal basis for unilateral
\nsecession?
\nOR
\n2. Critically analyse the concept of humanitarian intervention in relation to the use of
\nforce. Evaluate the arguments that challenge the proposed inclusion of the concept
\nas an exception to the prohibition on the use of force.
\nEND<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
This is an essay submission guide for a School of Law course in International Law. It provides instructions on how to submit the essay, the word limit, the penalties for late submission, and the criteria for marking the essay. The guide emphasizes the importance of academic integrity, including avoiding plagiarism, citing sources properly, and submitting […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[892,2538,232],"tags":[4010],"class_list":["post-8808","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-law-dissertation-topic-examples","category-write-my-law-essay-for-me","category-writing-law-dissertation-help","tag-international-law-law2146-essay"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8808","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8808"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8808\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8811,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8808\/revisions\/8811"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8808"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8808"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8808"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}