Sports And School (My Experience) Essay Example for Free

Sports And School (My Experience) Essay School starts at a young age for most kids. They go to learn Arithmetic, English, History, and get a general education for life. They also learn to deal with others outside of their family and close friends. Such was the case for myself. I lived on a farm where my neighbor was my best friend till he moved away. I then had one year till school would start for me, which I would spend with my family, and one or two friends who I would see occasionally. When school finally started for me I had no friends I already knew. It only took me a few days of watching the older kids playing soccer to learn the game and I eventually started playing with them. They learned my name and I learned theirs, soon I was friends with most of the kids in the school (somewhere around 45 kids, K-6). The next year I was sent to a new school in Monticello. Again I made friends quickly and we would spend recesses playing tag and running around. As I entered the fourth grade professional sports entered my life. I had been wrestling long before I entered school and played baseball when I was old enough to enter tee-ball, but professional sports never occurred to me until football. From fourth grade to sixth I came to school in the fall and spring to play football. As I grew up and graduated elementary school I faced new options. I could now participate in regulated Jr. High teams. I chose football, wrestling and baseball. I had played all of these before, but this was high school sports where you had stands full of people to watch you. You now had pads to play football and your games were official. Life in wrestling would become more competitive and baseball would be as hard as ever and so far my experience has only been beneficial. I am now a senior in high school and my football career is over, but I along with others was able to bring home a state championship trophy. I?m doing great in my last wrestling season and will soon begin my final sport in high school. I lived for football and I am living wrestling. Every time I hear someone say sports should be discontinued from public school I feel as if they are trying to cripple students like my self who live for sports in high school. I came to school to get an education, after school I invoke my education to work for me in sports. Otherwise I would go home sit in front  of a T.V. or help my dad when needed. I could stay in town every now and then to hang out with friends, but I would mostly be confined to the barren area around my house. Now while playing sports I work hard to get through the school day (It seems to make time go faster) and then work hard at sports. I got in a habit of working hard while I?m awake so now everything I do I try to do right and I work hard at doing it. People say that students focus more on sports than they do their school work and classes. May be true in a few cases, but was never true in my case. I worked hard in school so I could be the best at both school and sports. I strove for success in tagging girls in elementary school so I also strove for success in my schoolwork. In high school you had to keep your grades up to play. I along with the majority of my fellow teammates went beyond meeting the requirements for not getting an F in any class, but in getting A?s in all of our classes. A coach once said to my brother, ?Work hard on and off the field.? I have lived my career so far off that saying. I?ve told others that and others have told me that. First hand I have seen students who can?t or don?t care to keep their grades up. They just slide from one class to the next working just enough to pass. They then were invited to come play a sport or do and activity with friends after school. They learned how much fun playing sports could be so they picked up their grades so they could play football, or wrestle. Even after the season was over they decided they wanted to keep their grades up and it wasn?t that hard to do it in the end. School sports also help those who don?t play. While keeping kids who play off the streets and away from bad influences it also motivates others to do the same. When school figures are supported and kids want to be like them they want to be great and will change a lot to be like the one they admire. For the most part those who play sports can?t do well if they are doing activities not suitable for students their ages (drugs, alcohol, violence, crimes.) so they are almost forced to set a good example while playing a sport. A winning sports season in a school-supported sport also raises the moral and efficiency of students. They become proud of their school and what they have done and want to keep the good name they have earned. Students  will talk about the season and have better memories of school. Ten years later a reunion will echo with, ?Do you remember instead of having a reunion where no one shows up because they felt as if they were not a part of their school or they had no me mories they wished to remember with their class. Above all you cannot end school sports for the minority of people who disagree with having sports sponsored by schools. Those few may have had a bad experience with sports and find it hard to fit in with those who?ve had good experiences. If you end it all for a few people everyone will become like those few people and sports as a whole may disappear, competition will disappear, initiative will disappear and people will have to find other paths to take to gain these skills so badly needed in life. Some of these paths taken will not be well chosen and can lead people astray in life. Again leading to crimes, drugs, alcohol, and other illegal activities. Baseball, movie shows, singers, and others helped cheer those in both the world wars. It kept American moral up and lead people to a time of prosperity and relaxation after World War II. Soldiers would talk about the World Series while they sat in their trenches rooting for a team. They would go watch a boxing match to take their mind off of what lay ahead for the time. With out these activities soldiers would have had to turn their attention elsewhere. Probably back to fighting which was the only thing they didn?t want to think about. Sports helped in the war effort so why can?t it help in the school effort.

Shakespeares Othello - Honest Iago :: GCSE Coursework Shakespeare Othello

Othello – Honest Iago Without a doubt, one of the main themes that runs throughout William Shakespeare’s tragic play, Othello, is that of honesty.   In the play, the most interesting character is Iago, who is commonly called and known as "Honest Iago."   However, this could not be farther from the truth.   Through some carefully thought-out words and actions, Iago is able to manipulate others to do things in a way that benefits and moves him closer to his own goals.   He is smart and an expert at judging the characters of others.   Because of this, Iago pushes everyone to their tragic end.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Iago knows very well that trust and deceit must go hand in hand in order for him to achieve his vengeance on Othello and Cassio.   Hence, as he plans the downfalls of them, he is continually trying to obtain their undoubting trust.   He slowly poisons people’s thoughts, creating ideas in their heads without implicating himself.   Iago even says himself that the advice he gives is free and honest and thus, people rarely stop to consider the possibility that Iago is fooling them.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   One person Iago deceives is Roderigo.   Throughout the play, Iago tells him that he hates Othello and that Roderigo should make some money so he could give gifts to Desdemona, who he admires from afar.   Thinking that this is sound advice, Roderigo does just that.   However, Iago is actually keeping the gifts that Roderigo plans to give Desdemona for himself.   Eventually, Roderigo begins to catch on to the act and confronts Iago, but he falls right into Iago’s trap again when he tells him that killing Cassio will help him win over Desdemona.   Roderigo is then lead to his death by the hands of "Honest Iago."   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Like Roderigo, Cassio also believes in "Honest Iago," for he thinks that Iago is only trying to help him.   On the night of Cassio’s watch, Iago convinces him to take another drink, knowing very well that it will make him drunk.   Even though he really doesn’t want to, Roderigo puts his faith into   Iago and states, "I’ll do’t, but it dislikes me."   Iago’s plan goes smoothly when Cassio is make to look like an irresponsible fool, resulting in his termination as lieutenant.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Iago’s master plan of deception, however, centered around Othello’s jealously over Desdemona.   The whole time, Othello holds Iago to be his close friend and advisor.

Adam smith vs Karl marks philosophy economics contribution Essay

To begin with, Smith came up with the concept of the ‘invisible hand’ (Communist (1848)). This concept was to explain that seeking self interest is not necessarily bad but it sought to explain the reality that people tend to act in their own self-interests. When individuals pursue their self interests, they promote without their knowledge the good of the community at large and so it can be said that an individual who wants to maximize their revenue maximizes the revenue of the society too. This liberty to customers to buy freely what they want and for the producers to produce what they want without any pressure enables the market to settle on a product distribution and prices that are beneficial to all individual members of the community. This liberty to both producers and consumers and the greed to maximize their interests, drives them into a behavior that is beneficial to all in that particular community. Due to this, producers are forced to employ methods of production that are efficient with an aim o maximize their profits. This leads to low prices that are meant to out do their competitors and this forces investors to go for firms that wants to maximize their profits and hence this works as mechanism of balancing. The invisible hand concept acts as the root of modern economics. A good example is the general equilibrium which states that if the economic forces are balanced in the absence of external influences, then the economic variables will not change. This requires that everything in the market beginning with pricing to production be controlled by the players in the market but not by other forces. These external forces may include among others the regulations that are imposed by the government or other organizations that may have a say on the market. According to the general equilibrium, when the prices are very low, then there is surplus supply and when the prices are very low, then there’s a shortage in supply. As a result of this, the situations tend to control themselves without the need for any regulator from outside. These outside forces in the market slow the rate at which the economy grows and they also lead to infancy in the division of labor. As a result of that need for self improvement, efficient division of labor is realized as well as improved efficiency in the economy. This concept is very much in use even in today’s economy . The modern market structure borrows greatly from the earlier ideas of natural monopoly by Adam Smith.( The Poverty of Philosophy >human nature) The division of labor Division of labor is a clear indication of qualitative step towards increased productivity and so it acts as an engine that drives towards realization of economic progress. Smith realized that labor division and for that matter labor specialization would improve greatly on the concentration of workers on the duties they perform. This concentration would come as a result of doing a single task many times or repetitively. The need for improvements in productivity of the work force is said to be the root cause for labor division. According to Smith, labor division can lead to increased productivity. This productivity from the workers can be attributed to specialization in one task since specialization leads to greater skill on their particular subtasks compared to what would be accomplished by the same number of workers performing a broad task. For maximum productivity from workers, skills that they have should be matched with the corresponding equipments.   Most of today’s increase in productivity can be attributed to the matching of technological, human and physical capital and mostly in the manner in which they are organized. This means that laborers need to be equipped with the right skills so as to be effective in what they do compared to when there would be no job specialization and hence anybody could perform any job. Todays economics has borrowed greatly from these ideas from Adam smith. Many organization have realized the need to equip their employees and some even hire unskilled ones but pay for their acquisition of skills. Another outcome of labor division according to Adam smith is minimization of time that is wasted by employees when moving from one task to the other. A lot of time is wasted when people keep on relocating and this proves expensive to the company in the long run because they have to pay the employees. Through labor division, this time wastage is minimized . The modern concept of scientific management borrows greatly from Adam Smiths ideas .Scientific management emphasizes on the connection between activities and the transformation that occurs within the process. This is also supported by William Petty who notes and demonstrates its importance in the construction of Dutch ships. He admits that people with a particular task to perform had discovered new ways of doing their work which were later observed and justified by political writers on economy. (An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776)> specialisation) The wages of labor Wages of labor are dictated by mostly by the availability of job vacancies and also by the availability of workforce. When there are many workers and the available vacancies are few, the amount of money the workers are paid usually fall. Likewise, when employers compete against one another and the labor supply is limited, the wages paid to the employees usually rises but its worthy noting that this process is made possible by unity among laborers and masters. This kind of unity enables laborers to come together and stop biding for jobs against each other hence making the employers increase the wages paid to them. Likewise when employers come together in unity and stop binding against each other, the wages fall. However, in places where the amount of labor is more compared to the amount of the amount of revenue that can used to pay for waged labor, the competition among the employees in greater than the competition between the employers. Smith argues that the amount of revenue must keep on increasing constantly compared to the amount of labor so that wages may remain high. Profits of stock too have an impact on the wages because the more money is spent on compensating labor; little is left for personal profit. This is clearly shown in countries where competition amongst employees is great compared to competition among employers, profits will be much higher. Due to these views, Smith attacks people who are politically aligned and try to use their political influence to manipulate the government and other powers into their bidding. Smith feared that people of this class could form a powerful block and take advantage of their closeness with the authorities into manipulating the state into enforcing certain regulations meant to serve their interests against the general interests. These would maker other players vulnerable and have no say in the way businesses were being conducted. According to other people the level of specialization brought about by division of labor was externally determined but in the contrary, Smith argued that it was the dynamic engine towards economic progress. Surprisingly, Smith himself criticizes the division of labor arguing that it leads to mental mutilation of the workers hence rendering them ignorant and insular because their lives are limited only to doing a single task many times. These ideas by Smith are incorporated into today’s discussions on economic issues. Human capital is one of the discussions in which Adams Smiths ideas are used. Human capital is one of the four types of capital that were identified by Adam as being important for the success of a company. As argued by Smith previously, human capital and the productive ability of the labor force is both dependant on the division of labor. It’s worthy noting that human capital includes skills, dexterity, and the ability to make the right decisions and human capital can be acquired through informal schooling and on the so called on-the-job training. These acquisitions of skills aimed at improving the effectiveness of the workforce are still practiced today by ma ny companies. (An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776) > productivity) Adam Smith vs Karl Marx Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx shared a common idea and this common idea was their praise for capitalism .These two early pioneers of modern economics agreed that capitalism was the key in unleashing the productive powers. This argument stated that for the employees to be more productive, they needed to be subject to their bosses or seniors. If the employees were left to work at their own leisure these two men agreed that their productivity would be minimal and as a result, their employers would incur big losses. This created the need for competition among both the employers and the employees as well since this would keep these two parties on their feet through out. But despite these similarities in their in their views, there was differences in their ideas as well. Marx and Smith both seem to agree that capitalism is the ultimate driving force in profit maximization .New profits and value added, they seem to agree came as result of the employers paying the workers the exact value that is in the market for their labor capacity. But the sad thing was that in most cases, the market value of the goods which the workers produced exceeded that market value. This clearly means that the employers were making maximum profits while paying little to their workers. Both Marx and Smith agree that     there are different types of capital and they play different roles during production. Production Capitals include things like land, natural resources or raw materials and lastly technology. All the above named different classes of capital were dependant on each other in production. These two men seemed to agree also that social relations of production should not only be made up of relationships between individuals but rather should be between large groups of people or certain classes of people. These two men had the same idea of a free market. They described a free market as a market in which all prices of the goods that are on offer are decided by mutual consent between sellers and buyers   and also one   that did not mislead both the sellers as well as the buyers. They both argued that these two major people in the market, the buyer and the seller, should not be forced into making decision by an external party. The relationship between these two players should not be manipulated by any one but to the contrary, it should be left to obey the natural law of supply and demand. The difference between free and controlled markets is that   controlled markets are controlled by external forces These forces mostly refers to governments which may directly or indirectly try to have control of prices or the supplies in the market. One area where these two men seem to differ is their idea of job specialization. Smith advocates for specialization for jobs among workers. He argues that laborers who were assigned too many different duties were less productive than those who were assigned a specific task to perform day in day out. He says that this leads to efficient usage of time and it seeks to save time that is usually wasted by workers when moving from one task to another. But to the contrary, Karl Marx disapproves this idea arguing that job specialization could result to workers with more poor overall skills. This, as he says would be brought about by tendency of people to resist change. He also says that when people perform one task repeatedly, it may lead to boredom and make them less enthusiastic about their work. He describes this whole process as a kind of alienation. According to him, the more workers become specialized and do the same thing over and over, they later become totally alienated. Marx goes ahead to argue that division of labor brings with it spiritual depression to the workers. This means that the workers perform their duties feeling as if they are being forced other than doing out of their own will .This greatly lowers the morale of the workers and as a result lower their productivity. Physical tiredness or fatigue can be brought about by job specialization as Marx goes ahead to argue since they no longer feel like human beings but they feel more of machines. Contrary to the idea of Smith, Marx believes that fullness of production is very essential to human liberation goes on to say that he would accept the idea of a strict division of labor as a temporary necessary evil. These views can be said to be in total contrast to those expressed by Smith. Smith on his part believed that any business was a collection of inter related tasks that were aimed at solving a particular issue. So as to effectively do this, Smith argued that the workload should be divided into simple sets of tasks which could be done effectively by workers who were equipped with special skills for doing that particular job. It’s worthy noting that Smith, despite his advocating for division of labor, he does not advocate for achievement of labor division at all costs. It’s worthy noting that in contrast to Smith’s view which were only limited to functional domain only and were made up of activities that were direct in sequence as far as the manufacturing process is concerned, modern processes are very inclusive. It was as a result of his ideas that labor division was adopted. Today, we can clearly say that much of today’s practices in the job markets have bor rowed greatly from the ideas of Smith. In all organization, there is job specialization. This has led to the rise of departments in many organizations and each department is allocated certain workers who are in most cases equipped with certain skill to enable them perform specific duties .The sense in this whole exercise as argued by Smith is that it saves a great deal of time that could be wasted by employees when moving from one task to another. This proves very essential since no employer will want to waste his money employees without maximizing their productivity. However, it is good to note that Smith admits that seeking self interests is not always good. All he tried to do was trying to reverse believe that self interest is generally bad. He also intended to bring to the light the idea that wile human motives are selfish and greedy; the out come of these human behaviors would bring benefits to the whole community at large. This is the direct opposite of the ideas that Marx had .In his arguments; Marx says that the major struggles are always between the producers and those who work in the industries. Another of his greatest contribution to modern economics was his sharp distinction between the two types of division namely social and economic division of labor .If these two labor divisions are conflated, it might look as if labor division is inevitable rather than being constructed socially and influenced by power. (Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776) & Karl Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy). References Edwin G. West, (1976)The Man and His Wor

Union Citizenship and the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 5 Words: 1615 Downloads: 10 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Law Essay Type Narrative essay Tags: Human Rights Essay Did you like this example? Discuss the ECJ judgment of 10 October 2013 in Case C-86/12 Alokpa and Moudoulou in the light of the case law on Union citizenship and on the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The case of Alokpa and Moudoulou[1] concerns the right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Union. The ECJ ruled that Article 21 TFEU and Directive 2004/38 grant Mrs Alokpa and her children a right to continue to reside in the host Member State, as the children are the nationals of another Member State and the parent is the minorsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ primary carer. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Union Citizenship and the Charter of Fundamental Rights" essay for you Create order The Court then determined that if Article 21 did not apply, being forced to leave Luxembourg would not result in an obligation to leave the whole territory of the EU, as the children were French nationals. Mrs Alokpa would therefore have the right to reside in France as the sole caregiver of minors. Thus, the refusal of the Luxembourg authorities did not constitute a deprivation of the genuine enjoyment of the childrenà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s Union rights. The Court effectively says that whilst the European citizen minors cannot make use of their Article 20 TFEU right in Luxembourg, they could move to France and make use of it there. The minors would then be in the same position as the siblings in the Zambrano[2] case and that living in the country of their nationality the ECJ would have to protect their Union citizenship rights provided for in the charter, particularly the right to family life. The decision in Zambrano facilitated the acquisition of citizenship rights in what had p reviously been considered à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"purely internal situationsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢, thought to be beyond the scope of Union law. The à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"purely internalà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ rule gives rise to problems of reverse discrimination, where à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"staticà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ EU citizens who have not exercised their right to free movement are at a disadvantage and unable to rely on EU law. It is suggested that Union citizens may be motivated to make use of their free movement rights in order to benefit from the right to family reunification under the conditions laid down in Directive 2004/38.[3] This situation, where movement within the territory of the Union almost becomes a practical obligation instead of a right, inevitably raises the issue of potential abuse of the rights attached to EU citizenship.[4] In the past, the court has tackled the issue of reverse discrimination by loosely finding a link to Union law, such as in Garcia Avello[5] and later in Zhu and Chen.[6] H ere the ECJ explicitly stated that the exercise of the right of free movement is not a prerequisite to the application of Union law on residence and held that a Union citizen with the nationality of one Member State residing in another Member State does present a sufficiently Union-linked situation to invoke Union law regarding the right to free movement and residence. This relates directly to the case of Alokpa and Moudoulou. The subsequent case of McCarthy[7] had the effect of mitigating somewhat the potentially far-reaching implications of the decision in Zambrano. This case called upon the Court to determine whether a European citizen had a right to be issued with a residence card by the member state of which she was a national despite having never exercised her right of free movement. The motivation behind this was to derive a secondary right of residence under Union law for her spouse. The Court sidestepped the issue of family unification and held that as she had an uncondi tional right to reside in her home member state, she was not à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"deprived of the genuine enjoymentà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ of her citizenship rights by the decision to refuse her a residency card. However, Lansbergen and Miller[8] submit that the court did not consider that a decision to deport the spouse would nevertheless deprive the claimant of her right to a family life provided by the charter. By finding that there was no deprivation of genuine enjoyment of the Union citizenship rights, the Court in McCarthy arguably undermines the decision in Zambrano, as the EU citizen children in Zambrano also had an unconditional right to reside in their national state; their à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"deprivationà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ arose not from insufficient protection of their own residency but that of their family member. McCarthy is criticised by Wiesbrock[9] as leaving Union citizens in an unsatisfactory position, where it is increasingly difficult to establish when oneà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s Uni on citizenship rights are protected. AG Sharpston[10] suggests that in order to remedy the issue of reverse discrimination, the right to move should be disconnected from the right to reside. She advised the ECJ to acknowledge the right to residency as a free-standing right for European citizens and to extend the existing case law to situations in which no actual movement has taken place. Moreover, Sharpston considered that even if the Court should fail to accept the right of residence as a freestanding right, infringement of the citizenà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s right to à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"move and resideà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ within the territory of the Union nevertheless occurs by preventing them from exercising that right in the future. This corresponds with the reasoning in Rottmann[11], where the Court for the first time explicitly departed from the doctrine that a cross-border element is required to trigger the application of EU law. The Court simply observed that the national measure at stake fell à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“by reason of its nature and its consequences within the ambit of EU lawà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ [12] which would have in effect have caused the citizen to lose the rights conferred on them by the Treaties. In Dereci,[13] the Court clarified the criteria that should be applied to distinguish between the scope of application of EU law and the areas that remain governed by national law. The court held that Article 20 TFEU applies only to exceptional situations in which the Union citizen has to leave not only the territory of the Member State of which he is a national but the territory of the Union as a whole. In the ECJs view, it will be for the referring court to verify whether the challenged measures respect private and family life guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Court stressed however, that, in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter, Article 7 should only apply if the situation of the applicants is covered by EU law and thus c annot be used in a purely internal situation. The contrasting outcomes in Zambrano and McCarthy raised the question whether the different status of the Union citizens in both cases (minor children and adult partner) played a role in finding whether or not there was a deprivation of citizenship rights. In Dereci, the Court makes a direct link between the requirement of dependency and the capacity to live independently within the territory of the Union. Therefore, it follows that the Zambrano reasoning only applies when static Union citizens would have no choice but to follow their third-country family members out of the territory of the Union on refusal of a right of residence in the country of which the citizen in question is a national. Considering the previous case law on citizenship and the charter, I must conclude that the decision in Alokpa and Moudoulou is a sound one. It is consistent with the judgement in Dercei, that only a situation, in which refusal of residency to a third-country national family member would result in the European national having to leave the Union territory due to dependency upon that family member, would deprive the EU national of enjoyment of his fundamental Union rights. As Mrs Alokpa and her children would not have to leave the territory of the union as a result of Luxembourgà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s refusal to grant a residency permit, the children are not deprived of the genuine enjoyment of their citizenship rights. Although it could be argued that the childrenà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s Article 21 right to freedom of movement would be impinged by having to leave the territory of Luxembourg, despite the children having not themselves exercised this right, having been born there. The onus is placed on the childrenà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s national member state to provide for their Article 20 Union citizenship rights. Bibliography Stanislas Adam and Peter Van Elsuwege, (2012) Citizenship rights and the federal balance between the European Union and its member states: comment of Dereci European Law Review Anja Lansbergen and Nina Miller (2011). Court of Justice of the European Union European Citizenship Rights in Internal Situations: An Ambiguous Revolution? Decision of 8 March 2011, Case C-34/09 Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national dà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢emploi (ONEM) European Constitutional Law Review Anja Wiesbrock,(2011) Disentangling the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Union citizenship puzzleà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ? The McCarthy case, European Law Review H.van Eijken and S.A. de Vries [2011] A new route into the promised land? Being a European citizen after Ruiz Zambrano, European Law Review C-135/08 Rottmann [2010] C-148/02 Garcia Avello [2003] C-200/02 Zhu and Chen [2004] C-256/11 Dereci and Others [2011] C-434/09 McCarthy [2011] C-34/09 Ruiz Zambrano [2011] C-86/12 Alokpa and Moudoulou [2013] Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston delivered on 30 September 2010 1 [1] C-86/12 Alokpa and Moudoulou [2013] [2] C-34/09 Ruiz Zambrano [2011] [3] Stanislas Adam and Peter Van Elsuwege, (2012) Citizenship rights and the federal balance between the European Union and its member states: comment of Dereci European Law Review [4] Stanislas Adam and Peter Van Elsuwege, (2012) Citizenship rights and the federal balance between the European Union and its member states: comment of Dereci European Law Review [5] C-148/02 Garcia Avello [2003] [6] C-200/02 Zhu and Chen [2004] [7] C-434/09 McCarthy [2011] [8] Anja Lansbergen and Nina Miller (2011). Court of Justice of the European Union European Citizenship Rights in Internal Situations: An Ambiguous Revolution? Decision of 8 March 2011, Case C-34/09 Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national dà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢emploi (ONEM) European Constitutional Law Review [9] Anja Wiesbrock,(2011) Disentangling the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Union citizenship puzzleà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ? The McCarthy case, Europe an Law Review [10] Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston delivered on 30 September 2010 [11] C-135/08 Rottmann [2010] [12] ibid p42 [13] C-256/11 Dereci and Others [2011]