Grading rubric:

15 points – Organization

35 points – Key Points

40 points – Analysis and Insights

10 points – Grammar and Language Use

Rubric

Term Paper RubricTerm Paper RubricCriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeOrganization15 to >13.5 ptsA-level EffortThe whole paper coherently develops a central thesis. The Introduction and Conclusion logically lead into and flow out of the body of the paper, whose structure is clear and appropriate to the thesis and topic.13.5 to >12.0 ptsB-level EffortThe paper has a central thesis, but sometimes drifts from it. The Introduction or Conclusion may not be clearly related to the body of the paper, whose structure may be at times unclear.12 to >10.5 ptsC-level EffortThe paper has a basic thesis, but frequently drifts from it. The Introduction or Conclusion are not related to the body of the paper, whose structure is frequently unclear.10.5 to >0 ptsLess than C-level EffortCriterion is not met.15 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeKey Points35 to >31.5 ptsA-level EffortKey aspects of the chosen subject are covered, with no significant omissions. Important concepts are defined or explained, as needed. Every point is substantiated with strong evidence and/or appropriate authorities. There are no misstatements of fact.31.5 to >28.0 ptsB-level EffortRelevant aspects of the chosen subject are covered, with a few omissions. Some important concepts are not defined or explained. Some points are not substantiated with strong evidence and/or may not refer to appropriate authorities. There may be minor misstatements of fact.28 to >24.5 ptsC-level EffortMinimal aspects of the chosen subject are covered, with several omissions. Several important concepts are not defined or explained. In general, the points provide some evidence and occasionally refer to appropriate authorities. There may be a few significant misstatements of fact.24.5 to >0 ptsLess than C-level EffortCriterion is not met.35 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysis and Insight40 to >36.0 ptsA-level EffortThe analysis and synthesis demonstrate mastery of the subject, interacting fairly with alternative or opposing points of view. Inferences, insights, and conclusions drawn from the data are valid and logical, being fully supported with strong evidence and/or appropriate authorities.36 to >32.0 ptsB-level EffortThe analysis and synthesis demonstrate an adequate comprehension of the subject and usually interacts fairly with alternative or opposing points of view. Inferences and insights drawn from the data are usually valid and logical, being adequately supported with significant evidence.32 to >28.0 ptsC-level EffortThe analysis and synthesis demonstrate a nominal comprehension of the subject and frequently do not interact fairly with alternative points of view. Inferences drawn from the data are frequently not valid or are only nominally supported with evidence.28 to >0 ptsLess than C-level EffortCriterion is not met.40 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar/ Language use10 to >9.0 ptsA-level EffortThe writing is clear and precise, not vague or ambiguous, in keeping with educated usage. The tone is irenic, neither sarcastic nor angry. Any grammatical or syntactical mistakes neither change the meaning of a sentence nor hinder significantly its understandability.9 to >8.0 ptsB-level EffortThe writing is usually clear and in keeping with educated usage, The tone is usually irenic. There may be a few grammatical or syntactical mistakes which change the meaning of sentences or make the paper harder to understand.8 to >7.0 ptsC-level EffortThe writing is nominally clear and in keeping with educated usage. The tone is nominally irenic. There may be several grammatical or syntactical mistakes which change the meaning of sentences or make the paper difficult to understand.7 to >0 ptsLess than C-level EffortCriterion is not met.10 pts
Total Points: 100 

Term Paper Proposal

Name of student

TERM PAPER PROPOSAL 3

Institutional affiliation

Term Paper Proposal

My term paper’s focus will be the impact of environmental courts and tribunals in influencing environmental sustainability. Concerns about global warming and emissions are causing public policy changes and consumer sentiment within the policymakers’ realm for sustainable development (Marsh, 2020). The legal regime providing for the compliance with the sustainable environmental practices for both companies at individual places at the center of it the jurisdiction of judicial and quasi-judicial bodies punish derogation from this universal duty. The agencies are at their best to ensure compliance with the law. For example, in 2019, International Aerospace Coatings, Inc., Dura Coat Products, Inc., and Goodwest Rubber Linings, Inc. were fined approximately $170,000 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for alleged violations of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which governs hazardous waste management (US EPA, 2019).

Conscious of the need to have an environment that is habitable to us today and the posterity, the time has never been ripe for evaluating the individual agencies within the broad number of agencies that have been put in place to meet this novel objective. Acknowledging that there is a comprehensive framework that works in conjunction and no single agency within the framework can singularly result in compliance with the requisite practices, the need to examine the efficacy of every agency’s contribution towards the singular objective cannot be overlooked.

This area should be of interest as it enables understanding the positive steps that the judicial and quasi-judicial bodies have made towards sustainable development goals. Further, it provides an examination on the limitation of the judicial activism regarding the environmental protection. Further, it provides insight into the provision that is hindering the judicial bodies in enhancing environmental protection, which influences other rights provided to the people under the law that the courts should enforce (SeventhQueen, 2017).

References

Marsh, J. (2020, December 30). 10 Companies Failing To Keep Their Sustainability Promise—And 5 That Are Going Green. Emagazine.Com. https://emagazine.com/greener-companies/

SeventhQueen. (2017, March 28). Role of Judiciary in Environmental Protection. Legal Desire. https://legaldesire.com/role-of-judiciary-in-environmental-protection/

US EPA, O. (2019, December 16). U.S. EPA fines three Southern California-based companies $170,000 for hazardous waste violations [Speeches, Testimony and Transcripts]. US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/us-epa-fines-three-southern-california-based-companies-170000-hazardous-waste

by Student Student

Submission date: 30-Mar-2021 05:27PM (UTC+0700)
Submission ID: 1546269950
File name: Term_Paper_Proposal x (17.64K)
Word count: 372
Character count: 2406

12%
SIMILARITY INDEX

11%
INTERNET SOURCES

0%
PUBLICATIONS

8%
STUDENT PAPERS

1 6%
2 4%
3 2%

Exclude quotes Off

Exclude bibliography On

Exclude matches Off

Proposal
ORIGINALITY REPORT

PRIMARY SOURCES

www.epa.gov
Internet Source

Submitted to CSU, San Jose State University
Student Paper

www.mesotheliomacenter.org
Internet Source

Proposal
by Student Student
Proposal
ORIGINALITY REPORT
PRIMARY SOURCES