Abstract
The article critique is a comprehensive analysis of two peer-reviewed articles with an overview of historical Supreme Court cases in search and seizure, stop and frisk, searches for evidence, or police interrogation confessions. Articles that satisfy this criterion are: “Sources of ambiguity in construction contract documents, reflected by litigation in Supreme Court cases” and the consequences received from rulings on Roe v. Wade at the International level.” These include 1) Sources of Clarification or Ambiguity Regarding Construction Contract Documents Shown By Litigated Cases. This ” The findings section systematically analyzes each article’s strengths and weaknesses before giving an overall summary.
The discourse uses the Christian and Biblical understanding of a world perspective to analyze very insightful intricate issues raised in these Supreme Court cases, as this forms an unraveling revelation of complex legal principles with moral comprehensions within constitutional democracy. This critique, by an extensive analysis of the relevant jurisprudence and ethical considerations concerning judicial decisions, aspires to combine a penetrative understanding of matters that are fundamental in judicial decision-making while underpinning constitutive values enshrined within a legal tradition or Judeo-Christian ethics. Aiming to synthesize insights from various scholarly angles and discuss the broader sociocultural dimension of judicial rulings in contemporary society, this critique aims to enrich existing discourse on law, religion, and governance.
Article Critique
The articles chosen for criticism provide great perspectives on the legal field by providing different lenses through which historical cases of the Supreme Court are viewed. On the other hand, Chan et al. (2021) investigate construction contract documents and their arsenal in litigation, while Berber (2043 contradicts a majority ruling on Roe v Wade from an international human rights perspective. By adequately evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of each paper, this critique seeks to offer a holistic insight into what is at hand. Finally, the discussion will include a Christian worldview focusing on constitutional and ethical concerns in Supreme Court cases.
Article 1-Background
Chan et al. (2021) analyze sources of ambiguity in construction contracts and identify the interpretation methods adopted for such points by litigation cases brought before the Supreme Court. The authors underline the need for specificity and precision in contractual language to circumvent disputes and guarantee fairness that all parties shall enjoy during construction endeavors (Chan et al., 2021). They claim that contract ambiguities tend to create legal issues and, in the long run, this should cause threats between the stakeholders besides not hitting project schedules on time. This research raises the importance of dealing with contract document ambiguities to maintain authority for the legal system and efficacious dispute resolution procedures.
Article 1 – Critique of Strengths and Weaknesses of the Article
Strengths
The analysis of Supreme Court cases by Chan et al. (2021) is a crucial strength as the article provides an exhaustive examination and firm basis for understanding what contractual uncertainties are constituted about legal grounds. The authors minutely dissect a vast pool of cases, meticulously unwinding repeated patterns and concerns, hence providing priceless insights into the complexities unique to contract law. In addition, the practical importance of the article is underscored through an accentuation on realistic consequences that enhances attentiveness to clarity and accuracy when drafting contracts for assisted mitigation of legal conflict. Such a comprehensive analysis of case law enhances scholarly debate and empowers practitioner framework, enabling more efficient decision-making and greater adherence to the legal standards.
The authors’ ability and skill in reporting their results also form one of the most remarkable strengths that effectively contribute to clarity, hence a proper understanding and engagement with readership. It is astounding that their paper highlights a complicated jargon based on the legal intricacies in an easily understandable format that can be read by any practitioner, scholar, and beyond. Additionally, as featured in this article, the analysis of consequences arising from contractual ambiguity in construction is a remarkable contribution to the current debate on legal reform and perfecting ideal practices related to formulating contracts together with implementing them.
Weaknesses
The article does not, however, address alternative approaches or theories other than the one expressed. Similarly, the authors provide elaborate insights into contractual ambiguity but target practicality issues underpinning it rather than discussing theoretical debates. Recognizing various perspectives or theoretical lenses might make the discussion much more interesting, allowing one to see such a complex problem differently. By paying attention to a wider variety of theoretical approaches, namely critical legal studies or feminist legal theory, the article could reveal other layers and even expose some unveiled sides of contractual ambiguity. This method would increase the scholarly robustness of the analysis and promote an open, heterogeneous debate in contract law.
The broadening of the field to comparative analysis or interdisciplinary perspectives could supersize the depth and significance of this article. The scope of analysis could be enlarged to Supreme Court decisions not confined only to the construction industry, and thus, it might include a more extensive section of legal dynamics as well as societal implications. This wider frame of reference would provide a more profound knowledge base integrating the methods and procedures from different fields with care to closely related issues. Such an approach, however, would improve the academic discourse and enable a deeper interpretation of the lens through which law and business intersect.
Article 2-Background
Berber (2023) sheds critical light on the U.S. Supreme Court Roe v. Wade landmark majority ruling from an explicit international human rights perspective and expresses concern about that opinion’s emergency contraception aspect precisely, arguing for re-examining it as invalid because of fundamental premises grounded in gender inequality to legalize episodically impure and She carefully claims that the ramifications of this decision stretching far beyond national boundaries and applying to all other nations in terms of women’s reproductive rights have significant requirements. Berber (2023) argues that the choice to make abortion legal is a crucial place of interest and influences current debates, as well as policy developments related to reproductive rights. In addition, the author claims that mounting a strong challenge to the prevailing majority ruling at the international human rights platform is necessary to create an inclusive and grounded equality framework within the perimeter of reproductive care.
Article 2 – Critique of Strengths and Weaknesses of the Article
Strengths
The most significant strength of Berer’s (2023) article is its well-resourced interdisciplinary component involving the use of law analysis supported by critical remarks obtained concerning international human rights laws and the ethical approaches within this discussion. Through the skillful placement of this debate within a big-scale human rights framework, the article moves beyond only legal talk to offer readers a complete roundabout view of how each specific circumstance distinctly approaches relevant issues inherent in reproductive rights lawsuits. This interdisciplinary view makes the conversation more profound and emphasizes what is undeniable – the connection between reproductive rights principles and austerity responsibility requirements. Besides, this approach offers an array of views necessary for helping to formulate sound policies related to implementing effective reproduction rights policies.
The article’s thorough discussion of modern debates and international views on reproductive rights is a vital strength. Berber artfully places the dialogue in the broader framework of international human rights principles and practices, thus unveiling the multiplicity involved within differences associated with cultural, legal, or even ethical mumbo-jumbo. In addition, this article’s analysis of the impacts of U.S. Supreme Court rulings on reproductive rights internationally has contributed substantially to discussions about human rights universality and the importance of legal institutions in implementing social justice agendas.
Weaknesses
One of the main areas for improvement that can be observed in this article is its insubstantial consideration of legal aspects related to reproductive rights and its failure to take into account some social or political issues. While Berber does a comprehensive analysis of the legal barriers to Roe v. Wade, it is possible for this article to not only highlight but also discuss in-depth other social influences, such as culture and economy, on reproductive rights discourse. Including interdisciplinary perspectives or empirical studies can enhance the article’s material and relevance, helping to develop a deeper understanding of the complex processes behind advocacy for reproductive rights.
Another area for improvement is that other viewpoints or alternative interpretations of the law on reproductive rights are discussed minimally. Going beyond reproductive rights law to explore a range of opposing views or plausible interpretations could make Berer’s article rich in depth and essence. Although Berber draws a compelling argument for sticking to international human rights standards, more attention should be paid to counterarguments or dissenting opinions that would help promote the kind of debate that is deeper and ‘messier.’ Discussing the diverging mindsets within the reproductive rights community, this article could strengthen itself before convincing readers to reflect on its arguments seriously and thus expand their knowledge of what can seem an extremely ambiguous issue.
Summary of Articles
In summary, Chan et al. (2021) and Berber (2023 bring meaningful contributions toward significant legal problems beyond their scope. A more intense analysis of contractual vagueness in construction literature, conducted by Chan et al., gives a detailed approximation of the problems lawyers and policymakers face. Similarly, Berer’s detailed analysis of reproductive rights litigation provides insight into the difficulties one encounters while interacting with legal and ethical debates pertaining to international arenas, adding a prospective element that can be used to understand such contentious topics as Women. Although both articles have advantages and disadvantages, each plays a considerable role in the ongoing discussion at the Junction between Laws, Human Rights, and Ethical Values. They bring something new to discussions all it would like now, as well more research is conducted on these relevant issues.
Conclusion: Personal Reflection, Position, and Christian Worldview
A constitutional democracy is considered a fundamental law that defends the dignity and rights of every person. The legal challenges discussed in both articles are consistent with the Christian principles of justice, equity, and mercy. In contractual ambiguity and reproductive rights litigation, Christians are tasked to promote human dignity and advance social justice. On the other hand, such legal interpretation and ethical reasoning are sophisticated and need careful consideration based on biblical values of love, humility, and discernment. In the face of these legal and ethical dilemmas, Christians should seek counsel from God’s guidance embedded in the Scriptures while striving to emulate Christ through his unconditional love for humankind.
References
Berber, M. (2023). Challenging the U.S. Supreme Court’s Majority Ruling on Roe v. Wade at the International Human Rights Level. Health and Human Rights, 25(1), 195–206. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10309145/
Chan, E. E., Nik-Bakht, M., & Han, S. H. (2021). Sources of ambiguity in construction contract documents, reflected by litigation in Supreme Court cases. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 13(4), 04521031. https://ascelibrary.org/doi/full/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000498
write