1-Identify the first (earliest) policy written at the Federal(or state) government level regarding the chosen social
problem:
a-.What is the name of this early policy
b.-When was it enacted (year)
2)Describe how this early policy intended to address the identified social problem.i
.Ex: The policy provided direct monetary assistance to relieve povertyii.Ex: The policy expanded treatment for
mental healthi.Ex: The policy mandated legal punishment for those selling drugs
3)Describe the social discourse in regards to the social problem and those affected by it at the time the early
policy was enacted.i.Ex: Those in poverty were seen as victims of an economic depressionii.Ex: Child abuse
was seen as a private family matteriii.Ex: People who abused drugs were seen as dangerous criminals
4)Identify and briefly describe any significant event that happened that brought attention to the social
problem.i.Ex: An incident that garnered a lot of media attentionii.Ex: An incident that involved someone famous
5)Identify the societal values surrounding the social problem at that time.i.Ex: Individualismii.Ex:
Patriarchyiii.Ex: Traditional familyiv.Ex: Social Darwinism
6)Describe how the early policy was shaped by those valuesi.Ex: We see the value of individualism expressed
in the policy by…ii.Ex: We see Protestant Work Ethic values expressed in the policy by…iii.Ex: We see JudeoChristian altruism expressed in the policy by..
Sample Solution
.1 The establishment of the abuse test and the precursor to Halifax: Emsland Stärke Shortly after the ruling in Centros, the Court released the Emsland Stärke judgment. This case concerned the common agricultural policy. Emsland Stärke exported various forms of starch to Switzerland, and received an export refund for this. Immediately after, the same products were transported (unaltered) back to Germany, where they were sold. Upon return, the German authorities reclaimed the unduly granted refund back from Emsland Stärke. Though the Court did not explicitly state that abuse of Community law is a general principle, it agreed with the Commission and implicitly did so. It set up a twofold test for determining such abuse; one part being objective and the other subjective. By including the subjective intention of an interested party involved, Emsland Stärke narrowed down the wide scope the prohibition of abuse had in Van Binsbergen, while conduct which under Centros criteria would be normally considered a mere exercise of fundamental freedoms, would instead constitute abuse, if the objective and subjective elements of the test were cumulatively met. 3.1.1 The Objective element In establishing the objective element, the Court did not deviate from what was already established in previous caselaw. In order to fulfil this element, it must be proved that the person seeking to have the right has obtained it for the achievement of an “improper advantage, manifestly contrary to the objective of that provision”. Thus, if the right in question is exercised within the aims and limits of Union law, there is no abuse, merely a legitimate exercise of a right. 3.1.2 The Subjective element The subjective element of this test attracted much controversy and produced much scholarly debate. Motives are irrelevant in this exercise, as they do not exist when it comes to legal persons. Determining that the transactions in question are created artificially in order to obtain an advantage from Union provisions must instead be determined by objective evidence and objective circumstances. 4 VAT: a system vulnerable to abuse>
GET ANSWER 